Libertarians!

[Christi]

Explain it to me! I think that it might be kind of along the lines of what I believe, if I knew what it was exactly (both what Libertarians believe and what I believe both! I have a tendency to be on the 'maybe' boat! LOL)

[Danielle]

Basically, I believe that every person has the right to live their life as they please as long as the way they do so does not infringe on the liberties of others. That's how I interpret libertarianism... it may be a bit simplistic but it's the easiest way for me to describe my beliefs.

[Jejune]

I'm going to shamelessly bump this, because I suspect it will spark interesting discussion.

No shame! Not an iota! Bump bump bump!

[Christine]

I'm with Christi. I think that's what I am, because I seem to align well with people who call themselves Libertarian but I'm not entirely sure what all it entails.

[Marzipan]

I'm a libertarian, and a Libertarian. The first being my political philisophy, the second being my political affiliation. I don't actually agree with the entire Libertarian party platform, but I think third party representation is important enough that I'm a registered member. Not all small-l libertarians are registered Libertarians. I hope I'm making sense here.

There are two main camps in the libertarian philosophy, that of the consequentialists (me, Milton Friedman, most people who tell you they are libertarian) and the right theorists (frequently people who identify as anarchists.) Truth be told, the latter camp tends towards unsustainable idealism. They assert that there should be no government at all, because if there were no government, people would band together in happy little groups and grow organic hemp or whatever. (Can you tell I find their ideas ridiculous?) They also believe in no taxes whatsoever. While I think taxes suck, I also believe that civil liberties are the essential core of human dignity and that we do need some taxes to support those institutions that allow us to maintain our civil liberties. Most libertarians (consequentialists)feel that the function of the government is to maintain the civil infrastructure (courts, police, major roads, etc.) and to provide for the national defense without a draft. That's pretty much where I am.

The consequentialists, or classical liberals, are the more mainstream group and are largely embodied by people who believe in small government (old-school Republicans, not this neo-con garbage) low taxes, little to no restraint on the free market, no draft, and little to no limits on civil liberties. (This includes opposition to laws on "victimless crimes" like drugs, prostitution, gambling, etc.) Honestly, I could go on for pages here.

As I summed it up to my sister when she asked me about it, "Libertarians think you should be allowed to do whatever the hell you want as long as you're not hurting anybody and they don't have to pay for it."

ETA: Please excuse my abundance of parentheticals. This is a topic that is near and dear to me, and I kept thinking of bits to add.

[Kristen]

I agree with your analysis of the happy-hemp-smoking group. um, yeah, not gonna happen! LOL

I think I might tend towards some Libertarian sort of thinking, though, esp. the small government, low-tax end of things.

[Christine]

I'm definitely not a right theorist. I believe that society would move toward chaos, not order.

According to your definition of a libertarian, it lines up with what I believe.

[Christi]

:yup That lines up better with what I believe that anything else out there, I believe. Please do go on, Marci, cause I need to know more!! LOL

[Jessica]

You girls should check out Neal Boortz if your interested in more on being a libertarian. http://boortz.com/ :thumbsup

[Christine]

We listen to him almost every night on talk radio Jess! Since I'm usually agreeing with him, I figured I must be in line with what he believes. ;)

[Danielle]

Okay, that's a great site Jess! I did the quiz and I'm square in the middle of the Libertarian "zone"- like I didn't already know, lol.

I like this description:
LIBERTARIANS support maximum liberty in both personal and

economic matters. They advocate a much smaller government; one

that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence.

Libertarians tend to embrace individual responsibility, oppose

government bureaucracy and taxes, promote private charity, tolerate

diverse lifestyles, support the free market, and defend civil liberties.

[Lori]

I took the quiz, and I am, not surprisingly, not a libertarian. ;) I do think that most issues of individual conscience should be left to individual conscience and not to government mandate (which is where I'd put most issues concerning sex, drug use, and other private matters among consenting adults), but there are certain things--health care, housing, education--that I think are so central to people's well-being and ability to function as citizens that they should not be profit-making enterprises and are best handled by the government.

LIBERALS usually embrace freedom of choice in personal
matters, but tend to support significant government control of the
economy. They generally support a government-funded "safety net"
to help the disadvantaged, and advocate strict regulation
of business. Liberals tend to favor environmental regulations,
defend civil liberties and free expression, support government action
to promote equality, and tolerate diverse lifestyles.

That's definitely me. I don't think we have any historical evidence for believing that, without a government-funded safety-net, there wouldn't be far more poverty than there is today, and far more dire poverty.

I am curious about what libertarians think about what would happen to the poor without a government safety net, given the situation of the poor in countries without a safety net. Do they think that the poor will be taken care of (and why?) or (and I really don't mean this in a negative way) is the situation of the poor just not a particular concern of libertarianism? Government assistance programs began because people were starving to death in this country, and people aren't starving to death any more. I'm wondering what rationale there is for assuming that, if we took away the safety net, people wouldn't be starving to death again? I would assume that many libertarians don't think that would be the case, but I've never been sure why.

[Marzipan]

Well, I have no issue with a safety net. I just don't like when the net turns into a hammock. I think some major changes need to be made to the welfare system, but I am not inherently opposed to it. My main issue with an over-reaching government is that it either fails to empower people because it tells them they are too incompetent to be good stewards of their own lives, or because it allocates resources and then fails to properly educate on how the make the best choice available. One of my main complaints in the latter arena revolves around food stamps/Independence cards and the utter lack of any kind of finance courses in high school. The job of the government is not to take care of me. It is to provide for the safety of my country and help me become empowered enough to take care of myself. People have forgotten that among their protected civil liberties is the right to be a failure.

[Danielle]

Well, obviously I'm not opposed to the safety net as I am a case manager for social services and I personally issue "welfare" cheques daily.

However, I can tell you first hand that the government has absolutely NO CLUE what the reality is in terms of serving the poor and providing for those in society that are most in need. Those of us in "the trenches" see what REAL need is and, if the frontline service providers (ie: charities, churches, agencies, food banks) were given more say in how the money was dispursed, things would be VERY differnet, I assure you.

I have no problem with my tax dollars going to social programs but I do have a problem with the well-fed, rich, clueless politicians deciding how that money "best serves" those in need.

[Lori]

However, I can tell you first hand that the government has absolutely NO CLUE what the reality is in terms of serving the poor and providing for those in society that are most in need. Those of us in "the trenches" see what REAL need is and, if the frontline service providers (ie: charities, churches, agencies, food banks) were given more say in how the money was dispursed, things would be VERY differnet, I assure you.


I do agree with that, but at the same time, without tax funding, I really don't think they'd have enough money to serve people. I know that my church provides services, but they are band-aid services. We can give somebody a hot meal or a place to sleep for the night or enough money to keep their heat from getting shut off, but the resources simply aren't there to provide them with food stamps or real housing assistance, the way that government agencies can.

Services were provided by private organizations for centuries, and it resulted in poor people starving to death, and children being abandoned, and all sorts of terrible things. Private organizations also have the option of refusing services to anyone they choose to refuse, or only offering services with strings attached ("You can eat a hot meal here, but first you have to listen to me preach for an hour"; "We'll offer you aid if you stop engaging in behaviors A, B, and C"), which government-funded agencies obviously cannot. So while I agree that giving more control over what to do with the government money to the agencies themselves would make sense, I do think that completely abolishing government aid programs and leaving it all to private charities would result in massive suffering.

For me I guess it's a matter of rights. I think that there are certain things--shelter, food, education, health care--that everybody has a right to, in the very concrete sense that a society has a responsibility to make sure that every single person has them. And if they are made private, then there just can't be a guarantee.

[Danielle]

For me I guess it's a matter of rights. I think that there are certain things--shelter, food, education, health care--that everybody has a right to, in the very concrete sense that a society has a responsibility to make sure that every single person has them. And if they are made private, then there just can't be a guarantee.

ITA with that. As I said, the tax funding is not what I personally have a problem with, and I know that varies from the beliefs of a "true" libertarian but as we all know, there are no absolutes. My problem is with the way the tax money is handled. If it were given out in the form of grants or funding for not-for-profit organizations, I believe it would be much more effective than it is now with the goverment in charge of who gets what.

[Lori]

Danielle, that's what I wasn't sure about, but I guess the issue of tax money just varies among libertarians. I can totally understand thinking that the way tax money is handled has problems, but I tend to think of wanting to abolish taxes either completely or almost completely when I think of libertarianism, and in that case I think that things would become so dog-eat-dog that people would only worry about their own well-being. I don't think that, if there were no taxes, people would give more to charity. If people didn't have the guarantee of a free education for their children, or government assistance when they retired, or unemployment benefits if they got laid off, they'd be so worried about the possibility of being in a position of absolute poverty that they'd hoard all their money, and probably wisely so.

I think experience is an issue, though, and more local control of certain things is a good idea. Obviously the people in a given community are going to have a better sense of where funds are needed and how best to use than them people who have no experience with that community and no knowledge of its needs.

[Christine]

I believe that if we were allowed to keep more of our money and not pay so much into taxes, that most people would be better able to care for themselves and their families. I don't think that what private charities do is a "band aid" solution. Giving someone a hot meal or a place to sleep is a very real solution to a very dire need. Giving someone crappy housing in a dangerous neighborhood is a much worse option than building them a house through a private charity, giving them job assistance and giving them a place to start.

Government entitlement programs do not really help people all that much. It gives them food as long as they don't strive to earn more money. It gives them healthcare as long as they don't strive for more. It's completely contrary to the "American Dream" of being able to provide for your family and stand on your own two feet.

Real help doesn't come in the form of government assistance. How many people do you honestly know that have pulled themselves up out of that system? How many do you know that have been in it for generations. That's no help at all. On the other hand, I've seen people personally helped by private charities where their whole worlds were turned around, for them and their family.

[Kristen]

Totally agreed, Christine.

[Lori]

Real help doesn't come in the form of government assistance. How many people do you honestly know that have pulled themselves up out of that system? How many do you know that have been in it for generations. That's no help at all. On the other hand, I've seen people personally helped by private charities where their whole worlds were turned around, for them and their family.

Many people DO get out of the system, rather easily. Most families on welfare are only on it for 2-3 years, and then go on to be able to support themselves. The people who stay on welfare for generations are the exceptions, but I'm very glad that it's there for them. I know several families who were on welfare when one or both partners were in school, and they went on to get degrees and now have no problem supporting their families. They were able to get help without strings attached, because if you make under a certain amount, that's all you need. With a private charity, if they didn't feel that their reasons for being in school were good enough, or that they were "worthy" enough, they could have easily denied them any aid.

But, I know several families here that live off of welfare, and honestly they probably aren't getting off of it. But, at the same time, there are literally dozens of missionaries in our neighborhood, and they might bring by toys for their kids, or a coat, but they aren't paying their rent and buying their groceries. Without government assistance, they and their children would starve, because these are not people who are going to be going out and getting jobs. And I really do not believe that private charities would be willing to support people like that for a lifetime, because that's never happened in the past. All we can look to is history, and historically private charities have refused to help people who they didn't consider "deserving." But I do believe that, no matter how bad their choices might be, all people still deserve the basic necessities of life and that we have an obligation to provide them for everyone in our society.

Before government assistance, people in this country died from starvation and exposure. In countries that lack a government-funded safety net, people still do. Private charities can help people, but they can't help everyone, and I do think that everyone--no matter what choices they make--deserves help. Even if they choose to sit around and not work, they still deserve, just by virtue of being a human being, food and shelter. I'd rather have 100 people take advantage of the welfare system than see one child starve to death in a country with so much wealth, and I really do believe that, without a welfare system, that's what would happen.

I just don't believe that an entirely libertarian state would provide adequate support for the poor. Sean and I were discussing one night whether we'd prefer to live in an entirely libertarian state or a fundamentalist theocracy, and, while we found both choices rather unappealing, we'd choose the theocracy, because at least then the government might feel some moral imperative to make sure people didn't starve to death. I just couldn't trust that the poor would be taken care of by the private sector. I have no problem at all with the idea that people should have to earn many things in life. Cars, nice clothing, entertainment, gourmet food, money to spend on vices--of course that isn't stuff the government should hand out. But, I don't think people need to earn or deserve the food and shelter they need to get by. Even if they absolutely refuse to work, I still think we have a moral duty to make sure they have the basic necessities.

[Lori]

Christine, I did want to agree completely with public housing in the United States being largely a disaster. I say largely, because in some places it's fantastic. Ann Arbor has what I'd consider a model public housing program, at least for the U.S. It had the insight to realize that ghettozing public housing is a bad idea, so instead of creating huge, sprawling complexes, it has a bunch of small public housing units placed throughout the town. Public housing there is as safe as anywhere else, well-maintained, and very much available (they have very generous eligibility requirements--we are considering moving back there, and we could qualify for a low-cost unit, as a family of 3 making almost $30K). Unfortunately, it's also so in-demand it can take years to get a unit.

Detroit, on the other hand, is an example of the worst of public housing. We live a few blocks away from a housing project, and I don't even feel safe walking by it, much less through it. Most of the crime in our part of the neighborhood comes from there, and it just makes the entire neighborhood much less safe. There is a really wonderful woman who lives around the corner from me who bought a lot of property in this part of the neighborhood with her husband in the 1970s, and rents them out at about 1/2 of the usual rental price around here, so that families who would otherwise have to live in the housing projects can live here, where it's a good deal safer. And it's a great example of an individual doing a really great thing, but at the same time she only has about 30 tenants, and there are hundreds of thousands of people living in public housing here. And, she's the only landlord around here doing that. Part of the reason why certain areas become so crime-ridden is not public housing, but because private landlords can choose or not choose to accept Section 8 vouchers. Many landlords don't want to have "undesirable" people living in their properties, so they won't take the vouchers, and the landlords who will are often (but obviously not always) offering badly-maintained properties in bad areas to desperate people.

So I have no idea what the solution to the housing problem in the U.S. is, but I don't think that abandoning govenment assistance is the answer, since it's already clear that many private landlords want no part of providing housing to the poor. Other countries have much, much better public housing systems, that serve more people and aren't the slums they tend to be here, and I think we'd do well to follow their model.

[Danielle]

Real help doesn't come in the form of government assistance. How many people do you honestly know that have pulled themselves up out of that system?


Actually, I know lots. Several of my clients become independent every month. Honestly, the "generational" cases are the minority. Most users of social assistance are using it the way it's intended, as a stepping stone.