Can someone succinctly explain to me Libertarianism?

pessimist

Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2014
Messages
1,669
I find some of the rhetoric appealing; individual liberty, freedom, yada yada. However, I've never really had it explained to me in plain English on what it actually is? "Just read the Constitution" is kind of lame to me. I mean, why should I care what a bunch of slave-owning misogynists with powder wigs had to say in an era that was radically different from the one we live in today? Isn't the Constitution interpreted in different ways and manipulated by cunning lawyers in business suits on a daily basis? Why the obsession with the Constitution? Is it even being followed anymore?

Anyway, I get the impression some of you folks want to take us back into the hunter-gatherer days. I'm not really into the whole 'tribal' thing, so that isn't cool to me. I'm a futurist who loves technology. I believe in safety nets, I'm not a fan of war, and I find the masses to be incompetent. I have a little bit of the 'nanny' state in me.

However, I am open-minded and I'm willing to listen. Anyone up to educating me on the philosophy of the movement? Is it simply "mind your own business" or does it go a bit deeper?

Please don't tell me to read the Constitution :)
 
harry+browne+libertarianism.jpg


libertarianism_bumper_sticker-p128298788887250963en8ys_400.jpg


libertarianism.jpg


Hayek.jpg

libertarianism_bumper_sticker-r5640cd47d13e48568fc6c73b862a813f_v9wht_8byvr_512.jpg


libertarian-definition.jpg


libertarian-conspiracy.jpg


644435_544960048867864_1114220956_n.jpg


statism-awesome.jpg
 
Last edited:
I'm sure you'll get plenty of thoughtful answers from the more generous around here, but as far as I'm concerned, your comments in the OP make me feel as though you're either not serious, or just an idiot.

I don't waste my time with smart aleck, pseudo intellectual punks.


Here's one quick tip that'll get you going:

Your first lesson in libertarianism is to go read and learn for yourself rather than count on someone else to do it for you. There you go...nice and succinct.
 
However, I've never really had it explained to me in plain English on what it actually is? " Why the obsession with the Constitution? Is it even being followed anymore?

are you serious? pretty frickin simple dude.
in a Republic, you have the "rule of law" the rule of law can be based on anything and applied to anyone.
ours is focused on the federal gov't. it does not apply to you or me.

it is YOUR duty to find out what it is and what it means.
 
Libertarian Litmus Test

Rothbard famously asked “Do you hate the state?” when attempting to come up with a standard which might be used to determine whether or not one has the proper philosophical starting point in approaching the state. If one’s “libertarianism” is about making states more efficient, or “better” (if by “better” one means something other than “smaller” or “weaker”) then one is likely not a libertarian. At least philosophically.

So now let’s come up with a practical policy-based standard for determining if one is or is not a libertarian. I would submit that anyone who is in favor of raising taxes or increasing government revenue in any way is not a libertarian. Justin Amash’s recent comment that raising taxes or increasing government revenues is all something he could be convinced to support, is absolutely un-libertarian. Raising taxes is not “Fabianism in reverse” or libertarian incrementalism at all. It is, purely and simply, making the government larger and stronger. Giving more resources to the government, even without actually raising tax rates themselves, is making government bigger. This is not a complicated argument.

“Starve the Beast” used to a position of mainline conservatives who didn’t even pretend to be libertarian. Justin Amash can’t even live up the professed standards of 1980s Republicans. I’m not sure if Amash has ever actually claimed to be a libertarian, but he’s not even a “conservative” by the standards of that movement as used in the 1960s and 1970s.

Nevertheless, many insist on calling Amash a libertarian, and now, for this “libertarian,” tax increases are “on the table.” This is “Fabianism in reverse” in reverse.
 
I still like Amash. I have to agree that he's not a libertarian though. He's just an actual conservative, similar to Rand Paul (though somewhat better on actual policy). I'd love to live in a world where Rand and Amash would look like fascists with their current positions, but right now they are some of the most freedom-supporting guys in the congress which, sad as that may be, makes me have to support them.

As for libertarianism, its been explained above.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJB
A fairly succinct definition is that libertarianism is the belief that people should have the right to do whatever they want as long as doing so doesn't infringe on someone elses right to do the same. The role of government should be limited to protecting this right and the government should be as local and small as possible.

In reality there are a million corner cases that aren't all that clear under this definition and volumes of philosophy have been written trying to hash it all out. For example nearly everything in some way is taking away someone elses right. Someone may want the right not to hear music at night, but you may want the right to play music at night. Whose right is more important?

FWIW I do agree with you that trying to cite the constitution or 300 year old men to justify your philosophy is a cop out and logical fallacy.
 
Last edited:
A fairly succinct definition is that libertarianism is the belief that people should have the right to do whatever they want as long as doing so doesn't infringe on someone elses right to do the same. The role of government should be limited to protecting this right and the government should be as local and small as possible.

In reality there are a million corner cases that aren't all that clear under this definition and volumes of philosophy have been written trying to hash it all out. For example nearly everything in some way is taking away someone elses right. Someone may want the right not to hear music at night, but you may want the right to play music at night. Whose right is more important?

FWIW I do agree with you that trying to cite the constitution or 300 year old men to justify your philosophy is a cop out and logical fallacy.


Thanks for the reply.

Re what is in bold: See this is what I have trouble understanding. If we were to theoretically break up into 'nation states' what would prevent the wealthier, hi-tech, better armed states from conquering their neighbors?
 
Back
Top