Think you are a Libertarian?

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
You appear to be unable to discern the difference between Libertarian and libertarian. Is this out of ignorance or intentional deception?

A Libetarian ran the Fed from 1987 to 2006 I bring this up because a lot of "Libertarians," particularly Paulites and Ron Paul himself, rant on and on about the Fed. I actually agree but what I'd like to point out is that Alan Greenspan has always described himself as a lifelong Libertarian

Greenspan has never referred to himself as a lifelong Libertarian, however he has referred to himself a "lifelong libertarian Republican." Huge difference.

lib·er·tar·i·an noun ˌli-bər-ˈter-ē-ən, -ˈte-rē-
: a person who believes that people should be allowed to do and say what they want without any interference from the government


Full Definition of LIBERTARIAN

1
: an advocate of the doctrine of free will
2
a : a person who upholds the principles of individual liberty especially of thought and action
b capitalized : a member of a political party advocating libertarian principles
— libertarian adjective
— lib·er·tar·i·an·ism noun

If you asked most people if they advocate the doctrine of free will or if they upheld the principles of individual liberty especially of thought and action, I am sure they would agree. That would make most people libertarians but not necessarily Libertarians.

No.

I’m not advocating everyone go out and run around with no clothes on and smoke pot,” the Washington Post quoted Paul as saying. “I’m not a libertarian. I’m a libertarian Republican. I’m a constitutional conservative.”

from wikipedia:

libertarian Republican is a politician or Republican party member who has advocated libertarian policies while typically voting for and being involved with the United States Republican Party.

Sometimes the terms Republitarian or liberty Republican are used as well. Libertarian Republicans' views are similar to Libertarian Party members, but differ in regard to the strategy used to implement libertarian policies.

What's a Libertarian Republican?

Libertarian Republicans are libertarians who believe in working within the Republican Party to advance the agenda of liberty. Many libertarian Republicans are former member of the Libertarian Party who have left to join the GOP. Others keep their current affiliation with the Libertarian Party while still participating in Republican politics, as well. Still others are lifelong Republicans who have always felt a kinship to the libertarian movement, and libertarian beliefs. Most libertarian Republicans are active to some degree with the Republican Liberty Caucus, which represents the libertarian wing of the GOP.

source - libertarianrepublican.net

Rand Paul and the rise of the libertarian Republican

Washington Post

EDIT:

So I pose the same question to you?

Is this out of ignorance or intentional deception?

(or maybe self-delusion?)

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
The problem I see with this current American form of libertarianism, is that it concentrates on the state as the sole source intruding on ones freedoms. Ignoring the role of banks, corporations and the rich. In fact it gives these latter groups more freedoms to exploit the poor and vulnerable.

Exactly some mega corps already have the resources of small nations.

Whats the diffrence with replaces political goverment with them?

You replaceing a dog turd with cat crap

a reply to: crazyewok

Libertarians are anti corporation and under most if not all forms of libertarianism they wouldn't be able to exist like they do today. Instead even the largest companies would be set up more like sole traders at least from a legal standpoint.

Our current system has allowed megacorps to effectively take charge of the governments around the world, there was a study recently that even showed that the us was an oligarchy.

We are heading toward every industry being run by a complete monopoly and the only way to stop that is through free trade. The government can't create effective competitors to existing monopolies and big businesses, they can only regulate or privatize both of which make it harder for new competition to arise.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Libertarianism fits well with the corporate oligarchy. Rational selfishness is deep in corporate DNA , and it is the cornerstone of Libertarianism. No wonder the Kochs love it.

What if all your leaders, and everyone for that matter, had a stated goal of being selfish? That makes everyone either predator or prey. Is that really the society you want? IMO, it sounds like animals, not people.

originally posted by: theantediluvian

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
You appear to be unable to discern the difference between Libertarian and libertarian. Is this out of ignorance or intentional deception?

A Libetarian ran the Fed from 1987 to 2006 I bring this up because a lot of "Libertarians," particularly Paulites and Ron Paul himself, rant on and on about the Fed. I actually agree but what I'd like to point out is that Alan Greenspan has always described himself as a lifelong Libertarian

Greenspan has never referred to himself as a lifelong Libertarian, however he has referred to himself a "lifelong libertarian Republican." Huge difference.

lib·er·tar·i·an noun ˌli-bər-ˈter-ē-ən, -ˈte-rē-
: a person who believes that people should be allowed to do and say what they want without any interference from the government


Full Definition of LIBERTARIAN

1
: an advocate of the doctrine of free will
2
a : a person who upholds the principles of individual liberty especially of thought and action
b capitalized : a member of a political party advocating libertarian principles
— libertarian adjective
— lib·er·tar·i·an·ism noun

If you asked most people if they advocate the doctrine of free will or if they upheld the principles of individual liberty especially of thought and action, I am sure they would agree. That would make most people libertarians but not necessarily Libertarians.

No.

I’m not advocating everyone go out and run around with no clothes on and smoke pot,” the Washington Post quoted Paul as saying. “I’m not a libertarian. I’m a libertarian Republican. I’m a constitutional conservative.”

from wikipedia:

libertarian Republican is a politician or Republican party member who has advocated libertarian policies while typically voting for and being involved with the United States Republican Party.

Sometimes the terms Republitarian or liberty Republican are used as well. Libertarian Republicans' views are similar to Libertarian Party members, but differ in regard to the strategy used to implement libertarian policies.

What's a Libertarian Republican?

Libertarian Republicans are libertarians who believe in working within the Republican Party to advance the agenda of liberty. Many libertarian Republicans are former member of the Libertarian Party who have left to join the GOP. Others keep their current affiliation with the Libertarian Party while still participating in Republican politics, as well. Still others are lifelong Republicans who have always felt a kinship to the libertarian movement, and libertarian beliefs. Most libertarian Republicans are active to some degree with the Republican Liberty Caucus, which represents the libertarian wing of the GOP.

source - libertarianrepublican.net

Rand Paul and the rise of the libertarian Republican

Washington Post

EDIT:

So I pose the same question to you?

Is this out of ignorance or intentional deception?

(or maybe self-delusion?)

Look at all the examples you posted. They all use libertarian with a lower case L as an adjective. You repeatedly used Liberterian with a capital L to falsely claim Greenspan is a member of the Liberterian party.

I did not think I had to spell it out for but obviously you truly are ignorant and delusional.

This is why the local guys would beat the big corps in a truly free market society -

There is a local grocery chain that sells milk from a local, hormone-free dairy. The milk comes in heavy glass bottles and is technically more expensive, but the local grocery has been able to work a deal with the dairy. The grocery offers a deposit on the bottles that the dairy are only too happy to have back (the only place they can get them is in Canada see). The other local grocery chain is much larger, and although it offers the same milk from the same dairy, it does not offer the deposit return.

The end result for me is that I can buy my milk, and even though it's more expensive that big corporate farm milk, I can turn in the bottles for the deposit which make it cheaper in the end. The local grocery loses on the deal, but they gain in that they get me in their store for other business, and the dairy not only gets me buying their milk ( and other products - they make awesome garlic butter) but they don't have to buy as many of their bottles from Canada.

All three of us win in various ways, and the big guys lose out.

That is how the free markets bring down the big corps, but the big corps are steadily working with government regulation and tax law to make it harder and harder for the little guys to work those kinds of deals among themselves.

Another example of this would be the Lyft ride app which absolutely infuriates cab companies by offering a cheaper alternative to transportation.

originally posted by: InverseLookingGlass
a reply to: theantediluvian

Libertarianism fits well with the corporate oligarchy.

If that was really the case then why are with the limited exception of the Koch brothers are all the big business so keen to fund the obamas and bushs of this world.

Libertarianism to its very core is both anti corporate and anti ogliarchy, this is like complaining about communists because the love capitalism.

Arbitarily lumping two diffent ideologies together does not make a cohesive argument.

originally posted by: InverseLookingGlass
a reply to: theantediluvian

What if all your leaders, and everyone for that matter, had a stated goal of being selfish? That makes everyone either predator or prey. Is that really the society you want? IMO, it sounds like animals, not people.

That is a total misrepresentation of libertarianism. Libertarianism is based on the realization that if you freely trade something with another person, that both people wanted what the other one had more otherwise no trade would have taken place. This is both a more moral system and a more sensible system than the utopian idea, that if you give a bunch of thugs in suits, guns and the right to rule over us nothing bad will happen.

if you actually want to understand what libertarianism is before you start arbiterily comparing to other ideologies at random I suggest you check out ColCurious's post on the previous page as that explains a few very basic things

a reply to: Deny Arrogance

Your argument is that I misrepresented Alan Greenspan as a registered member of Libertarian Party? That was not my intention and I should have paid stricter attention to my capitalization.

Alan Greenspan is not a member of the Libertarian Party — he is however a libertarian.

You are being entirely disingenuous by inferring that Alan Greenspan was not identifying himself as a lifelong adherent of modern American libertarian ideology — the same ideology promoted by the Libertarian Party.

a reply to: ketsuko

There is a local grocery chain that sells milk from a local, hormone-free dairy. The milk comes in heavy glass bottles and is technically more expensive, but the local grocery has been able to work a deal with the dairy. The grocery offers a deposit on the bottles that the dairy are only too happy to have back (the only place they can get them is in Canada see). The other local grocery chain is much larger, and although it offers the same milk from the same dairy, it does not offer the deposit return.

The end result for me is that I can buy my milk, and even though it's more expensive that big corporate farm milk, I can turn in the bottles for the deposit which make it cheaper in the end. The local grocery loses on the deal, but they gain in that they get me in their store for other business, and the dairy not only gets me buying their milk ( and other products - they make awesome garlic butter) but they don't have to buy as many of their bottles from Ca

Assuming that you didn't choose the milk industry at random, I appreciate the position that dairy subsidization has stifled local competition. I do however think your hypothetical scenario is flawed. If I'm not mistaken, what you're trying to accomplish with this scenario is to actually explain the evolution of the milk producing industry purely in terms of government regulation and subsidization.

How about this scenario:

Let's first suppose that the USDA does not exist, there is no regulation and no subsidization. A local dairy, DairyCo, that uses hormones and plastic bottles produces milk at less a gallon than competitors who do not. DairyCo's milk is so much less expensive for consumers that nobody buys from the other local dairies. The innovation of DairyCo allows it to quickly out compete the other local dairies and drive them out of business. DairyCo expands into nearby markets, it's got the empire building process figured out and it's not the only dairy to have done so. Consolidation of the dairy industry follows even without the existence of the USDA.

I don't know anyone personally who would argue for an unfair advantage in the way of subsidization and regulation but to pretend that in the absence of these factors, there wouldn't be similar consolidation into oligopolies seems to ignore reality.

a reply to: Deny Arrogance

Thank you.

Also, lets not forget too, that most political labels very rarely have someone labeled as a centrist in their belief. Just as with any ideaology, you can have left-leaning Libertarians, and right-leaning Libertarians. Very few are centrists in that label.

originally posted by: theantediluvian


How about this scenario:

Let's first suppose that the USDA does not exist, there is no regulation and no subsidization. A local dairy, DairyCo, that uses hormones and plastic bottles produces milk at less a gallon than competitors who do not. DairyCo's milk is so much less expensive for consumers that nobody buys from the other local dairies. The innovation of DairyCo allows it to quickly out compete the other local dairies and drive them out of business. DairyCo expands into nearby markets, it's got the empire building process figured out and it's not the only dairy to have done so. Consolidation of the dairy industry follows even without the existence of the USDA.

I don't know anyone personally who would argue for an unfair advantage in the way of subsidization and regulation but to pretend that in the absence of these factors, there wouldn't be similar consolidation into oligopolies seems to ignore reality.

I can see several flaws in your argument if I may.

Lets say DairyCo creates such a product.
firstly hormones and plastic bottles are less prefrable to some people so even if some of the other dairys close down there would be enough people willing to by the old fashion style of milk that some if not most of the other dairys will remain in business.
Secondly the other dairys can change their production methods by investing in whatever new equipment they need and also drop their prices as low as DairyCo or if they invest in even more efficient production methods they can undercut DairyCo and overtime this constant lowering of production costs because of improved manifacturing techniques combined with the competitive nature of the market will make goods ever cheaper for the consumer and raise the standard of living for everyone.

Now I'm not saying monopolies wound never happen in a free market but they would be very rare compared to our current system and when they did arise they would exist for much shorter times.

Imagine DairyCo already has a monopoly everyone in the country only buys DairyCo and they've out competed every other Dairy in the country.
Firstly the only way they could have achieved this (in a free market) is to provide a product that is so vastly superior to their competition that virtually no-one in the country will by their competitors milk.
Secondly if DairCo begin overcharging, stoped improving their product as new technologies are developed or intentionally reduce the quality of their goods, there is nothing to stop other businessmen founding new rival dairys, which will either force DairyCo to invest in expensive technologies to keep ahead of the competition and force them to provide a better product there for improving the standard of living or they will lose their monopoly status.

I think you underestime the damage that subsidies and regulation do both through the wasting of taxes and through the way that they stagnate or often even reduce the standard of living for the poor. The widespread support of such policies are amongst the largest factors in keeping the poor poor in our society today.

a reply to: theantediluvian

You are aware that there is a government enforced price floor on milk, right? Has been since the '30s because the government deemed it helpful to farmers to artificially keep the prices of milk from falling too low.

Then, there are regulations that make it criminal for anyone to milk and sell raw milk to just anyone else who happens to agree to buy it. It's for their own good see, because that raw milk might make them sick. That's the excuse, but what if all parties are aware of that and still agree to the deal? Too bad, the USDA can show up and treat you like the BLM treated Cliven Bundy. I'm not joking. I guess everyone who owns their own milk cow and sells the milk is racist or something.

You can come up with all sorts of reasons why these things exist, but basically what they do when taken together is distort the market and make it costly for people to operate on the small scale. The only ones who survive are the very large ones. It isn't long before they figure that out and start working the game for themselves to keep the very small from being able to threaten them.

If there wasn't a government able to rig the game on behalf of business ... these distortions wouldn't be so disruptive or pervasive and we wouldn't have so many very large corporations.

And, if there were a corporation that really could build a big business legitimately off the good will of the market alone, wouldn't it deserve to have that much market share?

a reply to: monkofmimir

firstly hormones and plastic bottles are less prefrable to some people so even if some of the other dairys close down there would be enough people willing to by the old fashion style of milk that some if not most of the other dairys will remain in business.

Assuming that there isn't a pronounced difference in the product and excepting things like brand recognition and packaging, I think you'd agree that price is the primary factor in the consumer's choice of which producer's milk to purchase? I'd like to think in terms of informed consumers capable of discerning the better product and willing to pay a marginal premium for it but this hasn't been my experience with people. We're also disregarding factors of the relationship between the producer and retail outlets (maybe Wal-mart comes to town, contracts DairyCo exclusively and then drives other retailers out of business), marketing strategies ("organic" milk costs twice as much even if only costs 20% more to produce), etc. Maybe a milk producing cartel pops up and successfully fixes the prices?

Secondly the other dairys can change their production methods by investing in whatever new equipment they need and also drop their prices as low as DairyCo or if they invest in even more efficient production methods they can undercut DairyCo and overtime this constant lowering of production costs because of improved manifacturing techniques combined with the competitive nature of the market will make goods ever cheaper for the consumer and raise the standard of living for everyone.

If intellectual property rights don't enter into the equation or the cost savings isn't derived from a closely held trade secret, undiscovered by the competition or there isn't some sort of limited resource that results in a natural monopoly.

I think you underestime the damage that subsidies and regulation do both through the wasting of taxes and through the way that they stagnate or often even reduce the standard of living for the poor. The widespread support of such policies are amongst the largest factors in keeping the poor poor in our society today.

Could be. I don't disagree that subsidization and regulation are often damaging. Corporate welfare costs tax payers something like $100 billion a year currently by many estimates.

I think the turn this thread has taken typifies what I see as the major shortcoming of modern American libertarian ideology in a broad sense — it's dogmatically entrenched in the Austrian school which despite having a few very vocal proponents at GMU, NYU, Cato and the Ludwig Von Mises Institute, is viewed as heavily flawed by a vastly larger number of prominent economists.

I'm simply a curious autodidact and by no means an economist. It could be that there is a coordinated effort by mainstream "statist" economists to discredit the Austrian school but their criticisms often seem valid to me and I try to draw on a large sample of opinions: It's untested, lacks historical basis, has serious issues of methodology, ignores macroeconomic propositions which can't be reduced to microeconomic ones, that Austrian economists have made a number of predictions that were way off the the mark and it has generally been found to be inconsistent with empirical data.

So much else about modern libertarianism is dependent on the economic theory that if it's wrong, everything else falls apart.

a reply to: ketsuko

I appreciate your position and if adults want to swill unpasteurized milk, I have no problem with that. What consenting adults do in the privacy of their refrigerators is their own business. Striking a balance between parental rights and the majority of society's desire to protect children from the bad decisions of their parents is another, much stickier subject.

You can come up with all sorts of reasons why these things exist, but basically what they do when taken together is distort the market and make it costly for people to operate on the small scale. The only ones who survive are the very large ones. It isn't long before they figure that out and start working the game for themselves to keep the very small from being able to threaten them.

If there wasn't a government able to rig the game on behalf of business ... these distortions wouldn't be so disruptive or pervasive and we wouldn't have so many very large corporations.

And, if there were a corporation that really could build a big business legitimately off the good will of the market alone, wouldn't it deserve to have that much market share?

It seems to me that your foregone conclusions are based on a presumption that the government is behind most if not all of society's problems, substantiated by the dictates of an economic theory that has a greater likelihood of being invalid than not. Essentially, if government isn't the root of all economic evil then it falls completely on it's face.

To me there is an easy parallel to be drawn with how every GOP position is similarly derived from their pet economic school, supply-side economics. The exception being that it's an absolute certainty that supply-side economics promotes wholesale subsidization.

Unfortunately, the professedly "progressive" Democrats lack anything approaching their own economic platform and with the exception of the occasional legislative attempts at reform which typically fail to garner sufficient support for passage among the allegedly liberal party, they mostly just follow whatever the Republicans do.

a reply to: theantediluvian

I think you'd be hard pressed to find people who would say they are in favor of having less liberty or a larger government.

No doubt that is the case in America, but it certainly isn't universal.

Many of us live in countries where the weakness of government is a far greater problem than its potential oppressiveness. Strangely enough, it is quite possible for a government to be weak (at delivering security and essential services to citizens, that is, at the job of governing) while at the same time being frighteningly oppressive. In fact, I should say that the foregoing describes most governments in the developing world.

Many of us also live in countries where the failures of government — see above — have been rectified through social democracy. Very few citizens of these countries regard government as an unreconstructed enemy, or wish it to disappear. They may not like, may oppose or protest against this or that action of government, but they see no need, as Americans do, to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

America is a very special case, you know. Americans are cultural and political outliers. You can't take them as examples of how 'most people' think.

originally posted by: theantediluvian

Assuming that there isn't a pronounced difference in the product and excepting things like brand recognition and packaging, I think you'd agree that price is the primary factor in the consumer's choice of which producer's milk to purchase? I'd like to think in terms of informed consumers capable of discerning the better product and willing to pay a marginal premium for it but this hasn't been my experience with people.

Yes price is often a important consideration but people often will be willing to spend noticibly more to buy their most cherished brands or their favorite products. Supermarkets carry a plurality of diffrent products of the each one with a diffrent feature or quirk only one can be the cheapest but yet there are usualy at least 1-2 products of that type that arn't which shows that there are man other factors that influence peoples choices.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
We're also disregarding factors of the relationship between the producer and retail outlets (maybe Wal-mart comes to town, contracts DairyCo exclusively and then drives other retailers out of business), marketing strategies ("organic" milk costs twice as much even if only costs 20% more to produce), etc. Maybe a milk producing cartel pops up and successfully fixes the prices?

Again there are a few things I'd like to point out, first you are completely correct Wal-mart could refuse to serve any other milk and if the hold a monopoly in the area it could put the other dairys out of business however if Wal-mart is limiting peoples choices in food then they are no longer providing a good service and there is no reason that the other dairy companies can't get together and fund the building of a rival supermarket. As for cartels yes all the dairys in the country can get together and raise prices by as muh as they want but when someone comes along and starts a new dairy that promises twice the milk for half the price (which will happen as soon as some bright spark realizes whats happening) the cartel is effectivly busted.

Secondly the other dairys can change their production methods by investing in whatever new equipment they need and also drop their prices as low as DairyCo or if they invest in even more efficient production methods they can undercut DairyCo and overtime this constant lowering of production costs because of improved manifacturing techniques combined with the competitive nature of the market will make goods ever cheaper for the consumer and raise the standard of living for everyone.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
If intellectual property rights don't enter into the equation or the cost savings isn't derived from a closely held trade secret, undiscovered by the competition or there isn't some sort of limited resource that results in a natural monopoly.

Yes granted it could be that for a limited time a company maintains a trade secret that gives them a competitive edge however under the patent system which we currently have large corperations patent every concievable invention they can even if the have no desire to use it because that help stop new competitors from using anything to similar. Also even if DairyCo do posess better technology they still have to carry on providing a better cheaper product than their competitors which still raises the standard of living.
As for monopolies of natural resources, while in theory they are possible they are highly, highly improbable without government assistance as even rare resouces are usually scattered all around the country if not the world and without governments forcing people to sell their land the companys will always struggle to create a situation where they own all of said resource.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
I think the turn this thread has taken typifies what I see as the major shortcoming of modern American libertarian ideology in a broad sense — it's dogmatically entrenched in the Austrian school which despite having a few very vocal proponents at GMU, NYU, Cato and the Ludwig Von Mises Institute, is viewed as heavily flawed by a vastly larger number of prominent economists.

I'm simply a curious autodidact and by no means an economist. It could be that there is a coordinated effort by mainstream "statist" economists to discredit the Austrian school but their criticisms often seem valid to me and I try to draw on a large sample of opinions: It's untested, lacks historical basis, has serious issues of methodology, ignores macroeconomic propositions which can't be reduced to microeconomic ones, that Austrian economists have made a number of predictions that were way off the the mark and it has generally been found to be inconsistent with empirical data.

So much else about modern libertarianism is dependent on the economic theory that if it's wrong, everything else falls apart.

While virtual every element of austrian economics has been tested at one point of another (usually with goood results) you are right as a whole it hasn't been tried however the last hundred years have been a test of kensian economics and that has been a horrific car crash of a disaster and dispite that most economists still swear by it. Something else needs to be tried and whatever its flaws Austrian economics is the most credible alternative to the current system that we currently have. To carry on supporting the Kensyian model would be to believe that everything that is happening because of it (inflation, unemployment, rises in poverty, mega corporations) is the best possible available outcome, something I strongly refute.

Anyone who claims to be fully Democrat, Republican, or Libertarian is a fool or a liar, IMO. I am mostly Libertarian, but I believe in some (very few) liberal and conservative ideals as well.

Given the choice, I'll risk too little government over too much any day of the week.

originally posted by: AntiNWO
Anyone who claims to be fully Democrat, Republican, or Libertarian is a fool or a liar, IMO.

I don't understand what you mean, do you mean that you don't believe that people can ever fully agree with an ideology (not that republicans or democrat really have a unifying ideology per say).

What about Karl Marx, Ayn Rand and Plato to name just a few people who literaly wrote the book on their specific flavour of politics.

a reply to: Astyanax

America is a very special case, you know. Americans are cultural and political outliers. You can't take them as examples of how 'most people' think.

This is very true. Most of our ancestors left other countries because we wanted government to leave us alone to live our own lives, not live them for us. If people in other countries are happy with what we call nanny states, then we're fine with that, but we resent it when someone tells us we must become more European with a more European style of government.

I spent 18 years growing up so I could move out of my parents' house and become my own person, but now people are busy trying to move the government in as my new daddy.

originally posted by: DietJoke
a reply to: theantediluvian

S&F!

It sounds to me that they are more about being Capitalists than being true Libertarians as those who would be self sufficient are in no need of business, trade, families etc.

Anarcho-Capitalism relies on exploiting the herd!

It is just as disgusting as communism!

Anarcho-capitalists rely on exploiting the herd? Hahaha wtf? Since when?

They are for free trade, freedom... How is that exploiting anyone?

Will there be bad people in a free market? Sure, there is no free market now but bad people remain, what happens to them? They get a fine lol... In a free market I believe it would work a little different.

Right now it is the government that say corporations are people, under anarcho-capitalism there would be no government, so corps would not be protected in the same way.