Yes, I would agree with that. You can try to compare them issue vs. issue, but that distracts from the underlying philosophical differences.On a relative scale, maybe. On the absolute scale, we tend to have little in a real commonality with the Republocrats.
Minarchism
Minarchism (also known as minimal statism) is a libertarian capitalist political philosophy. It is variously defined by sources. In the strictest sense, it holds that states ought to exist (as opposed to anarchy), that their only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud, and that the only legitimate governmental institutions are the military, police, and courts. In the broadest sense, it also includes fire departments, prisons, the executive, and legislatures as legitimate government functions. Such states are generally called night-watchman states.
Minarchists argue that the state has no authority to use its monopoly of force to interfere with free transactions between people, and see the state's sole responsibility as ensuring that contracts between private individuals and property are protected, through a system of law courts and enforcement. Minarchists generally believe a laissez-faire approach to the economy is most likely to lead to economic prosperity.
This just doesn't make any sense, sorry. The primary role the government play in civil rights is to protect them. Of course, protection - like every other function of the government - costs money, so to follow your logic to its end, there really is no such thing as a social issue, they are all economic issues.I agree with GuyIncognito, those are not social issues. If you could be educated, collect welfare, or health care without the help of the state, that would be a social/civil rights issue. Because they are directly funded by the state they are economic issues.
Am I'm mistaken or is the Libertarian Party in the same conservative family as the Republican Party?
Be sure to also check the "I form my opinions based on hyperbole, intellectually dishonest analogy, hysteria, and propaganda" box as well.
This just doesn't make any sense, sorry. The primary role the government play in civil rights is to protect them. Of course, protection - like every other function of the government - costs money, so to follow your logic to its end, there really is no such thing as a social issue, they are all economic issues.
Either government services are a civil right, or there is no legitimate reason for government in the first place.Government services are not a civil right. They must be paid for somehow, and the how must be discussed, therefore they are an economic issue.
Sure because someone who calls themselves a libertarian are as honest as a progressive who supports Obama :roll:
Either government services are a civil right, or there is no legitimate reason for government in the first place.
Either government services are a civil right, or there is no legitimate reason for government in the first place.
I fail to see why you want to recognize any sort of social issue whatsoever. Rights only become an "issue" when they're being impinged upon - any role Government plays is going to cost money and therefore is not a social issue but an economic issue in your eyes.The things you mentioned require the state giving out money, and they're NOT civil rights. Welfare is not a civil right, or even a human right for that matter. It's an extra goodie service. Libertarians are as socially open as they come, even more than democrats. Even democrats want to control what people put in their body.
I fail to see why you want to recognize any sort of social issue whatsoever. Rights only become an "issue" when they're being impinged upon - any role Government plays is going to cost money and therefore is not a social issue but an economic issue in your eyes.
I fail to see why you want to recognize any sort of social issue whatsoever. Rights only become an "issue" when they're being impinged upon - any role Government plays is going to cost money and therefore is not a social issue but an economic issue in your eyes.
And the problem is the same thing I've said for years - that the overwhelming majority of Americans have no idea what the differences are between "rights" and "privileges".
If there is any legitimate reason for Government, it's to enforce the rule of law. Do you agree? The court is a government service. If you are not entitled to that service - if you and every other citizen do not have a right to a trial - I see no legitimate purpose for the government.There is grey area between the two. They are by no means "rights", but they are privileges that can be entrusted to people through minimal taxation and charitable sources.
The right to a fair trial is not a privilege.And the problem is the same thing I've said for years - that the overwhelming majority of Americans have no idea what the differences are between "rights" and "privileges".
Personally, I'm insulted when someone says libertarians are socially liberal. They don't mean socially liberal in the classical sense, but in the modern sense and I have just about nothing in common with modern liberals. They approach every topic from a different angle than I do and with different goals to reach. They view rights as a gift from the state and liberty as simply permitted. I'm the exact opposite on both positions and so when I find myself agreeing with them on a general idea, lets say gay marriage, the ends are different and the reasons they have for the position are usually things I reject. The basis for their position is regularly equality, but I view the idea we shape policy around equality outside of liberty as idiotic and dangerous. My view is simply liberty and the right of all people to marry who they please. I have no use for equality arguments built on marriage benefits or some hair brain idea of approval by the state. Liberty offers equality and so further attempts past that point are baseless, unwarranted and almost always violating the liberty of someone else to obtain. I have no use for modern liberals. Their ideas of social freedom almost always involves coercion or direct involvement by the state in our lives. My idea is fairly simply really. Allow the liberty and call it done. We don't need modern liberal ideas of equality to muddy the waters.
Liberals as we know them today are not for freedom and when they talk of it you can always be assured that government is going to play a part in whatever plan they have towards it. That is not freedom, it's government control of freedom.
Yes, exactly. Social liberals promote such things as affirmative action - believing government intervention necessary in order to provide an equal opportunity for success (or necessary so that "all folks can have a fair shake" as Obama puts it). Libertarians are NOT social liberals.The basis for their position is regularly equality, but I view the idea we shape policy around equality outside of liberty as idiotic and dangerous. My view is simply liberty and the right of all people to marry who they please. I have no use for equality arguments built on marriage benefits or some hair brain idea of approval by the state.
If there is any legitimate reason for Government, it's to enforce the rule of law. Do you agree? The court is a government service. If you are not entitled to that service - if you and every other citizen do not have a right to a trial - I see no legitimate purpose for the government.
The right to a fair trial is not a privilege.
Many libertarians may disagree with how we distribute privileges, and I personally don't view any marriage as a "right", but I think most of us will say that it is oppressive to deny marriage to people based on genetic factors (race, sex, orientation, etc.). It is not a violation of heterosexual liberty to allow for same-sex marriage because there is no damage caused to the institution of heterosexual marriage. Do you think today's libertarians would support blacks or women being unable to vote, as was the law in the past?
All marriage is government intrusion, so you can't play that card when it comes to same-sex marriage without it also being applicable to heterosexual marriage.
The right to marriage is just a natural extension of the right to liberty. We don't have a right to have government oversee our marriage or provide us with benefits, but we all have the right to marry who we please regardless of race, sex, orientation, etc. When I referred to liberals violating the liberty of people towards equality I was more looking towards other actions liberals have taken.
Yes, it is. That is why my position doesn't include the government and yet just another reason I don't agree with liberal social policy. I'm not socially liberal and it's insulting that people keep saying that I am.
You are mistaken in my view.On a different thread someone suggested Libertarians should not be lumped together with conservatives. I agree Libertarians are not exactly Republicans but I do tend to think of Libertarians as the half-brothers of Republicans. Congressman Ron Paul and twice Presidential candidate is a Libertarian and according the Wikipedia is a "Lifetime Member" but joined "the next best thing" due to electability issues not being affiliated with a major party. The Libertarian candidate for POTUS, Congressman Bob Barr was a lifelong Republican but ran for President as a Libertarian I assume because they represented his conservative ideology even more than the GOP.
Am I'm mistaken or is the Libertarian Party in the same conservative family as the Republican Party?
Sorry for inadvertently omitting Independents from the poll.
There are 2 reasons men get married: tax benefits, and she won't shut the hell up about it. Neither involve rights or liberties.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?