Actually, it is several questions.

Do you consider yourself a libertarian on social issues, economic issues, or both?


How would you define what libertarianism means to you?


Do you think of this more as a moral ideal or as a political theory workable in practice?


Which kind of public intervention do you find more troubling--economic or social?


Just poking around in here briefly yesterday I saw quite a few people self-identifying that way and it made me curious

Yesterday I read up on a few of the political leanings that I wasn't too familiar with. Libertarianism, being one of them. I was familiar with communism, socialism, conservatism, and liberalism because those are most often discussed. The American Independent Party wasn't my bag either. Mainly because I don't think we need to necessarily bring "God" into everything. because no single one person can determine what God's will is for any nation or people or individual on this planet. Using God to push agenda not only causes more trouble, but it takes free will out of the entire equation. And I would hope Our Creator would understand if we just let him/her/it do his/her/its thing individual by individual and we do ours to the best of the abilities he/she/it has equipped some of us with.


I have voted both Republican and Democrat in elections. Straight ticket voting makes me uncomfortable. But typically, for the past 10 years I've voted the Democratic ticket most of the time. Mostly because of Clinton's balancing of the budget, if nothing else. However, I can't completely identify with either the Republicans or Democrats, but I can identify with certain 'parts' of their platforms. I don't exactly consider myself an "expert" constituent by any stretch of the imagination because I've only been voting since 1992, but I'm not ignorant either.

Keep in mind as I answer these questions; the RM litmus survey pushed me to better categorize myself even, in so much as it will help categorize my persuasions for everyone else. So I won't speak for anyone else that classified themselves as Libertarian. But I'll try and answer these questions as best as I can as they pertain to me



Both, because all of these things can either work together or against each other.



We're given one life to live alongside other people who also have lives to live, so let's work together in compromise to foster a happy and prosperous, meaningful life for each individual. However, at times, we can absolutely also be very firm (but highly reasonable) in issues that may threaten our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness both as a country, and as individuals.

Democracy and capitalism, although extremely good, leaves itself open be taken advantage of to such an extreme that the system becomes an enemy to even ourselves. We should work hard to limit legislating ourselves unknowingly into a system that becomes more authoritative than we truly want it to be. I believe that a reasonable consciousness of all sides of certain issues, and a willingness to shape 'thought' into practice without the requirement of legislation is what could be proven to be more effective than the constant passing of complicated bills.



Both.



Both.




If you think about it in these terms, maybe that will help.

Do you consider yourself a libertarian on social issues, economic issues, or both?
Both

How would you define what libertarianism means to you?
Live and let live. Let everybody more or less do what they want, as long as it doesn't affect others. Government shouldn't (and can't effectively) be used as a vehicle to enact social change, and government should let the markets operate as freely as possible. Also, the federal government should be involved only in those areas explicitely enumerated in the constitution, such as interstate trade, national security, etc.

Do you think of this more as a moral ideal or as a political theory workable in practice?
Both. I think it definitely makes people uncomfortable because it tends to threaten people's placebos (er, I mean safety nets).

Which kind of public intervention do you find more troubling--economic or social?
It's all the same. I look at it on a case by case basis and consider worst the intervention that is the most difficult to reverse.

This is probably a poorly chosen way to explain it, since very little of what you do is void of exterior impact...especially where money changes hands. I can't say for certain that it seems to be what you're really expressing, either.

one could also argue that a lack of any regulation whatsoever can lead to harm being done. so, let the rich in charge abuse the poor working class in the workplace so long as it doesn't affect ... others?

Hyperbolic much? I'm not talking about removing all regulation whatsoever, so that's really a poor argument. There's a difference between moving draconian regulation and removing all regulation.

understood. could you expand just a bit, perhaps giving an example of draconian regulation?

How about just limiting legislation unless absolutely necessary. Congress people earn a living by sifting through bills. Everyone wants to bill the government for something, but then nobody (poor, rich or in between) wants to pay the bill.

it seems people have different ideas about what is necessary.

Stip!! Great to see ya down here, I wish you posted more in this forum.

I liked Sun Devil's response. Can't wait to hopefully hear from Lysander and Green Habit.




I don't consider myself to be a Libertarian, but I do think that they have a better handle (at least in principle) than the major parties. We don't need politicians legislating morality (GOP), and don't need countless social programs and gov't intervention (Dems and current GOP). I think the Federal Government has gotten too large and spending is out of control. I'd much rather see things run mostly on a smaller, statewide scale.



A very small federal government leaving whatever power it is not given in the Constitution to the States. Interstate commerce, foreign policy and security matters are the responsibility of the feds.



This is what keeps me from identifying myself as a Libertarian. On paper this form of government is ideal. In practice? I don't know. Seemed to work 200 years ago (I guess that's as close as we've come to having it in practice), but I don't know that it is sustainable today. It would take a long time of adjusting. I'm not someone who could answer this, though.



Social intervention definately makes me more upset. I hate the idea of my government telling me how to live or what I can and can not do with my body. That's not to say I'm ok with economic intervention though. What's the point of capitalism if the Feds are just going to bail out the failing companies? Why prop up a poorly run company?

Speak a little bit to me about the journey the states made away from state-centered power to central government, and your thoughts on the matter.

Another question I'd be curious to learn more about is how libertarians view a scenario like environmental degradation or resource usage. This has always been a topic that, for me, seems to lead to the idea that lib. works well on a smaller scale but could have potentially fatal repercussions on a macro level.

Hey man, it was all downhill after the interstate commerce act.

Sarbanes-Oxley

Talk to me also then about Sox, because I understand very little of it. All I really got out of it was that it was designed to ensure accountability in the chance that another Enron-style scandal occurred. I seem to remember thinking that it mostly was just a bureaucratic paper-making setup, but I may not even be thinking of the right thing to be honest.

The question I have with states rights libertarians is that states can do just as much, and likely more, to limit individual rights. While they a states rights centered government would likely be less regulatory economically, it was also states rights that kept schools segregated, and it was the federal government that stopped that. Obviously segregation wouldn't be a problem as such today, but gay marriage will be recognized by the USSC before it will be by a majority of states. And of course, abortion would be opened up to states again.

Stip, can I ask why you made this thread?

Does libertarianism currently interest you, or have you already declared yourself with another party and simply want to know our side of the story?

I can say I'm participating out of curiosity, having been intrigued by the principles and uncertain about their application. Thus the questions.

It is a bureaucratic paper-making setup, which isn't free or cheap. Of course it was designed to ensure accountability, but (a) someone will figure out a new way around it and (b) it's a solution in search of a problem. This was fueled by about two cases of (alleged) corporate fraud, and is simply the fruit of congressional grandstanding and populism.

If you want some idea of the cost, I found this at Wikipedia:


Even the .06% that "large" companies spent amounts to a ridiculous amount of money that could be better spent on things other than making sure accountants and auditors have nice houses, but the 2-3% that smaller companies have to spend is even more ridiculous.

Sure, states can do just as much to limit individual rights... But when they do it, (a) the people had more of an individual say in it, and (b) it affects just that state. If Montana does something stupid that totally screws everything up, only Montana is screwed, and everybody else can learn from it. That's significantly better than screwing the whole country in one fell swoop.