libertarian autistics

Post Reply New Topic

are any of you guys libertarian? curse the two party system!

I'm more towards the anarchist side of libertarian. I think that the ONLY reason to have any government at all is 1) keep the strong from crushing the weak 2) serve as a referee in disputes between people/corporations thus removing the need for vendettas 3) protect the people from enemies foreign and domestic and maybe 4) promulgate an acceptable medium of exchange (money) so as to facilitate commerce. The US Constitution lists 11 duties of the federal government and about a dozen rights that are the fed.gov's duty to protect. Anything beyond that is reserved for the states or the people.

pezar, that's the *statist* side of libertarianism...

I can't see any philosophically sound reasons to have a state, though I can see why we need some kind of court system (voluntarily funded, mind). I'm fairly anarchist, but I wouldn't say I'm fully an anarchist. I do think policing is the responsibility of whoever wants to do it, but they don't have any special protections - if they initiate an attack, they're still guilty of assault.

The government definitely fails at #1 on that list. If anything, they aid the "strong" in crushing the weak.

Yes, and we could use more on WP. Welcome

I am a Jeffersonian constitutionalist. The closest any political party comes to matching my ideology is the Libertarian Party, though I amn't a member of it. I used to be a member of the Democratic Party until it became "just as [hostile], just as [intolerant], just as well-funded [by corporations as the Republican Party]" ... kinda like the president's once hoped-for "civilian national security force."

Jefferson had a rather dark view of humanity, saying that humans are ruled by their base instincts, and the govt was needed to prevent them from killing each other. I used to say "no govt at all", until I realized that TJ was right and without a minimal form of govt people would exterminate the human species. I rather like TJ's view of things. I also like Ron Paul, but I don't see anybody picking up the libertarian flag after he's gone (he's pushing 80). Rand Paul is proving to be a RINO, unfortunately.

Yep. I like him better than the others, but his willingness to attack same-sex marriage (again) at this stage in his campaign is: 1) pointless as it is now and forever a U.S. Supreme Court matter, 2) simply red meat tossed at early primary voters in Republican states, and 3) insulting to his libertarian base because he must believe that we have "no where else to go." Any of these reasons is hostile.

Good news is that Gary Johnson might run again, which, under current Libertarian Party rules which allow for its nomination of Paul, means that Johnson would oppose Paul inside the party.

I dunno. Whoever has the chance to get the world to back away from this constant "red-alert" status has my vote even if they are just the "lesser of all evils."

I typically prefer the term "agorist," which was coined in the New Libertarian Manifesto by Samuel Edward Konkin III because most people haven't heard it before and as such don't have any pre-concieved notions about what it means. Then, I get a chance to explain that I believe that all human beings are of equal value and should be treated as equals, that I don't believe in initiating violence, threatening violence or otherwise using coersion against peaceful people, nor do I believe in theft or any other infringement upon certain universal rights. When you explain it to people that way, most folks are fairly understanding even if they don't have those same views.

Conversely, under certain circumstances I find it better to use the term "anarcho-capitalist" because it gabs people's attention. Of course, the down side is that it tends to give people a very inaccurate idea of what my values are. So many people have been conditioned to think that "anarchy" means burning buildings and slaughter as opposed to the dictionary deffinition which is "a lack of heirarchy," or in other words, social equality.

Sometimes, I find that it's better to avoid a label at all and say something along the lines of "I suport guns, ganja and gay marriage." However, a lot of the time I pretend to be a member of whatever party the people around me are a part of just to avoid conflict.

Maybe this is just my experience, but I find it interesting how the left and right treat you differently if they find out that you believe something different than them. The people on the far right that I've met don't really go out of their way to try to "convert" people, but if you bring it up with them, they'll argue to the ends of the earth in favor of their views. The people on the left seem to me to be far more prone to going out of their way to try to convince people to adopt their views, but unlike the republicans who will at least exchange ideas with you if you say you disagree with them, a lot of the democrats just call you ignorant and then shut you out entirely.

I think the average person in any political party is a good human being and wants good for the world, but as a whole I don't trust politicians. The first (and probably last) time I vote wil be in 2020 for Adam Kokesh. His platform? Peacefully dissolving the U.S. federal government.

Maybe we should give each major poliical grouptheir own geographical area to do as they please. If you want to live by mainstream republican values? Go to the republican region. Democrat? Move to the democrat region. Neo-nazi? Well, we should give them their own place just so they don't bother the rest of us. They could come together for the sake of trade or mutual deffense, but would respect their differences. If done well, nobody would have to force anybody in a way they don't want to. There should of course be an "autonomous zone" where nobody has the authority to make or enforce laws. What do you think of that?

I self identify as a small 'l' libertarian for brevity, but I differ from what most people think the term means in several important ways.

I'm an Objectivist, so I generally agree with libertarians on many issues but disagree on others.

I believe government should be exactly as large and powerful as it needs to be in order to defend individual rights against domestic criminals and foreign aggressors. But no larger or more powerful.

I'm a competionist, influenced by trade liberalism. I also don't buy into a lot of the rhetoric surrounding migration.

Simply requiring government to be small isn't a solution, the solution is in debating the role of government.

I wouldn't call myself libertarian simply because competitionism is a different focus. The sort of policy that I would like

1. Patent reform, strip it down, rationalize and limit it. Evergreening, trolling, burying, transferring, non-innovator registered, theoretical, vague context related patent activity would all be eliminated. I would support a time limited, one time only patent system, with a "use or loose" approach.
2. Company law reform, remove a lot of the liability protection.
3. Make collusion less attractive, by requiring more transparency, and making all political donations to be from citizens and declared.
4. Allow and encourage differentiation and branding, but get rid of "future proofed" general trademark e.g. "iProduct" ("i"-prefix) as opposed to "iPhone"
5. Discourage "board room in court room", by reducing frivolous actions
6. Universal policies rather than flawed anti-trust actions

I'm a libertarian socialist.

It is all to do with how parties are funded, and also the culture of lobbying, where transparency requirements can be got round. If there is going to be regulation at all it should concern electoral and party reform.

I looked up this Libertarian party a while ago out of curiosity, even though I'm not a US citizen. I think they are kind of hypocritical based on their manifesto, and nothing earth-shattering. Kind of like how I feel about a lot of people (not all) who call themselves "Libertarian", they are against restrictions and protectionism...except when it suits them, and against those they don't like.



This is a little bit of a bandwagon I think. yes there are those academics that were always interested it, but I think it is considered cool to aligned with Rand, but why anyone would want align to her is beyond me.

I don't discredit the idea "self interest" for instance a relationship is mutual self interest arguably. I think people wrongly think self interest always means selfish behaviour. It just that concept isn't alone an economic model. It also not a very sound basis to form a political party, becuase there is not reason to trust that the candidates would work for you. Self interest is inherent in any choice political or not, but people that 'do good', can be stimulated in doing so even if others aren't, so that is self interest. There isn't a self interest party, all of them are to somebody.

There many types of Libertarians, but there are two economic camps. Those that believe in "self-righting" economics and by following an ideal it will work near perfectly, and those like me that believe that economics always has instability, but collusion and protectionism (much of many self professed Libertarians support), means the the fallout from economic collapse is unnecessarily bad. The former are the sort of "Gaia Earth" equivalents of Libertarianism.

One of the biggest challenges is with a lot of protectionism, people don't like to consider it so. People wrongly associate it with property rights for example. The reality is it protectionism a nothing to do with property.

The are ever more vague ideas of property rights, beyond the tangible. I think this runs counter to the original idea of capital, and doesn't build stable economies. It allows otherwise inefficient companies to flourish artificially through a short-termist government revenue scheme, and goes hand in hand with corruption and collusion.

The important thing is capitalism and competition are not the same. Capitalism is necessary, but it doesn't on it own lead to competition. Each sector and is different an some just lend themselves competition more due to the conditions of the market. As property right require legislation, it is very easy to slip in legislation that is actually protectionism billed as rights, and this runs counter to competition.

Beyond economic ideas, there are lot of people arguing for "fundamental human rights" which are not really fundamental. They want a privilege when you are already adequately covered by their basic rights like freedom of expression. The basic idea of fundamental right is one's rights cannot supersede another's.

Do you find insults to be an effective tool of discussion? For my part, I found Objectivism compelling when I first encountered it as a young man. Thirty years of life experience, reading, college etc. has tended to confirm my conviction that it is valid and right in all essentials.

Anybody who adopts a philosophy of reason and individualism because it's a "bandwagon" or "cool" or he wants to "align" himself with somebody is completely missing the point.