If you are sick of the Nanny State of Democrats & Republicans and all that bullshit they try to feed you, then you may consider examing libertarianism. It is a philosophy that is based on the principle of self-ownership. -You own your life. To deny this is to imply that another person has a higher claim on your life than you do. No other person, or group of persons, owns your life nor do you own the lives of others. -You have rights. Those are life, liberty, and the product of your life and liberty (i.e. your property, your stuff, your privacy). Property is the fruit of your labour, the product of your time, energy, and talents. It is that part of nature that you turn to valuable use. And it is the property of others that is given to you by voluntary exchange and mutual consent. Two people who exchange property voluntarily are both better off or they wouldn 't do it. Only they may rightfully make that decision for themselves. -At times some people use force or fraud to take from others without wilful, voluntary consent. Normally, the initiation of force to take life is murder, to take liberty is slavery, and to take property is theft. It is the same whether these actions are done by one person acting alone, by the many acting against a few, or even by officials with fine hats and fancy titles. -Regardless of the imaginative labels for their behaviour or the numbers of people encouraging them, officials have no right to murder, to enslave, or to steal. You cannot give them any rights that you do not have yourself. -Since you own your life, you are responsible for your life. You do not rent your life from others who demand your obedience. Nor are you a slave to others who demand your sacrifice. -You choose your own goals based on your own values. Success and failure are both the necessary incentives to learn and to grow. Your action on behalf of others, or their action on behalf of you, is only virtuous when it is derived from voluntary, mutual consent. For virtue can only exist when there is free choice. This is the basis of a truly free society.
How does this differ from Conservatism? they seem very close together in ideals like every man for himself
Libertarians are conservatives minus the religious extremism. Libertarians are liberals minus the socialism.
Everyone who reads this thread about Libertarianism needs to sit back and really reflect for a minute. "You own your life." It sounds great -- but falls hoplessly short. It's an empty platitude that really says nothing. Because our lives and our well being -- or not so well being -- are so dependent upon society, so dependent upon others. More than for any other species. As has been the case for eons. Property? What property? "The fruits of your time, energy and talents." Again it sounds great. But this completely ignores the cruel reality of natural disparities in time, energy and talents. Are we going to try to make this a better world for all? Or just for some? And rights? Yes rights are great. But remember: you can't eat rights for dinner. All the rights in the world are worthless if the goods aren't delivered. What's the big picture here? Libertarianism has a fatal flaw. A flaw that can be understood in terms of a single concept. The concept of morality. The problem with Libertarianism is that it ultimately is devoid of moral direction. On the target of morality it misses the bull's eye. Rights and property are peripheral matters. The bull's eye -- the thing we are all striving for -- is the best possible life for ALL people. That's what moral society is all about. Any system lacking true moral direction -- any system not explicitely committing itself to the betterment of all -- will inevitably lead to to immoral society. Of course some people find that to their advantage. Watch out for those people.
Libertarianism is the most moral of all known systems because it is based on freedom of your mind and body. It is the most moral of the known systems because it values the right of man (and woman) to choose his (or her) own major. Without freedom, with ANY kind of INITIAL COERCION, the morality (I'd prefer to call it ethics, because "morality" has religious connotations to it) is skewed. If you say that you have a "right" to certain job, for instance...which job do you have a "right" to? If you have a "right" to it, that means the employer is subservient to you. If you have a "right" to it, he has no choice but to give that job to you regardless. It's your "right". However, if you are hired by an employer and you agree to certain terms, it is a voluntary agreement and thus, at anytime, you agree the terms of the said contract. This is called voluntary mutual consent. You have a "right" to pursue your own major, your own career, but you do not have the "right" to a specific job by a specific employer. Critics of libertarianism like to speak in general terms -- You have a right to a job, they say, but when specifics are brought into question their rhetoric becomes less glamorous. Any system which disputes inital coercion and embraces liberty has to be, to mankind, the more ethical system.
Libertarians = Republicans who smoke pot. Seriously, Libertarians would be a DISASTER for the environment (among other things) should they ever come to power. Private property seems to be the ONLY thing that matters to them, and things like a "public commons" or "community interest" are secondary to the individual's right to make a profit. Hardcore Libertarians would have us sell off National Parks, public roads, public land, and other infrastructure that were paid for by EVERYONE, just to benefit a handful of wealthy investors. NOTHING should stand in the way of the God they call the "Free Market", be it environmental laws, labor regulations, safety standards, etc.
I have voted Libertarian many times, not for the president last election - I was too justifiably worried about the results. Last election I voted for a lady running for a local office - some kinda treasurer, I think - because her platform was to immediately dissolve the office she was running for! Had to love that!
Ha ha...ok, now that is just ignorant or a bad joke. Republicans would shit their pants if they saw a Libertarian Social platform, because they are statists (the GOP, that is) and they don't like social tolerance too much. This is saturated in rhetoric. I guess big government (the largest polluter in the world) is good for the environment? "Community interest" should be decided by the community on a "community" level (public level), not by politicians who want to make a profit or get re-elected. You are right about hardcore libertarians, at least SOME of them, however initial coercion is what libertarianism is opposed to. So, public lands and roads, if used to violate the freedom of the people would be under the jurisdiction of the law. And "regulations" have done more to hurt the economy and the free enterprise and the chance of small businesses than the free market.
there are individualist anarchist american thinkers ....in 19th cen. ...ben tucker...lysander spooner ...william green ...warren ...
Many libertarians (such as myself) aren't as extreme as the Libertarian Party would have you believe. I believe the government SHOULD intervene to prevent cases of market failure, such as by regulating pollution, by breaking up monopolies, and by paying for community infrastructure that won't get paid for otherwise (roads, water, etc). Now I'm sure there are libertarians who disagree with me, but that's just my two cents. Labor regulations and safety standards are a bit different...as far as I'm concerned, as long as the employer and employee are in agreement on the wages, responsibilities, and working conditions I don't see a problem.
