Sunday, June 5, 2011

Is Libertarianism Right for You?

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatism
Liberty -vs- Tyranny


LearnLiberty.org


For more on the Libertarian Party.


Via: The Daily Caller
Via: Memeorandum

21 comments:

  1. I agree with that video, which is why I ended up straying into libertarianism a few years ago.

    I've been wavering in my libertarianism lately. I was never a hard core libertarian anyway.

    Take the drug war. The only way decriminalization works is if we dismantle the welfare state. Right now, we shield people from their bad choices, and we would end up supporting dopeheads who have wrecked their lives and worse, the lives of their children.

    Also, if drugs are legalized, that means they are taxed and regulated out the wazoo, making them expensive, creating a black market for smuggled drugs. We're back where we started.

    I also don't believe in open borders, as true libertarians do, and while we are way overextended, I do not believe it is in our best interests to withdraw completely from the world.

    I like Ron Paul, God bless him he's consistent, but I don't want a president that gets Osama in his gun sites but stands on principle and refuses to pull the trigger.

    I love mises.org, CATO and Reason magazine, but I hate Lew Rockwell's blog. I guess to hardcore libertarians I'm just a squish.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Silver - I'm at the same point as you, philosphically. I detest open borders with no limits on the welfare state. I do think that the War on Drugs is a failure. I think that the key to accepting libertarianism is in challenging some of the ideology behind it. I don't like any rigid set of views and question everything at face value.

    I'm rambling but I think what I am saying is that libertarianism most closely represents my views but I still deviate from some of the dogma associated with the movement.

    Les - great video, I found this a while back, too.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I have no problem with legalization of marijuana and the decriminalization of minor possession of recreational drugs. But I certainly would not want to see a complete decriminzation of the illicit drug trade. I think that would be dangerously stupid.

    As for completely dismantling the welfare state, that would be even more dangerously stupid. You think we have crime now??? You'd be setting the stage for violent uprisings. Insane.

    Libertarianism, ironically (it's all about individual freedom, after all), is a rigid, unadaptable ideology. Reality has always trumped libertarianism. Reality is always changing. Libertarianism stays the same.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hey! I finally figured out how to post here again!

    I wasn't banned, was I???

    I heard there was a problem with eblogger and google, but I couldn't figure it out. So I finally just went around it.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
  5. Who let Jersey in? JK...

    Jersey: Libertarianism is logical, internally consistent. My point is that most major libertarian principles are of a whole piece and must be implemented together or it doesn't work.

    As you so inartfully and erroneously pointed out, reality presents its own challenges.

    Where I disagree with you is that timeless principles never change. Human nature does not change, and that is what libertarianism is grounded in.

    ReplyDelete
  6. All - Great comments and concerns.

    I have always considered myself to be an independent conservative and classical liberal. As well as a staunch advocate of Rand's objectivism.

    Neither the Republican nor the Democratic party is any longer aligned with a consistent and rational philosophy and or purpose.

    While I continue to struggle with many of the same issues of Libertarianism you all have enunciated on this post I find it way more princiopledand grounded in the concept of liberty and individualism by far than either major party.

    I will be supporting the alternative in 2012 and hope you consider joining me.

    And TAO, unless you have a comment that is both germain and positive please don't bother to comment as it WILL be summarily deleted.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Almost forgot, my closing comment on prior pertains to Anon as well. But of course we all know you are one in the same.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Silver, you and I agree more with each other than with Les on some issues. Libertarianism doesn't always work in the real world. You pointed out a couple of examples, proving that yourself.

    Oh, and what is "JK" and how does it pertain to me?

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
  9. myself, I'd define each of you as "individualists".

    i say that because all of you, with the exception of Jersey, are opposed to collectivism.

    and to remain consistent with that principle a person will not associate themselves with any political group, even the libertarian party.

    reason:
    every political party is a partisan collective. and geo. washington, himself, warned against partisan factions in his farewell address.

    as Americans, we should concern ourselves with only two collectives, the first one being the collective of "the people". the second collective we should concern ourselves with is the collective of "the family".

    as a member of the collective of the people the guiding principles can be found in the Constitution and in that there should be unity of thought.

    as a member of the collective of the family the guiding principles can be found in the beliefs of the parents, both father and mother and in that there should be unity of thought.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Griper - Your point is well expressed as well as valid. I believe it is why "individualists" struggle with association within any "party."

    However, in reality we should all strive to find that individual of principle and character that represents our beliefs and support him or her.

    Agreed?

    ReplyDelete
  11. agreed, Rn.

    but remember that does not allow one to support someone that is the most electable as we hear so often.

    and it doesn't allow us to support someone just because we are against his opponent as we hear so often.

    and that may require us to use the write-in box at times too when that man's name is not on the ballot.

    and it doesn't allow us to worry if the best man wins or loses an election. the only thing we need to think about is if the man we support best represents us as individuals, thus the best man for the position in our minds.

    and from what i said i will add this;
    a family united is a strong family
    the same is true of a nation.

    it is divisiveness that results in a weak family as well as a weak nation.
    ------
    btw, jersey,

    the best solution to the problems that is occurring in blogger and google commenting is to use the Firefox browser. the problem seems to disappear in that browser instead of IE.

    ReplyDelete
  12. By the way, guys. Of course there is a vital place in society for libertarianism. Libertarianism, socialism, progressivism, conservatism, moralism, secularism, liberalism - these and many more philosophies and ideologies all play there parts in our civilization.

    But they are all ideologies, philosophies, epistemologies. When it comes to the care of our great republic, we must often balance these differing viewpoints with the necessities of reality. We must concede when our philosophies do not have the answers we're seeking.

    This is why Silver and I, both from very different perspectives and for very different reasons, are not libertarians, though both of us are probably more libertarian (different kinds of libertarians) than most Americans. Less than you guys, though.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
  13. JMJ - I am not a member of the Libertarian Party. I subscribe to the principles of the LP when they are aligned with liberty, strict interpretation of the Constitution, supporting the rights of property and the individual {more on that later, and stand in opposition to tyranny, any form of collectivism, and oppressive government control and regulation.

    I am and independent conservative and classical liberal, I belong to no party and I know there are some things that that are black and white.

    Sometimes grey is just not an option if you have principles. I guess it rests with each INDIVIDUAL to make the distinction.

    In the meantime it certainly can be said some are independent voices in a very large crowd. Some more vocal than others.

    And some are sheeples...

    ReplyDelete
  14. I toyed with the Libertarian Party in my twenties, but couldn't get past a single reality. If one wants to actually have an effect on our government, how can you justify joining a party that can't get elected?

    ReplyDelete
  15. LCR,

    You said:
    "I'm rambling but I think what I am saying is that libertarianism most closely represents my views but I still deviate from some of the dogma associated with the movement."

    And there it is. I believe there are a great many folks here in America who can relate to this.

    We are not GOP, definitely not liberal, and somewhere in the middle of it all, looking about us wondering what the hell is wrong with the Big Two, and why so many people swallow their rhetoric hook, line, and sinker.

    Donald in Bethel, CT

    ReplyDelete
  16. I should add I also believe strongly that it is time for a strong third party in America. With capable individuals supporting the LP's growth, combined with picking electable personalities the LP could have a significant impact. If nothing else it would hold the 2 majors feet to the fire.

    And they do indeed need some "burning"!

    ReplyDelete
  17. Les,

    Hear, hear! Of course, both of The Big Two will rant and rave that a third party would only serve to weaken The Big Two. Um...isn't that the point?

    There is more to governance than a donkey and an elephant. True story.

    Donald in Bethel, CT

    ReplyDelete
  18. Les: I strongly disagree. A third party will bring us a 33% president. If you think it's chaos now, wait till we have a third party.

    Daniel Ortega (Marxist), after being bounced by the Contras and beaten by Violeta Chamorro, returned to power a few years ago with 34% of the vote. The Sandinista party did it by appealing to the egos on the other side and getting them to split Ortega's opposition.

    United we stand, divided we fall.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Also, the Republican party is not a philosophical movement, it is a race car in a two care race. That's it.

    You want contemporary political philosophy? Read CATO or Russell Kirk.

    The GOP is just a means to political power.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "United we stand, divided we fall."

    Apparently both major parties have missed the point you made Silver. Or don't care, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

    Maybe a principled third party may just help. Given our current state I simply am okay with giving it a try.

    ReplyDelete

As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.