Why is Goldwater considered a libertarian by some?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,645
0
76
www.facebook.com
I sure as hell don't think he was a libertarian. He may have been closer than Reagan, but he wasn't a libertarian, because he was a Constitutionalist and he was for a totally unnecessary war. Rothbard even voted for LBJ because he was afraid that Goldwater was going to drop some A-bombs. Goldwater also supported Federal crime control.

Some people consider Goldwater a libertarian, but I don't, although his son is more of a libertarian, from what I understand due to his support of Dr. Paul.

I'm an anarcho-capitalist first and Antifederalist second though, so I guess I'm a little biased.
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
I'm an anarcho-capitalist

roflcopter.gif
 

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,645
0
76
www.facebook.com
You don't know what any of the terms you use actually mean, do you?
An Anarcho-capitalist is someone who advocates no government, and an Antifederalist is someone who supports the Articles of Confederation (the Antifederalists opposed the ratification of the Constitution, said it was illegal, which it was, would take away liberties and lead to tyranny which it did).
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,994
779
126
An Anarcho-capitalist is someone who advocates no government, and an Antifederalist is someone who supports the Articles of Confederation (the Antifederalists opposed the ratification of the Constitution, said it was illegal, which it was, would take away liberties and lead to tyranny which it did).

Anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron - Anarchism and Capitalism are mutually exclusive. Capitalism requires at least a minimal level of government to define and protect property rights for it to 'work'.
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,994
779
126
No, an anarchist advocates no government, an anarcho-capitalist advocates no government involvement in the market place.

No, he's right, an anarcho-capitalist advocates no government as well:

Anarcho-capitalism (also known as “libertarian anarchy”[1][2] or “market anarchism”[3] or “free market anarchism”[4]) is a libertarian[5][6] and individualist anarchist[7] political philosophy that advocates the elimination of the state in favor of individual sovereignty in a free market. Economist Murray Rothbard is credited with coining the term.[8][9] In an anarcho-capitalist society, law enforcement, courts, and all other security services would be provided by voluntarily-funded competitors such as private defense agencies rather than through taxation, and money would be privately and competitively provided in an open market. According to anarcho-capitalists, personal and economic activities would be regulated by the natural laws of the market and through private law rather than through politics. Furthermore, victimless crimes and crimes against the state would not exist.

He's wrong in that he thinks anarchism and capitalism is compatible.
 

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 9, 1999
46,905
10,743
147
Some people consider Goldwater a libertarian, but I don't, although his son is more of a libertarian, from what I understand due to his support of Dr. Paul.

The bright, shiny lure of libertarian thinking attracts many shallow pseudo intellectuals for whom deeper thinking is ha-ha-hard.

Of course, some of them would try to include Goldwater in their Ayn Rand like, shortcuts to critical thinking, cult.

It's as understandable as it is lame.

Senator Barry Goldwater was a dyed in the wool, old-school Republican. He was a genuine conservative of the type now known as paleo-conservative.

But, more than any of this, he was a patriotic American and therefore a committed Cold Warrior, at a time when most patriotic Americans, conservative and liberal alike, Democrat and Republican alike, were.

I was a 13 year old when he ran for President in 1964, and I eventually matured beyond the more simplistic views of his political stance, but, through my energetic campaigning which ensured the boy's vote almost unanimously, I single-handedly carried the 8th grade of my small Jr/Sr high school for Goldwater in our straw elections.

Every other grade from 7th through 12th, and the rest of the country, went for Lyndon Johnson.

We prevailed against a landslide of epic proportions. My conservative, Republican county had not voted for a Democratic Presidential candidate since before the Civil War, and this included staying strong for Alf Landon in 1936!

But I was 13. What might be your excuse? :D
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
On one hand, we can say of Goldwater, that not many fringe politicians can get the Presidential nomination of a major American political party. And attract so many passions in the process. Yet AuH20 certainly did that in what amounts to an epic fail.
After all, Barry was a product of the US Senate in which body he played no leading role in. And found himself somewhat accidentally pitted against LBJ, who had four short years ago, been the consensus choice as Senate majority leader.

But somewhat sadly, once elevated to the Presidency by an assassin, LBJ found himself able to walk on water, as any legislation he advocated passed. And a almost government by the turn of a crank followed. If LBJ were merely evaluated by passing civil rights reforms, he might be one of our greatest Presidents, but soon too many ill thought out social programs resulted also. But of course LBJ's greatest failure was, IMHO, Vietnam.

And suddenly GOP zaniness was back in Vogue. And suddenly and in somewhat succession, we got a Nixon and then a Reagan. And neither of them remotely resembled the politics of Barry Goldwater. Still later we got perhaps the mots damaging to our nation Prez in GWB, and I can only imagine how many RPM's Barry would be turning in his grave if he knew.

Well, all we can say now is that Barry was, because he lost and worse yet got blamed by generations of GOP politicians. So why is Barry relevant today?

We might better ask, what is Anarchist 420 now, because he still is, but quite frankly who cares to discuss or waste forum space on the posting habits of a total nut.

And we can also maybe look at it from the all in the family theme song, because mister we don't need a Hubert Hoover again. They all knew who they were then, grls were grls and men were men, and we all knew their world sucked then.

And now fast forward, partly because of Barry Goldwater, our world sucks too.
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
No, he's right, an anarcho-capitalist advocates no government as well:



He's wrong in that he thinks anarchism and capitalism is compatible.

He's wrong because the two can't mix. On paper you can orbit the event horizon, try anarchy and see how long the capitalist last.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.