i`m a libertarian.

Replies

• DE

  

  DesertRat

  Feb 21, 2015

  Although I can't say that I'm a Libertarian I believe in a lot of the ideals of Libertarians. I am very much against big government, but still feel we need some form of government. I am more of a conservative Constitutionalist in that I believe in following the U.S. Constitution and its Amendments. There are some amendments that I obey but do not necessarily agree with and some that I feel have been mis-interpertated. Even the SCOUS have ruled one way on the Constitution and years later reversed the decision, so it is obvious that not everyone speaks with one mind. I like and support the Libertarian view on nudism. I believe they feel if it feels good for you and it's not harming anyone, then do it. Government feels that they should have the authority and police power to impose their views upon every one in order to protect those who haven't indicated that they need protection. Big government also feels that it has the right to regulate, for a fee, how people can be nude or people can make money by exploiting nudism.
  

  ReactReply
• ST

  

  Steve

  Feb 21, 2015

  I used to be a supporter of the US Libertarian party. I stopped donating and subscribing to their newsletter when it began to get into stuff like Holocaust denial. I have been really attracted to the von-Hayek set of ideas. The government, as I saw and still see it, in line with classic libertarian thought,  has a few specific roles that are hard to avoid if one is to have a livable society:
  1. Guaranteeing contracts and property.
  2. Collective defense.
  3. A monopoly on force.
  4. In what we call "industrial democracies" - inherently individualistic but economically integrated societies, it also needs to attend to market and workforce regulation, at least to an extent that limits the emergence of violent resistance to dislocation.
  
  I don't think any of this is inherent or God-given; we're all just muddling through, looking for workable social relationships.
  
  In working out the practical details of all of this, a Libertarian puritanism leads to some pretty twisted results. Should the government enforce a contract by which I sell myself into slavery? If my neighbor damages me by, say, unleashing a flood onto my property, classic theory says I should sue; popular theory says I should have built a flood wall; another popular theory says I should shoot the guy. But really, rather than violate #1, or #3, or allow the emergence of a body of judge-made law, isn't it more sensible to choose representatives to hammer out drainage and flood-control strategies?
  
  (I choose this example because it was addressed in the laws of ancient Rome, and in the laws and legal practices of the first medieval cities, and continuously since then.)
  
  So I've turned into something of a moderate, but one without any belief in the inherent legitimacy of government.
  
  
  
  
  
  

  ReactReply
• NW

  

  Nate WatkinsOriginal Poster

  Feb 21, 2015

  [quote]Although I can't say that I'm a Libertarian I believe in a lot of the ideals of Libertarians. I am very much against big government, but still feel we need some form of government. I am more of a conservative Constitutionalist in that I believe in following the U.S. Constitution and its Amendments. There are some amendments that I obey but do not necessarily agree with and some that I feel have been mis-interpertated. Even the SCOUS have ruled one way on the Constitution and years later reversed the decision, so it is obvious that not everyone speaks with one mind. I like and support the Libertarian view on nudism. I believe they feel if it feels good for you and it's not harming anyone, then do it. Government feels that they should have the authority and police power to impose their views upon every one in order to protect those who haven't indicated that they need protection. Big government also feels that it has the right to regulate, for a fee, how people can be nude or people can make money by exploiting nudism.
  [/quote]but the constitutionalists also oppose gay marriage and wants to criminalize "offensive sexual behavior"

  ReactReply
• NW

  

  Nate WatkinsOriginal Poster

  Feb 21, 2015

  well, i also support the Modern Whig Party, the Reform Party, the Veterans Party and the Unity Party.

  ReactReply
• GR

  

  griggska61

  Feb 21, 2015

  I'm a classic libertarian as described in the writings of the founding fathers of the USA.  I'm opposed to many of the philosophies of all of the current political parties.  I tend to be fiscally conservative, socially liberal, but rooted in personal responsibility and a small and unobtrusive government.

  ReactReply
• OR

  

  orbarebear

  Feb 21, 2015

  I consider myself a "socialtarian" - a libertarian who believes in social responsibility.  There are things government is the appropriate venue for, but it needs to be transparent and limited to those things.  The anarchist ideals of the more vocal libertarians are unworkable and result in a "might makes right" world that is the antithesis of freedom.

  ReactReply
• MA

  

  ManOfWicklow

  Feb 21, 2015

  I'm a Nuditarian.

  ReactReply
• DE

  

  DesertRat

  Feb 21, 2015

  [quote][quote]Although I can't say that I'm a Libertarian I believe in a lot of the ideals of Libertarians. I am very much against big government, but still feel we need some form of government. I am more of a conservative Constitutionalist in that I believe in following the U.S. Constitution and its Amendments. There are some amendments that I obey but do not necessarily agree with and some that I feel have been mis-interpertated. Even the SCOUS have ruled one way on the Constitution and years later reversed the decision, so it is obvious that not everyone speaks with one mind. I like and support the Libertarian view on nudism. I believe they feel if it feels good for you and it's not harming anyone, then do it. Government feels that they should have the authority and police power to impose their views upon every one in order to protect those who haven't indicated that they need protection. Big government also feels that it has the right to regulate, for a fee, how people can be nude or people can make money by exploiting nudism.
  [/quote]but the constitutionalists also oppose gay marriage and wants to criminalize "offensive sexual behavior"[/quote]Although there is some overlap you are confusing the Christian conservatives with the Constitutionalists.
  

  ReactReply
• NW

  

  Nate WatkinsOriginal Poster

  Feb 21, 2015

  see, i think the traditional view isn't necessarily correct. they aren't attacking anyone, the gays are just trying to make us ask ourselves if they traditional view is really correct.

  ReactReply
• ME

  Member

  Feb 21, 2015

  [quote]see, i think the traditional view isn't necessarily correct. they aren't attacking anyone, the gays are just trying to make us ask ourselves if they traditional view is really correct.[/quote]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9M0xcs2Vw4
  

  ReactReply
• CH

  

  Christopher

  Feb 22, 2015

  [quote].... I do believe that gays should have the right to enter a similar union with all of the rights, privileges and responsibilities of marriage....     [/quote]Separate but equal is a form of institutionalized discrimination deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
  

  ReactReply
• DE

  

  DesertRat

  Feb 23, 2015

  I believe that people may be getting off the track of the original thread. That is Libertarians. Libertarians seek the least government possible. I among others desire a smaller, less intrusive government. One of the things that a replier to this post stated that a government was necessary to insure contracts. I agree with this concept. The woman thought all marriage laws should be scrapped and people should be able to choose whatever life style appealed to them at any given time. The gay and lesbian communities are clamoring for the right to be married. I agree with both sides. No adult should be forced into a life time commitment with another adult if they don't want it but the government should have the authority to protect the rights of any minors that may be a part of any relationship. As for the gays and lesbians, the government should have the authority to protect the contracts that these people agree to and to protect the interest of any minors that may be involved. That is my view of one aspect of the necessity of having a limited government.

  ReactReply
• ST

  

  Steve

  Feb 23, 2015

  There's an interesting question embedded in Rat's reply: what's a sensible libertarian stance on minors? There seems to be, in modern society, some sort of role for government there that goes beyond the libertarian minimum. Does the child, as in ancient Rome, simply belong to the parents (in Rome, the father) who can do what they will - punish, even kill? To "society," who can dictate such things as schooling, medical care, sexual maturity? Or to the child's own self, who can be advised, but not compelled, not to jump out of that tree.Are the parents free to just turn the kid, unwashed, unfed, undisciplined (unvaccinated?) loose in the streets?
  
  Part of my point about the industrial-democracy flavor of libertarianism is that its extreme individuality means that norms for childrearing and the social networks that enable it, are extremely weak - that's what keeps the labor force flexible - and to some extent the government simply has to step in.
  
  There are interesting cases where social networks are so strong that governments actually do leave social welfare issues alone - the tribal areas of Pakistan, say, or the Amish communities of the United States (who are not part of the Social Security system and commonly stop education at 14, but really to take care of their own weak and sick and are famously industrious.)
  

  ReactReply
• NW

  

  Nate WatkinsOriginal Poster

  Feb 25, 2015

  the Teabaggers started out as libertarian and then went all right wing, almost bordering the far right.

  ReactReply
• CH

  

  Christopher

  Feb 26, 2015

  [quote]the Teabaggers started out as libertarian and then went all right wing, almost bordering the far right.[/quote]Actually, they are not "almost bordering on the far right" they are the far right! Their positions are so from the majority of the Republican Party that they may very well splinter The Grand Ole Party in two.
  
  The Republican presidential candidates must kiss the Tea Party's kissables in the primaries and then do a 180 degree left turn in the general elections.  The Tea Party wants to bring back the day of the Pilgrims with white supremacy and an outdated view for America's future. If they are successful at gaining traction (which is difficult when they swoon to the intellectual wonders like Michele Bachmann, Sara Palin, and Ted Cruz) they might just break the Republican Party in half. Should they succeed their very success will have the unintended consequence of ending their very existence. They are a fraction of a party. If they were on their own they wouldn't be able to get elected to dog catcher in a one dog town. If they tear apart the Republican Party they Republicans won't be able to win. So, they are very self-limiting.
  But, they are fun to watch :)
  

  ReactReply
• DE

  

  DesertRat

  Feb 28, 2015

  We're talking about Libertarians, Republicans and Tea Partiers. Does anyone have any definite definitions of the three of them. It seems like things are rather confusing. Personally I vote for the person who I believe will do the right thing for the Country. Unfortunately it seems like few politicians can be trusted to keep their word. As much as I dislike Obama I have to give him credit for working hard to keep his  promises. He is a master at getting people to break their promises to the voters and side with him.

  ReactReply
• NW

  

  Nate WatkinsOriginal Poster

  Mar 4, 2015

  i've got a new libertarian group here: https://www.truenudists.com/groups/8007/

  ReactReply
• NW

  

  Nate WatkinsOriginal Poster

  Mar 4, 2015

  desertrat, so you aren't really opposed to gays getting married, are you?

  ReactReply
• DE

  

  DesertRat

  Mar 5, 2015

  [quote]desertrat, so you aren't really opposed to gays getting married, are you?[/quote]No, what two consenting adults want to do is fine with me as long as they don't step on the rights of others. They should be able to call their relationship by what ever name they desire but remember the key element here is the word two. I said that it's fine with me but in reality who am I to say what's right for anyone else. I'm not saying that I agree with it, but it really is none of my business unless it infringes upon my rights or the rights of others. Any questions?

  ReactReply
• ME

  Member

  May 30, 2020

  I would say I am but the Libertarian party is a mess.

  ReactReply
• TD

  

  Tom D

  May 30, 2020

  I believe in limited government so my philosophy is close to theirs.

  ReactReply