What is the Libertarian Platform?

[LeftyHenry]

Just been wondering because first I thought It was a conservative party now I realized It has some Left wing ideals, so I'm curious and if there's any Libertarian here that could tell me.

 

[curt]

Just been wondering because first I thought It was a conservative party now I realized It has some Left wing ideals, so I'm curious and if there's any Libertarian here that could tell me.

If your still defining politics by the one-dimensional political spectrum, then I suggest you catch up to reality. Left/Right applies solely to economics, it does not involve social freedoms.

This can be seen in The Political Compass graph below.

Badnarik was the Libertarian Party candidate, and the furthest right out of all. Social freedom does not have a Left/Right identity in theory. I do say in theory. Given the simplification of political labels employed today (your either a liberal or conservative) the mistake is much too easy to make.

 

[Kandahar]

I don't really consider libertarianism to be liberal or conservative or moderate. It doesn't really fit onto that spectrum.

We libertarians generally favor less government in almost everything (although certain individuals may differ in opinion on specific cases where government intervention might be justified). Below is the standard hardcore libertarian platform, which is not necessarily representative of my personal views:

- Lower taxes and less government spending
- A balanced budget
- Withdrawal from Iraq
- Ending the war on drugs
- Protecting the right to bear arms
- Protecting the right to privacy
- Pro-choice
- Anti-death penalty
- In favor of gay rights, including same-sex marriage
- Strict constructionism in court apointees
- Separation of church and state
- Protecting civil liberties
- Ending corporate welfare
- Privatizing social security and medicare
- Privatizing education
- Against protectionism and tariffs
- In favor of free trade
- Against minimum wage laws
- Pro-immigration
- Pro-states rights

That's the basic platform. Generally the libertarian platform is easier to figure out than that of other ideologies, because it tends to be more philosophically consistent. Generally speaking, if the government is involved in something that doesn't involve protecting its citizens from force or fraud, a hardcore libertarian will say that the government should not be involved in it.

 

[teacher]

The basic tenant of the Libertarian party is if it doesn't violate your life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness then make no law about it. Libertarians are generaly economically conservtive and socialy liberal. If you really want to know the Libertarian mindset then read my posts. Just today Conflict accused me of being a liberal. That should make some here chuckle. The basement thread "where's my party" goes into it some also. All in all it's suicide to talk third party on this site.

 

[teacher]

- Withdrawal from Iraq

Really? News to me. Neil Boortz is the most public, well known Libertarian. He is definatly not for withdrawal. Nor am I.

 

[teacher]

- Anti-death penalty

Also news to me.

 

[Comrade Brian]

- Privatizing education

Huh? Is that smart? Education should be publicised-in neither hands of corporation or govt., but in hands of society.

 

[Kandahar]

Really? News to me. Neil Boortz is the most public, well known Libertarian. He is definatly not for withdrawal. Nor am I.

Well like I said, that's the basic "hardcore" libertarian platform. The hardcore libertarians tend to be isolationists.

 

[Kandahar]

Also news to me.

This one should be easy to figure out. The death penalty means that the government has the power to kill people, which a hardcore libertarian would oppose.

 

[Kandahar]

Huh? Is that smart? Education should be publicised-in neither hands of corporation or govt., but in hands of society.

I'm not sure if it would be smart to completely privatize it (although I'm leaning in that direction), but I do think it would be smart to at least get it out of the hands of the federal government and let the states do as they please (as long as the state policies don't violate the US Constitution).

What is the difference between being in the "hands of government" versus being in the "hands of society"?

 

[Comrade Brian]

What is the difference between being in the "hands of government" versus being in the "hands of society"?

Govt. doesn't represent society, and often does things all people dislike. Have you taken a look at recent cutbacks in social care spending? Govt. doesn't really care much for people, it is more concerned with its budget and politicians are mor concerened with their bribes. What I was talking about is currently, "public schools" are mandated by govt. "private scools" by corporations, neither represent society but what policians and CEOs want you to hear.

 

[Australianlibertarian]

In Australia our private schools are not really private. They still get some government funding. At the last federal election the Labor government offered to reduce funding of private schools, and inject in the state system.

Thing was there was suddenly a huge uproar about Labors' proposed plan of reducing private education's cut of funding. The hypocrisy of the people was unbelievable, what don't they understand about the word PRIVATE?

Anyway my Llibertarianism has a slight Australian cultural slant. I believe that people should have the choice to choose between private education, and state eductation, or privatehealth care V government healthcare. What i object to is hypocrites whining about government reducing government expenditure in private education, or at the same time government bribing voters with government subsidies into the private education system or any corporation for that matter.

Now many on this site may find it odd that as Libertarian that I advocate socialised health care and socialised education, thing is that i understand that greed itself can be very destructive. Yes i believe in creating individual wealth, but i also believe in providing health care, and education for all, so that everyone can actually have a relatively good go at improving their lives.

So in my libertarian notion i believe that the individual should always be allowed to have the choice of private or government services in some areas such as health and education, and mass transit.

Everything else I support private enterprise, all the way.

 

[teacher]

Well like I said, that's the basic "hardcore" libertarian platform. The hardcore libertarians tend to be isolationists.

Ah yes, the hardcore faction. Such as the ones who want to legalize hard drugs like Heroin. I see your point. Guess I missed something somewhere. My bad.

 

[Kandahar]

Govt. doesn't represent society, and often does things all people dislike. Have you taken a look at recent cutbacks in social care spending? Govt. doesn't really care much for people, it is more concerned with its budget and politicians are mor concerened with their bribes. What I was talking about is currently, "public schools" are mandated by govt. "private scools" by corporations, neither represent society but what policians and CEOs want you to hear.

I'm not sure I understand what you're proposing. In your ideal school system, who would be in charge? How would society reach a decision on educational/financial matters relating to the school, and how would this be different than government?

 

[128shot]

On the issue raised about privatizing education-I honestly think we should all just go charter and take it from there....




I'm not hardcore libertarian-but its an easy lean for me-being it represents everything I'm for......



Capitalism isn't for the weak

 

[Red_Dave]

I don't really consider libertarianism to be liberal or conservative or moderate. It doesn't really fit onto that spectrum.

We libertarians generally favor less government in almost everything (although certain individuals may differ in opinion on specific cases where government intervention might be justified). Below is the standard hardcore libertarian platform, which is not necessarily representative of my personal views:

- Lower taxes and less government spending
- A balanced budget
- Withdrawal from Iraq
- Ending the war on drugs
- Protecting the right to bear arms
- Protecting the right to privacy
- Pro-choice
- Anti-death penalty
- In favor of gay rights, including same-sex marriage
- Strict constructionism in court apointees
- Separation of church and state
- Protecting civil liberties
- Ending corporate welfare
- Privatizing social security and medicare
- Privatizing education
- Against protectionism and tariffs
- In favor of free trade
- Against minimum wage laws
- Pro-immigration
- Pro-states rights

That's the basic platform. Generally the libertarian platform is easier to figure out than that of other ideologies, because it tends to be more philosophically consistent. Generally speaking, if the government is involved in something that doesn't involve protecting its citizens from force or fraud, a hardcore libertarian will say that the government should not be involved in it.

Its good to see some in america are in favor of imigration and not as xenophoix as the rest but wouldnt privitiseing education completely erase any chance of equality of opportunity in america. Wouldnt the poor just end up with little or no education? and what private company would privide medicare if there is no way to make money out of it?

The gap between rich and poor would shoot up in america if there was no minimum wage as, due to the pressure to produce goods as cheaply as possible that capatalism creates, most would employ there workers for as little money as possible

 

[Connecticutter]

Its good to see some in america are in favor of imigration and not as xenophoix as the rest but wouldnt privitiseing education completely erase any chance of equality of opportunity in america. Wouldnt the poor just end up with little or no education?

Actually, this is the situation that our public schools have placed us in today. In some of the worst inner city schools, students are trapped in an institution that has no hope of teaching anyone. When someone comes in to try to change the system, progress is punished by the government and the unions.

Charter schools, a more private solutions, have given some of these students a chance.

 

[Red_Dave]

Actually, this is the situation that our public schools have placed us in today. In some of the worst inner city schools, students are trapped in an institution that has no hope of teaching anyone. When someone comes in to try to change the system, progress is punished by the government and the unions.

Charter schools, a more private solutions, have given some of these students a chance.

But the best private schools charge the highest fees, therefore poor kids get crap education provided by charitys and rich kids get good education. If you meant school funded by buissness and wealthy individuals then that merely gives the rich a monopoly over education. Which is a bad thing if, for example these rich people are fundamentalists and this filters through. Another problem is that if , for example coca cola sponcers a school it will atempt to play down the effect of crap food and drink on your health. Ever read "no logo" by noami klein? One example the book gives of the influence of multinationals over education is a speaker who criticised the actions of the coca cola company overseas. The speaker was banned from a university that was sponcerd coca cola. I wonder why?

Surely if the information young people are given is controlled by a minority it will lead to problems

 

[libertarian_knight]

Huh? Is that smart? Education should be publicised-in neither hands of corporation or govt., but in hands of society.

What the ****? First off Society is not a thing, and it's a failure in English that ignorant people treat it as a singlualr entity or institution. It really is a plural word. ****...

Of course, you mean capitalist, not corporate right, like a true comrade.

"In the hands of society"... what the **** does that MEAN for ****'s sake? It a most ignorant statement. Commies, Marxists and socialist never seem to learn, when they say "society" they mean "government." Yeah you do. Stop pretending. Good for you, that you want better government truly of the people, bad for you, in 5000 years of human history that **** doesn't happen. It definately won't happen with a "workers" mindset either.

Education should not be "in the hands of society" because, OUR SOCIETY IS ****ED UP. We lock up non-violent people, let out rapists. We elect "the lesser of two evils" two office, over and over. 14 million different commercials selling people **** they don't need, or that which they already have anyway. CREDIT is the measure of sucess? Socially inept, governmetn dependant, mentally atrophied society will save us! Workers revolt, HA! You want society to teach kids? And if you're going to cop out and say it's the corporations that made people wasted slaves, you're wrong. Corporatation just took advantage of it.

Corporate abuse and government corruption ARE DEFINATELY SYMPTOMS of the problem. The problem is the society itself, and you want a botched group of people, to teach kids maths, science and the virtues of the worker... HA.

Seriously, it shouldn't be corporate or government, tell me, how do you see schools set up?

 

[libertarian_knight]

Well like I said, that's the basic "hardcore" libertarian platform. The hardcore libertarians tend to be isolationists.

Isolationist is a **** poor word. It invokes xenophobia, walls, and big guns guardsing ports and entryways. No, few libertarians I have met are isolationist, they are non-statists. War is an affiar of the state, and done so for the underserved pride, flase glory, or profit of the state. Most libertarians seem to oppose war, an affiar of the state, not commerce and trade, cultural exchange and expirience or anything else that comes from not being isolated. I mean, how can Advocates of expanding and intergrating into international trade, be isolationist?

Furthermore, most libertarians would say, if not all, that the STATE IMPOSING ISOLATIONIST POLICIES that restrict travel, immigration and trade WOULD BE A VIOLATION OF LIBERTY.

Libertarians are not isolationist, they just choose a different form of interaction, butter not bombs, markets not murders.

Isolationist: It's a **** poor word, and you shouldn't use it anymore to desribe anything libertarian.

Name one hardcore libertarian that is opposed to foriegn commerce, travel, immigration and everything else not isolationist, with the exclusion of going over and dropping bombs on people?

What whip spun people's heads around to think that being minimal or anti-military intervention, as being isolated i'll never know. Like the only ****ing way people interact across borders is to shoot each other.

 

[libertarian_knight]

Its good to see some in america are in favor of imigration and not as xenophoix as the rest but wouldnt privitiseing education completely erase any chance of equality of opportunity in america. Wouldnt the poor just end up with little or no education? and what private company would privide medicare if there is no way to make money out of it?

The gap between rich and poor would shoot up in america if there was no minimum wage as, due to the pressure to produce goods as cheaply as possible that capatalism creates, most would employ there workers for as little money as possible

The only reason people are pissed of at the Mexicans immigrating (which they have been doing ofr hundreds of years), is because over paid, under worked Indians and Asians are getting "our jobs." When the economy was booming, no one cared two licks about Mexicans picking beans and building houses.

Now, Even though I am a libertarian, right now the only insiutition (and not by chance either) large enough to undertake the lengthy and costly education, is the various governments. However, the do a **** ****ing poor job of administering education.

All Parents with school age children, should get a voucher. All or part of that voucher should go to pay for part or all of the education. ALL GOVERNMENT ADMINISTERED SCHOOLS SYSTEMS SHOULD BE DISBANDED. And Voucher accepting, diversified chater-like schools should be the norm. A contingent upon the voucher would be minimal standards of Math, Languages, Science, History, and Civics, the rest, is up to the schools and the proprieters of the schools. they could set up 10 hour school days, or all year round, or focus heavily on science or art, or whatever the parents and students want. It's a way to make sure every kids can be educated, and in the manner most suited to the kids. One Size does not fit all, let competition enter the school fight.

This way, shitty school go bust, and parents send their kids to other school, or new school emerge looking to take advantage of parents who demand something other schools don't offer. Diversity, Choice, Competition, and different systems are what education needs, not regimented socialist indoctrination.

The Problem is, government will of course find a way to **** up EVERY DREAM SYSTEM ANYONE CAN IMAGINE, because most politicians and bureacrats are petty, spiteful, or evil people, who once they don't get thier way ruin anything the please. And ohhh do they love using their power, makes them feel important. Power tends to Corrupt, Absolute Power Corrputs Absolutely- Lord Acton (a libertarian)

 

[Kandahar]

Its good to see some in america are in favor of imigration and not as xenophoix as the rest but wouldnt privitiseing education completely erase any chance of equality of opportunity in america. Wouldnt the poor just end up with little or no education?

Possibly, which is one reason I'm not sure I support total privatization of education. However, it can be argued that private schools catering to the poor and middle-class will open up, if the demand is there.

An analogy: if the government started issuing all its citizens a $10,000 car, the low-end car market would be completely eliminated and auto companies would devote more resources to cars for the upper-class. If we then discussed no longer having the government issue cars, the standard argument against it would be "But how will the poor afford a luxury car?" This, of course, would ignore the fact that the car companies would quickly fill the vacuum in the market after the government stopped interfering.

and what private company would privide medicare if there is no way to make money out of it?

Who says there's no way to make money out of it?

The gap between rich and poor would shoot up in america if there was no minimum wage as, due to the pressure to produce goods as cheaply as possible that capatalism creates, most would employ there workers for as little money as possible

Companies already employ their workers for as little as possible; they want to cut their costs, and there's nothing wrong with that. All minimum wage does is increase the unemployment rate. Yes, you're better off if you're one of the lucky workers at a job worth $2.50/hour that's making $5.15/hour, but for every person like that there's another person making $0/hour because they can't find a job.

A minimum wage INCREASES wealth disparity in my opinion, because it increases the number of people making nothing.

 

[Kandahar]

Isolationist is a **** poor word. It invokes xenophobia, walls, and big guns guardsing ports and entryways. No, few libertarians I have met are isolationist, they are non-statists. War is an affiar of the state, and done so for the underserved pride, flase glory, or profit of the state. Most libertarians seem to oppose war, an affiar of the state, not commerce and trade, cultural exchange and expirience or anything else that comes from not being isolated. I mean, how can Advocates of expanding and intergrating into international trade, be isolationist?

Furthermore, most libertarians would say, if not all, that the STATE IMPOSING ISOLATIONIST POLICIES that restrict travel, immigration and trade WOULD BE A VIOLATION OF LIBERTY.

Libertarians are not isolationist, they just choose a different form of interaction, butter not bombs, markets not murders.

Isolationist: It's a **** poor word, and you shouldn't use it anymore to desribe anything libertarian.

Name one hardcore libertarian that is opposed to foriegn commerce, travel, immigration and everything else not isolationist, with the exclusion of going over and dropping bombs on people?

What whip spun people's heads around to think that being minimal or anti-military intervention, as being isolated i'll never know. Like the only ****ing way people interact across borders is to shoot each other.

So much anger...

You are aware that isolationist has multiple meanings, right? I know that libertarians want a free market. But the hardcore ones are isolationist when it comes to foreign policy and diplomatic relations.

Now was that really worth a six-paragraph rant replete with swearing, just to argue semantics?

 

[Red_Dave]

The only reason people are pissed of at the Mexicans immigrating (which they have been doing ofr hundreds of years), is because over paid, under worked Indians and Asians are getting "our jobs." When the economy was booming, no one cared two licks about Mexicans picking beans and building houses.

Now, Even though I am a libertarian, right now the only insiutition (and not by chance either) large enough to undertake the lengthy and costly education, is the various governments. However, the do a **** ****ing poor job of administering education.

All Parents with school age children, should get a voucher. All or part of that voucher should go to pay for part or all of the education. ALL GOVERNMENT ADMINISTERED SCHOOLS SYSTEMS SHOULD BE DISBANDED. And Voucher accepting, diversified chater-like schools should be the norm. A contingent upon the voucher would be minimal standards of Math, Languages, Science, History, and Civics, the rest, is up to the schools and the proprieters of the schools. they could set up 10 hour school days, or all year round, or focus heavily on science or art, or whatever the parents and students want. It's a way to make sure every kids can be educated, and in the manner most suited to the kids. One Size does not fit all, let competition enter the school fight.

This way, shitty school go bust, and parents send their kids to other school, or new school emerge looking to take advantage of parents who demand something other schools don't offer. Diversity, Choice, Competition, and different systems are what education needs, not regimented socialist indoctrination.

The Problem is, government will of course find a way to **** up EVERY DREAM SYSTEM ANYONE CAN IMAGINE, because most politicians and bureacrats are petty, spiteful, or evil people, who once they don't get thier way ruin anything the please. And ohhh do they love using their power, makes them feel important. Power tends to Corrupt, Absolute Power Corrputs Absolutely- Lord Acton (a libertarian)

true but the rich are still going to end up better off if they can use there own money in adition to their vouchers thus eroding equality of opertunity

 

[Connecticutter]

But the best private schools charge the highest fees, therefore poor kids get crap education provided by charitys and rich kids get good education. If you meant school funded by buissness and wealthy individuals then that merely gives the rich a monopoly over education. Which is a bad thing if, for example these rich people are fundamentalists and this filters through. Another problem is that if , for example coca cola sponcers a school it will atempt to play down the effect of crap food and drink on your health. Ever read "no logo" by noami klein? One example the book gives of the influence of multinationals over education is a speaker who criticised the actions of the coca cola company overseas. The speaker was banned from a university that was sponcerd coca cola. I wonder why?

Surely if the information young people are given is controlled by a minority it will lead to problems

Even inexpensive private or charter schools are far superior to the inner city public schools that we force these children to go into. The rich will always be able to afford expensive private schools, and that's their buisiness.