Your Personal Libertarian Policies?

Since the evolution of my own political thought, I have always been strongly opposed to the notion of libertarianism. Of course, libertarianism is one of the most prominent political ideologies here on Above Top Secret, seeing that this is a conspiracy site with many conspiracies relating to the corruption of governments.

However, to be rather blunt and honest with the ATS community, I'm not well educated on the thought of libertarianism and its policies, so ATS, I ask you this: To you, what does it mean to be a libertarian, what separates it from other political ideologies, and my main question; if you were leader of your countries Libertarian party and got elected as your countries Prime Minister/President, what policies would you use to supposedly make your country reflect your ideas?

I ask this to merely educate myself on the ideas of libertarianism, and see how they contrast with my own personal views. The thought of less government and less civility has always made me shudder, and so I figure this would be the best place to have it explained to me. If I may, would you find it acceptable to challenge your views, and perhaps, open up the door to prove my own thought wrong?

Thanks for your time!


[edit on 023131p://111 by For(Home)Country]

*Bump* I figured that this would be a popular topic here on ATS, probably one of the most libertarian communities on the web, besides Digg of course.

Your thoughts?

I personally don't like the federal government on the left or the religious government on the right. I don't like any form of oppression whatsoever. I hate the abuse of power and the abuse of my taxes. I tend to believe in abortion though I believe it to be murder. I am against the drug war. I have beliefs that are in the middle of both parties. I believe that most Americans fit into this category but instead of voting libertarian they are too afraid that the other party might get elected like it always does and things might change which they never do.

Most libertarians I've met are twitchy overgrown adolescents who are one step up from Trekkers on the appealing personality scale. They are curt, bitchy, brittle and huffy. When you're around a libertarian, it's always Thanksgiving dinner and they're the teenaged cousin with the giant anime collection who's read one book too few and stays coiled in his chair, waiting to blurt out some "shocking" comment he thinks is ahead of its time but is actually two hundred years old, in a boorish, loudmouth Penn Gillette way.

I just don't like them. They bug me.

Just kidding.

Where I find myself in agreement with libertarians is in the attempts by governments to regulate morality through legal means, often by establishing what are victimless crimes.

For example, in the debate on gay marriage in the US one of the main reasons that opponents claim that it should be illegal is that it is against Bible teachings. Unlike crimes like assault or robbery which are designed to protect individuals from harm or loss at the hands of others, a whole class of people want it a crime because it goes against their religious beliefs. My religious beliefs do not consider homosexuality or gay marriage to be wrong, but yet in much of the US, I would be forced, if I were gay, to live under someone else's idea of what right and wrong are.

Even more bizarre are laws governing private and consensual behaviour.

When Arizona decided to repeal some of its archaic sex laws in 2001, one crusading legislator struck back by proposing a law revoking the teaching credentials of any educator found to be a fornicator or to have committed “crimes against nature” like oral sex or anal sex.

. ww.msnbc.com

When government tries to tell me what I can and cannot do, read, say or see in private and when there are no consequence to anyone else, then you know someone is trying to ram their beliefs down my throat. Here I agree with the libertarians -- time to back off.

Libertarianism was a much needed philosophy in the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, especially in North America and Australia, and I suppose in South Africa also. It allowed economic growth and a certain prosperity in frontier areas where government had tenuous or no control. Given the light population densities and resources available, the libertarian outlook was needed. There is always a segment of the population that refuses to move on, however. In densely populated nations where most of the population is urban or suburban, libertarianism is the adult equivalent of playing cowboys and Indians; a governmental philosophy hideously unsuited to 21st century life in the US/Canada

reply to post by For(Home)Country


You think Digg is bastion of libertarians?!

I have been a member there much longer than here and that place is overrun with the NEW liberal ideologues.

Yes there are a few. I have posted this to keep track of thread. I will add a comment in short time. It will be a list of my positions from a thread I created to investigate my own positions.

I use to believe that I was a conservative. Wrong. I am fiscally conservative, social liberal and heavy libertarian. Back shortly.

If you were to sum up my beliefs on libertarianism in one phrase, it would be my signature:
"your body, your property, your choice"


I am vehemently opposed to consensual crime laws and would legalize them all if President and attempt to protect consensual adult activity with a new Constitutional Amendment.


My ideas on property laws probably differ from a lot of libertarians. I do think we can own property (houses, cars, computers, etc) but not the land. I do not think the earth can really belong to any one person. Humankind was born on the earth and its collective natural resources were here long before humankind was. Just because one human got to one place first and found mineral deposits does not mean they should get the profits from mining that material.

I would renegotiate all mining contracts like Chavez did with the oil companies in Venezuela and give the profits back in the form of checks to the people like Alaskans get with the oil that is extracted there.


I would institute laws and policies that have people pay for what they use rather than redistribute wealth through taxation.

I would set up a facebookesq charitable organization that would have everyone who is making poverty level wages up to less than a living wage listed in there so the community could choose to donate money directly to specific basic necessities like housing, clothing, education, food, transportation, health care, and internet of such people.

If these people still could not pay, if it is a basic necessity, then I would try to find a way so these poor people could get low to no interest rate loans directly from the organization in charge of the money supply (I would probably try and get rid of the Federal Reserve) in order to pay.


I would try to organize and get funding (donations not tax money) for Mega X-Prizes that would attempt to fully automate the production of basic necessities driving their cost to $0.00 so the basic necessities of life would be free.

I see many libertarian-leaning Conservatives arguing in the following way:

1. Humans are selfish by nature.

2. For society to work, people need to contribute to each other.

3. Therefore we need to construct a society where the selfishness of individuals benefit one another.

So, selfishness basically leads to altruism, given that all people have an equal opportunity of making such contributions. There are a few problems with this line of arguments. #1 can be questioned, now that we better understand the evolutionary function behind altruism. So can #3; does self-investment always result in collective benefits?

The real virus in libertarianism is tragedy of the commons, or the idea that positive action taken by individuals alone may harvest negative consequences for the group as a whole. The environmental problems we face today are a good example of that. Sure, it's good to expand the economy and produce new goods and services, especially for individuals who want to secure a good standard of living. But the altruism only works within that human system, or market, if you will. What lies outside of it? Added together: water pollution, toxic air, extinct species, dying forests and urban sprawl. Chaos.

Thank you all very much for your replies so far! It is intriguing to see different political thought come together and adapt to circumstances. I know we are all individual, so different thinking on how to govern the populace is generally expected!

However, I believe my problem with Libertarianism has been what seems to me, an attitude of libertarians to abolish as much government and government-related involvement as possible. It grieves me to see such ignorance when people state that Governments are good for nothing, and that the less government programs, the better.

I in no way condone the misuse of tax-payers dollars, the greed of corporations, and other general governmental corruption, but the basic fact of life is that we need to be governed.

I do agree with modern liberal and libertarian ideas that in general, that, despite my own personal "religious" affiliations, the state doesn't have any place in regulating religious agendas. The main example being in this case the marriage between homosexuals. Like many liberals, I think homosexuals deserve just as many rights as any other human being. However, I do think there are some controversial morals that the Government should get involved in when scientific-based approaches reveal that these "individual" activities do in fact harm others. Take pornography for example: You don't need to be associate with a religion to realize that it will harm your relationship with your partner.

However, I have recently been studying the role of the Bank of Canada in Economics class, and have come to the conclusion that such "large and powerful" institutions are a necessity in our modern world.

The impression I get from Libertarians, is like I have stated, they want to do away with all governmental services when in reality, so much of what our government does generates little to no profit, and is a necessity to our ever-increasingly complicated lifestyle!



[edit on 043131p://111 by For(Home)Country]

Well I am a libertarian, who might run for office in New Brunswick in the next few years, so here are my views on the topic.

STOP the income tax...period.

No Canadian should be taxed on the money they work hard for day and day out, most certainly considering they make pennies compared to what we should be payed.

Keep the government OUT of things that do not affect them.

This means that the government will take charge of things of importance, such as Medicare, Social Security, retirement benefits, unemployment, that sort of thing.

Re-energize local government to be self sufficient. Let's not rely on 60 old men in Washington or Ottawa and trust them with our country. The people need a voice again.

This means that voting would be something that EVERY citizen woud do OFTEN. Regardless of the issue at hand, if there isn't a clear consensus among elected officials, then instead of this BS, compromise and get special favors for those people.

The people need to get back into government, we put too much faith into our representatives.

Ohh and get rid of term limits. 1 term, that's it if you want another term then you must win 80% of the vote.

Abolish laws on drugs and limits on various possessions, as the government and law enforcement have no right to tell you what and what not to do, so long as you aren't hurting or robbing anybody.

Those are just my thoughts.



~Keeper

reply to post by tothetenthpower


Thank you for your reply, Keeper. But one of my main focal points of political ideology is taxes, which I deem an absolute necessary in keeping the country together and people united, forcefully contributing monetarily to society.

Abolishing such a large tax base such as the Income Tax would have devastating effects for our fiscal policy! And then you want to run elections often? I know smaller elections don't cost as much as the long-term federal elections, but will cost millions of dollars none the less! How can you fund them when you cut away a large part of our tax base?

How would you balance the federal deficit and keep the standard of living as high as it is by cutting out the Income Tax? In my own opinion, that would be absolutely devastating to our nation!

reply to post by concernedcitizan

The real virus in libertarianism is tragedy of the commons, or the idea that positive action taken by individuals alone may harvest negative consequences for the group as a whole. The environmental problems we face today are a good example of that. Sure, it's good to expand the economy and produce new goods and services, especially for individuals who want to secure a good standard of living. But the altruism only works within that human system, or market, if you will. What lies outside of it? Added together: water pollution, toxic air, extinct species, dying forests and urban sprawl. Chaos.

It is my view and one shared by Ron Paul that libertarianism does not approve of water pollution or putting toxic chemicals into the air, or wiping out other species. It kind of goes back to my simple principle: "your property, your choice".

The collective atmosphere or oceans are not one man's property and therefore he does not have a right to pollute them because he is then violating the property rights of everyone else.

Libertarianism supports protecting the property rights of the individual and the human race as a whole since infringing on the property rights of the human race as a whole is nothing more than infringing on the property rights of countless individuals.

Originally posted by For(Home)Country
reply to post by tothetenthpower

 

Thank you for your reply, Keeper. But one of my main focal points of political ideology is taxes, which I deem an absolute necessary in keeping the country together and people united, forcefully contributing monetarily to society.

Abolishing such a large tax base such as the Income Tax would have devastating effects for our fiscal policy! And then you want to run elections often? I know smaller elections don't cost as much as the long-term federal elections, but will cost millions of dollars none the less! How can you fund them when you cut away a large part of our tax base?

How would you balance the federal deficit and keep the standard of living as high as it is by cutting out the Income Tax? In my own opinion, that would be absolutely devastating to our nation!

Your right in saying that the income tax does provide a great base for various things, the problem is they don't use that money for the good of the populace anyway.

The income tax was introduce just before WWII and was "temporary" to pay for the war, it's been over for a while now. There are multiple ways of getting revenue. A flat tax on sales accross the board, various taxes on imports and exports.

The income tax is just a way to ROB people of their hard work, and Canadians feel that way about it. 30% is far too much my friend.

Local elections cost next to nothing, but the time and paper you cast the ballots on. On a side note, there should be changes in laws to reflect the area you live in as well.

The Federal government doesn't need to make laws about marriage for example, or gun control, or abortion.

Let's take same-sex for example. If BC wanted to mary gays, and Manitoba didn't, then Manitoba has the right to not mary gays.

If that's the consensus of the populace then so be it.

People driven government, not draconic ideology.

~Keeper

reply to post by Bobbox1980


Yes, but what if someone is committing an action on their own personal property that infringes on the "rights" of others?

And above all else, what makes all of us so sure we are entitled to "rights" anyway? We should be concerned with the well-being of society as a whole, not the individual and what the individual deems as "acceptable" to him or her.

reply to post by Bobbox1980


One reason why I am critical of both the Left and Right is that they justify negative individualism with defensive morality. The Left says we need to build a welfare State where everyone can take what they need to become equal to their neighbor--a policy that eventually breeds corruption, low self-confidence and collective greed. The Right says we can't trust any of our neighbors, so every time society needs to emphasize the public good over some individual right, it feels discriminated (never mind that it almost uncritically supports a gigantic military complex). In the end it's all about me, me, me.

In a world where people only see their own interests, you quickly recognize that society is shared space and cannot function without proper interaction between people. Put simply, we all need to take responsibility for our own lives, but the society in which we live will collapse unless we share common functions that secure the existence of future generations. This is why we have traditions and why religion will always be needed-- and one key reason to why feudal leadership works better long-term than liberal democracy.

Well I keep attacking the authoritarian and "one right way thinking".. I am non partisan when it comes to the current crisis becasue i just want some collective action. I do not like government entering the home and telling us how to live.

I also believe in the process of debate and try to get research to back my position. I do not find most religious books to be factual or worthy of supporting political discussion.

reply to post by For(Home)Country


I struggled with this concept as well. I fell neither neatly into left or right ideology. At times I considered my self liberal, at other times conservative. Libertarian was a foreign word to me.

I have developed libertarian philosophy finally that I can get behind. Trust me the political party of Libertarian isn't the rawest form of being a Libertarian. I call myself a social libertarian for the following reasons.

1. Government should be limited and restrained
   
2. Government should only concern themselves with providing benefits to all, equal laws, and equal rights
   
3. Government should give all benefits it provides to all people without qualifying
   
4. Government should only concern themselves with general welfare issues of the whole population (things that could effect everyone)
   
5. State governments should retain powers to add to benefits deemed necessary by the population in their state. States have different needs than other states. So, individualize protections of groups should occur only on a state level.
   
6. I believe that the Federal government should be concerned with the overall well being of all citizens, supporting their rights, securing the boarders, and ensuring certain basic necessities that allow citizens to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. (ie food, shelter, medical, and security). Without these nobody could pursue happiness.
   
7. I believe that taxation monies should always be spent in a way that directly benefits the population and does not aim to benefit a corporation first and citizen second.
   
8. I believe the government should secure a stable method of exchange (eg currency)
   
9. I believe that Associations should be outlawed, as they have put themselves over government and the people. Associations should never be able to limit the freedom of someone pursuing a career, profession, or education level.
   
10. I believe that an individual should only retain the rights to a patent for a determined amount of time before that product can be duplicated exactly as the patent shows. To not allow patents to expire is to deny the benefit of that product from the welfare of the people whom protected it in the first place.
    

reply to post by For(Home)Country

Yes, but what if someone is committing an action on their own personal property that infringes on the "rights" of others?

How?

What could one possibly be doing on their own property that would infringe on the rights of others without violating the right of others to make their own choices about their body and property?

I don't think what you are proposing is logically possible.

And above all else, what makes all of us so sure we are entitled to "rights" anyway? We should be concerned with the well-being of society as a whole, not the individual and what the individual deems as "acceptable" to him or her.

For one, the Declaration of Independence speaks of unalienable rights.

Who owns your body? You or the state? If it is you then you have the right to make choices concerning it, not the state. I for one can never acknowledge partial ownership by the state of my body, it is mine and mine alone.

Property is gained through the fruits of one's labor, if I own my body (and not the state) and I use it to work then the proceeds of that work belong to me (and not the state).


reply to post by concernedcitizan


Hah, I am neither religious nor do I follow tradition, I make my own way.

Humankind likes to think of itself as God's special creation, in the end I think for all life it is always me, me, me. I think altruism is an illusion created by humans to attempt to explain why we are special. Altruism negates the value of emotional rewards. Emotional rewards can be just as valuable to an individual if not more valuable than material rewards. In the end it is all about the individual and their desire to have thy will be done.

All drugs should be legalized.

Even prescription drugs; you should see a doctor for the information but you should not be forced to get “permission”.


The attempt to control substances is one of the most wasteful, dangerous, illogical, and evil things for a government to do; it is the source of many of the world's problems.