Sudden, inner realization that I am a libertarian?

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Center-right-leaning Libertarian Domestic policy.

Overall, you're probably a Center-Right leaning Conservative/Libertarian.

Again, since you seem to be confused: You can not be libertarian and not support the non-aggression principle. Libertarianism /=/ "mainline" conservatism minus the jesus stuff. Or whatever Glenn Beck or Bill Maher said this week.

What's that position fully entail again?

Not favoring the "initiation of force" (or threat of force) against individuals for any reason. And I mean, any reason. If you can think of an exception to that stance you're not actually a libertarian. It's sort of like saying you're a marxist but very patriotic or a muslim except you don't believe in the whole "god" thing.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block26.html

Hmm... I recall Wormy citing something about self defense or even defense of others.

[tpfkaw]

Center-right-leaning Libertarian Domestic policy.

Overall, you're probably a Center-Right leaning Conservative/Libertarian.

Again, since you seem to be confused: You can not be libertarian and not support the non-aggression principle. Libertarianism /=/ "mainline" conservatism minus the jesus stuff. Or whatever Glenn Beck or Bill Maher said this week.

What's that position fully entail again?

Not favoring the "initiation of force" (or threat of force) against individuals for any reason. And I mean, any reason. If you can think of an exception to that stance you're not actually a libertarian. It's sort of like saying you're a marxist but very patriotic or a muslim except you don't believe in the whole "god" thing.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block26.html

Hmm... I recall Wormy citing something about self defense or even defense of others.

Key word is initiation.  Total pacifism (no force is legitimate at all) is essentially just taking the same concept further.

[Redalgo]

In a nutshell, right-libertarians want the government to only enforce property rights - otherwise it is the business of individuals to do whatever they want, however they want, when they can. This is in contrast to left-libertarians, who are usually communists or socialist advocates of minimally-coercive, decentralized workers' councils. For a true right-libertarian a standing military is rather undesirable, the environment is best left to private interests to manage (but there are market forces at work and you may still sue polluters if they damage your property), the state has no business taxing people to operate schools, and folks are entitled to give however much they want to political campaigns in secret if  they wish.

Right-libertarians are pretty uncommon in the States - though a number of people have fewer authoritarian tendencies than communitarians and most liberals. These are the blokes who just want to be left alone by outside sources of moral authority, whether it be from the mainstream right, left, or otherwise. If people want to use the label "libertarian" loosely that is fine - I love to redefine labels for different uses in different contexts - but I see folks like Barry Goldwater and Ron Paul as being caught between what it means to be libertarian or a socially conservative advocate of limited government.

[courts]

In a nutshell, right-libertarians want the government to only enforce property rights - otherwise it is the business of individuals to do whatever they want, however they want, when they can. This is in contrast to left-libertarians, who are usually communists or socialist advocates of minimally-coercive, decentralized workers' councils. For a true right-libertarian a standing military is undesirable, the environment should be tended to by private interests (but there are market forces and you can sue polluters if they damage your property), the state has no business taxing people to operate schools, and folks are entitled to give however much they want to political campaigns in secret if  they wish.

There are few right-libertarians in the States - though a number of people have fewer authoritarian tendencies than communitarians and most liberals. These are the blokes who just want to be left alone by outside sources of moral authority, whether it be from the mainstream right, left, or otherwise.

No, you're talking about a certain kind of minarchist. Libertarians would argue that government in the conventional sense of the term is morally wrong, because it's a kind of monopoly and forces people to pay taxes for services they don't use (or things they object to, like war) as opposed to user fees. At its core, Libertarianism is basically anarcho capitalist or voluntarist. Please note too that I am not implying I endorse that viewpoint, just that's what it actually is.

[courts]

You mean something along the lines of an Ayn Rand's objectivism? I suppose minarchism isn't as far as libertarian principles can be pushed.

Ayn Rand was actually extremely anti-libertarian, she said she saw them as frauds and plagiarists (who misunderstood her work) in several interviews. She also was a huge Nixon supporter - in 1972.

[Redalgo]

That's interesting to know, thanks! Also, sorry for deleting the previous post. I have a bad habit of editing after I post and continue to mull over my thoughts.

[courts]

That's interesting to know, thanks! Also, sorry for deleting the previous post. I have a bad habit of editing after I post and continue to mull over my thoughts.

No problem. Hope this isn't too pedantic for anyone, I know even posting the sparknotes version of all this stuff was a little tiring for me.

[tpfkaw]

There's actually somewhat of an internal dispute in the Libertarian Party about what constitutes libertarianism - the "radical" faction supports the non-aggression principle (and therefore either anarchism or voluntaryist minarchism), while the other faction claims that anyone who generally supports reducing the size of government in most areas should be considered a libertarian (and will accordingly describe themselves based on buzzwords - "fiscally conservative and socially liberal," "low-tax liberal," etc. - this is also the faction most Randites belong to).

I'd personally side with the former as to the definition of the term, not just because I agree with them ideologically but also because they're the ones who actually founded the party and because they're the only ones who have actually advanced a coherent philosophy instead of a purely-negative and ever-changing one ("less government").  However, I do have to hand it to the second faction that they have pretty much managed to redefinine the term "libertarian" in the popular imagination.

[This user has not been convicted of 34 felonies]

I consider myself entirely pacifist.

[Is Totally Not Feeblepizza.]

There's actually somewhat of an internal dispute in the Libertarian Party about what constitutes libertarianism - the "radical" faction supports the non-aggression principle (and therefore either anarchism or voluntaryist minarchism), while the other faction claims that anyone who generally supports reducing the size of government in most areas should be considered a libertarian (and will accordingly describe themselves based on buzzwords - "fiscally conservative and socially liberal," "low-tax liberal," etc. - this is also the faction most Randites belong to).

I'd personally side with the former as to the definition of the term, not just because I agree with them ideologically but also because they're the ones who actually founded the party and because they're the only ones who have actually advanced a coherent philosophy instead of a purely-negative and ever-changing one ("less government").  However, I do have to hand it to the second faction that they have pretty much managed to redefinine the term "libertarian" in the popular imagination.

By this definition I would side with the latter faction, but of course I could also realistically hold these beliefs and be a Republican or a Democrat instead of a third-partier.

[Person Man]

I don't know, judging by your description (foreign policy hawkish, opposed to legal abortion, strong national security measures) you still seem like a conservative to me, just a socially moderate conservative. Why aren't you supporting Mitt Romney?

I'd go with that....or not even socially moderate. Perhaps just not socially far-right.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Speaking of redefining "libertarianism":

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

-Ronald Reagan

[freefair]

I actually used to call myself Libertarian, but I realise that I don't go the whole hog, so these days I'm a Classical Liberal. I am very close to a Libertarian, but I feel that the state should exist to provide a standing army (though far smaller than the U.S military, which is an outrageous drain on money), a Police force , Law Courts, Property Rights (including protection from environmental damage), and a very basic safety net which involves giving children the right to a good quality, free education.

[Is Totally Not Feeblepizza.]

I actually used to call myself Libertarian, but I realise that I don't go the whole hog, so these days I'm a Classical Liberal. I am very close to a Libertarian, but I feel that the state should exist to provide a standing army (though far smaller than the U.S military, which is an outrageous drain on money), a Police force , Law Courts, Property Rights (including protection from environmental damage), and a very basic safety net which involves giving children the right to a good quality, free education.

Hmm. This actually seems pretty close to me. Of course, I've been under the impression that classical liberalism = modern American conservatism.

[dead0man]

I actually used to call myself Libertarian, but I realise that I don't go the whole hog, so these days I'm a Classical Liberal. I am very close to a Libertarian, but I feel that the state should exist to provide a standing army (though far smaller than the U.S military, which is an outrageous drain on money), a Police force , Law Courts, Property Rights (including protection from environmental damage), and a very basic safety net which involves giving children the right to a good quality, free education.

Despite what some people will tell you, libertarianism and anarchy are NOT the same thing.  You can be a libertarian (big L or little l) and support an Army and cops and schools and courts and such...in fact, if you are a libertarian (and are not in the anarchist camp) you should support those things.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I actually used to call myself Libertarian, but I realise that I don't go the whole hog, so these days I'm a Classical Liberal. I am very close to a Libertarian, but I feel that the state should exist to provide a standing army (though far smaller than the U.S military, which is an outrageous drain on money), a Police force , Law Courts, Property Rights (including protection from environmental damage), and a very basic safety net which involves giving children the right to a good quality, free education.

Despite what some people will tell you, libertarianism and anarchy are NOT the same thing.  You can be a libertarian (big L or little l) and support an Army and cops and schools and courts and such...in fact, if you are a libertarian (and are not in the anarchist camp) you should support those things.

What is the libertarian rationale for public schools?

[freefair]

No they don't have to be publicly run, infact they don't even have to be publicly funded, they just have to be free at the point of use for those that cannot immediateky afford it, maybe a student loan system would be the libertarian way of getting poor kids educated?

[Is Totally Not Feeblepizza.]

No they don't have to be publicly run, infact they don't even have to be publicly funded, they just have to be free at the point of use for those that cannot immediateky afford it, maybe a student loan system would be the libertarian way of getting poor kids educated?

Hmm...more like significantly restructuring the federal government's education apparatus and simply offering block grants to states/school districts. Or, better yet, funding charter schools.