Through the power or Wikipedia, I found out about libertarianism. Actually I found it out from a friend but then read up about it on there, as well as other sources. But I find it very interesting, it was almost as if the views of libertarianism totally read my mind. There were a few details of it that I can remember agreeing with even when I was like 8 or 9, such as "victimless crimes" not being illegal, like drugs. Even when I was that young I remember thinking "it only hurts the person doing it, so why the hell is it illegal", and I still feel that way.

They believe in Locke's view of Life, Liberty, and Property, and that basically people should be able to be free to do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't interfere with anyone else's pursuit of life, liberty, or property.

Is anyone here a libertarian?

I think that's interesting. If I wasn't so socialist I would probably be that.

Socialism, with its highly controlled economy is pretty different than libertarianism is. I tend to lean that way more than most other ways, at times. Not exactly "libertarian," and I doubt anyone in their right mind is associated with the Libertarian Party, but yeah.

Most people who are for freer markets and many social rights are libertarians.

Why do you say that? I don't know much about the libertarian party, other than their views.

Their actions. For example, the "Guns for Tots" drive in Harlem New York a couple of years back to show how much they love the 2nd Amendment. A few years before that, they handed out cigarettes to kids because thats what a free country should do, or something.

Their views are nice, their actual Party is retarded.

That really is a shame, it seems that if it could be headed by smart people it could really take off. I believe most people would love the views ov Libertarianism, especially this upcoming generation (mine).

Not sure. Not sure at all. Here at PnP, most of us are educated and open-minded, but we can't really say it's the case of so many people, especially in the USA (no offense meant).

For some reason that I haven't been able to figure out yet, many people seem deeply disturbed by such things as homosexuality, inter-racial love, their neighbour's religion, the way of life of immigrants and other unimportant things. They certainly wouldn't vote for a libertarian party.

*sigh*

I'm probably the only person on the board that's actually a registered Libertarian. Delta's right though. The party has a problem with members that are a little...overzealous.

Like Delta said, "Their views are nice", and also, "Socialism, with its highly controlled economy is pretty different than libertarianism is".

I am a socialist, liberal democrat but I do like some views that libertarians have. Such as what you presented, "victimless crimes". I have ALWAYS thought that the use of drugs should be illegal, but when is the line crossed? When the neighborhood crack dealer sells to the 8 year olds who ride by on their bikes everyday? Libertarians have many good ideals, but they are so tied up on destroying any kind of order that many see them as anarchists in business suits.

I kind of feel that way too. But the basic beliefs of libertarianism are great, but the party isn't going to get anywhere with their radical ways.

As "leaders" of branches of the party are a bit kooky. Like that guy who is, or was, the representative for the New York City branch, man, he was insane.

Every group is going to have its fringe members and leaders. Unfortunately for the libertarian party, other groups fringe members are it's mainstay.

are

The idea is that if selling drugs were legal it could enter the legitimate free market and be regulated, the way cigarettes are. Some of the true believer would say that removing the social stigma about drug use it would actually decrease its overall use by decreasing its number of new users. Not to mention that legalizing drugs would get rid of those dealers on the streat corners....

Anarchists in bussiness suits? I have to say I love that charactization. I mean I believe that drugs should be legal, because eveyone should have the right to do whatever they wish to their own body, it is in fact "victimless."

I tend to disagree with libertatrians with most things, because they lack realistic expectations about our current reality. But I remember that the most of libertarians take their ideas from Locke, but also, John Stuart Mill, author of both "On Liberty" and "Utilitarianism." Moral Utilitarianism has been used as justication for socialism and libertarianism. I think both utopian ideals have more or less the same goal but from two sides of the same coin. Socialists wish to aleviate bad conditions in society inorder to free mankind. In the libertarian utopia, restrictions which deny individuals' to ability to act freely are removed, and thus people would be freed from society, and each person would be equally free. A good critisism would be to say that they both assume that in a state of perfect freedom/equality, order will follow. However they have no arguement that this is true.

Actually that's a better criticism of libertarianism because with socialism, you can form a pretty fierce police force. Although I guess in theory you could do the same for libertarianism, and they could brutally enforce the few laws you have, I actually never really thought of it like that...

Haha, I mean, I don't think utopian socialists would really support a special police force. But in a Libertarian society, their could be no special police force, just private security, well maybe a small public force, but with an armed citizenry, why would you need one?

Libertarianism is an interesting standpoint, but I think most modern libertarians, identify with neoliberalism(realist view human nature, with liberal conclusions, and strongly support of holy power of free markets), and reaganism(yeah you people remember reagan right?); because of their beleif in free market capitalism. I think libertarianism's greatest contribution is to examine the different levels of gov't/laws and their effects on the ability of individuals to live their lives! Think about how many levels of gov't/laws there are: Global, National, State/provincial, local, county, district, city, community....and if u include bussinesses and the church, how much freedom can you really have??? Libertarianism gives the underpowered and regulated people a standpoint to examine their existence.

Well that's what happens when let but unreasonable anarchists get together.

In a society, disorder never lasts. Anarchists are delusional if they think the absence of order will last long: whenever order stops to exist, someone who is stronger, more ambitious and more charismatic than the rest gathers followers and creates a new authority. And most of the time, this new authority is far worse than the previous one.

Order is the natural state of the universe. Disorder is nothing but a transitional state between two kinds of order.


However, libertarianism could last, but only if the remaining laws are able to hold the society together.

I think We should clarify our idea of "Order." A society could have order without laws. We are not use to thinking in this way, becuase we live in a society which is supposedly under the "Rule of Law." For the majority of Humanity's time on earth, we lived in a hunter-gatherer mode of existence, which was relativly peaceful, and stable. In a sense there was an "order." One might assume there must have been an order in this state, because it lasted roughly 100,000+ years. Laws came with the rise of civil societies and post-agricultural states, and cities, where people were dependent not on themselves to survive, but the success of the community.

Under both Anarchism and Libertarianism, people are not in a state of actual "anarchy." Anarchists believe people are basically good, and are controlled and corrupted by society. Anarchists beleive that the destruction of evil social institutions, such as property, will ultimately free humanity. Remember Rousseau's famous quote "Man is born free, and everwhere his in chains." Libertarians and Anarchists agree, that these chains should be removed, but have different prescriptions for what ought replace them.