Politics on GFY

[Brujah]

Which major U.S. political party do you currently identify with?

[u-Bob]

As a libertarian I do not identify with any political party.

[Brujah]

Originally Posted by u-Bob

As a libertarian I do not identify with any political party.

interesting! Which of the Libertarian party philosophies do you disagree with?

[$5 submissions]

Libertarian FTW

The philosophy not the party

[2012]

ants don't have politics. i am an ant.

[Brujah]

Originally Posted by $5 submissions

Libertarian FTW

The philosophy not the party

I'm confused. What is the philosophy without the party? Isn't it the party that defined it? Have they changed or you disagree with the Libertarian Party on a view or views?

[$5 submissions]

Originally Posted by Brujah

I'm confused. What is the philosophy without the party? Isn't it the party that defined it? Have they changed or you disagree with the Libertarian Party on a view or views?

For me, libertarianism is a philosophy based on the fact that there are always tradeoffs. There are no "fixed" answers or rigid one size fits all solutions. Only a trade off between alternatives and costs and benefits. I tend to agree about a constrained vision of human nature.

[brassmonkey]

the black bird pie masons

[Tom_PM]

Independant so.. Other.

[DaddyHalbucks]

Libertarian. Thank you for including that option.

[alan-l]

shocked by the results so far. In a good way

[jimmycooper]

Aranxtasanchez-Vicarian

[astronaut x]

It seems the "eh hem" conservatives are either jerking off to gay porn or on top of their girlfriends in the missionary position and too busy to have voted.

[SomeCreep]

Social liberal, fiscal republican.

[oppoten]

Outside the US, but think libertarianism would be a good thing for the US.

[porno jew]

CPUSA here.

[$5 submissions]

Originally Posted by oppoten

Outside the US, but think libertarianism would be a good thing for the US.

[brentbacardi]

Originally Posted by SomeCreep

Social liberal, fiscal republican.

Maybe many years ago but I think the democrats and republicans want to spend around the same amount now... just saying...

[u-Bob]

Originally Posted by Brujah

I'm confused. What is the philosophy without the party? Isn't it the party that defined it? Have they changed or you disagree with the Libertarian Party on a view or views?

The philosophy is a lot older than the party. It's also important to note that not all libertarians agree on everything. A popular joke among libertarians used to be that their favorite past time was "arguing amongst themselves about who was right".

The word libertarian implies that the focus is on liberty, freedom,... On what grounds different types of libertarians build their philosophy differs a lot.

Some use a utilitarian approach. They try to figure out what the most efficient way is to 'organize' a society and reach the conclusion that one with no government intervention in people's lives is the most efficient. Examples would be Ludwig von Mises and David Friedman. Mises used praxeology to show that a free market was the most efficient way to organize an economy and he accepted the existence of a 'government' as a necessary evil to protect private property rights. So Mises was a minarchist. Friedman is an anarchist. Friedman argues that even services like protection of private property (police, law,... the services Mises put the government in charge of) can be provided by the free market at a price that is lower than that of the government and at level of efficiency that is higher than that of the government.

Others use a deontological approach. They argue that every human being has certain inalienable rights and that violating those rights is always immoral and unethical. Once again, different groups of libertarians base their argument for these rights on different grounds:
- Natural Rights. People like Murray Rothbard and Lysander Spooner fit in this category.
- God given Rights. Think the Declaration Of Independence: ("We hold these truths to be self evident... that all men... are bestowed upon by their creator with certain inalienable rights...")
- Rational rights. The Argumentation Ethics used by Hans Hermann Hoppe or the Estoppel theory (estoppel = a legal doctrine that stops you from doing things or basing your evidence on things that contradict what you have already said or done.) used by Stephan Kinsella are good examples of this.
Interestingly, no matter if they use a natural rights, god given rights or rational rights approach, these deontological libertarians all arrive at the same point: selfownership.
According to them every human being owns his own body. They then all have different ways to justify people's right to acquire private property. One example of this would be John Locke's Theory Of Acquisition. Once they've established the right to selfownership and the right to acquire property, they logically arrive at what libertarians call the Non-Aggression Principle (Sometimes called the Non-Aggression Axiom by the ones using a rational rights or more consequentialist approach).

Non-Aggression Principle: every human being is free to do with his body and property whatever he wants as long as he doesn't cause damage to another human being or his property.

If you do cause damage to another human's property, that's considered an act of aggression and that human being has the right to defend himself and his property.

Literally 1000s of articles, papers and books have been written about how based on this Non-Aggression Principle, problems can be solved, conflicts can be avoided and entire legal systems can be constructed. Examples: Walter Block (on private roads, pollution,...), Hans Hermann Hope (National defense), Daniel D'Amico (punishment and retribution), Wendy Mcelroy (feminism),...

One example before I answer your question:
We all value our right to free speech. But what is that right to free speech? Do you have that right because some government gave it to you? Do you have that right because someone long ago took a piece of paper and wrote "I give you the right to free speech"?

The deontological libertarian answer would be: You have no "separate right to free speech". The right to free speech is nothing more than the right to use your own property. It's the right to use your own tongue and vocal cords to produce the words you want to produce. It's the right to use your own pen, ink and paper to write what you want to write.

Now, why do I as a deontological libertarian not identify with a political party? Because I don't vote. I try to live my life the best way possible. I try not to commit acts of aggression. I don't commit murder, I don't steal, I don't rape.... I make a living by selling goods and services other people value and are willing to give something in exchange for. I do not wish to enforce my will onto others. I do not vote because then I would be giving an organization the ok to force their will onto others in my name.

[sperbonzo]

Outstanding post.

Originally Posted by u-Bob

The philosophy is a lot older than the party. It's also important to note that not all libertarians agree on everything. A popular joke among libertarians used to be that their favorite past time was "arguing amongst themselves about who was right".

The word libertarian implies that the focus is on liberty, freedom,... On what grounds different types of libertarians build their philosophy differs a lot.

Some use a utilitarian approach. They try to figure out what the most efficient way is to 'organize' a society and reach the conclusion that one with no government intervention in people's lives is the most efficient. Examples would be Ludwig von Mises and David Friedman. Mises used praxeology to show that a free market was the most efficient way to organize an economy and he accepted the existence of a 'government' as a necessary evil to protect private property rights. So Mises was a minarchist. Friedman is an anarchist. Friedman argues that even services like protection of private property (police, law,... the services Mises put the government in charge of) can be provided by the free market at a price that is lower than that of the government and at level of efficiency that is higher than that of the government.

Others use a deontological approach. They argue that every human being has certain inalienable rights and that violating those rights is always immoral and unethical. Once again, different groups of libertarians base their argument for these rights on different grounds:
- Natural Rights. People like Murray Rothbard and Lysander Spooner fit in this category.
- God given Rights. Think the Declaration Of Independence: ("We hold these truths to be self evident... that all men... are bestowed upon by their creator with certain inalienable rights...")
- Rational rights. The Argumentation Ethics used by Hans Hermann Hoppe or the Estoppel theory (estoppel = a legal doctrine that stops you from doing things or basing your evidence on things that contradict what you have already said or done.) used by Stephan Kinsella are good examples of this.
Interestingly, no matter if they use a natural rights, god given rights or rational rights approach, these deontological libertarians all arrive at the same point: selfownership.
According to them every human being owns his own body. They then all have different ways to justify people's right to acquire private property. One example of this would be John Locke's Theory Of Acquisition. Once they've established the right to selfownership and the right to acquire property, they logically arrive at what libertarians call the Non-Aggression Principle (Sometimes called the Non-Aggression Axiom by the ones using a rational rights or more consequentialist approach).

Non-Aggression Principle: every human being is free to do with his body and property whatever he wants as long as he doesn't cause damage to another human being or his property.

If you do cause damage to another human's property, that's considered an act of aggression and that human being has the right to defend himself and his property.

Literally 1000s of articles, papers and books have been written about how based on this Non-Aggression Principle, problems can be solved, conflicts can be avoided and entire legal systems can be constructed. Examples: Walter Block (on private roads, pollution,...), Hans Hermann Hope (National defense), Daniel D'Amico (punishment and retribution), Wendy Mcelroy (feminism),...

One example before I answer your question:
We all value our right to free speech. But what is that right to free speech? Do you have that right because some government gave it to you? Do you have that right because someone long ago took a piece of paper and wrote "I give you the right to free speech"?

The deontological libertarian answer would be: You have no "separate right to free speech". The right to free speech is nothing more than the right to use your own property. It's the right to use your own tongue and vocal cords to produce the words you want to produce. It's the right to use your own pen, ink and paper to write what you want to write.

Now, why do I as a deontological libertarian not identify with a political party? Because I don't vote. I try to live my life the best way possible. I try not to commit acts of aggression. I don't commit murder, I don't steal, I don't rape.... I make a living by selling goods and services other people value and are willing to give something in exchange for. I do not wish to enforce my will onto others. I do not vote because then I would be giving an organization the ok to force their will onto others in my name.

[Fletch XXX]

the fact that we must identify is unamerican.

americans should disassociate with parties and think for themselves.

i used to call myself a libertarian but i just think for myself not part of any flock of sheeop, they are ALL THE SAME IDIOTS waving a different flag.

[CaptainHowdy]

Maoist in here ...

[fris]

what does a nazi fall under?

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by $5 submissions

For me, libertarianism is a philosophy based on the fact that there are always tradeoffs. There are no "fixed" answers or rigid one size fits all solutions. Only a trade off between alternatives and costs and benefits. I tend to agree about a constrained vision of human nature.

big sowell fan myself...

[jimmycooper]

Originally Posted by Fletch XXX

the fact that we must identify is unamerican.

americans should disassociate with parties and think for themselves.

i used to call myself a libertarian but i just think for myself not part of any flock of sheeop, they are ALL THE SAME IDIOTS waving a different flag.

You're obviously not familiar with the fundamental concepts of Aranxtasnchez-vicarianism.

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by Brujah

I'm confused. What is the philosophy without the party? Isn't it the party that defined it? Have they changed or you disagree with the Libertarian Party on a view or views?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...googlenews_wsj

[Brujah]

Originally Posted by u-Bob

The philosophy is a lot older than the party. It's also important to note that not all libertarians agree on everything. A popular joke among libertarians used to be that their favorite past time was "arguing amongst themselves about who was right".

Great post, and I was aware but that's where clarification is needed for those choosing the Libertarian poll choice. It is the U.S. political party it references, not The philosophy.

[Shotsie]

Originally Posted by fris

what does a nazi fall under?

National Socialist

[$5 submissions]

Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy

Maoist in here ...

Interesting joke. lol. It works wonders for population control. So many dead 'reactionaries' and 'running dogs of capitalism' that needed trivial stuff like food instead of living off the glorious vision of the Chairman.

[Brujah]

Originally Posted by Fletch XXX

the fact that we must identify is unamerican.

americans should disassociate with parties and think for themselves.

i used to call myself a libertarian but i just think for myself not part of any flock of sheeop, they are ALL THE SAME IDIOTS waving a different flag.

Did you stop voting?

I wonder how many of us don't actually vote for the candidate/party/philosophy we identify closest with, and instead opt to vote against the candidate we want the least.