What is the difference

between a libertian and a sensible liberal?

 

I libertian doesn't exist.

 

i'm not sure .... what?


(is this supposed to be a joke or are you seriously asking?)

 

A sensible liberal doesn't exist.

No, a libertarian is for small government whereas a liberal is for big government.
Lets put it this way: none of the Libertarian Party's policies should ever be communitarian while all of a liberal party's fiscal policies should be communitarian and, though its been disguised (and I know that's not the right word) for a while, many of a liberal party's social policies are communitarian. Currently, I think libertarians are closer to conservatives then they are liberals and I know that it sounds contradictory, but I hear more support for absolute freedom of speech from conservatives and absolute financial freedom from conservatives.

 

Once upon a time (in the 1800s), "liberal" and "libertarian" meant the same thing; "liberals" were individualist, distrustful of state power, pro-free-market, and opposed to the entrenched privilege of the feudal and mercantilist system. After 1870, the "liberals" were gradually seduced (primarily by Marxism) into believing that the state could and should be used to guarantee "social justice". They largely forgot about individual freedom, especially economic freedom, and nowadays spend much of their time justifying higher taxes, bigger government, and more regulation. But libertarians remained distrustful of the state and therefore prefer to encourage private, voluntary solutions to social and economic problems instead of more government.

 

Ughhh, you're wrong. Liberals and Libertarians were always different. That's why they are different. They have a different political history.

 

The libertarians are most closely related to the classical liberals of the past. Thomas Jefferson, and the framers of our U.S. Constitution, for example were clearly the liberals of their day. And as they sought to maximize individual liberty, and restrict the power of the state, they fit the definition of libertarian.

Modern liberals seek to "do good" for their fellow man by unleashing the power of government upon him to force him to be charitable, eat properly, say and write the things they agree with, hire people of a certain ethnicity, etc. The common ground the two groups share is on social issues. It is often said that libertarians are fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I consider myself a staunch libertarian and I prefer the phrase "socially permissive." I may have a moral issue with people's social behavior, but unlike so many, I do not want the state to turn my prejudices into law.

 

To me it appears that today the term Liberal has become synonymous with Socialist.

 

seriously, why is that? I consider myself very liberal and have been called a socialist.

 

When applied as an identification of an individuals philosophy both terms are benign. But when applied as an identification of ones political philosophy it becomes an intent to allow for government imposition upon others who do not wish to be subjected to such philosophy.
In reality I think it is quite difficult for an individual to be identified by a single term. Most of us are liberals, conservatives, socialists, capitalists, and many other things depending on the situation, but it should not be a government which dictates and imposes a philosophy upon us. Government should provide protection of the citizens, and laws which protect the freedoms and rights of all, but have no business in imposing any form of equality upon the citizens as a whole. There will always be great variation in individual humans, and that is what has allowed us to advance becoming the dominant species on the earth. Life is not fair in may ways, and it is the responsibility of the individual to adapt and make the best they can of it while they live.

 

You, sir, are a very smart person.

 

Modern liberals seek to "do good" for their fellow man by unleashing the power of government upon him to force him to be charitable, eat properly, say and write the things they agree with, hire people of a certain ethnicity, etc.


I would add that they seek to do that "good" with the heavily taxed (some would say stolen) monies that the other man has gained through his hard labor. None of this charitable work is done with their own money. To do that, they should give more to their church, synagogue, or charity and NOT take from others. Isn't it fun to be Santa Claus with someone else's money?

There are debates within the camp on an exact profile but I would add that Libertarians are fiscally conservative, for small government, for near total freedom as long as you respect others rights and behave with their safety in mind, near total license (I might say total but there could be some circumstance unthought of ?) but not licentiousness.

 

libertarians are for free markets, no or as little as possible intervention. (example of a reasonal intervention is another topic about being able to buy nukes at walmart)

Some of the big problems we see with modern liberalism is that
1-government always over step there ground, give them an inch and they take the mile.
2-for the government to give something to someone they have to forcefully take from another

 

And it boils down simply to:
More government = less freedom (more control and more division).
Less government = more freedom (less control and less division).
We all begin life dependent upon our parent(s) and the objective of reaching adulthood is to become mature and responsible enough to assume and pass on the same responsibilities to our offspring. Nothing wrong with giving a hand up, and it's not the same with giving a hand out, but government cannot tell the difference.

 

actually the first use of the term libertarian to describe a political philosophy were used by socialists to describe a form of anarchy. The meaning of the term changed in the americas but that was after europeans had accepted the term, libertarian, to describe socialists.

 

Conservatives want to be your dad.
Liberals want to be your mom.
Libertarians want you to be an adult.

Both the right and left want to use the government to take care of you, which can only be done by taking resources from others against their will, to redistribute as they see fit.

Libertarians want you to take care of yourself, using your own resources, and keep the government from taking what you have earned away.

 

Great thread thanks for posting!

 

Libertarians basically believe in bootstraps, are generally overwhelmingly middle/upper middle class white people and would want to destroy all social programs.

On other things they're pretty good though.

It is in fact possible to have a free market while having a welfare system in place, they're not mutually exclusive.

 

Ron Paul says that welfare could be phased out eventually but it should not happen over nite. Nobody ot even libertiarians want peole to suffer needlessly but if the economy were freed up to where people could work more with less regulation there would be less poor people to begin with. The issue of licensure for every single business and regulation after regulation keeps the poor from being able to work and make a living. Communities could sponsor charity hospitals and food stamps could be made available to families suffering from tragic losses. When the government stays out of the way communities will create ways of dealing with poverty and when the tax payer is not over burdened by tax they can afford to give more generously to community based project to help their own people. Look at how generous the people here in the USA are to other countries when they face natural disasters an such. They could and would be that generous in thier own communities. Well, if the government would get out of the way and let them.

 

All of that is empirically not true when you compare income inequality from the US to Europe and Canada, social welfare programs don't equal market regulations. Especially when you compare the fact the US gives more to charity by a very large margin than any other country:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-06-25-charitable_N.htm
Yet we have comparatively a large poverty rate.

Also not to mention our taxes in comparison to a lot of countries, specifically Canada despite what Americans think really aren't lower, we just spend all our money on military and policing.

People on welfare, food stamps, ect wouldn't benefit from a 5% tax cut, the entire reason they're on it is because they salary isn't enough to begin with, most welfare programs use gross salary to determine eligibility, not net. The good deal of these people by the end of the year don't even wind up paying much in federal tax period.