An alarming number of self described libertarians/anarchists support Trump.

[Blackjack200]

I lean libertarian in that I believe the individual should be left alone so long as he is not harming another or violating their rights.

Don't you see the absurdity of that? It imagines people as a bunch of individual organisms that happen to live close to each other because they don't have unlimited amounts of space and resources. People simply cannot survive and thrive without huge amounts of support from the societies they live in, so the idea those societies have no claim to the productive outputs of people makes no sense.

Are there any hard libertarians out there that aren't considered loons?

 

[Amused]

Don't you see the absurdity of that? It imagines people as a bunch of individual organisms that happen to live close to each other because they don't have unlimited amounts of space and resources. People simply cannot survive and thrive without huge amounts of support from the societies they live in, so the idea those societies have no claim to the productive outputs of people makes no sense.

Are there any hard libertarians out there that aren't considered loons?

How is individual freedom anathema to working together as a society?

I fail to see your point, as actually, the most productive and progressive societies in history have one thing in common: Age of enlightenment belief in the right to individual freedom and rights.

 

[Sunburn74]

Libertarianism at its core says that people should self govern. Men have never been able to govern themselves. Its a fools errand to think you can run a country that way.

How is individual freedom anathema to working together as a society?

I fail to see your point, as actually, the most productive and progressive societies in history have one thing in common: Age of enlightenment belief in the right to individual freedom and rights.

Bullshit. Renaissance was as dictatorial as any age prior. Even the later french revolution is no proof that libertarian principles were effectively used to create and run a country. It only lead to more dictatorial rule for decades after.

 

[ivwshane]

Libertarians are like most other isms, great on paper but fail in reality.

Subscribing to any one ideology, to me, is just an exercise in intellectual laziness. Its the same with using religion to explain the wonders of the world, it forces people to defend their views instead of adjusting to reality.

 

[Ichinisan]

Libertarian here. Can't stand Trump.

Fuck that guy. Seriously.

 

[Amused]

Libertarianism at its core says that people should self govern. Men have never been able to govern themselves. Its a fools errand to think you can run a country that way.


Bullshit. Renaissance was as dictatorial as any age prior. Even the later french revolution is no proof that libertarian principles were effectively used to create and run a country. It only lead to more dictatorial rule for decades after.

I hate to break it to you, but a major philosophy that set the age of enlightenment apart from all previous was the rights of the individual.

You're confusing age of enlightenment with the renaissance, two different periods. The renaissance preceded the Age of Enlightenment.

The Age of Enlightenment is what gave us classical liberalism and the very philosophy that an individual's rights and freedoms are inherent.

 

[Sunburn74]

I hate to break it to you, but a major philosophy that set the age of enlightenment apart from all previous was the rights of the individual.

You're confusing age of enlightenment with the renaissance, two different periods. The renaissance preceded the Age of Enlightenment.

The Age of Enlightenment is what gave us classical liberalism and the very philosophy that an individual's rights and freedoms are inherent.

I'm not here for the history lesson as to the subtleties of when one age ended and the other began. The renaissance begat the age of enlightment which led to french revolution which led to napoleonic rule as a consequence. Even during the age of enlightment, in europe the rule of law was still mostly dictatorial despite a few philosophers waxing poetic about rights and freedoms.

My point is real world examples for effectively run countries by pure libertarianism is non-existent. Even authoritarianism and dictatorships have a much better track record.

 

[Amused]

I'm not here for the history lesson as to the subtleties of when one age ended and the other began. The renaissance begat the age of enlightment which led to french revolution which led to napoleonic rule as a consequence. Even during the age of enlightment, in europe the rule of law was still mostly dictatorial despite a few philosophers waxing poetic about rights and freedoms.

My point is real world examples for effectively run countries by pure libertarianism is non-existent. Even authoritarianism and dictatorships have a much better track record.

I've never expressed any support for pure libertarianism.

Care to actually debate what I have said?

 

[local]

I grew up conservative voted for Bush in '04 because that was what I was conditioned to do, plus support the Texan thing. By '08 I was getting pretty disgusted with the GOP in general. Spending money we didn't have for things we didn't need all while saying we spend too much money and telling us what to do in our personal lives.

Unlike pretty much everyone around me I didn't dislike Obama he seemed like a nice guy and I agree with the Dems on abortion and gay marriage but I was against things like the ACA, giving ILLEGALS citizenship and "handout" type programs.

As I grew up a bit and started making my own political opinions I found myself in the Socially Liberal and Fiscally Conservative corner of the scale. But since we do not have a party for that in the '08 election I voted Lib as at least they said they didn't want to force people to do anything and agreed we spent too much money on everything, including the military.

In the '12 election it seems the GOP got even worse while the Dems and Obama had proven that they didn't mind meddling in regime change themselves so once again I voted Lib as it was the closest to what I wanted.

This time around during the primary by the time voting came to Texas we had Trump who seemed poised to implode the GOP and Cruz who could go couldn't lead himself out of a paper bag. I wanted the GOP to implode even if that meant handing the election to Hillary so I voted Trump in the primary, pointless in TX which was always going to go Cruz but I felt I had done my part in destroying the fake conservative party. I was quite disappointed when the GOP managed to rally behind Trump and stay intact. So once again I voted Lib in the election because I very much disliked both options. Like many of you I was surprised when Trump won and was cautiously optimistic that an outsider could do something good but all that optimism was gone almost as soon as his picks started coming out.

Honestly I would have rather had another term for Obama than Trump or Hillary. Voicing my dislike of Trump would get me ostracized in my circle but I manage to get some decent jabs in where others cannot possibly take the position of supporting Trump.

I very much do not have a political party and am too idealistic to vote for the lesser evil. So I make my protest vote and move on knowing that the next four years at least will suck.

tl;dr Screw the GOP and the Dems.

 

[Blackjack200]

How is individual freedom anathema to working together as a society?

Because individual freedom allows individuals to ignore the social compact while enjoying the benefits of living in a society.

I fail to see your point, as actually, the most productive and progressive societies in history have one thing in common: Age of enlightenment belief in the right to individual freedom and rights.

Can you give an example of a productive and progressive society that was libertarian in nature? My point is that it's not a useful economic idea because it contradicts to social nature of people. Libertarianism is rooted in individualism, not socialism. But we are not an individual creature, we are a social creature.

 

[Amused]

Because individual freedom allows individuals to ignore the social compact while enjoying the benefits of living in a society.



Can you give an example of a productive and progressive society that was libertarian in nature? My point is that it's not a useful economic idea because it contradicts to social nature of people. Libertarianism is rooted in individualism, not socialism. But we are not an individual creature, we are a social creature.

Again, I never expressed any support for a pure libertarian (as in Libertarian party) society. What part of this are you not understanding?

I support classically liberal societies. The entire basis of modern western civilization. And yes, that includes individual rights and freedoms.

 

[Blackjack200]

Again, I never expressed any support for a pure libertarian (as in Libertarian party) society. What part of this are you not understanding?

I support classically liberal societies. The entire basis of modern western civilization. And yes, that includes individual rights and freedoms.

I don't seem to be the only one confused by what you're saying, so maybe it would help if you clarified it a little bit. What individual rights and freedoms do we not have now, that you think we should have? That you think would lead to a more progressive and productive society?

What specific classically liberal society are you referring to?

 

[Amused]

I don't seem to be the only one confused by what you're saying, so maybe it would help if you clarified it a little bit. What individual rights and freedoms do we not have now, that you think we should have? That you think would lead to a more progressive and productive society?

What specific classically liberal society are you referring to?

I support the liberalism of America. Maximum individual liberty while still protecting the rights and freedoms of the individual and the country and maintaining a civil, productive and legally equal society.

So I guess you could call me a libertarian leaning liberal conservative. Or a moderate. If that's easier.

I find myself equally debating with both leftists, and right-wingers.

 

[Phokus]

There's no money in being a libertarian, there's a shitload of money in being a crazy rightwing populist though, just see breitbart and infowars.

I mean, what's more 'interesting', talking about how everyone should be able to smoke marijuana and own any gun they want or pretending hillary clinton's campaign runs a pedophile ring in a pizza shop?

Not surprised libertarians might be seduced by the populist right, besides that, a lot of libertarians are naturally into conspiracy theories like the government being behind 9/11 and shit.

 

[agent00f]

I'm not here for the history lesson as to the subtleties of when one age ended and the other began. The renaissance begat the age of enlightment which led to french revolution which led to napoleonic rule as a consequence. Even during the age of enlightment, in europe the rule of law was still mostly dictatorial despite a few philosophers waxing poetic about rights and freedoms.

My point is real world examples for effectively run countries by pure libertarianism is non-existent. Even authoritarianism and dictatorships have a much better track record.

Enlightenment ideals influenced much of modernity, such as the best parts underlying the United States, western europe, and so on. Of course it began as an academic thought exercise, but gradually spread over a period of centuries to what it is today.

Again, I never expressed any support for a pure libertarian (as in Libertarian party) society. What part of this are you not understanding?

I support classically liberal societies. The entire basis of modern western civilization. And yes, that includes individual rights and freedoms.

Also worth noting said "ideals" weren't some absolute law, but a general notion that humans can learn to accomplish greater things if given opportunity and provided the leeway. In more modern times it's gradually been understood to mean enough governance (ie support from some centralized body) to achieve this. American "libertarians" tend to oppose the lessons from history which suggest the latter is necessary.

 

[mikeymikec]

I don't seem to be the only one confused by what you're saying, so maybe it would help if you clarified it a little bit. What individual rights and freedoms do we not have now, that you think we should have? That you think would lead to a more progressive and productive society?

What specific classically liberal society are you referring to?

I think maybe if you stop trying to pigeon-hole his opinions into some other category then maybe you'd have less difficulty understanding what he said.

 

[Blackjack200]

I support the liberalism of America. Maximum individual liberty while still protecting the rights and freedoms of the individual and the country and maintaining a civil, productive and legally equal society.

Right, but those are just banal platitudes. The substantive question is where you think the state belongs in regards to individual or social interests. I don't think you can have a productive discussion on these ideas without being more specific.

So I guess you could call me a libertarian leaning liberal conservative. Or a moderate. If that's easier.

I find myself equally debating with both leftists, and right-wingers.

You pushed back against the idea that you're a "pure libertarian", so how do you differ in your views from a more "pure" libertarian.

 

[Genx87]

These people jumped on the libertarian bandwagon in 08. It distances themselves from the Bush debacle while looking like they want small un-intrusive govt. But listen to what a lot of these people have to say and it is clear they are authoritarians. Interested in forcing their version of big govt down our throats.

 

[Genx87]

Libertarians are just a strange form of authoritarianism, the authority of wealth & ownership over even the govt of the people.

Spoken like somebody who hasnt a clue. Im sure you also call Somalia a libertarian paradise.

 

[fskimospy]

These people jumped on the libertarian bandwagon in 08. It distances themselves from the Bush debacle while looking like they want small un-intrusive govt. But listen to what a lot of these people have to say and it is clear they are authoritarians. Interested in forcing their version of big govt down our throats.

Definitely this. The proliferation of supposed libertarianism among conservatives was a convenient vehicle for them to continue opposing Obama and Democrats while not having to take ownership for the near total failure of conservatism over the previous eight years. The same people who happily voted for Bush twice immediately started denouncing him as 'not a true conservative' once he fell out of favor.

 

[brandonbull]

There's no money in being a libertarian, there's a shitload of money in being a crazy rightwing populist though, just see breitbart and infowars.

I mean, what's more 'interesting', talking about how everyone should be able to smoke marijuana and own any gun they want or pretending hillary clinton's campaign runs a pedophile ring in a pizza shop?

Not surprised libertarians might be seduced by the populist right, besides that, a lot of libertarians are naturally into conspiracy theories like the government being behind 9/11 and shit.

Don't forget the left-wing persons. Lots of money in being victims and SJWs.

 

[OutHouse]

stupid ass hitler meme. you lose.

 

[Amused]

Right, but those are just banal platitudes. The substantive question is where you think the state belongs in regards to individual or social interests. I don't think you can have a productive discussion on these ideas without being more specific.



You pushed back against the idea that you're a "pure libertarian", so how do you differ in your views from a more "pure" libertarian.

I would agree. It's an issue by issue debate as I follow no party line.

My view differs greatly. I believe the state is essential for infrastructure, promotion of the general welfare, regulations to protect rights and freedoms, etc. Without the state, you have feudalism.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Many libertarians aren't really libertarians but instead anti-authority virtue signalers. This is why you see people claiming to support both Ron Paul (a true hardcore 1920s-America idealist) and Bernie Sanders (an avowed socialist). Same for "progressives"; some of this forum's biggest progressives supported Trump and hated Clinton. Both fight "The Man" for the sake of it, not for much actual ideology. Most likely a side-effect of the paranoid delusions fostered by smoking too much pot.

 

[glenn1]

These people jumped on the libertarian bandwagon in 08. It distances themselves from the Bush debacle while looking like they want small un-intrusive govt. But listen to what a lot of these people have to say and it is clear they are authoritarians. Interested in forcing their version of big govt down our throats.

Feel free to give an example of how libertarians want to "shove big government down your throats." For the most part libertarians are "live and let live" kinds that aren't trying to get the government to do much of anything.