Are Libertains part liberal?

[Antiderivative]

Libertarians are very anarchist in nature. To shy away from this fact is being apologetic. However, liberalism is very anarchist in nature. Only in our modern day era has liberalism taken on a philosophy of statism.

 

[digsbe]

Are liberals part libertarian? I don't think either is part of the other. Libertarians and liberals may have similar stances on some issues, but the philosophy and reasoning behind those stances are completely different.

 

[Paschendale]

I'd like to know, Ikari, what a citizen can do about an abusive state or town in your vision? What practical difference is there between a decision by a state or a federal government? So long as they all play by the rules, why does it matter? But mostly I just don't see how decentralization actually helps. In a world where we must be Dependant on each other, and some regulation is necessary, how is the removal of an impartial, central authority not complicate the process?

 

[Antiderivative]

evidence, please.

you appear to be suggesting that Libertarians would support Authoritarian measures as long as they are enacted by their State, City, County, or Town.

do I have this right?

No, but that is how democracy works. Democracy is mob rule and sometimes the mob has it right and sometimes the mob has it wrong.

Most libertarians, and true liberals, are wary of democratic institutions. Instead, they believe that emancipated adults have certain rights that the mob nor the state cannot infringe upon. Hence, the Bill of Rights.

 

[Antiderivative]

Are liberals part libertarian? I don't think either is part of the other. Libertarians and liberals may have similar stances on some issues, but the philosophy and reasoning behind those stances are completely different.

Support your claim.

 

[Thunder]

..Democracy is mob rule and sometimes the mob has it right and sometimes the mob has it wrong...

that is why we are a REPRESENTATIVE democracy.

the mob simply cannot be trusted to run a society.

 

[Ikari]

I'd like to know, Ikari, what a citizen can do about an abusive state or town in your vision?

Due to the minimization in size, it's easier to control the State or town. The people have more control and can prevent the abuse of power through peaceful means so long as peaceful means remain as a viable source of input.

What practical difference is there between a decision by a state or a federal government?

Size

So long as they all play by the rules, why does it matter? But mostly I just don't see how decentralization actually helps. In a world where we must be Dependant on each other, and some regulation is necessary, how is the removal of an impartial, central authority not complicate the process?

Decentralization is not a cure all. It will not guarantee good government or non-coercive government. The People must still control it. That's always going to be true on any level of government. However, with the smaller size and scope of government, it becomes easier to control it.

 

[Ikari]

that is why we are a REPRESENTATIVE democracy.

the mob simply cannot be trusted to run a society.

Actually that's why we're a Democratic REPUBLIC. Republics are built upon law and can be set (like ours) upon natural rights and liberties which act as natural barriers to government power. Any pure form of democracy, even representative democracy, is essentially mob rule.

 

[Antiderivative]

that is why we are a REPRESENTATIVE democracy.

the mob simply cannot be trusted to run a society.

pffffft.....and our representatives can?

Thanks for making me laugh.

That is why both liberals and libetarians are attracted to the fact that emancipated adults have certain a priori truths that we hold as self-evident.

 

[Thunder]

pffffft.....and our representatives can?...

much more than mob rule.

 

[Antiderivative]

much more than mob rule.

The representative is a symbol of the mob.

 

[Ikari]

much more than mob rule.

If there is no limit on what they government can do, it is still essentially mob rule.

 

[Thunder]

If there is no limit on what they government can do, it is still essentially mob rule...

notice how this is not my argument.

 

[Ikari]

notice how this is not my argument.

Notice that through your words it is. A representative democracy has no innate limitations on government power. Only a Republic is built upon laws which limit the size and scope of government. A representative democracy quickly devolves into oligarchy. The video outlines it pretty well.

This is a Republic, if you can keep it.

 

[Antiderivative]

If there is no limit on what they government can do, it is still essentially mob rule.

Your video is wrong. A more accurate view of the political spectrum is having the left with no government control (i.e. complete anarchy) and the right with total government control. Hence ,supporting that fact that libertarianism is liberal in nature.

The left-right paradigm can be traced back to the French Assembly and both Proudhon and Bastiat sat on the left side.

 

[1Perry]

being Pro-Life is an authoritarian view, as it seeks to have govt. control the bodies of American citizens.

Like me Paul believes that life is the ultimate form of liberty. Nobody should have the right to take anothers life other than to protect their own.

 

[poweRob]

most of the well-known "Libertarians", such as Ron Paul...ar fake Libertarians. Hence the confusion.

I think Ron Paul is rather libertarian from what I've seen. Most of his stances are pretty much based in a fiscal sense first and foremost. Very libertarian cuts.

 

[Antiderivative]

Like me Paul believes that life is the ultimate form of liberty. Nobody should have the right to take anothers life other than to protect their own.

It is called the Non-Aggression Principle which is a driving principle behind his constant criticism of our aggressive foreign policy.

Even our troops on the front line agree with Paul and have shown greater support for him than war mongering progressives who tell us lies and deceit in order to gain power.

 

[Antiderivative]

I think Ron Paul is rather libertarian from what I've seen. Most of his stances are pretty much based in a fiscal sense first and foremost. Very libertarian cuts.

Actually, Paul is more concerned about monetary policy rather than fiscal policy.

 

[poweRob]

I support terms having concrete meanings.

please show me a state Libertarian party that does not espouse the views I have mentioned.

Thing is, to be similar to or part of a party doesn't mean lockstep through everything. The bigger tent parties definitely have variations.

 

[jasonxe]

 

[poweRob]

Actually, Paul is more concerned about monetary policy rather than fiscal policy.

I think his fiscal responsibility is through his monetary policy by restricting the money supply via the gold standard. I think he espouses that that is how you control spending.

 

[Ikari]

Your video is wrong. A more accurate view of the political spectrum is having the left with no government control (i.e. complete anarchy) and the right with total government control. Hence ,supporting that fact that libertarianism is liberal in nature.

The left-right paradigm can be traced back to the French Assembly and both Proudhon and Bastiat sat on the left side.

I don't think it makes a difference. The video wasn't trying to say that our current designation of right/left is the same as they propose. In that they aren't saying Republicans are more akin to anarchy where as Democrats are more akin to monarchy. It's saying that instead of mixing terms, think of it as on one side you have 0 government and the other side you have 100% government. If you want to flip left/right that's fine; but it does nothing to the arguments presented therein. In fact, I would say that in our terms of left/right, Republican/Democrat and comparing them to the scale presented in the video that both Democrat and Republican are closer to oligarchy than republic.

 

[jasonxe]

I think his fiscal responsibility is through his monetary policy by restricting the money supply via the gold standard. I think he espouses that that is how you control spending.

And the fed which even newt admitted.

Today I asked Newt Gingrich this question on Twitter:

“@newtgingrich Do you give Ron Paul credit for being the only candidate in 2008 to mention the Fed?”

Gingrich responded this evening:

“@David_Kretzmann there is no question ron paul was the first serious national leader to take on federal reserve history will recognize him”

 

[Antiderivative]

I don't think it makes a difference. The video wasn't trying to say that our current designation of right/left is the same as they propose. In that they aren't saying Republicans are more akin to anarchy where as Democrats are more akin to monarchy. It's saying that instead of mixing terms, think of it as on one side you have 0 government and the other side you have 100% government. If you want to flip left/right that's fine; but it does nothing to the arguments presented therein. In fact, I would say that in our terms of left/right, Republican/Democrat and comparing them to the scale presented in the video that both Democrat and Republican are closer to oligarchy than republic.

Its a completely inaccurate view of the political spectrum and I never flipped the left/right paradigm. Actually, I don't believe in the left-right that the video and you promote. For example, where would Thomas Paine fit into that political spectrum?

Paine was certainly a liberal, but not a statist.