Libertarian Democrats

[Emsworth]

I feel that the word "libertarian" is overused on this forum. In other threads, people like Beef, Gabu, and Nation are being classified as such.

I can only think of three libertarian Democrats on the forum: Alcon, JFK, and me. I would be interested to hear the estimates or views of others. (Perhaps, we could ignore PC scores and concentrate on actual posts.)

[Jake]

Gabu does strike me as libertarian to a degree because though he holds what he calls conservative values, he generally believes in individual freedom and economic freedoms. Nation and Beef are populists if anything (Beef especially).

[Emsworth]

Gabu does strike me as libertarian to a degree because though he holds what he calls conservative values, he generally believes in individual freedom and economic freedoms.

I've always felt that Gabu's more of a centrist. He may lean somewhat to the right on economic freedom, but I wouldn't label him as a libertarian.

[Cashcow]

Alcon does not strike me as libertarian. Libertarians are generally extremists, especially on issues involving the Constitution, which he is certainly not.

[Emsworth]

Libertarians are generally extremists...

Of all things to say. If you mean members of the Libertarian Party, then, perhaps, but I would disagree as to libertarians generally.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would not call it extremism, but rather strict adherence to the document. One group does not become extreme simply because another group twists and unreasonably broadens the meaning of Constitution.

[Cashcow]

The Libertarian Party members and anyone associated with that political ideology can be classified as an extremist, or at least very far from the mainstream. This includes their Constitutional "values." I don't think Alcon could be classified along those lines.

How do you define "libertarian?"

[Emsworth]

How do you define "libertarian?"

A rather rough definition: a libertarian is one who, regardless of personal values, believes that the state should protect, rather than restrict or regulate, either the economic or social liberty for the individual, even if any restriction is in the interests of the "common good." (This is a rather broad definition; obviously, exceptions apply in certain circumstances, e.g., libertarians would support depriving convicted criminals of certain rights.)

The term is not an easy one to define; neither is "liberal," "statist," or "conservative," for that matter. If we use a similar type of definition, a statist would believe that the state should restrict liberty in the interest of the common good; a liberal might say the same of economic liberty, and a conservative of social or civil liberty.

[Gabu]

Gabu does strike me as libertarian to a degree because though he holds what he calls conservative values, he generally believes in individual freedom and economic freedoms. Nation and Beef are populists if anything (Beef especially).

I would personally describe myself, at most, as a libertarian-leaning liberal.  As I've said before, I probably have more conservative economic views than your average, mainstream liberal, but I would not consider myself libertarian, because I do not, for example, want to privatize roads and the police force.

The "conservative values" that I said I hold are mainly personal and social in nature, such as not being sexually promiscuous, not liking alcohol or drugs, and other such things.  They don't have any relation to economic conservativism.

[Cashcow]

How do you define "libertarian?"

A rather rough definition: a libertarian is one who, regardless of personal values, believes that the state should protect, rather than restrict or regulate, either the economic or social liberty for the individual, even if any restriction is in the interests of the "common good.

That definition is still far too broad, and may also require an analysis of "liberty," among other things. What is liberty? Is it restraining all government acts within the boundaries set by the Constitution? If, hypothetically, Congress had to take a vote on sending troops and aid to the Gulf Coast, would libertarians oppose federal action? When does ignoring the "common good" for the sake of "liberty" mean letting the country tear itself apart?

[Emsworth]

That definition is still far too broad, and may also require an analysis of "liberty," among other things. What is liberty? Is it restraining all government acts within the boundaries set by the Constitution? If, hypothetically, Congress had to take a vote on sending troops and aid to the Gulf Coast, would Libertarians oppose federal action?

A libertarian would not object to sending either troops or aid (at least on constitutional grounds). Sending troops is undoubtedly covered by Art. IV, Sec. iv; sending aid in this instance would be permissible under the general welfare and elastic clauses.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Even a libertarian would agree that in some cases, some liberty must be sacrificed to preserve fundamental rights in general. For example, a libertarian would not object to taxation, even though it arguably infringes upon property rights, because the taxes are presumably being used to protect the rights of the People. Basically, some rights should only be "infringed" to preserve more fundamental ones, rather than for vague ideals like the "common good."

If there can be moderate and extreme liberals, and moderate and extreme conservatives, I don't see why we can't have moderate and extreme libertarians (the latter being closer to anarchists).

[A18]

Libertarianism is the opposition to coercion, and accepts government only as a necessary evil.

BTW, the Constitution is irrelevant to libertarianism. The Constitution allows for a 99% tax rate, but I'd hardly call that libertarian.

[Cashcow]

That definition is still far too broad, and may also require an analysis of "liberty," among other things. What is liberty? Is it restraining all government acts within the boundaries set by the Constitution? If, hypothetically, Congress had to take a vote on sending troops and aid to the Gulf Coast, would Libertarians oppose federal action?

A libertarian would not object to sending either troops or aid (at least on constitutional grounds). Sending troops is undoubtedly covered by Art. IV, Sec. iv; sending aid in this instance would be permissible under the general welfare and elastic clauses.

What do you not understand about "hypothetical?" Assume, for a moment, that it was Constitutionally unsound. I use this as an example because I feel that libertarians generally care more about the Constitution than the people, even in the very worst situations.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then why do so many libertarians oppose conscription? In many cases, has it not defended the right to life, liberty, and property? Which is more important?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Under that definition, the only extreme libertarian is Bono. I still don't think Alcon matches. Maybe he's gone further off the deep end than I'd previously thought.

[Emsworth]

What do you not understand about "hypothetical?"

You made no indication that I was to assume that the Constitution was different from what it actually is.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There would be only two types of persons in the situation you describe: those who think that the Constitution should be obeyed, and those who don't. Libertarianism is irrelevant in this case.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then why do so many libertarians oppose conscription? In many cases, has it not defended the right to life, liberty, and property? Which is more important?[/quote]
I said "more fundamental [rights]." What more fundamental right is there than that of life? One who is conscripted will have to forego his own right to life for the benefit of another. It's vastly different from taxation's "infringement" of the right to property.

[John Dibble]

I feel that the word "libertarian" is overused on this forum. In other threads, people like Beef, Gabu, and Nation are being classified as such.

I can only think of three libertarian Democrats on the forum: Alcon, JFK, and me.

I would add Gabu to your list, though he's definitely closer to center than you are. Other than that, I can't think of anyone who'd fit the bill.

[Cashcow]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There would be only two types of persons in the situation you describe: those who think that the Constitution should be obeyed, and those who don't. Libertarianism is irrelevant in this case.

There is a clear association between libertarians and rabid Constitutionalists. It may not be as awful as the members of the Constitution Party, but it definitely exists.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would argue that sacrificing the rights of a few for the rights of millions more is certainly more than "common good," especially when its efforts are directed at the survival of this nation.

Rehnquist just died.

[John Dibble]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There would be only two types of persons in the situation you describe: those who think that the Constitution should be obeyed, and those who don't. Libertarianism is irrelevant in this case.

There is a clear association between libertarians and rabid Constitutionalists. It may not be as awful as the members of the Constitution Party, but it definitely exists.

Libertarians tend to believe in following the Constitution because it is in synch with a good deal of our beliefs - limited federal government, certain rights protected from infringement, things like that. If the Constitution was instead a document of say, tyranny or big government, we would not support it.

[Emsworth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There would be only two types of persons in the situation you describe: those who think that the Constitution should be obeyed, and those who don't. Libertarianism is irrelevant in this case.

There is a clear association between libertarians and rabid Constitutionalists. It may not be as awful as the members of the Constitution Party, but it definitely exists.

Libertarians tend to believe in following the Constitution because it is in synch with a good deal of our beliefs - limited federal government, certain rights protected from infringement, things like that. If the Constitution was instead a document of say, tyranny or big government, we would not support it.

Yes: I'm sure that a libertarian in, say, the Islamic Republic of Iran would have as much regard for their fundamental document.

[Cashcow]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There would be only two types of persons in the situation you describe: those who think that the Constitution should be obeyed, and those who don't. Libertarianism is irrelevant in this case.

There is a clear association between libertarians and rabid Constitutionalists. It may not be as awful as the members of the Constitution Party, but it definitely exists.

Libertarians tend to believe in following the Constitution because it is in synch with a good deal of our beliefs - limited federal government, certain rights protected from infringement, things like that. If the Constitution was instead a document of say, tyranny or big government, we would not support it.

Yes: I'm sure that a libertarian in, say, the Islamic Republic of Iran would have as much regard for their fundamental document.

I was not aware that Alcon is Iranian.

[Emsworth]

I was not aware that Alcon is Iranian.

You aren't the only one who's allowed to use hypotheticals.

[John Dibble]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There would be only two types of persons in the situation you describe: those who think that the Constitution should be obeyed, and those who don't. Libertarianism is irrelevant in this case.

There is a clear association between libertarians and rabid Constitutionalists. It may not be as awful as the members of the Constitution Party, but it definitely exists.

Libertarians tend to believe in following the Constitution because it is in synch with a good deal of our beliefs - limited federal government, certain rights protected from infringement, things like that. If the Constitution was instead a document of say, tyranny or big government, we would not support it.

Yes: I'm sure that a libertarian in, say, the Islamic Republic of Iran would have as much regard for their fundamental document.

This inspired me to actually take a look at their constitution.

http://www.iranonline.com/iran/iran-info/Government/constitution.html

If you'll look under rights of the people, pretty much every right only protected if it is not "detrimental to the fundamental principles of Islam" or "except as provided by law." The only good one they have is freedom of belief, though you don't have the right to express it if it contradicts Islam. So, indeed there's no way any real libertarian would support this document.

[Citizen James]

The probem here is like many terms, there is more than one definiton - related perhaps, but different nonetheless. 

You have the libertarian party, which is socially libertarian and economically conservative.

You have the social libertarians, who believe that the government should allow the people widespread social freedoms.  The Green party would be an example of a socially libertarian economically liberal group.

The interesting thing is that the socalliy libertarian can often have highly divergent views of human nature even with even within their economic quadrant.

You have the social darwinist style libertarians, who see life as a jungle where that which does not kill you makes you stronger, and that which does clears out room for those who are stronger than you.

Then you have the 'cheerful' type who see human nature as basically good.   People who are in need are either helped by private individuals and groups (economically right), or the government exists to provide for the common good - be it highway construction, defense, figherfighting, education, or welfare.  (economically left).