I am a libertarian and know several people that consider themselves libertarians. In fact, when talking politics with left-wingers, they almost universally are libertarian whether they know it or not. It seems everyone I talk to feels they are mis-reprented by the democratic party. I know I do.

So...why are there no major libertarians in government (Jesse Ventura would probably be the most visible)? Why don't we have a libertarian up for presidency? Why can't there be a more organized libertarian party? And why does everyone confuse the terms liberal and libertarian???

It seems to me the general public needs to be educated on libertarian ideals and a viable third party organized to challenge the outdated democratic and republican lines that have blurred and ceased to represent the populous in the US.

I believe there is a large contigent of people that believe in the freedom of the individual and a limited government.

http://www.lp.org/

http://www.libertarian.org/

Nobody is stopping anyone from running for presidency. I just doubt they would get enough votes to pose a danger to the mainstream Democrats or the Republicans any time soon.

How is it that as a party platform they want unrestricted movement state to state and nation to nation and yet they also say they want fee based to replace taxes. It doesn't take a genious to figure out that the way this would be imposed on highways would be a toll system. In fact without taxes that toll woult become burdensome. Upkeep on roads is an expensive proposition. It just seems sort of contradictory and as though it wasn't thought out.

Clockwood,
Why do you think this is so? Do you think the two-parties are representative of the people? Or is it because of funding/organizational issues? Or perhaps people are so ingrained with the idea of a two party system...the thought of a third party seems foreign and un-american?!?

I think it is a combination of the last two above. In general, it seems to me people need to be more pro-active in educating themselves on politics in this country. The first step is obviously coming to terms with what you think/believe and where that fits with other people's beliefs. Not many people I talk to have even taken this first step. Even if you hate politics and are an extreme anarchist, you should at least know this and be able to communicate it, IMO.

Teg,
Good question. The philosophy is that the people using the transportation would be paying for it, as opposed to everyone paying the same amount regardless. Also, letting government handle the finances is extremely wasteful.
The only difference (besides better roads due to more streamlined funding) it would make to you is that you would pay when you used the service, as opposed to once every two weeks :).

Most people hedge their bets with either the Republican or the Democratic parties because they feel voting any other way would be wasting their vote. Because most other parties get such pitifully small numbers of votes that this makes sense.

Clockwood,
Yeah that is absolutely right. Its why I didn't vote for nader. But this is really just a symptom of the two issues I brought up. The only way to counteract this would be to A) change the voting system to allow for a 2nd and possibly 3rd choice or B) introduce a party with the funding/influence necessary to compete with the two major parties.

I would love to see the voting laws changed to allow for a 2nd choice. If the person you voted for was not in the top two...your 2nd choice would be counted. That way, someone could vote how they want without fear of wasting their vote.

Originally posted by fadingCaptain
I am a libertarian and know several people that consider themselves libertarians. In fact, when talking politics with left-wingers, they almost universally are libertarian whether they know it or not. It seems everyone I talk to feels they are mis-reprented by the democratic party. I know I do.

So...why are there no major libertarians in government (Jesse Ventura would probably be the most visible)? Why don't we have a libertarian up for presidency? Why can't there be a more organized libertarian party? And why does everyone confuse the terms liberal and libertarian???

It seems to me the general public needs to be educated on libertarian ideals and a viable third party organized to challenge the outdated democratic and republican lines that have blurred and ceased to represent the populous in the US.

I believe there is a large contigent of people that believe in the freedom of the individual and a limited government.

http://www.lp.org/

http://www.libertarian.org/

There is a big difference between being a general libertarian(believing in individual rights) and a Libertarian(member of the Libertarian Party).

The Libertarian Party does support the rights of individuals in a sense, but I believe the party also supports the existance of corporations and the legal fictions surrounding them, so that when they support individual rights, they also(perhaps primarily) mean corporate rights. They favor litigation to solve all disputes over rights, for example, if a corporation dumps a truckload of toxic waste on your lawn you don't call the police, you call a lawyer, and whos likely to be able to afford a better lawyer? you or the corporation?

The user fee idea is also very problematic. Roads to many areas would fall into disrepair and others would be prohibitively expensive for many people.
Public transportation, like subways, which are govt subsidised would likely cease to exist as to keep them operational by user fees the fee woudl have to be raised drastically.

"Now, there are consistent libertarians, people like Murray Rothbard [American academic]--and if you just read the world that they describe, it's a world so full of hate that no human being would want to live in it. This is a world where you don't have roads because you don't see any reason why you should cooperate in building a road that you're not going to use: if you want a road, you get together with a bunch of other people who are going to use that road and you build it, then you charge people to ride on it. If you don't like the pollution from somebody's automobile, you take them to court and you litigate it. Who would want to live in a world like that? It's a world built on hatred."

Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky pg. 200, paragraph 5

Thanks jps.

There is a big difference between being a general libertarian(believing in individual rights) and a Libertarian(member of the Libertarian Party).
If you were a libertarian but did not hold all the beliefs of the party, would you not want to work within the party to influence it? There are disagreements and conflicts in all political parties...

The Libertarian Party does support the rights of individuals in a sense, but I believe the party also supports the existance of corporations and the legal fictions surrounding them, so that when they support individual rights, they also(perhaps primarily) mean corporate rights. They favor litigation to solve all disputes over rights, for example, if a corporation dumps a truckload of toxic waste on your lawn you don't call the police, you call a lawyer, and whos likely to be able to afford a better lawyer? you or the corporation?
This I agree with in that litigation has to be handled/controlled to afford each individual fair representation. Suits and such can easily get out of hand and indeed are today.

The user fee idea is also very problematic. Roads to many areas would fall into disrepair and others would be prohibitively expensive for many people.
I am more moderate in that I do not think ALL transportation would be exclusively handled via user fees. Some more radical libertarians would not agree. I do not favor an abolishment of taxes...just a large reduction. As for subways and other mass transit...they should be able to support themselves financially though this may not be realistic especially initially. There are ways of dealing with this without simply putting the goverment in control of it. Possibly they could be subsidized intitially by the government with a plan to reduce this subsidy over time and replace it with usage fees as it is privitized.

Also, I am a big fan of Chomsky but he is not shy of radicalizing and polarizing issues. His characterization is off-base and kin to describing the religion of Islam with the events of 911....

As was pointed out on one of the websites you give the url for, it can be seen that the difference between someone like a real Libertarian and someone who is merely for individual rights, is the economic aspect.
And as someone else said once , its more that the liberals etc htink the individual is best served by a society working together, with gvt, as part of that, that helps bring people up to their potential.
Plus, at least 2 communists I know, see communism as having a very powerful gvt, but the point is that it is a directly democratic gvt, ie everyone gets to vote on issues. But it woud also have powers over companies and much of what at the moment falls under private property rights.
But I cant see how any of them are less idealistic than any other, so we'll just have to wait a few hundered years and see where we are then.

You seem to lack a histroical knowledge of this phenomena of fee based formerly or eventually public utilities and services. The problem with fee based roads is that any price will be exorbitant in accumulation. That and all the allocation-of-funds tables are way too unorganized. What happened back when this was first tried in the earlier part of this century was that people were essentially held hostage. In fact the same could be said of other basic needs that can be easily priced out of reason. In fact some services would otherwise be too expensive without mandated subsidy. Regulations and taxes are a neccessary evil.

mmm, hang on, what your saying is roughly that a free market wont work because there are no alternatives. Ie you cant build fifteen roads all going to the same place and then compete between them.

Teg,
You seem to lack a histroical knowledge of this phenomena of fee based formerly or eventually public utilities and services.
Uh well you are correct. Any historical knowledge I had on this was probably lost long ago in a bender.

Would you care to expound on what happened in the earlier part of this century? (I assume you meant last century! :))

I cannot imagine it being so drastic that at least a partial reduction in the subsidizing of public transportation is completely out of the question. Things are quite different than 50-60 years ago, eh? Then again, I am not sure what exactly you are alluding to, so fill me in.

The key is competition. People have to get from one place to another. Give them some options and the market will take care of itself. For example...would you pay 50 cents more for a 1 hr shortcut? I think that is what guthrie is alluding to...though 15 roads might be overkill. :)

Guthrie,
Why do you think libertarianism is so idealistic? Are you only looking at the more radical aspects?

" Are you only looking at the more radical aspects?"

Well, the problem is that you and some others seem to want to designate libertarian anything towards fredom of the individual, whereas I would call it liberal, being a european and all.

Secondly, given what i have read of history, yes i suppose I do consider much of it idealistic. There does seem to be a general tendency to increasing gvt, especially in more complex societies. Although that is no guide to the future, it seems to me that what much of libertarianism is very close to anarchocapitalism, which is way out there somewhere. HHmm, its hard to answer your question about idealistic. Galt, one of the libertarians on this forum pointed out that everythign started as an ideal, but that applies to all political thoughts, not jsut libertarianism.

Anyways, the point Im trying to make about the roads, is that firstly, the market is innefficient at a social level, and secondly that as can be seen wiht the present fairly free market system, that concentration is what happens. So what happens when more people concentrate further, and with limited amounts of space, all needing ot get around as well as they can? We end up with a public transport system. I can quite agree that some subsidies need to go, or decrease, but it is likely taht not all can, or will because of the social utility inherent in them. It has been shown that cuts in public spending on transport hurt the poor more than the rich, the whole subsidised transport things helps keep everyone happy.

Originally posted by fadingCaptain
I believe there is a large contigent of people that believe in the freedom of the individual and a limited government.

I sure hope not.

posted byFading Captain
In fact, when talking politics with left-wingers, they almost universally are libertarian whether they know it or not. It seems everyone I talk to feels they are mis-represented by the Democratic Party. I know I do.My word, you certainly have a totally different sort of experience than I do, both at home in California and at work in D.C. The American left-liberals I encounter universally scorn our movement because of our defining philosophical dispute with both Conferences of the Republocrat League: their belief that only government can solve the massive-scale problems that face the human race vs. our belief that large and inevitably corrupt government is a major contributing factor to those problems, and utterly inept at solving them when they deign to try. Left-liberals are still known as the party of Big Government, so they feel tangibly more threatened by our resolve to shrink it than the conservatives, many of whom cheer the concept of smaller government if not the practice.

And these days, particularly in D.C., where everyone is no more than one degree of separation away from the federal feed trough, I find it to be the registered Republicans who feel betrayed by their party. These people all lived with the stench of the burning Pentagon in their nostrils two years ago, and Bush's little Iraq adventure has them all genuinely panicked that a new wave of religiously inspired terrorists will arrive any day. They are quietly arranging for their children to spend some quality time with Uncle Alfred on the farm in Nebraska this summer. When I arrived a year ago the Republicans thought I was a traitor for suggesting that there was no Constituional basis for Bush the Elder's invasion of Iraq. Now they are all criticizing Bush the Dumber for lying about WMDs. Frankly I do not see the huge support base for W that the running-dog media trumpet. He would not carry Maryland or Virginia if the election were held tomorrow.

So...why are there no major libertarians in government (Jesse Ventura would probably be the most visible)?I spent six months working in Minneapolis. Jesse Ventura is no libertarian. He is an opportunist and an iconoclast, but he has solid faith in the goodness of Big Government. Nonetheless I loved the Jesse Ventura action figures that were available in every gift shop. Navy Seal, Wrestler, Governor, Scoutmaster, several others. I appreciate a man who can laugh at himself. Why don't we have a Libertarian up for the Presidency? Why can't there be a more organized Libertarian Party?Because power corrupts. The party was hit by a huge scandal in the wake of the 2000 election and barely survived. Harry Brown, our presidential candidate, was almost certainly on the take. I'm livid that the occasional hundred dollar contribution my wife and I scraped together by learning to make our own pizza and doughnuts at home paid for some party staffer's vacation.

Enough comments have already been made about the fate of third parties. Although if ever one was "wasting one's vote" it would be to cast it for W., a certified moron, or Gore, who only looks like an intellectual when compared to W. Third parties do have power out of proportion to their success. The Communists never won an important office in the U.S., yet their entire 1928 platform has been quietly adopted by both major parties to avoid hemorrhaging votes. It was, after all, the Eisenhower administration that created the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. The Green Party has won many local elections in California, including a majority on the city council of Arcata, the site of Humboldt State University, the economic and cultural capital of the state's rural northern third. The Dems and Reps are falling all over each other to see who can be the Greenest.

And to admit the truth we don't have much of an identity. We are the party of last resort for all the wackos: the automatic weapon aficionados, the polygamists, the Branch Davidians, the militant gays, and the people who want to burn spliffs at the bus stop. The party's loyal center, who just wants to shrink the government compassionately by invoking a thirty-year hiring freeze and actually giving Americans a chance to work the bugs out of privately operated airports, community schools, and currency backed by a precious commodity, are completely hidden behind a noisy fringe of people whom we tolerate on principle but do not respect.And why does everyone confuse the terms liberal and libertarian?Because we actually are the classic "liberals" of history: those who believed in limited government and the ability of private citizens to run their own lives. The word was co-opted by the socialist-leftist spectrum in the early twentieth century for reasons I don't quite understand, but they left us without a name. Whoever thought up the name "libertarian" deserves a position in Hell's Library only slightly less boring than those who said hey that's cool let's adopt it. Most of the people well educated enough to realize that we are not left-liberals simply assume that we are "libertines."

posted by JPS
The Libertarian Party does support the rights of individuals in a sense, but I believe the party also supports the existence of corporations and the legal fictions surrounding them, so that when they support individual rights, they also (perhaps primarily) mean corporate rights. They favor litigation to solve all disputes over rights. For example, if a corporation dumps a truckload of toxic waste on your lawn you don't call the police, you call a lawyer. Who's likely to afford a better lawyer?And if you get raped you can get a judgment against the rapist of the thousand dollar fee that would be charged by the prostitutes that we would decriminalize. Don't we have at least one thing in our bag of tricks to piss off everybody?

You hit my biggest gripe about the movement's excessively economically oriented philosophy square on the head. I believe in the free market for sure. But Adam Smith meant by that a level playing field hosting the interaction of buyers and sellers of roughly equal power. The corporation does not fit that model. It is an invention of government, filling the place formerly occupied by the aristocracy. Wealth and power without accountability. Pervasive enough influence and deep enough pockets to outfight and outwait any individual. It distracts our attention away from the government itself, who is left free to perform their most nefarious tricks (the current denizens of the legislative and executive branches who flaunt their misdeeds without even having the decency to conceal them is the worst example in my memory) while we all rail impotently at the corporations who continue to create energy shortages, turn thousand-year-old forests into toilet paper, and sell us software with a Mean Time Between Failures measured in hours.

Adam Smith would turn in his grave at the concept of the holding company, a corporation that exists for the sole purpose of controlling other corporations, skimming off their profits while contributing absolutely nothing to the economy. With the push of the Enter key a thirty-year-old MBA who effectively owns less than one percent of a corporation's stock can dismantle it and put all of its employees out of work, without ever having the vaguest understanding of its business.

I do not believe that the principles of libertarianism excuse the existence of corporations. The laws that allow them to exist are fanciful and the governments that allow them to commit acts that no individual could get away with should be torn down. If an entrepreneur wants to raise capital to start a business, let him do it the old fashioned way. Either borrow the money, so that if the venture fails his estates, yachts, and jets can be seized by the creditors; or spread the risk among his backers in a partnership, so that employees, customers and other creditors have more than stock certificates and negotiable instruments to liquidate.

It is possible to have industry with accountability, risk with risk management, and stewardship guided by enlightened self interest.

If there is one other principle which may yet drive me out of the party, it is our knee-jerk embrace of the entire Bill of Rights. I believe that civilization has suffered enough catastrophic setbacks due to its naive tolerance of any philosophy that calls itself "religion." The monotheistic, patriarchal religions that spew out of the Mideast like locusts every thousand years or so are not compatible with libertarianism and it's time we stood up and said so. In my opinion and experience, if we'd like to pique the interest of American left-liberals in our movement, we can do so by holding the leaders, evangelizers, followers, and nut cases of every religion to the same standards that we apply to every other citizen.

It's time to add a new plank to our platform: If you believe that consenting adults may be prohibited from engaging in certain activities in private that cause no direct harm to others; if you believe that someone who does not agree with you is wicked and inferior and may be hounded relentlessly until he capitulates; if you believe that the initiation of force or fraud is ever a legitimate means to achieve any end; if you believe that the rights of the individual do not trump those of all communities, organizations, societies, nations, and any other groups of individuals; then you are not welcome in our community.

FadingCaptain,

perhaps people are so ingrained with the idea of a two party system...the thought of a third party seems foreign and un-american?!?

Right there is why! Most people don't know what their philosophies on politics are based on. Even allot politicians don't know. I think the only way you will get Libertarians in the government is threw Congress, or state government. Allot of people just vote the same way out of habit. That¡¦s what I would focus on if I was the head of the party.

Yeah that is absolutely right. Its why I didn't vote for nader. But this is really just a symptom of the two issues I brought up. The only way to counteract this would be to A) change the voting system to allow for a 2nd and possibly 3rd choice or B) introduce a party with the funding/influence necessary to compete with the two major parties.

I don't like either of those ideas much the first one I don't know much about or whether it is feasible. The 2nd would be bad because it would go against the first amendment and against Libertarian philosophies. The ends don't justify the means here.

As for roads, we already have a user fee it¡¦s a tax on gas ;)

Now for the meat and potatoes...

The differences between a Liberal and a Libertarian are enormous.

Libertarians want freedom for the individual BUT they also want the individual to bear responsibility of their actions. For instance you don't work you don't get paid. Your freedom of choice and you suffer the consequences. Libertarians believe that freedom dosent come free.

Liberals want freedom from social institutions. They want business regulated and such. You then don't bare the consequences. You don't work, here is some money.

I guess I would fall under the heading of a small l Libertarian. Socially, sure. Legalize drugs, prostitution, disband police vice squads, I'm all for it.

But the radical Laissez Faire economics that many hard core Libertarians espouse give me pause.

I like what P.J. O'Rourke said. "You've gotta love the Libertarians. The problem is, when you go to one of their meetings, you get cornered by some earnest highschool Algebra teacher, who goes on and on about his plan to privatize the sidewalks."

foadi,
I sure hope not.
You prefer limited personal freedoms and a large imposing goverment? We probably wouldn't get along very well.

fraggle,
Thanks, it is good to hear from someone so involved and knowledgable of libertarianism.

My word, you certainly have a totally different sort of experience than I do, both at home in California and at work in D.C.
I was generalizing a bit much. Most of the conversations I had in mind were at work we seem to talk much about human rights issues and less about economical issues. If it were the other way around I would probably have a reversal!

I spent six months working in Minneapolis. Jesse Ventura is no libertarian.
Jesse believes in big government? Say it aint so...oh well he seemed a little too much like a cartoon character anyway :).

Because power corrupts. The party was hit by a huge scandal in the wake of the 2000 election and barely survived. Harry Brown, our presidential candidate, was almost certainly on the take. I'm livid that the occasional hundred dollar contribution my wife and I scraped together by learning to make our own pizza and doughnuts at home paid for some party staffer's vacation.
Wow. I had no idea. What has been done to get the bad seeds out?

The party's loyal center, who just wants to shrink the government compassionately by invoking a thirty-year hiring freeze and actually giving Americans a chance to work the bugs out of privately operated airports, community schools, and currency backed by a precious commodity, are completely hidden behind a noisy fringe of people whom we tolerate on principle but do not respect.
Yes, this is the problem I think also. Libertarianism seems to be defined only by its more radical components (the wackos). It is an identity issue.

Whoever thought up the name "libertarian" deserves a position in Hell's Library only slightly less boring than those who said hey that's cool let's adopt it.
Agreed! The name should seriously be changed.

As for your thoughts on corporations and religion, I can only say I passionately agree. I truly wish these ideals were at least in part represented by someone in the political arena.

Thaug,
I don't like either of those ideas much the first one I don't know much about or whether it is feasible.
I don't see why it isn't feasible. You simply get a 2nd choice that will count as your vote if your 1st choice is not the one of the top 2 vote getters. It does add a little complexity but I think we could make it work...we invented cars and made flight possible, right?

repo,
But the radical Laissez Faire economics that many hard core Libertarians espouse give me pause.
I understand. But again, why define the party by its most radical constituents? In this thread alone, we see chomsky and o'rourke attack and exaggerate to the point of mischaracterization. Do you think the majority of libertarians would want to privatize the sidewalks? Of course not!

Originally posted by fadingCaptain
I was generalizing a bit much. Most of the conversations I had in mind were at work. We seem to talk much about human rights issues and less about economical issues. If it were the other way around I would probably have a reversal!Yes, the shorthand definition of a libertarian is "socially liberal, fiscally conservative." I'm in your corner, sharing many concerns with the left-liberals as I did forty years ago, end war, hatred, poverty, racism. But they've gone way past that and now want to legislate health, safety, fitness and sobriety for everyone. I guess they feel they were so successful at ending poverty and racism through the force of Big Government that they now feel empowered to wield it in the service of ending obesity and bicycle accidents. :)

I enjoyed Tommy Chong's description of the new organization, made up of guys who all took drugs when they were younger, then quit, got jobs, had families, and live responsible lives, and now they lecture their own children about the evils of drugs. He said it's named "Druggies Against Drugs." DADsJesse believes in big government? Say it aint so...oh well he seemed a little too much like a cartoon character anyway :).He started off like Jerry Brown, conspicuously cutting back on his own expenses and stuff like that. But power corrupted quickly. By 2001 he had hired a bodyguard. At least he managed to maintain his entertainment value!Wow. I had no idea. [Corruption in the Party.] What has been done to get the bad seeds out? Started by hiring an auditor -- hope it wasn't Arthur Andersen! Ended up firing just about the entire national office staff. But too late, the campaign funds were blown and as far as I know they still owe money on some advertising. They couldn't get anything to stick to Harry Browne and since I wasn't there I suppose I should give him the benefit of the doubt. But it's hard to believe that corruption of that scope could have been going on and he never suspected anything.Yes, this is the problem I think also. Libertarianism seems to be defined only by its more radical components (the wackos). It is an identity issue.We need to become a one-issue party like the Greenies. Many members have suggested that it should be drugs. It would be an easy way to dump the religious wackos, and it would attract a lot of votes. The millions of Americans who have family members in prison for trivial, non-violent drug offenses, and the growing number of respectable judges and law enforcement agents speaking out against prohibition and their followers. If just one fourth of the American voters who live in paranoia because of their own or a loved one's responsible, recreational drug use voted Libertarian, the Republocrats would be hyperventilating in a race to disassociate themselves from the War on Drugs.As for your thoughts on corporations and religion, I can only say I passionately agree. I truly wish these ideals were at least in part represented by someone in the political arena.If you take on both Big Business and Big Religion, your body will never be found! Look what they both do to people who merely annoy them.

Originally posted by fadingCaptain
foadi,

You prefer limited personal freedoms and a large imposing goverment?
No.
We probably wouldn't get along very well.

I would probably end up shooting you.

"I don't like either of those ideas much the first one I don't know much about or whether it is feasible. "

I don't see why it isn't feasible. You simply get a 2nd choice that will count as your vote if your 1st choice is not the one of the top 2 vote getters. It does add a little complexity but I think we could make it work...we invented cars and made flight possible, right?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Think about it, to get that to work you would need to ammend the Constitution. To do that you would already need libertarians in power.

I think Libertarians need to focus on freemarket and no regulation or subsidies of industry as thier main concern. Thats the big point of thier philosophy (read Ayn Rand) and with economic freedom comes social freedom. They also shouldn't focus on a President because thats not going to happen for a long time. They should try and get people into the senate and house of rep.

Fragglerocker,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is possible to have industry with accountability, risk with risk management, and stewardship guided by enlightened self interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thats a double edged sword. I see corporations with a problem that they are soon going to have unlimeted responsibility. Example being McDs Hot coffee lady/ Malpractice suits. You make everybody pay either by having the compnay pay for somebody because they spilled hot coffee on thier lap or because a surgeon couldn't save an eye has to pay thousands in medical malpractice inssurance. This kind of thing is making what made America the most powerful nation neutered economically.

Fraggle Rocker , is right. Classic Liberalism is actually more conservative. The tennants of this philosophy include personal freedom and limited government. Of course that sounds like what current conservatives are supposed to be based upon. So you see that Liberalism, Libertarianism, Neo-Liberalism and Conservatism are really all the same thing. In fact there has really only been one alternative to any of these in the historical sense and that is Socialism.