As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

The Libertarianism Thread

AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
edited January 2008 in Debate and/or Discourse
Ah, libertarianism, the most misunderstood of the political ideologies (well, at least according to its adherents.)

One problem with defining libertarianism is that, well, ask two libertarians what "libertarianism" is, and you'll get three answers. Under the large umbrella that is "libertarianism", you'll find competing ideologies such as geolibertarianism, minarchism, various flavors of anarchism, Objectivism, and many others. And, well...they tend to not get along with each other. (Yes, this does indeed make discussing libertarianism fertile ground for the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.)

That said, we can extract some core beliefs that most strains agree with in some form or another:
  • The sovereignty of the individual is paramount - People are responsible for themselves, and should not be constrained except when they come in contest with another person.
  • Government is at best a necessary evil - The government seeks to constrain individuals, so it should be viewed at best as a wary ally. Some branches limit it, others oppose it.
  • Capitalism is the most efficient means of distributing goods - The free market is most efficient at allocating goods, especially ones that are scarce.

So, if you're a libertarian, or just think they're nuts, voice yourself here!

This thread was approved by the mod staff. If you want to talk Libertarianism, do it here. If you want to talk Ron Paul, do it here. If you want to talk anything else, find another thread.

XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
AngelHedgie on
«13456712

Posts

  • SaarSaar Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Libertarians are straight up kooks. I remember this one guy running for office was a druid. A freaking druid. It said so right in the voter guide sent out to everyone.

    That's why I like Libertarianism in general. No matter how kooky someone is, they won't impose their kookiness on me.

    Kook on, kids.

    /card carryin' L since '91.

    Saar on
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited January 2008
    Saar wrote: »
    Libertarians are straight up kooks. I remember this one guy running for office was a druid. A freaking druid. It said so right in the voter guide sent out to everyone.

    What level was he?

    Did he have an animal companion?

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Let's put the whole "free-market capitalism solves every problem" thing this way. If I'm driving a car and run over some ice and start to spin out of control, I'm going to try and take some control over the car and get it back on the right path. I'm not going to let go of the steering wheel, take my feet off the pedals, and shout "Jesus, take the wheel!" I think everyone can agree that that would be stupid.

    So why the fuck should the Jesus-take-the-wheel approach work for our nation's economy? Especially considering that we know a lot more about the laws of physics than the "laws" of economic systems.

    Daedalus on
  • KevinNashKevinNash Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Well at least your subject line was fair and balanced.

    EDIT: And actually I'll give you some credit here. Your description was accurate.

    KevinNash on
  • SaarSaar Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Well, reading you post, I'd say that "Jesus" is the government and the driver of the car trying to take control would be personal responsibility.

    Saar on
  • SaarSaar Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Saar wrote: »
    Libertarians are straight up kooks. I remember this one guy running for office was a druid. A freaking druid. It said so right in the voter guide sent out to everyone.

    What level was he?

    Did he have an animal companion?

    No animal was pictured but he did have a heavy beard and wearing what appeared to be a cloak.

    Saar on
  • KevinNashKevinNash Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Daedalus wrote: »
    Let's put the whole "free-market capitalism solves every problem" thing this way. If I'm driving a car and run over some ice and start to spin out of control, I'm going to try and take some control over the car and get it back on the right path. I'm not going to let go of the steering wheel, take my feet off the pedals, and shout "Jesus, take the wheel!" I think everyone can agree that that would be stupid.

    So why the fuck should the Jesus-take-the-wheel approach work for our nation's economy? Especially considering that we know a lot more about the laws of physics than the "laws" of economic systems.

    Well if I wanted the government to take control of my car I'd have to compose a letter (sorry we don't accept emails), fill out a 13 page form, send the letter, and wait another 6 weeks for a response. This is of course assuming I don't go over a cliff in the meantime.

    KevinNash on
  • JragghenJragghen Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Daedalus wrote: »
    Let's put the whole "free-market capitalism solves every problem" thing this way. If I'm driving a car and run over some ice and start to spin out of control, I'm going to try and take some control over the car and get it back on the right path. I'm not going to let go of the steering wheel, take my feet off the pedals, and shout "Jesus, take the wheel!" I think everyone can agree that that would be stupid.

    So why the fuck should the Jesus-take-the-wheel approach work for our nation's economy? Especially considering that we know a lot more about the laws of physics than the "laws" of economic systems.

    That is a poor comparison, really.

    The argument that capitalism is the most efficient means of distributing goods is based on the theory that companies, by their nature, will seek to maximize profitability. There are two methods to do this - reducing costs of manufacturing and distributing goods, and increasing prices. However, if we are to assume a competitive market, prices will be driven down to the point that the market will bear. However, this assumes that a) there are not exhorbant costs to get into an industry (which in many, if not most, cases there are) and that b) there is no collusion amongst a majority of the market players (be it one company or a number of market players in the form of a cartel) to fix the price of a needed good at an artificially inflated price.

    As for my personal stance, I think it reflects more on what the purpose of government is more than any real economic factors. Once upon a time, governments were designed to (essentially) provide protection to a group of people from neighboring, potentially hostile, groups of people. These groups of people are called 'countries.' At that time, businesses were small, local entities which typically suffered if the government stepped in to overregulate. However, in the modern, global era, there are new groups of people known as "corporations" which reach across multiple countries and continents, and represent the interests of a much smaller group of people. These interests do not always coincide with the interests of the population of the groups represented by governments, and the individuals in those groups are not powerful enough, by themselves, to stand up to these corporations. Therefore, it is the government's responsibility to regulate the corporations to ensure they do not gain undue power to threaten the well-being of the individuals they represent.

    Jragghen on
  • Not SarastroNot Sarastro __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2008
    Saar wrote: »
    Libertarians are straight up kooks. I remember this one guy running for office was a druid. A freaking druid. It said so right in the voter guide sent out to everyone.

    That's why I like Libertarianism in general. No matter how kooky someone is, they won't impose their kookiness on me.

    Kook on, kids.

    Yeah, I remember this bloke running for President a few years back, said he believed in a mystical melding of three deific essences into one cosmological being whose speech coagulated into material essence and predetermined all universal and human history from the beginning of time.

    Nutjobs, eh.

    Not Sarastro on
  • themightypuckthemightypuck MontanaRegistered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Jragghen wrote: »
    Daedalus wrote: »
    Let's put the whole "free-market capitalism solves every problem" thing this way. If I'm driving a car and run over some ice and start to spin out of control, I'm going to try and take some control over the car and get it back on the right path. I'm not going to let go of the steering wheel, take my feet off the pedals, and shout "Jesus, take the wheel!" I think everyone can agree that that would be stupid.

    So why the fuck should the Jesus-take-the-wheel approach work for our nation's economy? Especially considering that we know a lot more about the laws of physics than the "laws" of economic systems.

    That is a poor comparison, really.

    The argument that capitalism is the most efficient means of distributing goods is based on the theory that companies, by their nature, will seek to maximize profitability. There are two methods to do this - reducing costs of manufacturing and distributing goods, and increasing prices. However, if we are to assume a competitive market, prices will be driven down to the point that the market will bear. However, this assumes that a) there are not exhorbant costs to get into an industry (which in many, if not most, cases there are) and that b) there is no collusion amongst a majority of the market players (be it one company or a number of market players in the form of a cartel) to fix the price of a needed good at an artificially inflated price.

    As for my personal stance, I think it reflects more on what the purpose of government is more than any real economic factors. Once upon a time, governments were designed to (essentially) provide protection to a group of people from neighboring, potentially hostile, groups of people. These groups of people are called 'countries.' At that time, businesses were small, local entities which typically suffered if the government stepped in to overregulate. However, in the modern, global era, there are new groups of people known as "corporations" which reach across multiple countries and continents, and represent the interests of a much smaller group of people. These interests do not always coincide with the interests of the population of the groups represented by governments, and the individuals in those groups are not powerful enough, by themselves, to stand up to these corporations. Therefore, it is the government's responsibility to regulate the corporations to ensure they do not gain undue power to threaten the well-being of the individuals they represent.

    That is a utilitarian free market view. There are some libertarians who think that individuals have inalienable rights.

    themightypuck on
    “Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
    ― Marcus Aurelius

    Path of Exile: themightypuck
  • KevinNashKevinNash Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Saar wrote: »
    Libertarians are straight up kooks. I remember this one guy running for office was a druid. A freaking druid. It said so right in the voter guide sent out to everyone.

    That's why I like Libertarianism in general. No matter how kooky someone is, they won't impose their kookiness on me.

    Kook on, kids.

    Yeah, I remember this bloke running for President a few years back, said he believed in a mystical melding of three deific essences into one cosmological being whose speech coagulated into material essence and predetermined all universal and human history from the beginning of time.

    Nutjobs, eh.

    We could also differentiate between a libertarian (the description at the top of the thread) and a Libertarian (members of a 3rd party in the United States that have no chance of getting elected).

    KevinNash on
  • themightypuckthemightypuck MontanaRegistered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Saar wrote: »
    Libertarians are straight up kooks. I remember this one guy running for office was a druid. A freaking druid. It said so right in the voter guide sent out to everyone.

    That's why I like Libertarianism in general. No matter how kooky someone is, they won't impose their kookiness on me.

    Kook on, kids.

    Yeah, I remember this bloke running for President a few years back, said he believed in a mystical melding of three deific essences into one cosmological being whose speech coagulated into material essence and predetermined all universal and human history from the beginning of time.

    Nutjobs, eh.

    Well, JFK believed that on Sundays when he ate crackers they turned into human flesh.

    themightypuck on
    “Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
    ― Marcus Aurelius

    Path of Exile: themightypuck
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    QUESTION: How would monopolies keep from forming without government interference?

    Quid on
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Quid wrote: »
    QUESTION: How would monopolies keep from forming without government interference?
    INVISIBLE HAND!

    Question: why is it that libertarians are willing to totally sell out all of their allegedly socially liberal values in favor of tax cuts?

    Question: Why is the only "libertarian" candidate to make a significant impact in a presidential election in recent memory pro-life, anti-gay-marriage, and against the separation of church and state?

    Thanatos on
  • jothkijothki Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Quid wrote: »
    QUESTION: How would monopolies keep from forming without government interference?

    Obviously, whenever anyone gained too much money or power, everyone in the area would gang up on them and kill them and/or take all of their property. Government influence only serves to interfere with this natural economic process, which is why our economy is so screwed up and monopolies are allowed to form.

    jothki on
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Quid wrote: »
    QUESTION: How would monopolies keep from forming without government interference?

    That's what Go To Jail and Chance cards are for. They're like checks and balances.

    Drez on
    Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
  • SaarSaar Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    KevinNash wrote: »
    We could also differentiate between a libertarian (the description at the top of the thread) and a Libertarian (members of a 3rd party in the United States that have no chance of getting elected).

    There are plenty of big "L" libertarians in office. Just because none have yet made it to high offices doesn't mean they're unelectable.

    Saar on
  • jothkijothki Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Drez wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    QUESTION: How would monopolies keep from forming without government interference?

    That's what Go To Jail and Chance cards are for. They're like checks and balances.

    But don't you want to go to jail after you've established a whole bunch of monopolies?

    jothki on
  • darthmixdarthmix Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Do we really want the invisble hand's finger on the button?

    But seriously: Libertarianism relies on the idea that everyone, if free to do so, will behave in their own long-term interest. The problem is that people can only be counted on to behave that way if the choices are very simple. It turns out that if you have just a little more power than everyone else - in the form of money, information, and communication - it's pretty easy to get people to behave in ways that are in your long-term interest but counter to their own.

    darthmix on
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    darthmix wrote: »
    Do we really want the invisble hand's finger on the button?

    But seriously: Libertarianism relies on the idea that everyone, if free to do so, will behave in their own long-term interest. The problem is that people can only be counted on to behave that way if the choices are very simple. It turns out that if you have just a little more power than everyone else - in the form of money, information, and communication - it's pretty easy to get people to behave in ways that are in your long-term interest but counter to their own.
    Libertarianism will work fantastically in any place where everyone is a rational actor with perfect information.

    Thanatos on
  • HacksawHacksaw J. Duggan Esq. Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Thinatos wrote: »
    darthmix wrote: »
    Do we really want the invisble hand's finger on the button?

    But seriously: Libertarianism relies on the idea that everyone, if free to do so, will behave in their own long-term interest. The problem is that people can only be counted on to behave that way if the choices are very simple. It turns out that if you have just a little more power than everyone else - in the form of money, information, and communication - it's pretty easy to get people to behave in ways that are in your long-term interest but counter to their own.
    Libertarianism will work in any place where everyone is a rational actor with perfect information.
    It's just like Communism; it works in theory.

    Hacksaw on
  • KevinNashKevinNash Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    Thinatos wrote: »
    darthmix wrote: »
    Do we really want the invisble hand's finger on the button?

    But seriously: Libertarianism relies on the idea that everyone, if free to do so, will behave in their own long-term interest. The problem is that people can only be counted on to behave that way if the choices are very simple. It turns out that if you have just a little more power than everyone else - in the form of money, information, and communication - it's pretty easy to get people to behave in ways that are in your long-term interest but counter to their own.
    Libertarianism will work in any place where everyone is a rational actor with perfect information.
    It's just like Communism; it works in theory.

    Or Socialism.

    KevinNash on
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    KevinNash wrote: »
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    Thinatos wrote: »
    darthmix wrote: »
    Do we really want the invisble hand's finger on the button?

    But seriously: Libertarianism relies on the idea that everyone, if free to do so, will behave in their own long-term interest. The problem is that people can only be counted on to behave that way if the choices are very simple. It turns out that if you have just a little more power than everyone else - in the form of money, information, and communication - it's pretty easy to get people to behave in ways that are in your long-term interest but counter to their own.
    Libertarianism will work in any place where everyone is a rational actor with perfect information.
    It's just like Communism; it works in theory.
    Or Socialism.
    So you concede our point?

    Thanatos on
  • HacksawHacksaw J. Duggan Esq. Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    edited January 2008
    KevinNash wrote: »
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    Thinatos wrote: »
    darthmix wrote: »
    Do we really want the invisble hand's finger on the button?

    But seriously: Libertarianism relies on the idea that everyone, if free to do so, will behave in their own long-term interest. The problem is that people can only be counted on to behave that way if the choices are very simple. It turns out that if you have just a little more power than everyone else - in the form of money, information, and communication - it's pretty easy to get people to behave in ways that are in your long-term interest but counter to their own.
    Libertarianism will work in any place where everyone is a rational actor with perfect information.
    It's just like Communism; it works in theory.

    Or Socialism.
    Last I checked, Sweden hasn't collapsed since it adopted Socialism. It must be working for them.

    Hacksaw on
  • Ethan SmithEthan Smith Origin name: Beart4to Arlington, VARegistered User regular
    edited January 2008
    I actually would say that I agree that the government should probably get out of the non-economic affairs of people. I agree with the Libertarian/Conservative ideal of "You can do anything you want until you begin to harm others/yourself". Though my idea of 'harm' is different from most conservatives (IE, taking education away from someone is harmful), I believe that having a society where anyone has the option to do anything should be the ideal, as opposed to a more left-ideal of everyone being equal.

    But that's speaking in more worldly terms as opposed to US terms, I'm kinda neutral on whether we should be leaning more towards Laissez Faire or State Capitalism for what we should use to help the average citizen the most.

    Ethan Smith on
  • MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2008
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    KevinNash wrote: »
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    Thinatos wrote: »
    darthmix wrote: »
    Do we really want the invisble hand's finger on the button?

    But seriously: Libertarianism relies on the idea that everyone, if free to do so, will behave in their own long-term interest. The problem is that people can only be counted on to behave that way if the choices are very simple. It turns out that if you have just a little more power than everyone else - in the form of money, information, and communication - it's pretty easy to get people to behave in ways that are in your long-term interest but counter to their own.
    Libertarianism will work in any place where everyone is a rational actor with perfect information.
    It's just like Communism; it works in theory.

    Or Socialism.
    Last I checked, Sweden hasn't collapsed since it adopted Socialism. It must be working for them.

    Finland would also like to say 'sup.

    Medopine on
  • JragghenJragghen Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    KevinNash wrote: »
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    Thinatos wrote: »
    darthmix wrote: »
    Do we really want the invisble hand's finger on the button?

    But seriously: Libertarianism relies on the idea that everyone, if free to do so, will behave in their own long-term interest. The problem is that people can only be counted on to behave that way if the choices are very simple. It turns out that if you have just a little more power than everyone else - in the form of money, information, and communication - it's pretty easy to get people to behave in ways that are in your long-term interest but counter to their own.
    Libertarianism will work in any place where everyone is a rational actor with perfect information.
    It's just like Communism; it works in theory.

    Or Socialism.
    Last I checked, Sweden hasn't collapsed since it adopted Socialism. It must be working for them.

    No nation on Earth, right now, has a 100% "ism" environment - whether communism, socialism, capitalism, or anything else. Most nations have a blend of each, to varying degrees. America leans heavily in the direction of capitalism with some socialistic practices. Sweden is more in the direction of socialism with some capitalist features as well. I find it hard to believe that any system would be able to totally account for the broader problems that arise in real-world scenarios.

    On the topic of communism, it does work well, on a small-scale basis. Once you get past the size of a small group of people (lol commune), it is necessary to have one or multiple people whose roles are nothing more than moving the goods around to the various groups of people via a supply chain of some sort. This concentrates the power within the system, and the system falls apart.

    Jragghen on
  • NarianNarian Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Jragghen wrote: »
    On the topic of communism, it does work well, on a small-scale basis. Once you get past the size of a small group of people (lol commune), it is necessary to have one or multiple people whose roles are nothing more than moving the goods around to the various groups of people via a supply chain of some sort. This concentrates the power within the system, and the system falls apart.

    Communism's main fault is the inevitable rise of the 'leader class' in an otherwise classless-based system which creates instability and causes it to fail.

    Narian on
    Narian.gif
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Socio-capitalism or bust.

    And by bust I mean social and/or economic collapse or general hell of one sort or another.

    Incenjucar on
  • EchoEcho ski-bap ba-dapModerator mod
    edited January 2008
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    Last I checked, Sweden hasn't collapsed since it adopted Socialism. It must be working for them.

    Someone called for a token Swede?

    Echo on
  • [Tycho?][Tycho?] As elusive as doubt Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Thinatos wrote: »
    darthmix wrote: »
    Do we really want the invisble hand's finger on the button?

    But seriously: Libertarianism relies on the idea that everyone, if free to do so, will behave in their own long-term interest. The problem is that people can only be counted on to behave that way if the choices are very simple. It turns out that if you have just a little more power than everyone else - in the form of money, information, and communication - it's pretty easy to get people to behave in ways that are in your long-term interest but counter to their own.
    Libertarianism will work fantastically in any place where everyone is a rational actor with perfect information.

    Yeah really.

    I actually agree with the first two tentants that were listed, but I definately do not agree with laissez-faire capitalism being the best possible economic model.

    I mean, seriously guys? Remember pollution? That stuff that gets spewed into the air and water? Remember how its corporations that tend to make it, and governments that tend to stop them and force them to clean it up? That sort of capitalism is far too destructive, which I suppose isn't surprising for an ideal that has greed as its prime motivator.

    My beliefs would be something much closer to anarchism, but I recognize that governemnt of some sort is needed. Now I dont think that government has to resemble in any way government that we have now, quite the contrary. But I do think a system of people need to have some authority over others, in some way at least.

    I say government should be like a customer service booth. They should only exist to make my life, and the life of everyone else, easier and better. Better in what way? It should be up to me. And as V says "People should not be afraid of their government, the government should be afraid of its people".

    [Tycho?] on
    mvaYcgc.jpg
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Narian wrote: »
    Jragghen wrote: »
    On the topic of communism, it does work well, on a small-scale basis. Once you get past the size of a small group of people (lol commune), it is necessary to have one or multiple people whose roles are nothing more than moving the goods around to the various groups of people via a supply chain of some sort. This concentrates the power within the system, and the system falls apart.

    Communism's main fault is the inevitable rise of the 'leader class' in an otherwise classless-based system which creates instability and causes it to fail.

    It's more that the centralized system has no way of giving incentives for people to work hard, and stuffs the lines of communication with plenty of opportunities for corruption.

    And it's not communism's main fault, it's the extreme socialism that's required to prepare the world for communism.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • KevinNashKevinNash Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Take the Libertarian Purity test here: http://www.bcaplan.com/cgi-bin/purity.cgi

    I only scored a 72/155. According to this guy I'm a moderate ;-).

    I'd be interested to see how other people score if anyone would care to post their results.

    KevinNash on
  • DukiDuki Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals — if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is. Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy.

    Duki on
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    I still don't know what people are referring to when they say "conservatism". Could you elaborate beyond "it's libertarianism with a 'c'"?

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Apothe0sisApothe0sis Have you ever questioned the nature of your reality? Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Small l liberals would be the Tories? Wuh?

    Apothe0sis on
  • Apothe0sisApothe0sis Have you ever questioned the nature of your reality? Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    KevinNash wrote: »
    Take the Libertarian Purity test here: http://www.bcaplan.com/cgi-bin/purity.cgi

    I only scored a 72/155. According to this guy I'm a moderate ;-).

    I'd be interested to see how other people score if anyone would care to post their results.

    20.

    Apothe0sis on
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    I got 20 too.

    Will you go out with me?

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • kaliyamakaliyama Left to find less-moderated fora Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    I still don't know what people are referring to when they say "conservatism". Could you elaborate beyond "it's libertarianism with a 'c'"?

    Conservatives, probably, are people who value the independence of traditional civil society - family, the church, and traditional institutions like the military. They don't believe that gov't trying to do a better job by taking on new roles or improving the character of mankind is going to be successful. They would support laws enforcing traditional notions of morality and decency. Libertarians, theoretically, don't have very many moral hangups. But most Americans that I have met (at institutions of higher education) who describe themselves as libertarians fit one of two categories.

    1: Friedman market liberals who just want little economic regulation but would capitulate on social issues (see the republican party). 2: or a) have money, b) want to use drugs and c) have some brand loyalty issue that prevents themselves from taking up the mantle of democrat.

    kaliyama on
    fwKS7.png?1
  • Apothe0sisApothe0sis Have you ever questioned the nature of your reality? Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    I got 20 too.

    Will you go out with me?

    I thought you'd never ask!

    Apothe0sis on
Sign In or Register to comment.