Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Libertarianism doesn't really exist in the UK, I'm still wrapping my head around it and trying to understand how it all works. I'm also aware that it's claimed (wrongly I'd guess) by several people I met living in central PA who were actually extremely religiously rightwing.

I agree with you on big government, of course it is not to be trusted blindly, whichever party is in charge, but accept and even laud it for it's capacity to run things that would otherwise not function and also because I am aware we do not live in a bubble, the nation exists on the world stage and must contend with rivals, to do this, it must have a sufficient administrative capability. When I'm in the playground, I want to say, with some certainty, 'my dad's bigger than your dad'.

I'm confused by this other part, the Ayn Rand part about business. Why is it you folks don't trust government a jot but give absolute and unrestrained freedoms to private enterprise. On paper, governments must be elected, must seek to appease everyone with a vote, but private interest is driven by the accumulation of wealth and if left free, as proven in the past, will abuse the freedoms of the individual, both employee and those who's needs or wants contend with that of the business. I get the notions of encouraging folks to become business owners, start their own way into the capitalist dream, I actually find much to sympathize with there, but the multinationals now, the 'too big to prosecute' powers that be, how can they be libertarian, there is no liberty in what they bring, they bring order and inforcement of their will with every bit of zeal you accuse democratic governments of secretly harboring. Is it a true Darwinian capitalism you want? Because unrestrained, unregulated, the megacorps will crush human freedoms for all but a very small number, I see no liberty in it.

Why is big government terrible yet big business, mega-corps and monopolies, great news. Don't they carry just as much loss of individual freedom as big government?

Further, why do libertarians bed down far more readily with the right wing? It's the party of military ventures abroad, religious dictates and social conservatism, surely this is against the principals of 'true' libertarianism? Surely a libertarian would absolutely revolt against the abolition of freedom of choice and applaud the rights of gays to marriage, aren't these personal freedoms and liberties of higher principal to a libertarian than lower taxes (because you'll pay em, regardless of who's in or out).

I just don't get the dislike towards big government I think you need a large amount of staff and services to run a country as big and important as the United States of America effectively.

 Cheesecat wrote:
I just don't get the dislike towards big government I think you need a large amount of staff and services to run a country as big and important as the United States of America effectively.

There is a differance between "big government" and "big brother government". It's the latter that I dislike. The government who thinks it's ok to tell me what I can and cannot eat, just as a basic example.

 djones520 wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
I just don't get the dislike towards big government I think you need a large amount of staff and services to run a country as big and important as the United States of America effectively.

There is a differance between "big government" and "big brother government". It's the latter that I dislike. The government who thinks it's ok to tell me what I can and cannot eat, just as a basic example.

I think it's sometimes helpful like my municipal government has passed a bylaw where bikers and skateboarders have to wear a helmet or you'll be punished, but I think it's a good idea I mean sure you look stupid in the helmet but it helps reduce damage to the head.

 djones520 wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
I just don't get the dislike towards big government I think you need a large amount of staff and services to run a country as big and important as the United States of America effectively.

There is a differance between "big government" and "big brother government". It's the latter that I dislike. The government who thinks it's ok to tell me what I can and cannot eat, just as a basic example.

So, the lost of 'freedoms' you suffered under the Bush administration vs what you've lost under the Obama admin, how do they compare to you, because, for me, it would appear that due to Homeland Security and the War on Terror, a great many erosions of personal privacy were lost.

 djones520 wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
I just don't get the dislike towards big government I think you need a large amount of staff and services to run a country as big and important as the United States of America effectively.

There is a differance between "big government" and "big brother government". It's the latter that I dislike. The government who thinks it's ok to tell me what I can and cannot eat, just as a basic example.

Do you have a master's degree in Nutrition? Or Biology? Unless you do, you should be ready to admit that most people who have spent 15 minutes of their time researching these subjects know more about it then you.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
I just don't get the dislike towards big government I think you need a large amount of staff and services to run a country as big and important as the United States of America effectively.

There is a differance between "big government" and "big brother government". It's the latter that I dislike. The government who thinks it's ok to tell me what I can and cannot eat, just as a basic example.

Do you have a master's degree in Nutrition? Or Biology? Unless you do, you should be ready to admit that most people who have spent 15 minutes of their time researching these subjects know more about it then you.

Bully for them. (I have also taken 6 college classes in regards to that stuff, so I am a bit knowledeable in it, btw).

 djones520 wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
I just don't get the dislike towards big government I think you need a large amount of staff and services to run a country as big and important as the United States of America effectively.

There is a differance between "big government" and "big brother government". It's the latter that I dislike. The government who thinks it's ok to tell me what I can and cannot eat, just as a basic example.

Do you have a master's degree in Nutrition? Or Biology? Unless you do, you should be ready to admit that most people who have spent 15 minutes of their time researching these subjects know more about it then you.

Bully for them. (I have also taken 6 college classes in regards to that stuff, so I am a bit knowledeable in it, btw).

Well it also depends how relevant the courses are like if you were focusing more on the dietary, social or economic effects of food.

 djones520 wrote:


Bully for them. (I have also taken 6 college classes in regards to that stuff, so I am a bit knowledeable in it, btw).

My post constitutes bullying? In what fantasy make-believe world?

And if you have taken 6 classes 'in regards to that stuff', then I can't possibly understand how you could see goverment regulation on food distribution and sales as a bad thing.

''Corporations should be able to put whatever they want in what they sell me. FOR FREEDOM''

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 djones520 wrote:


Bully for them. (I have also taken 6 college classes in regards to that stuff, so I am a bit knowledeable in it, btw).

My post constitutes bullying? In what fantasy make-believe world?

And if you have taken 6 classes 'in regards to that stuff', then I can't possibly understand how you could see goverment regulation on food distribution and sales as a bad thing.

''Corporations should be able to put whatever they want in what they sell me. FOR FREEDOM''

It's a saying. Basically "good for them, but who gives a gak?"

And it is not the governments job to tell me how much soda I'm allowed to consume, or trans-fats, or whatever. It's not their job to tell me I have to have health insurance. It's not their job to wipe my ass for me. Now, you may be comfortable with having your life led for you, but I'm not.

I'll chime in here. I, myself, believe the government needs regulatory power over certain things, especially things proven to cause harm to people. Just as trans fats have be proven to be, Sometimes you need to take that big-gulp out of someones hand.
We have done it with many things, drugs, medicine and even types of food.
I remember when someone in one of my classes complained that OSHA prevented him from doing a certain job because he was under age, and he complained, but it was a dangerous job and he could have gotten hurt.
The government needs to regulate things to make them safe.

To the OP regarding Libertarians in the USA.

To your main question about us being more with the "right wing" aka Republicans in our country:

In every belief structure or political thinking, there are some ideals that are prioritized over others. In the Libertarian mindset, the financial house is priority, once you have everything covered there, then the social issues start to fall into line more easily.

We see it as the same as your everyday life. Having trouble paying your bills and rent? Chances are your personal life with your spouse is suffering. Your personal life will not get better without ridding yourself of the stress of your financial life.

Democrats in the USA are only very moderately better, and I hesitate to say that at all, on social issues like gay marriage or any civil rights for that matter. My biggest issue with Democratic politicians, is they will give you the impression they are for gay rights, while flat out opposing it.

In our countries history when it comes to ending slavery, ending segregation, and women's rights to vote and own property, the Democratic party and Progressives opposed, and the Republicans and Libertarians fought for the rights of the people.

 djones520 wrote:

And it is not the governments job to tell me how much soda I'm allowed to consume, or trans-fats, or whatever.

Nor is it what they are doing. Putting legislation on how much a company is allowed to sell as a portion is not the same as restricting your right to consume certain quantities. At worst, it simply means that you'll have to order more units of smaller quantities.

But even if it was what they were doing, as long as the regulations were rationally established, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Only a fool rejoice in the freedom to hurt himself.

It's not their job to tell me I have to have health insurance.

I do not know enough about the US health care system to evaluate it's merits and it's flaws. But I can certainly agree with the rationale that universal health care is a necessity.

It's not their job to wipe my ass for me.

Have they tried?

Now, you may be comfortable with having your life led for you, but I'm not.

I see my government as an extension of my people's will and mine (up to a point, I'm independentist after all), so I rarely see the goverment's legislation being a restriction on my freedom. There's no reason to value freedom as an absolute.

I found this to be an amusing image but I don't know if it really adds anything to the discussion, it may not paint the most accurate depiction of libertarianism but it makes me smile so it's going in this thread.

Here's the thing about Ayn Rand: she only shows one side of things. She wrote two science fiction books about a utopian civilization wherein priovate interests never conflict with one another. If you ever meet someone that believes in that particular dream-world, ask them to find Centralia, PA on a map. That place is the inevitable result of John Galt operating without restraint.

Cheesecat wrote:I found this to be an amusing image but I don't know if it really adds anything to the discussion, it may not paint the most accurate depiction of libertarianism but it makes me smile so it's going in this thread.

Spoiler:

You win the thread, sir.

Thanks, glad you enjoyed it.

Well, with libertarians we also have to separate ourselves between what we call the "big L" Libertarians who are members of the Libertarian party and have their own definition of what libertarians should believe and the "little l" libertarians who don't belong to any particular party (or to someone else beside the Libertarian Party).

The instances of Republicans who call themselves "libertarians" doesn't help eliminate confusion either, since there are quite a few people who think that Ron Paul is a libertarian.

I throw my hat in with the libertarian socialists.

Ron Paul is a constitutionalist is he not? And at the same time there are different types of Libertarians, some models include social welfare to some degree, including provided for by taxes free universal health care.

Referring to the point raised earlier of "sometimes you have to take the big gulp out of someone's hand" I don't think that's true. If they want it, and have the means to pay for it, and someone is willing to sell it to them, then there is no reason for them not to have it. I am not my brother's keeper. I can plead with him not to buy the big gulp, I can advise him against it, I can use all of the facts and knowledge available to attempt to persuade him against that course of action, but ultimately the decision is his on how he wants to live his life. As long as he is willing and able to pay the consequences of his actions he should be allowed to do what he wants.

 Ratbarf wrote:
Ron Paul is a constitutionalist is he not?

Well, for a large majority of people libertarian = small government and they think that Ron Paul is a small government kind of guy despite the fact that he is fairly pro-government at the State level.

 d-usa wrote:

 Ratbarf wrote:
Ron Paul is a constitutionalist is he not?

Well, for a large majority of people libertarian = small government and they think that Ron Paul is a small government kind of guy despite the fact that he is fairly pro-government at the State level.

And he reminds me of that old uncle who has lost his marbles...

 djones520 wrote:


It's a saying. Basically "good for them, but who gives a gak?"

And it is not the governments job to tell me how much soda I'm allowed to consume, or trans-fats, or whatever. It's not their job to tell me I have to have health insurance. It's not their job to wipe my ass for me. Now, you may be comfortable with having your life led for you, but I'm not.

When I was younger, I used to be much more black and white on the issue than I am now. Basically, after collegiate level courses (which I believe you've attended as well from your prior posts), I began to realize the impact evolutionary hard wiring has on us without proper risk evaluation--and entire industries that dedicate themselves to abuse those primal urges. Substances they place in food to entice you to eat more (Carb starve of our ancestors vs. over abundance now), the short spurts of dopamine we receive from buying an item today (on a credit card) vs. waiting, etc. There have actually been several studies that display those urges in certain individuals. The classic "I'll put a piece of candy in the room and if you wait, when I get back in 5 minutes you can have 2--if you eat it now, that's all you get". Most kids don't last 2 minutes in that experiment--and followed through life, they are the ones that display long term debt and other risky behavior.


So I guess what I'm saying is--if you are aware that certain entities are taking advantage of another group of people without them being aware of it--is it right to step in and say something? Or go by the "They made their bed, they can lie in it" when later in life they develop serious health consequences? *Shrug*, I don't know. It's unsettling to say "step in and start limiting calories in food" as it certainly feels authoritarian. On the other hand, simply letting corporations turn 5 year olds into cholesterol med popping food addicts makes me nauseous too.

Or maybe another ad absurdum (maybe?)---if you knew a group of people had a brain mass that caused them to make extremely poor health choices for themselves and for their children...AND you knew companies..knowing this, took advantage of those suffering from the brain mass by offering food in enormous quantities---would you step in? 'Food' for thought (pardon the pun, it's late).

Well, can you really blame companies for capitalizing on an advantage?

And limiting the soda size really won't decrease consumption, it just means people make more trips to the fountain for more free refills. And no, we definitly shouldn't tell anybody they can't give free refills.


Yes, people should suffer the consequences of their actions if they decided to have unhealthy eating habits. Let them foot the bill with their private insurance. Don't allow Insurance companies to turn anyone down, but do let them jack up the premiums.

In Canada we just tax unhealthy choices out the wazoo. A pack of smokes costs between 7 and 13 dollars depending on where and what brand. But the Players rep who used to deliver smokes to the store I worked at said that on the pack of smokes that cost about 11.44, 7.80 of that is government tax. Most of which goes to fund either anti smoking campaigns or the health care system.

Speaking from my experience in Oklahoma:

People here are quick to proclaim the greatness of a limited government and that people should pay their own price for their stupid mistakes. But when a wildfire or tornado takes out their house that they decide to build in tornado alley and an area without any fire hydrants and FEMA decides not to pay them anything, then it's pitchfork time in the sooner state.

d-usa wrote:Speaking from my experience in Oklahoma:

People here are quick to proclaim the greatness of a limited government and that people should pay their own price for their stupid mistakes. But when a wildfire or tornado takes out their house that they decide to build in tornado alley and an area without any fire hydrants and FEMA decides not to pay them anything, then it's pitchfork time in the sooner state.

This sounds about right. This is the attitude that is bred from the "I've got mine so feth you"-Libertarian way of life. They'll always think it's unfair until they realize it's very fair. However, on the other end of the extreme, you will also get people who want to justify limiting soft drinks because of the extra burden that rampant obesity places on a socialist health care system.

Ultimately, it's just a question of moderation: let smokers have their cigarettes; just tax the crap out of them and feed those taxes into the healthcare system. Hopefully the extra revenue will balance out the lung cancer, and then everyone wins: socialist safety nets and health care, and no unreasonable infringement on personal liberties.

I've often said that anyone who believes in hardcore, you-can't-tell-me-what-I-can't-do Libertarianism should be forced to relocate to Centralia, PA.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Libertarianism doesn't really exist in the UK, I'm still wrapping my head around it and trying to understand how it all works. I'm also aware that it's claimed (wrongly I'd guess) by several people I met living in central PA who were actually extremely religiously rightwing.

Libertarianism is No True Scotsman ground like no other.

I agree with you on big government, of course it is not to be trusted blindly, whichever party is in charge, but accept and even laud it for it's capacity to run things that would otherwise not function and also because I am aware we do not live in a bubble, the nation exists on the world stage and must contend with rivals, to do this, it must have a sufficient administrative capability. When I'm in the playground, I want to say, with some certainty, 'my dad's bigger than your dad'.

Okay.

I'm confused by this other part, the Ayn Rand part about business.

Well, don't confuse Ayn Rand with someone who is representative of all libertarians. She was a chick who had serious issues with banging alpha males, and that's pretty much it.

Why is it you folks don't trust government a jot but give absolute and unrestrained freedoms to private enterprise. On paper, governments must be elected, must seek to appease everyone with a vote, but private interest is driven by the accumulation of wealth and if left free, as proven in the past, will abuse the freedoms of the individual, both employee and those who's needs or wants contend with that of the business. I get the notions of encouraging folks to become business owners, start their own way into the capitalist dream, I actually find much to sympathize with there, but the multinationals now, the 'too big to prosecute' powers that be, how can they be libertarian, there is no liberty in what they bring, they bring order and inforcement of their will with every bit of zeal you accuse democratic governments of secretly harboring. Is it a true Darwinian capitalism you want? Because unrestrained, unregulated, the megacorps will crush human freedoms for all but a very small number, I see no liberty in it.

Why is big government terrible yet big business, mega-corps and monopolies, great news. Don't they carry just as much loss of individual freedom as big government?

No, they don't. They can't legislate, for one.

Further, why do libertarians bed down far more readily with the right wing? It's the party of military ventures abroad, religious dictates and social conservatism, surely this is against the principals of 'true' libertarianism? Surely a libertarian would absolutely revolt against the abolition of freedom of choice and applaud the rights of gays to marriage, aren't these personal freedoms and liberties of higher principal to a libertarian than lower taxes (because you'll pay em, regardless of who's in or out).

I'm not sure what you're asking here. You want a laundry list of political positions that are wrong with both parties? It's not hard to come up with. In my case, the Democrats' ends up a little longer, which is why I tend to vote a little more Republican. Neither side represents me, but the Republicans are at least a little closer, philosophically, and they try to pull less nanny state gak.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and just to throw this into the mix, an article I came across in the Wall Street Journal last year:

Inside the Cold, Calculating Libertarian Mind

Seaward wrote:Neither side represents me, but the Republicans are at least a little closer, philosophically, and they try to pull less nanny state gak.

Just so we're clear, when you say "nanny state gak", exactly what are you referring to? Because in order for your statement to be even remotely correct, you must be referring to only petty crap like those assinine soft drink laws, and not the orwellian, hyper-instrusive planks that comprise the GOP platform.

 Seaward wrote:

Oh, and just to throw this into the mix, an article I came across in the Wall Street Journal last year:

Inside the Cold, Calculating Libertarian Mind

So libertarians throw their hands in the air, while gasping in frustration that their expression is not mirrored by society?

Did their parents not understand?

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Further, why do libertarians bed down far more readily with the right wing?

Because very frequently "libertarian" is a polite way of saying "I'm rich already, the rest of you" and right-wing politicians are more frequently in favor of economic and tax policies that benefit the wealthy. Sure, many of them would probably agree with "left-wing" freedom as well if you asked them, but libertarians tend to have fairly privileged lives already and don't suffer too much from the kind of things left-wing politicians want to get rid of. So it's just not much of a priority compared to things like getting rid of pesky profit-hindering regulations on business or abolishing taxes.

(And yes, there are consistent libertarians who aren't just selfish anarcho-capitalists but they don't have any real political power.)

 azazel the cat wrote:

Seaward wrote:Neither side represents me, but the Republicans are at least a little closer, philosophically, and they try to pull less nanny state gak.

Just so we're clear, when you say "nanny state gak", exactly what are you referring to? Because in order for your statement to be even remotely correct, you must be referring to only petty crap like those assinine soft drink laws, and not the orwellian, hyper-instrusive planks that comprise the GOP platform.

They're a part of it, certainly.

I also mean, you know, welfare, hate crime legislation, anti-smoking legislation, and so on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:

So libertarians throw their hands in the air, while gasping in frustration that their expression is not mirrored by society?

Did their parents not understand?

Not entirely sure where you got that from, but what the hell, I'm feeling charitable towards the less fortunate.

Yes, indeed. Absolutely. Well done!