Libertarians, help me out here...

[XJ Dreamin']

I got into a discussion with a friend the other day. Now, granted, some of my friends are not particularly politically astute (seeing as how I'm in SE Texas), but the conversation got really wierd, to the point where I really couldn't say much at all. But, here's the point of this post:

My friend and I got to talking about the shift in power from the fall elections. I made an off-hand comment that I didn't expect the party-line dems to do much different and maybe we should give the Libertarians a shot. Now I probably would not vote Libertarian because I'm a little more socially active than that, but my friend, who is a typical SE Texas Republican started in the Libertarians as if they were communists who were going to ceise all our property or some such (I really didn't follow him there). So I tried to straighten him out, that Libertarians were not communists, when he went off on a rant about "liberals spending all our money on social programs." At that point I couldn't speak about any specifics of the Libertarian national platform, so I let the whole political topic go and moved on to beer and women and such.

So, to the Libertarians here, I'd just like to point out that it may be that you're not real well understood in all parts of the country, but more to the point, do you have any fairly concise policy statements I could drop next time I get into a spot like that, so I don't look like such a :dunce:




Thanks.

 

[needsrepair]

For you to get very far your buddy would first have to know that just because the word Libertarian has liber in it does not mean it stands for liberal. The libertarians actually want less government, more rights and self responsibilty. Im not speaking for the Party but thats about how I see them. People think your a kook if you say your for the libertatians. Years ago there was a survey in a large magazine and when it was finished MOST people fell in the Libertarian Party. Its true but I cant remember the mag. I took it to work and people that took it did fall in the lib. party. I think your buddy should stick to beer and huntin dogs. You wouldnt believe how many people hate me because I tend to speak my mind. Its amazing how many people will start talking about something like kids, wives, etc. and when I say what I have to say they will be all pissed off. I have learned this about far too many people................THEY SUCK. No Im not a pessimist. Im a realist. A is A and B is B.

 

[karstic]

The Libertarian platform

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml#immgr

 

[bigdaddyjlove]

I'm a Libertarian, have been for 20 years.
If you need to give your friend a quick intro try this.
Libertarians always defalt to freedom for the individual.
You are free to do whatever you wish, so long as you do not damage or infringe on the rights of, anyone else.

Libertarians are generally for small Federal govt., personal responsibility, originalist constitutionally (sp.?) and so on.

I'd be glad to answer any specific questions.

 

[bigdaddyjlove]

Having said this, I should say I don't agree with the party on every issue, but they are the closest I have found to my personal feelings.

 

[XJ Dreamin']

For you to get very far your buddy would first have to know that just because the word Libertarian has liber in it does not mean it stands for liberal. The libertarians actually want less government, more rights and self responsibilty. Im not speaking for the Party but thats about how I see them. People think your a kook if you say your for the libertatians. Years ago there was a survey in a large magazine and when it was finished MOST people fell in the Libertarian Party. Its true but I cant remember the mag. I took it to work and people that took it did fall in the lib. party. I think your buddy should stick to beer and huntin dogs. You wouldnt believe how many people hate me because I tend to speak my mind. Its amazing how many people will start talking about something like kids, wives, etc. and when I say what I have to say they will be all pissed off. I have learned this about far too many people................THEY SUCK. No Im not a pessimist. Im a realist. A is A and B is B.

I'm a pragmatic social liberal. I believe that government should help folks out, but I'm too realistic to believe that it could ever work without a lot of waste and fraud. Even so, I don't see the Libertarians being able to prevent their laizze-faire markets becoming the capitalist robber-baron markets of the 1880's-1920's. I'd rather have my taxes wasted by social program middle-managers that live in a company house, shopping at the company store and being forced into march-step by the company goons.

Be that as it may :roll: I guess I'm just looking for some Libertarian campaigne slogans that I can drop into conversations like this. As a liberal, it bothers me that the typical redneck conservative confuses Libertarians with liberals. I could at least try to help them see that Libertarian really is a separate party.

 

[XJ Dreamin']

The Libertarian platform

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml#immgr

Well, yes - but he's never gonna read that. Hell, I can read that but I still need something short 'n' sweet that will draw a line - this is liberal / this is Libertarian.

I read that (and I've read it before - several times) and something like this:

Solutions: All public lands and resources, as well as claims thereto, except as explicitly allowed by the Constitution, shall be returned to private ownership, with the proceeds of sale going to retire public liabilities. Resource rights shall be defined as property rights, including riparian rights. All publicly owned infrastructures including dams and parks shall be returned to private ownership and all taxing authority for such public improvements shall sunset. Property related services shall be supplied by private markets and paid for by user fees, and regulation of property shall be limited to that which secures the rights of individuals. There will be no legal barriers to peaceful, private, voluntary attempts to explore, industrialize and colonize any extra-terrestrial resources. The federal government shall be held as liable as any individual for pollution or other transgression against property or resources.

just screams Anarchy to me. I don't know how you make that work without a huge enforcement infrastructure (leo and tort).

Anyway, it just struck me that Libertarian is getting lumped with liberal in the minds of the hometown right. I'm just trying to figure out how to draw a line without conducting a seminar :lecture:

 

[5-90]

Your typical Libertarian tends to believe that the government should be the servant of the people, rather than the other way 'round.

For a fully Libertarian government to take hold, the social contract must be reinstated - which isn't going to happen without work. However, a Libertarian government would be much smaller and less intrusive than what we've got now.

Functions of the Libertarian government (in the classic sense - not the current party platform)
- Protect the body politic from threats from without
- Punish transgressors where the victim is unwilling - or unable - to
- Provide a level playing field for all. This does not mean "market controls" - nor does it mean propping up people with "welfare." The idea of welfare is a violation of basic Libertarian philosophy (you either make it or you don't - either way, without Government help.)
- Establish a means for the public defence and welfare (An effective armed force and a minimal police force.)

To a Libertarian, it is also worth noting that reform and recompense are the aims of criminal justice - not stigmatisation and incarceration. Therefore, the "prison industry" we're seeing would not be as great, we'd probably have punishments that actually work, and you'd see people who are more able (where willing - but a reinstatement of the Social Contract would help to ensure this) to pick themselves up and try again.

You've seen me mention the Social Contract here and elsewhere. As I learned it in Sociology 100 'way back when (1985 or so,) the Social Contract is the set of unwritten rules that govern interpersonal behaviour on both the micro and macro level. It is the decay in the Social Contract over the last 60-70 years that would keep a pure Anarchy from working (Libertarianism is a short step from a "true anarchy" - an absence of externally-imposed order) and the continued decay will also keep a truly Libertarian government from working.

It's sad to say, but because of the decay in the Social Contract, externally-imposed order ("big government") is all but required in society these days, because the "me first" mentality has been corrupted into its current pure form. Time was, "me first" was guided by "do unto others," and "me first" actually meant taking care of other people well - because one knew that the reverse was true. It is actually in the best interests of the individual and society in general for people to take care of others well - but we've forgotten that (as a people.)

I'd like to see a Libertarian government, but there would have to be (now massive!) sociological changes for that to work.

5-90

 

[SLAYER]

I think Jeep Liberty's are poop!

 

[XJ Dreamin']

I'm a Libertarian, have been for 20 years.
If you need to give your friend a quick intro try this.
Libertarians always defalt to freedom for the individual.
You are free to do whatever you wish, so long as you do not damage or infringe on the rights of, anyone else.

Libertarians are generally for small Federal govt., personal responsibility, originalist constitutionally (sp.?) and so on.

I'd be glad to answer any specific questions.

It's the personal responsibility part that always kills it for me. I don't see that working (the pragmatic side of me) without eliminating the irresponsible element. Mind you, I'm not against elimination, per se, but I'm afraid that I might be identified as worthy of elimination, and I'm afraid to let that djinni out of the bottle.

But, I don't want to argue against the Libertarian Party. I secrectly hope that one day we can achieve some type of Libertarian utopia - I'm just too pragmatic to have that much faith in people's personal responsibility.

No offense, I hope, and thanks for the help.

 

[XJ Dreamin']

I think Jeep Liberty's are poop!

I think we will have no problem reaching consensus on that! Thanks

 

[bigdaddyjlove]

It's the personal responsibility part that always kills it for me. I don't see that working (the pragmatic side of me) without eliminating the irresponsible element. Mind you, I'm not against elimination, per se, but I'm afraid that I might be identified as worthy of elimination, and I'm afraid to let that djinni out of the bottle.

But, I don't want to argue against the Libertarian Party. I secrectly hope that one day we can achieve some type of Libertarian utopia - I'm just too pragmatic to have that much faith in people's personal responsibility.

No offense, I hope, and thanks for the help.

The theory is that those with no sense of caring for themselve would be self-eliminating. People work hard when there is no safty net, or they fall. And no offense taken. I trully enjoy these debates, because (as someone else noted) most people are at least sympathetic to Libertarian views, you just have to show them.

 

[5-90]

It's the personal responsibility part that always kills it for me. I don't see that working (the pragmatic side of me) without eliminating the irresponsible element. Mind you, I'm not against elimination, per se, but I'm afraid that I might be identified as worthy of elimination, and I'm afraid to let that djinni out of the bottle.

But, I don't want to argue against the Libertarian Party. I secrectly hope that one day we can achieve some type of Libertarian utopia - I'm just too pragmatic to have that much faith in people's personal responsibility.

No offense, I hope, and thanks for the help.

Look up the term "Social Contract" (Google should work) and you'll see what I was talking about.

I don't know where the "irresponsible element" came from (to borrow your phrase,) but it's here, and we'll have to figure out how to "unring a bell" to do away with it. Honestly, I'm inclined to think it's this whole "touchy-feely" and "self-esteem" movement that kids have been coming up with lately that is doing the most of it.

Where the Hell did that come from, anyhow? When most of us were coming up, the attitude was more like "The world expects you to accomplish something in order to feel good about yourself. It's not fair. Get used to it," and "The world doesn't owe you a damn thing - it was here first."

As a result, most of us seem to be doing rather well in the "self-esteem" department, thank you very much. We don't feel like we're "entitled" to anything - we've had to go earn it all. What's so wrong with that?

5-90

 

[XJ Dreamin']

Your typical Libertarian tends to believe that the government should be the servant of the people, rather than the other way 'round.

For a fully Libertarian government to take hold, the social contract must be reinstated - which isn't going to happen without work. However, a Libertarian government would be much smaller and less intrusive than what we've got now.

Functions of the Libertarian government (in the classic sense - not the current party platform)
- Protect the body politic from threats from without
- Punish transgressors where the victim is unwilling - or unable - to
- Provide a level playing field for all. This does not mean "market controls" - nor does it mean propping up people with "welfare." The idea of welfare is a violation of basic Libertarian philosophy (you either make it or you don't - either way, without Government help.)
- Establish a means for the public defence and welfare (An effective armed force and a minimal police force.)

To a Libertarian, it is also worth noting that reform and recompense are the aims of criminal justice - not stigmatisation and incarceration. Therefore, the "prison industry" we're seeing would not be as great, we'd probably have punishments that actually work, and you'd see people who are more able (where willing - but a reinstatement of the Social Contract would help to ensure this) to pick themselves up and try again.

You've seen me mention the Social Contract here and elsewhere. As I learned it in Sociology 100 'way back when (1985 or so,) the Social Contract is the set of unwritten rules that govern interpersonal behaviour on both the micro and macro level. It is the decay in the Social Contract over the last 60-70 years that would keep a pure Anarchy from working (Libertarianism is a short step from a "true anarchy" - an absence of externally-imposed order) and the continued decay will also keep a truly Libertarian government from working.

It's sad to say, but because of the decay in the Social Contract, externally-imposed order ("big government") is all but required in society these days, because the "me first" mentality has been corrupted into its current pure form. Time was, "me first" was guided by "do unto others," and "me first" actually meant taking care of other people well - because one knew that the reverse was true. It is actually in the best interests of the individual and society in general for people to take care of others well - but we've forgotten that (as a people.)

I'd like to see a Libertarian government, but there would have to be (now massive!) sociological changes for that to work.

5-90

Yes, they'd have a huge battle because any attempt to move society in that direction will be seen by the right as an encroachment of socialism, even though the goal of the Libertarians is not socialism.

From an anthropological perspective, the social contract is seen in the band level social structure (hunter/gatherers or simple farmers and herders). In that context the social contract is not benign. It is enforced by the group. Most cultures have some ceromony wherein individuals who have been pushing at the bounds of the social contract are chastised for their transgressions over the last year. Those who break the contract outright are exiled or killed. In this sense, the social contract is not something that monitors itself without intervention. It is maintained by consensus and direct action. On the scale of the US, with 300,000,000 people, that's a tall order.

I see a degradation of social contract, as you do, even though I cannot envision a way to reinstate a social contract without direct, totalitarian intervention. Something funny along these lines: Do you remember that PBS show where they put several faminly units out on the praire to live in the 1870's? When my wife told me about that I laughed out loud. She didn't understand what was so funny about the whole concept. It was funny to me because I understood that people pulled out of our modern urban/suburban society would have no clue of the social contract required for survival on the 1870's praire. The concept of helping others in order to help yourself was ingrained. It was not something that one had to think about. It was the way of life that kept you alive because you needed the help of others to survive. Bringing that into the unnatural context of the suburb or the inner city is not, in my opinion, doable.

edit: added some zero's
edit: remember to spell check :twak:

 

[XJ Dreamin']

Look up the term "Social Contract" (Google should work) and you'll see what I was talking about.

I don't know where the "irresponsible element" came from (to borrow your phrase,) but it's here, and we'll have to figure out how to "unring a bell" to do away with it. Honestly, I'm inclined to think it's this whole "touchy-feely" and "self-esteem" movement that kids have been coming up with lately that is doing the most of it.

Where the Hell did that come from, anyhow? When most of us were coming up, the attitude was more like "The world expects you to accomplish something in order to feel good about yourself. It's not fair. Get used to it," and "The world doesn't owe you a damn thing - it was here first."

As a result, most of us seem to be doing rather well in the "self-esteem" department, thank you very much. We don't feel like we're "entitled" to anything - we've had to go earn it all. What's so wrong with that?

5-90

I know 'social contract' - see above - and I agree with you in that a social contract is exactly what we need. However, recreating and enforcing a social contract in the modern US is a tall order. Not that it isn't necessary - it's just a very big job.

'Irresponsible' is the current trend. Do you know that I don't know the names of my neighbors on either side of me? We live in adjacent houses but we live in different social circles. We are not inherently responsible for each other in any way. There is a theory (I saw it on History Channel) that the present day selfishness came out of mass consumerism. At some time, as the industrial revolution increased production and the agrarian revolution increased population, some advertising jocks hit on the theme that we 'need' and even 'deserve' the products they were pushing. That shift from 'you've earned it' to 'you deserve it' has spread to infect all aspects of our society.

 

[5-90]

I know 'social contract' - see above - and I agree with you in that a social contract is exactly what we need. However, recreating and enforcing a social contract in the modern US is a tall order. Not that it isn't necessary - it's just a very big job.

'Irresponsible' is the current trend. Do you know that I don't know the names of my neighbors on either side of me? We live in adjacent houses but we live in different social circles. We are not inherently responsible for each other in any way. There is a theory (I saw it on History Channel) that the present day selfishness came out of mass consumerism. At some time, as the industrial revolution increased production and the agrarian revolution increased population, some advertising jocks hit on the theme that we 'need' and even 'deserve' the products they were pushing. That shift from 'you've earned it' to 'you deserve it' has spread to infect all aspects of our society.

OK - so we're using different definitions of "Social Contract." As I recall, you are trained as an anthropologist, are you not? Granted, I'm neither a sociologist nor an anthropologist (more of an engineer and a mechanic,) so it would help if we are first agreed on the definition of "Social Contract" - it seems we've reached a workable middle ground already, so no need to belabour the point.

Mass consumerism is, I think, only a part of the problem. Granted, "keeping up with the Joneses" (whereas my attitude is more like "The Jonses can do as they damn well please - it's probably not right for me,") has caused a significant part of the problem.

However, I honestly think we can see the beginning of the decline of the Social Contract (in the sense we're using here) linked to the Great Depression and subsequent and consistent devaluation of the dollar - with an increase in the decay of both linked to the removal of the Gold Standard for the dollar sometime in the 1970's, I think.

As long as we had specie money - and later, gold and silver certificates - we had a tangible, actual value for the dollar, and it was therefore stable. Not only that, but the value of the US dollar was a basis for quite a lot of other world currency - which kept the world economy stable.

The concept of tying the value of a monetary unit to something with an intrinsic, univerally-accepted value is not unique to the United States - the British "pound" was originall "pound Sterling," which based the value of the pound on - you guessed it! - the value of a pound of Sterling silver.

If we're going to fix our political problems, it's not going to call for a political solution. Probably not a sociological solution, either. The core problem is, I think, economic.

I would like to see a return to the Gold Standard and a return to specie money (gold and silver certificates were on the edge of a violation of Constitutional law - "The Congress shall have the power to coin money, and no Thing but gold or silver shall be used therefor." At least "certificates" could be redeemed for gold or silver - unlike banknotes. Don't even get me started on the Federal Reserve...) Get that gold OUT of Fort Knox and back into circulation.

Revaluate the dollar, and stick it somewhere. Perhaps stick the value of the dollar, initially, and one hundred to the troy ounce of gold, and alloy our money accordingly (and reissue cartwheels, eagles, and double eagles - I, for one, tend to feel better when my money has more weight than a stack of bookmarks.)

While we're about it, balance out the trade deficit - I've mentioned that before as well. If we're going to buy our goods from overseas, they can return the favour to us, and we'll do a straight trade (instead of owing, say China, some several billion dollars per annum.) Any shortfall resulting in a trade deficit can be made up for from the private funding of the executive officers of the company that accounts for it.

Now that we've revalued and stabilised the dollar, we can return to the idea of a nuclear family operating off of a single income - mom, dad, and two kids all living comfortably off of what dad makes, and we can see the return of "private parenting" vice the current trend toward day care.

One of these days, I'll have enough of my books written that I can allow the monograph on social problems that I've had kicking around to crystallise, and then I'll put it up somewhere. While I'll freely admit that I'd like to see a great deal of changes, I'd like to see those changes toward personal responsibility and personal freedom (two sides of the same coin) and away from intrusive and invasive government. People providing for their own safety, security, and health can't be all bad...

Comments? Granted, I've severely skimmed the idea here, but you should be able to see where I'm going with this. These are the attitudes that make me rather unpopular in California, but I'm not about to change them - because I don't see where liberalism is getting us (except maybe employment for mid-level government functionaries and police...)

5-90

 

[Fish'nCarz]

Hell, one of my heroes was a libertarian. His name was Barry Goldwater, and he was pretty much the founder of the conservative movement in the GOP.

 

[XJ Dreamin']

please refer to post #16 by 5-90

No offense, I hope, at my referencing your post rather than repeating it. The way the both of us type, each of us repeating the other leads to a lot of scrolling.

I think we are closer than you suspect on our definitions of social contract. I used what I consider to be the natural condition for humans: the non-stratified band. This is the level of social development to which humans evolved. Was it you who spoke of his children in school being asked to contribute to the formulation of, and subsequently to sign a social contract within the classroom? Perhaps it was someone at church. Whichever the case, this would be a very simplistic, and somewhat artificial application of what, in the original was much more subtle and complex.

For example, that show about living in the 1870's. On the prairie in the 1870's one was not taught that you help a neighbor build his barn so that he would come help build your barn. You simply knew that that was the way things were done. And, almost subconsciously, you knew the consequences of non-compliance. Death came quickly without the support of your neighbors.

Within, for example, a group of hunter/gathers, the social contract benefits not the individual, but the group. Survival of the group is paramount. The members of the group feel this in a very deep, even religious way. To violate the contract is to endanger the group. For the most part, free will and individualism are restricted to minor details of personal adornment. In the context of 'let me do what I want', the limit of 'so long as I do not infringe on someone else' is governed by the group definition of infringement, not the individual definition. In short, the context within which the social contract originated was not one of individual freedom, but rather one of individual support of the group.

Elements of this original, or seminal social contract can still be seen in today's society in specialized settings (e.g., one can still find remnants of the 'barn raising' etiquette in some agrarian regions). However, part of the success of the social contract is a recognition of interdependence. The urban 'dog-eat-dog' setting does not lend itself to any great recognition of interdependence. In fact, as with my neighbors, I feel very little interdependence with hardly anyone at all. As you say, the Jones may do as they please, because their behavior does not impinge on my survival - at least not in any way that forces my attention.

Once a culture develops socio-economic strata, the original contract becomes untenable. Each class of the society has its own priorities that often clash with the needs of members of other levels of the society. This, I think, is a large factor in the degradation of the contract - too many strata - too little individual interdependence. Consider - prior to the end of WW II, the majority of the population was agrarian. Today there is a very large urban constituent.

An element of the original social contract was the concept of 'earning what you receive'. The slide toward 'deserving what you want' is, in part, the result of the breakdown of the social contract as population shifted from the relatively socially level agrarian setting to the more complex, multi-strata setting of the urban environment. The 'pussification of America' is a manisfestation of this trend toward 'deserving what you want'. Whether pussification is a result of, or a cause of the degradation of the social contract is a horse-before-the-cart/chicken-and-egg question. As is my earlier example of advertising trends. The 'deserve what you want' campaigns began at the start of the second quarter of the 20th century: a time when the population was beginning to shift toward the urban setting. Whether these campaigns were a cause or a symptom of the degradation of the social contract is debatable. However, we both agree that the degradation is real. The next question is, do we agree on a solution?

I am afraid I must reserve comment on your economic plan for a time after I get some sleep. I've let the time get much too late as it is.

Later.

 

[XJ Eric]

My opinion:

We don't have the balls to do anything anymore. Can't kill murders cause its wrong. Rapists get out of jail too fast, we can't force anyone off of welfare cause it will make kiddies starve. The bambi syndrome has oozed over into society too far.

We need to grow a set of brass ones. Help out the folks who need help and kick screwups in the @$$

 

[5-90]

My opinion:

We don't have the balls to do anything anymore. Can't kill murders cause its wrong. Rapists get out of jail too fast, we can't force anyone off of welfare cause it will make kiddies starve. The bambi syndrome has oozed over into society too far.

We need to grow a set of brass ones. Help out the folks who need help and kick screwups in the @$$

Yet another reason I'm an oddity. I don't get picked for jury duty - usually because when I'm asked if I support the death penalty, my answer is "Convince me that it's necessary, and I'll throw the switch myself."

"How can you do that?"

"How can I not? If one benefits from an action, one must be willing to take that action - elsewise, he's a hypocrite. If I benefit from the total elimination of a known or proven threat to the populace at large (of which I am a part,) I must be willing, at some level, to eliminate that threat myself.
"Will I lose sleep over it? Probably not. You have to prove to my satisfaction that it's necessary, but sitting in trial will probably do that without any extra special effort.
"Who are threats? Murders, rapists, child molesters, serial robbers, and others with a history of committing greivous crimes against the person. Prove to me that they are a threat, and I have no trouble seeking their elimination."

"You are excused."

Being in California, that seems to be a typical exchange. Maybe execution is a bit drastic for rape and molestation - but it's going to be more socially acceptable than emasculation, I'm sure. Balls are there - they're just scarce. Besides, we've also grown away from individual self-defence - used to be, major threats didn't make it to court, they were seen to summarily in the field.

5-90