Libertarians Believe in Kingdom Rather than Democracy

Libertarians Believe in Kingdom Rather than Democracy

In an interview on ABC News’ Good Morning America today, Rand Paul is calling the white house pressure on BP ‘Un-American,’ and he says, "Sometimes Accidents Happen."

He added, "What I don’t like from the president’s administration is this sort of, you know, 'I’ll put my boot heel on the throat of BP.' I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business."

When he was asked whether “the EPA should be allowed to tell oil companies they can’t use certain chemicals and that they must enforce safety regulations on oil drilling rigs?” his answer was no.

I've often said that Libertarians are Republicans who want to smoke dope and get laid (they're in favor of decriminalizing pot and prostitution), but what Rand Paul is showing us that their worldview goes much farther than even a Republican like Richard Nixon - who brought us the EPA - would.

Libertarians believe we the people have no right to collectively get together and create an institution called government to protect ourselves from predators. Instead, Libertarians believe in kingdom rather than democracy - they want the kingdoms of rich people and their corporations to have final say in all things both public and private, and thus total control over our lives. And, amazingly enough, they call this "freedom."

In a way it is freedom - if you're a billionaire. But as FDR famously said in 1936, a necessitous man - a hungry man with no home or job - is not a free man. Government does have a role to play in protecting our commons and us, and the bizarre political theology of Rand Paul would totally undo the great work the Founders of our nation and Framers of our Constitution created.

Comments

MugsysRapSheet's picture
MugsysRapSheet 4 years 30 weeks ago
#1

Nexus of Rand and CitU.

Thom, I haven't heard anyone mention it, but there is a definite connection between the "Civil Rights exemption for Private Business" that Rand Paul endorsed and the "Citizens United ruling that equates businesses with people."

Paul... like the CU ruling... is suggesting that businesses deserve all the rights of private citizens.

(It also deserves noting that Paul's racism in the name of "freedom from government" provides cover for the heinous Arizona immigration law.)

MugsysRapSheet's picture
MugsysRapSheet 4 years 30 weeks ago
#2

Rand Paul’s stupidity: A Historical Perspective.

Paul suggests that he would have voted against the “private business” provisions of the ‘64 Civil Rights Act IN 1964.

The men that staged the sit-in at the Woolworth’s lunch counter couldn’t “boycott” Woolworth’s themselves, as they weren’t allowed to be customers in the first place. Therefore, they were dependent “on the kindness of (white) strangers” to do the right thing and boycott the establishment FOR them… and didn’t THAT work out well?

Paul says he would boycott Woolworth’s “today”, and suggests many others would do the same. But in 1964, THEY DIDN’T. The REASON they staged that sit-in is because the status-quo wasn't working. People WEREN'T boycotting Woolworth's policies. And after 100 years, only an act of Congress could force them to change their ways.

So, when private businesses won’t do the right thing after 100 years, what choice do you have left but to force them by law?

Paul thinks people should “boycott businesses that don’t serve a minority group” to provoke social change (ask gay people how that’s going for them.) One wonders if Paul is boycotting establishments that won't serve gays?

Julius Cheeser's picture
Julius Cheeser 4 years 30 weeks ago
#3

Derregulation is good! If you think about it, the less money corporations have to pay in taxes and expensive safety and environmental protection oversights, the more money they can pay their workers. Stop trying to hurt the American worker!

I for one look forward to one day (legally) snorting cocaine off a hooker's behind.

RandyWinn's picture
RandyWinn 4 years 30 weeks ago
#4
ProgressiveMews's picture
ProgressiveMews 4 years 30 weeks ago
#5
LeMoyne's picture
LeMoyne 4 years 30 weeks ago
#6

Kinda makes me bonkers the way these right-wing-nuts (TeaNuts?) constantly accuse our kind corporatist President Obama of acting like a tough progressive. A month after the gusher started the administration has now asked BP to publish information relating to spill and cleanup. If only Obama was applying even a little boot to BP like...

kicking BP's 'other end' with eminent domain to get the solar patents out of BP's back pocket, or

stating a clear intent to file an amicus brief in the existing lawsuit(s) against BP (showing them the boot), or

stating intent to promulgate a leasing policy that would disqualify bad actors like BP

prgrsvmama's picture
prgrsvmama 4 years 30 weeks ago
#7

We all have to remember to say "Tea Baggers", not the "tea party." They named themselves, quite properly.....sorry guys no "changies".....it's always respectful to call people by their right name, remember your etiquette.

Also I wanted to say that I disagree with this loon. I would suggest we do worse than a boot heel to the throat, that is simply too nice. BP (bastards of petroleum) Need to be fined not only for the damage done and clean up, but, like the tobacco companies, they should be forced to pay for environmental adds as well to educate people. Any petition to sign for that one, too? C'mon, we need to hold them responsible, make them feel the consequences.

=><= hail eris!'s picture
=><= hail eris! 4 years 30 weeks ago
#8

Thom, you're usually accurate in your assertions, or accurate enough to be debatable. But this statement is just pure nonsense: "Libertarians believe we the people have no right to collectively get together and create an institution called government to protect ourselves from predators."

Libertarians believe in government. They are statists. If a collection of people get together and execute a contract to protect themselves from predators, and all those people abide by that contract, then what we call "government" is simply the institutions and methods we use to hold people to the contract. Libertarians most definitely support such institutions and methods. Anarchists don't. Libertarians do. Rand Paul, the Republican, is NOT a libertarian, or at least he's not running as one. And the Tea Baggers are, likewise, NOT libertarians, despite what they might claim.

I wonder sometimes why you deliberately mischaracterize libertarians. I tend to think that it's because you, like anyone in the media, feel a pressure to make your assertions concise and to the point. The push for brevity is critical because, in the modern information age, we all have lots to do and think about. So, long-winded people don't get much traction. But the pursuit of brevity (and, in turn, it's pursuit of attention) can lead you to make false assertions. But I'm an avid listener to your show, both the local one in PDX and the national one. And I think I've heard you say that you once considered yourself libertarian. Perhaps your mischaracterizations of libertarianism are a kind of "rebound" effect. When we lose our first (or nearly first) ideals as youngsters, we tend to recoil pretty far. My guess would be that you're still not over the crash of your youthful libertarianism. You're still resentful that libertarianism failed/betrayed you so badly. Of course, any idealism will eventually betray you, because idealists, including libertarians, live in a delusional and false universe. But we always have our biggest backlash against our early ideals. Then again, I'm wrong all the time and I'm probably wrong about this, too.

Anyway, I'd appreciate it if you'd make an attempt to characterize libertarianism more accurately in the future.

Thanks for all you do.

tmoney13's picture
tmoney13 4 years 30 weeks ago
#9

I am always amazed how the "progressives" seem to hate the Libertarians and flat out lie about what they stand for. On many social issues I think that we have common ground.

louisehartmann: Libertarians believe we the people have no right to collectively get together and create an institution called government to protect ourselves from predators. -This is hardly true, being a Libertarian myself, what I would assert is that Libertarians would allow for people to gather collectively and create what ever they want as long as that creation did not try to stretch it's governing policy over non-members or those who prefer not enlist. As a Libertarian, I have to admit that I freely engage in a wee bit of socialism (albeit voluntarly) I belong to a church.

Instead, Libertarians believe in kingdom rather than democracy - they want the kingdoms of rich people and their corporations to have final say in all things both public and private, and thus total control over our lives. And, amazingly enough, they call this "freedom." -First democracy is nothing more than the tyrrany of the majority, or better put two wolves and sheep debating what's for dinner. So assuming that your argument of the rich/corporations is true (which I would love to see some evidence to support such a claim, i.e support how "corporations have total control over our lives") I would simply be trading one form of tyrrany for another. So the argument is already a non starter since neither choice is a choice for freedom. I would prefer that I be allowed to decide what is best for me, and that everyone else decides what is best for them, and as long as I am not imposing myself on anyone and vice versa we should all be able to get along living under a system of maximum freedom. I would like an overarching document that details what rights all people have and what limits the government has (a constitution if you will). Moreover I would like the government to stay within the bounds of this document and not intrude into my life as long as I am not intruding upon other people's rights. This country after all is a constitutional republic, which is all I really want.

louisehartmann: I've often said that Libertarians are Republicans who want to smoke dope and get laid (they're in favor of decriminalizing pot and prostitution) - I guess this is true but it is obviously being said in a facetious manner. I don't smoke pot, but I have no problem with people who choose to do so, nor do I solicit prostitutes but again have no problem with people who do. I personally believe that drugs and prostitution should be legalized. I have never voted for a Republican in a major election. Unfortunately I voted for Gore in 2000 and Blago for Illinois governor, so its not like I was ever a Repulbican who wanted to get high and pay for sex. I was actually a Democrat who yearned for freedom. You could also say that Libertarians are Democrats who want to limit our military industrial complex, and allow for gays to marry by getting government out of the business of defining marriage. This would be an equally facetious argument from the opposite perspective.

If you want to know what the Libertarian Party stands for check out the web address below, but don't let someone who has a very skewed and obviously negative view of the party define it for you, I am sure all of are smart enough not to fall for this ruse.

http://www.lp.org/introduction/the-libertarian-option

rudolfher's picture
rudolfher 4 years 30 weeks ago
#10

Oh and you really think the corporations are going to give the "extra" money they save from NOT paying taxes or "safety regulations" to the WORKERS? For example, you take minimum wage away, and see how low wages drop.

rudolfher's picture
rudolfher 4 years 30 weeks ago
#11

On the subject of the libertarian view on discrimination, according to the libertarian party platform(www.lp.org/platform), it clearly states "Government is constitutionally limited so as to prevent the infringement of individual rights by the government itself." And yet it also states, "We call for...the abolishment of...federal programs and services [including education] not required under the U.S. Constitution."
So what government is LEFT where government is authorized to prevent discrimination?" Isn't the ultimate libertarian utopia a place where discrmination is free to exist and perpetuate ramapantly?

rudolfher's picture
rudolfher 4 years 30 weeks ago
#12

You libertarians make it lucidly clear that you are against Democracy with the wolf and the sheep parable. But the US ISN'T and HAS NEVER BEEN A DEMOCRACY! We are a Constitutional Democratic Republic where "Rule of Law" ultimately prevails. That's where we have seen Federal Authority in the enforcement of the 14th Amendment and thusly the Civil Rights Act. ALL examples of where the TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY do not usurp the RIGHTS OF THE MAJORITY, have all been protected by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT! Show me where the "free market" has ever protected the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority?

And in your libertarian utopia, who gets to enforce the rights of the minority against the rule by the rich and the corporatocrisy? Who's empowered since government is ineffectualized by vitiation and cataclysmic de-funding?

tmoney13's picture
tmoney13 4 years 30 weeks ago
#13

rudolfher: Oh and you really think the corporations are going to give the "extra" money they save from NOT paying taxes or "safety regulations" to the WORKERS? For example, you take minimum wage away, and see how low wages drop. - I am not sure if this was meant to be refered to me, I will assume so. I have no insight to what companies may or may not do with the "extra" money you refer to. The real minimum wage is zero, as in unemployment, which is only increased as the minimum wage is increased. Read Henry Hazlitt "Economics in One Lesson", he discusses minimum wage in regards to this.

rudolfher: On the subject of the libertarian view on discrimination, according to the libertarian party platform(www.lp.org/platform), it clearly states "Government is constitutionally limited so as to prevent the infringement of individual rights by the government itself." And yet it also states, "We call for...the abolishment of...federal programs and services [including education] not required under the U.S. Constitution."
So what government is LEFT where government is authorized to prevent discrimination?" Isn't the ultimate libertarian utopia a place where discrmination is free to exist and perpetuate ramapantly?
- I am not sure I follow your argument in the first couple sentences. I would say that the Libertarian view would allow for all people to choose who they do or do not associate and trade with and the government has no place to regulate that function. I hate racism, sexism any -ism really, but freedom dictates that I have no right to regulate others views on the subject. Discrimination exists wether we want it to or not, it is more concealed and underground due to Civil Rights Laws. If people were racist enough to put "whites only", "blacks only", "Asians only" etc, outside their business I would know which businesses to avoid, and so would every other decent American.

rudolfher: You libertarians make it lucidly clear that you are against Democracy with the wolf and the sheep parable. But the US ISN'T and HAS NEVER BEEN A DEMOCRACY! We are a Constitutional Democratic Republic where "Rule of Law" ultimately prevails. - I never said that the US is a Democracy, I was comparing louiseharmann's quote in the original post when comparing rich/corporation tyranny vs. democracy. John Adams defined a constitutional republic as "a government of laws, and not of men. This was a direct confrontation of the idea of the tyranny of the majority. I agree with this.

rudolfher: That's where we have seen Federal Authority in the enforcement of the 14th Amendment and thusly the Civil Rights Act. ALL examples of where the TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY do not usurp the RIGHTS OF THE MAJORITY, have all been protected by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT! - I am somewhat confused, do you mean rights of the minority, I assume? I agree that all people should be treated equally before the law, and that justice should be blind. I agree that for all public/government functions, there should not be any allowance for discrimination. I would also say that I personally disagree with anyone who would willingly not associate or trade with people based on race, sex, creed, etc., however, I don't think that the government has a function in regulating people's choices/preferences. I see private business as an extention of the owner, and if an owner would not otherwise associate with one group of people in his private home, I don't see how the government can force them to do otherwise in his private business. As a matter of a hypothetical question would it be okay for an owner of a Jewish Deli who had family members that were in the holocaust, not to serve known members of the skin heads? I think he should serve them, but I could completely understand why he wouldn't want to.

Show me where the "free market" has ever protected the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority? - Again, I am not sure I follow, but the minority never has to purchase any product that is available in the market, and thus they protect themselves by the purchasing choices they make. I am not sure if this answers your question?

And in your libertarian utopia, who gets to enforce the rights of the minority against the rule by the rich and the corporatocrisy? Who's empowered since government is ineffectualized by vitiation and cataclysmic de-funding? - I am not aware that there is rule by the rich nor am I aware of an existing corporatocrisy, but I think the court system is adequate for protecting people.

marcus_w71's picture
marcus_w71 4 years 30 weeks ago
#14

>>> A Juxtaposition ??

The ORIGINAL Tea Party Movement (circa 1773):

Protested a Multi-National Corporation (The British East India Company) from passing a corporate tax onto the American consumer while British East India received a corporate tax break..

RESULT >> Masses of Americans rallied by boycotting British East India and dumped Tons of tea into the ocean...

TODAY"S Tea Party Movement (circa 2010):

Protest Corporate Taxes and Less Government Oversight.

RESULT >> A Massive British Corporation (British Petroleum) dumps BILLIONS of Gallons of Crude into in the ocean..

Strange Coincedence??

marcus_w71's picture
marcus_w71 4 years 30 weeks ago
#15

Dude it doesn't work that way.. The less a corporation in pays in taxes is more $$ they put in their Swiss Bank accounts.. The savings then goes to buying off a politician so that they can pass a law to hire cheap Chinese labor to steal YOUR job... However if they do legalize coke gimme a call well party up..

Redlocks's picture
Redlocks 4 years 30 weeks ago
#16

I think that this debate should be about the rhetoric that Rand Paul is using and not whether Libertarians are better than Progressives. I consider myself a Progressive and yet I find Progressives I don't agree with on every point. I like some of what the Libertarian party is about. However, I do not look to every person that calls their self a Libertarian to see if I agree with Libertarianism. I disagree with almost everything Republican stand for, but if they have a valid point, I will listen to it.

I do not think that because Rand Paul says something stupid (well, this is the second stupid thing I know of that he said) that this discredits Libertarians or the Libertarian party. Rand Paul is merely discrediting himself and pointing out the obvious hole in his logic! I think he is merely letting us know what Rand-ism is.

Therefore to argue his point and not Libertarianism, I will state the following:

If we accept that Obama is actually putting his "...boot heel on the throat of BP..." then the other extreme, which Rand Paul seems to be advocating for, is that Obama put his "boot heel on the throat" of the People. BP's mistake will cost the People in lost wages, profits and lowered quality of life as their recreational areas are destroyed. Their food supply is being endangered. Rand seems to want to let the People pay for these damages brought on by BP and not the corporations that are at fault and negligent. Rand Paul doesn't want the President to protect the small businesses that are affected by BP's mistakes, only the large corporations that have no allegiance to the USA.

How far do we carry these ideas? Is Rand Paul implying that he doesn't think we should have civil suits either to help hold people and corporations to account when they make mistakes or are negligent? Should we just do away with the courts too?

Of course, the obvious flaw in his thought processes is the idea that Obama is holding his "...boot heel on the throat..." of any multi-national petroleum corporation. He has granted many new permits since April 22 for deep water drilling that is exempted from environmental concerns (like what would happen if the well ruptures) like the one that BP was granted for this well. I do not expect Obama to hold any one to account, beyond scolding them for good PR in press. BP will get off with only paying a little and the People of the Gulf Coast will be stuck with the bill in lost wages, profits and quality of life...like the people in Alaska who never were compensated for the damages of the Exxon Valdez disaster so many decades ago. Tax payers will pay for the rest of the bill and Rand Paul seems to want the taxpayers to continue to pay for these types of clean up, instead of making corporations do things in ways that are safe.

Pagani's picture
Pagani 4 years 30 weeks ago
#17

We could wish that libertarianism was a movement of personal freedom, as it would like to disguise itself. If only libertarians weren’t so stuck on their worship of corporatism it might be different. However, we have to deal with modern libertarianism as it IS, not as we wish it was.

General response: http://www.crankymediaguy.com/290/libertarians-magic-kingdom/

sandyc954's picture
sandyc954 4 years 30 weeks ago
#18

Well, it is no wonder people are entranced by freedom by a majority that would allow it.

I do understand when race is called out, we are racists. Some folks want to be allowed their racism. I do get the freedom angle, but I do not think we would have the progress we have without legislation to say no discrimination in public square. It gives a person of any color the opportunity to file a lawsuit and show his case that he is the victim of racism.

I do think it is inflammatory, but I think we would not have the integration the youth have today, which IS becoming a SORT of color blindness.

It is inflammatory because of backlashes that occur. The Civil Rights Act came out of Black outcry for Jim Crow discrimination. The struggle had many casualties and that is the backlash and discord.

Today, we hear an outcry of grievances by Whites, I hear people say White males are feeling they are losing, particularly.

I kind of get that, but the Civil Rights law of 1964 seems to have no racial preference, that I detect. Minorities can say, I want to sue for discrimination, here is my case, jury, judge. What stops a White person from doing the same?

It comes down to in the end, the court has the final word, so the law is about if someone has a complaint, file a lawsuit. Just as there have been any other race or skin color. White skin is skin color, so if it is racial discrimination, file a suit, nothing stops it, unless there is no harm evident or proven based on racial discrimination.

I think the thing is, the law sets foundation that you cannot discriminate based on race, skin color, sex or nationality. I know that is abhorrent to those of all races, they want to be allowed their racism. There will always be racial prejudice, whether White on Black or Black on White or any other combination.

It doesn't say Black people only. I do get that people want to stop the racial talk, there is a very emotional thing that has baggage that is just unpleasant. I wish us all luck on that to treat people equally.

That seems to be the issue for Libertarians. I get it, but without it, we would not have made inroads to interracial schools, workplaces, neighborhoods and social events. There would be less "I know that PERSON" and less fear/hate because of it.

I do not know how if you allow segregation to continue, how that is equal and there is how I see it.

We legislate behavior every day, so how does it harm someone that does not like a race to have guidelines of behavior? They can exclude this race or that race, but how is that equal protection of the laws? If it is proven to be discriminatory and show harm or pattern of harm, then that is the law. If you think you are entitled to your racism, then see the consequences of the behavior, in a legal setting. What happened, did someone say I hate (X) or did they throw a brick through a window?

There was a requirement to integrate, unfortunately causing strife and casualties.

I just know the people were suffering under Jim Crow, there was a large contingency that stuck their neck out and show of solidarity, asking for /demanding equal rights. What to do? Is it right to allow those people to be left in less than equal status, with no law to restore rights? No equal means equal, not preference to one. There is the rub, how to enforce without preference?

It is a shame to define a person by race, but many want to keep their culture. Where is a balance point?

It's a shame we need a law, when equal protection of the laws is right there. Not, just "certain people" and up to the state as to which people that are equally protected, hired, where they live, who gets to buy/rent a house in which neighborhood. The schools would follow the rental and real estate laws, but how is it equal to say, you cannot buy in this area? We have financial opportunity with the schooling, hiring, real estate laws, that forms a current of improvement. Is it still needed? Not sure when we can call it fair if people insist on rationalizing weeding out this race or that one.

I can only imagine that if Whites want to file a suit, they can. Let a jury decide and if it is racial discrimination, then deal with it. There has been a history of White privilege and if there IS something unfair racially, the law is there, not specifically just for Blacks.

One day, we may get past this but there is no perfect solution. I do not agree to allow discrimination to continue, some disagree. Maybe we could discuss how the law of Affirmative Action may be racial preference or is it still valid that extra points to offset privileges or biases. We have legacy points because of parentage. I have to say, grades are essential. If someone wants to go to college (X) and is denied, they may have a case for racial discrimination. I know that there are traditionally Black or traditionally White colleges. If one is excluded today against their will, there can be remedy. There is definitely a system that is going to aggravate someone, somewhere, sometime.

I do not know all the answers, but I believe without Civil Rights Act, we still had state by state institutionalized discrimination. With it, we have youth more accepting of people, regardless of race. We have done SOMETHING that has answered the demand and seems to help desegregate and improve opportunities for more people.

I just know the theory is what Thom says here. The majority rule, leaves minorities out and feeling suppressed by power. Money is power, leaving a few with most money to continue having power over those having less, increasingly creating tyranny by the few over the many. Which is in essence, royalty.

stonesphear's picture
stonesphear 4 years 30 weeks ago
#19

Let the liars lie so that we can better see their lies. Let the ignorant voice their ignorance so we can better see their ignorance, and let us be rid of the lot. If that's the libertarian view then I can see as how it has merit.

Jackmo's picture
Jackmo 4 years 30 weeks ago
#20

"Moreover I would like the government to stay within the bounds of this document and not intrude into my life as long as I am not intruding upon other people's rights."

But here's the rub, so to speak. The libertarian view fails to consider that without rules, there is no way to ensure that doing what you want to do will not intrude upon someone else's rights. If you want to drill an oil well and it leaks into my drinking water, how will this be handled? Perhaps we need rules to govern the drilling of oil wells and agencies to enforce those rules. Unless you live on your own private island or in the back woods far from other people, it is unlikely that anything you do will have no effect on others. And this does not even consider those benefits and protections offered you by the society at large. In my view, libertarians are as naive children intent only on their self gratification oblivious to the impact of their actions on others. When one chooses to live and work in a society, availing oneself of the benefits of living in such a society, limits on absolute personal freedom are imposed by necessity. In fact, every interaction one has with friends, family, and others imposes some constraints on personal freedom. That is the price one pays to associate with others. As Thom points out, only Kings are able to indulge themselves thusly -- that is until those subjected to the resultant tyranny decide to unite to secure for themselves a bit of the libertarian goodies. We know where that leads.

tmoney13's picture
tmoney13 4 years 30 weeks ago
#21

john.libert2: But here's the rub, so to speak. The libertarian view fails to consider that without rules, there is no way to ensure that doing what you want to do will not intrude upon someone else's rights. - First, Libertarians aren't for no rules. We want minimum government interference beyond what is laid out in the Constitution. Also I don't think that the Libertarian view fails to consider other peoples rights at all. The Libertarian view makes it quite clear that everyone should be responsible for any externalities that they knowingly/or unknowingly put on others. Almost all of which can be settled by the court system. The BP spill for example, BP should be wholly responsible for the pollution that they are putting into the Gulf. Unfortunately we have a law in place that holds their liability cap at 75 million. In a theoretical Libertarian world there would be no cap, and knowing that BP would have taken greater precaution, gotten additional insurance for such events, and would be quicker to respond after such events happen.

john.libert2: And this does not even consider those benefits and protections offered you by the society at large - please elaborate on what benefts I have recieved that couldn't be handled by private institutions?

I think people misunderstood what Rand Paul was saying in regards to the "boot heel" comment. He was being critical of rhetoric not the situation. If Obama wanted to keep BP responsible he could have worked towards removing the $75 million cap when he took office. I imagine it will be removed in the near future.

All of this is really far from the point of my original post which was merely, don't take a far left person's definition of what a Libertarian is. The original post by louisehartmann, was so full of BS rhetoric and flat out lies that it has really made it hard for me to justify listening to Thom's show. This is the same reason I don't listen to far-right media, but the left appears intent on merely copying the right's style but from the opposite perspective. I think I did a pretty good job of refuting the lies in the original post, and if you don't like the Libertarian perspective that is fine, I can live with that I am not looking to convert people or make friends, but at the same time it wouldn't hurt all of you to become versed in what the Libertarian Party is really about so that you can make intelligent arguments.

tmoney13's picture
tmoney13 4 years 30 weeks ago
#22

stonsphear: Let the liars lie so that we can better see their lies. Let the ignorant voice their ignorance so we can better see their ignorance, and let us be rid of the lot. If that's the libertarian view then I can see as how it has merit. - I would tend to personally agree with you but I think the Libertarian philosophy may be more like let people be who they are and let the chips fall as they may, and if there is a dispute that can not be decided peaceably, then let the courts and the constitution settle it.

miamizsun's picture
miamizsun 4 years 30 weeks ago
#23

Thank you tmoney for the clarification.

Regards

Amyrlyn's picture
Amyrlyn 2 years 40 weeks ago
#24

Wow! It never ceases to amaze how many people believe themselves to be experts on what libertarianism is when, in truth, they haven't a clue. If the moderators allow it, this should help clear up any confusion created by the above article.

THE NONAGGRESSION AXIOM

“The libertarian creed rests upon one central axiom: that no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else. This may be called the “nonaggression axiom.” “Aggression” is defined as the initiation of the use or threat of physical violence against the person or property of anyone else. Aggression is therefore synonymous with invasion.

If no man may aggress against another; if, in short, everyone has the absolute right to be “free” from aggression, then this at once implies that the libertarian stands foursquare for what are generally known as “civil liberties”: the freedom to speak, publish, assemble, and to engage in such “victimless crimes” as pornography, sexual deviation, and prostitution (which the libertarian does not regard as “crimes” at all, since he defines a “crime” as violent invasion of someone else’s person or property). Furthermore, he regards conscription as slavery on a massive scale. And since war, especially modern war, entails the mass slaughter of civilians, the libertarian regards such conflicts as mass murder and therefore totally illegitimate.

All of these positions are now considered “leftist” on the contemporary ideological scale. On the other hand, since the libertarian also opposes invasion of the rights of private property, this also means that he just as emphatically opposes government interference with property rights or with the free-market economy through controls, regulations, subsidies, or prohibitions. For if every individual has the right to his own property without having to suffer aggressive depredation, then he also has the right to give away his property (bequest and inheritance) and to exchange it for the property of others (free contract and the free market economy) without interference. The libertarian favors the right to unrestricted private property and free exchange; hence, a system of “laissez-faire capitalism.”

In current terminology again, the libertarian position on property and economics would be called “extreme right wing.” But the libertarian sees no inconsistency in being “leftist” on some issues and “rightist” on others. On the contrary, he sees his own position as virtually the only consistent one, consistent on behalf of the liberty of every individual. For how can the leftist be opposed to the violence of war and conscription while at the same time supporting the violence of taxation and government control? And how can the rightist trumpet his devotion to private property and free enterprise while at the same time favoring war, conscription, and the outlawing of noninvasive activities and practices that he deems immoral? And how can the rightist favor a free market while seeing nothing amiss in the vast subsidies, distortions, and unproductive inefficiencies involved in the military-industrial complex?

While opposing any and all private or group aggression against the rights of person and property, the libertarian sees that throughout history and into the present day, there has been one central, dominant, and overriding aggressor upon all of these rights: the State. In contrast to all other thinkers, left, right, or in-between, the libertarian refuses to give the State the moral sanction to commit actions that almost everyone agrees would be immoral, illegal, and criminal if committed by any person or group in society. The libertarian, in short, insists on applying the general moral law to everyone, and makes no special exemptions for any person or group. But if we look at the State naked, as it were, we see that it is universally allowed, and even encouraged, to commit all the acts which even non-libertarians concede are reprehensible crimes. The State habitually commits mass murder, which it calls “war,” or sometimes “suppression of subversion”; the State engages in enslavement into its military forces, which it calls “conscription”; and it lives and has its being in the practice of forcible theft, which it calls “taxation.” The libertarian insists that whether or not such practices are supported by the majority of the population is not germane to their nature: that, regardless of popular sanction, War is Mass Murder, Conscription is Slavery, and Taxation is Robbery. The libertarian, in short, is almost completely the child in the fable, pointing out insistently that the emperor has no clothes.”

From "For a New Liberty - The Libertarian Manifesto"

~ Murray N. Rothbard

We Need to Stop Worshipping Cops

If you protest police brutality and you don’t protest police deaths, then you’re a hypocrite.

That’s what conservatives have been saying ever since two New York City cops were murdered Saturday in an apparent revenge attack for the killings of Michael Brown and Eric Garner.

From Screwed:
"Hartmann speaks with the straight talking clarity and brilliance of a modern day Tom Paine as he exposes the intentional and systematic destruction of America’s middle class by an alliance of political con artists and outlines a program to restore it. This is Hartmann at his best. Essential reading for those interested in restoring the institution that made America the envy of the world."
David C. Korten, author of The Great Turning and When Corporations Rule the World
From The Thom Hartmann Reader:
"Thom Hartmann is a creative thinker and committed small-d democrat. He has dealt with a wide range of topics throughout his life, and this book provides an excellent cross section. The Thom Hartmann Reader will make people both angry and motivated to act."
Dean Baker, economist and author of Plunder and Blunder, False Profits, and Taking Economics Seriously
From The Thom Hartmann Reader:
"Through compelling personal stories, Hartmann presents a dramatic and deeply disturbing picture of humans as a profoundly troubled species. Hope lies in his inspiring vision of our enormous unrealized potential and his description of the path to its realization."
David Korten, author of Agenda for a New Economy, The Great Turning, and When Corporations Rule the World