Libertarian Party

[Harleyman]

The American Libertarian party advocate cutting taxes, cutting government spending across the board, legalizing maijuana, cutting Social Security and ending the wars in Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan which is now moot since Libya and Iraq are history and troop pullout from Afghanistan scheduled for 2014. Small government is also high on their priority list

They're similar to the Republican party in the sense of advocating small government, cutting taxes, spending and social benefits but poles apart on foreign policy and legalizing marijuana.

 

They dont seem to have much appeal to voters overall and hardly garner any votes in national elections

[Cavegirl]

I think the problem with libertarianism is the problem of America. A country that was created with the best of libertarian hopes and ideals in mind, well protected by constitution (it was even called 'the land of the free' at one time), now has one of the most bloated, invasive and aggressive systems of government in the world.

 

Government always wants to grow- partly because those in power often want to extend those powers and partly because every social problem that is encountered is solved by adding new layers of governance, laws and oversight all funded through violently enforced taxation. Each new layer of governance erodes peoples freedoms until the eventual outcome of all governments, even the most democratic, is tyranny.

 

Tyranny may come about through good will, for example politicians believed they were doing the right thing by introducing new laws to prevent terrorism, but every new law still brought us closer to tyranny. For each generation new forms of government control are normalised and eventually accepted but each new layer takes us further from our understanding of what freedom is and what it means to be free. You don't need Nazi salutes and swastikas to have a tyranny, it all becomes relative to an individual's perspective once that first law has been passed because that law represents the end of individual freedom. Beyond that it's just a game of compromise- everybody has to find their own limit as to whether the benefits of governance outweight their own loss of personal freedom. The sad thing is, we've been without personal freedom for so many thousands of years now, it's difficult for many people to imagine what it might even be like.

 

A government of a complex state is rather like a tumour in that its main conscious or unconscious aim is to grow. You don't go to a surgeon and ask them to trim back a tumour, you ask them to eradicate it completely because if you don't you know it will just grow back. This is my issue with libertarianism or minachism, it's a short term, generational safety net at best against the inherent state of tyrannical government growth.

 

Anarchism is potentially as varied as any form of human diversity. From far right anarcho-capitalism which calls for unregulated free markets and equal opportunities in society, to far left anarcho-communism which calls for monetary forms of exchange to be replaced by voluntarism, resource-sharing and complete social equality. Each has a unique set of problems associated with it, but the solving of those problems lies in the hands of the communities that are directly affected by them, not in the hands of oligarchic elites or elected representatives that must compete against representatives of other communities for their share of the governmental pie. That's the beauty of anarchism- it develops individual responsibility for localised society in return for the provision of an acceptable level of personal freedom and a political voice- no one has to sacrifice their freedoms unnecessarily.

 

Somalia does not have a significant government, but neither does it have a social philosophy of anarchic organisation. Still, it's faring better under anarchism than it did under the dictatorship of General Barre. Belgium has not had a government for 14 months now, they've implemented no austerity measures against themselves and the country is going through a period of prosperous growth at the moment. They may become the first anarcho-capitalist country. I hope others develop in ways that represent their own people and cultural heritage.

[Stoatwobbler]

I think you're confused, liberalism is categorically not the same as libertarianism. The liberal party were never supposed to be libertarian.

 

There is a Uk libertarian party already, it was founded only a couple of years ago. I flirted with the idea of joining briefly having been convinced I am a libertarian but a quick look at their manifesto convinced I am not.

 

I'm a social libertarian, but not an economic one. I do not want the NHS to be privatised and I do not want income tax to be abolished, the people at the top should be taxed more, not less.

 

In my experience the vast majority of people on the internet who define themselves as "libertarian" are very much economic libertarians. Often very rigid in their ideology and seeming to think that everything in life can be reduced to a demand/supply diagram from an A-level economics class.

 

However, in spite of the popularity of libertarian ideology online I have yet to come across anyone in real life who defines themselves as libertarian. It's an ideology that often appears to be living in a little internet bubble.

[Harleyman]

I think the problem with libertarianism is the problem of America. A country that was created with the best of libertarian hopes and ideals in mind, well protected by constitution (it was even called 'the land of the free' at one time), now has one of the most bloated, invasive and aggressive systems of government in the world.

 

It still is the land of the free. Freedom of speech and expression is still very much alive unlike that in the UK. Religion has no connection with legislative action either.

 

America came about as a world power because of WW2 and the threat of Communism for 50 years afterwards

 

As for your remarks on Somalia :hihi:

[Cavegirl]

I think the problem with libertarianism is the problem of America. A country that was created with the best of libertarian hopes and ideals in mind, well protected by constitution (it was even called 'the land of the free' at one time), now has one of the most bloated, invasive and aggressive systems of government in the world.

 

 

It still is the land of the free. Freedom of speech and expression is still very much alive unlike that in the UK. Religion has no connection with legislative action either.

 

America came about as a world power because of WW2 and the threat of Communism for 50 years afterwards

 

As for your remarks on Somalia :hihi:

 

As for all your remarks Harleyman :hihi: Try looking at the actual UN data on Somalia and if you think they fared better under Barre well more fool you.

[Harleyman]

 

As for all your remarks Harleyman :hihi: Try looking at the actual UN data on Somalia and if you think they fared better under Barre well more fool you.

 

You must be the only one on this forum that actually believes that Somalia as it is at the moment could be" better off" in any way

 

I mean there's no war going on there, Mogadishu is a shining example of a what a city should be for the modern day African to live in. Freedom from want freedom from harm and of course starvation and malnutrition are merely figments of the imagination. :hihi:

 

Then of course the "government" is really running the country effectively, frimly clamping down on acts of piracy for example :hihi:

[Cavegirl]

 

You must be the only one on this forum that actually believes that Somalia as it is at the moment could be" better off" in any way

 

I mean there's no war going on there, Mogadishu is a shining example of a what a city should be for the modern day African to live in. Freedom from want freedom from harm and of course starvation and malnutrition are merely figments of the imagination. :hihi:

 

Then of course the "government" is really running the country effectively, frimly clamping down on acts of piracy for example :hihi:

 

Here:

 

Better off stateless: Somalia before and after government collapse

 

Abstract

 

Could anarchy be good for Somalia's development? If state predation goes unchecked government may not only fail to add to social welfare, but can actually reduce welfare below its level under statelessness. Such was the case with Somalia's government, which did more harm to its citizens than good. The government's collapse and subsequent emergence of statelessness opened the opportunity for Somali progress. This paper investigates the impact of anarchy on Somali development. The data suggest that while the state of this development remains low, on nearly all of 18 key indicators that allow pre- and post-stateless welfare comparisons, Somalis are better off under anarchy than they were under government. Renewed vibrancy in critical sectors of Somalia's economy and public goods in the absence of a predatory state are responsible for this improvement. Journal of Comparative Economics35 (4) (2007) 689–710.

 

From: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0147596707000741

 

This from an academic article by someone who, as someone else on here once pointed out to me, advocates government in a way that I don't- still he proves that Somalia is better off now, without a government, than it was with its previous one. Save your sniggers, you can use them when you actually provide an argument and not just act like a soundboard for whatever sad newspaper you read over there.

[Cavegirl]

Another one here if you'd care to read it:

Somalia after state collapse: Chaos or improvement?

 

Abstract

 

Many people believe that Somalia's economy has been in chaos since the collapse of its national government in 1991. We take a comparative institutional approach to examine Somalia's performance relative to other African countries both when Somalia had a government and during its extended period of anarchy. We find that although Somalia is poor, its relative economic performance has improved during its period of statelessness. We describe how Somalia has provided basic law and order and a currency, enabling the country to achieve the coordination that has led to improvements in its standard of living.

 

From: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167268108001017

[Supertramp]

In my experience the vast majority of people on the internet who define themselves as "libertarian" are very much economic libertarians. Often very rigid in their ideology and seeming to think that everything in life can be reduced to a demand/supply diagram from an A-level economics class.

 

However, in spite of the popularity of libertarian ideology online I have yet to come across anyone in real life who defines themselves as libertarian. It's an ideology that often appears to be living in a little internet bubble.

 

I wouldn't describe myself as an anarchist but I would be in favour of a dramatic reduction in the size of government.

[Harleyman]

 

Here:

 

 

 

From: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0147596707000741

 

This from an academic article by someone who, as someone else on here once pointed out to me, advocates government in a way that I don't- still he proves that Somalia is better off now, without a government, than it was with its previous one. Save your sniggers, you can use them when you actually provide an argument and not just act like a soundboard for whatever sad newspaper you read over there.

 

 

What newspapers? Most of the current news on Somalia is provided by the BBC World News channel which is available on all cable and satellite systems.

Or maybe the Beeb is just filling our heads with a lot of lies and falsehoods.

 

I think you've lost yourself in all this mind meandering tripe that intellectual anarchistic pinheads love to dream up.

 

Let me end by just saying that Somalia compared to the Second Tier of Hell could indeed be decribed as being "better off"