What Is A "Libertarian"?

[Boogyman]

Many people seem to be confused about what a Libertarian really stands for. Some are under the impression that if you are are a Libertarian, then you must be a conservative.

Here's how I scored on the Libertarian website:

ACCORDING TO YOUR ANSWERS,

You fall exactly on the border of two political philosophies...

LIBERAL

LIBERTARIAN

LIBERALS usually embrace freedom of choice in personal matters, but tend to support significant government control of the economy. They generally support a government-funded "safety net" to help the disadvantaged, and advocate strict regulation of business. Liberals tend to favor environmental regulations, defend civil liberties and free expression, support government action to promote equality, and tolerate diverse lifestyles.

LIBERTARIANS support maximum liberty in both personal and economic matters. They advocate a much smaller government; one that is limited to protecting individuals from coercionand violence. Libertarians tend to embrace individual responsibility, oppose government bureaucracy and taxes, promote private charity, tolerate diverse lifestyles, support the free market, and defend civil liberties.

This will suprise many folks:

8,034,358

THAT'S HOW MANY TIMES THE QUIZ
HAS BEEN TAKEN SO FAR.

(Results are renewed after each submission.)

How People Have Scored

---Centrist 33.17 %

---Right (Conservative) 8.69 %

---Libertarian 32.72 %

---Left (Liberal) 17.50 %

---Statist (Big Government) 7.91 %

Notice how more than twice as many people scored Liberal than Conservative.

If you'd like to take the test yourself, click here:

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

You may be suprised.

[Boogyman]

There are many people here that automatically hate all Liberals. Most of them are completely ignorant of what a Liberal really is.

"Liberalism is not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves." -- Sen. John F. Kennedy (>), September 14, 1960

Liberalism is not a political party. It is an attitude, an outlook on life. I'm a Liberal, and I believe in individual freedom. I'm also a gun owner. To me, individual freedom and gun ownership go hand in hand.

"In today's world, the liberals are the idealists, the people who still believe, in spite of everything that has happened, that they can make the world a better place for everybody. They believe that government is inherently good, that it can make the human condition better. They believe that we have some obligation to our fellow human beings. They believe in personal freedom, in freedom of speech and religion. They believe in the common good, the things people cannot do alone."-- Henrietta Hay, Grand Junction Daily Sentinel

That sums it up pretty much for me, except it depends on what you mean by the "government is inherently good" part. I believe that the government's main purpose is to see that the will of the people gets done. If that is "inherently good", then I agree.

What I get tired of is some people here always blurting out crap like "All Liberals are A-holes" or other such ignorant general insults. I'm not the only Liberal gun-owner on this board, so I'd appreciate it if those disrespectful individuals would have a little courtesy the next time they feel like dumping their garbage.

The reason why Perfect Union s my favorite gun board is because of the diversity here. There are plenty of other gun boards out there full of ignorance and hatred towards all things Liberal, if that's what you want, go there.

Ignorance breeds fear.

Fear breeds hatred.

[lima-charlie]

That was interesting. I have never taken on a definitive polical label. I just took that quiz and I was a Centrist with a little move to the left of center. That might explain why no group very well defines me and all groups have ideas I appreciate.

Suddenly, I feel like taking a trip to Switzerland?!

lima-charlie

[Arizona Mikey]

I did this test (I recall it being also known as the “Nolan Chart”) many years ago, and wound up in the libertarian quadrant, but also pretty close to the conservative corner. This time, I wound up in the libertarian quadrant, but close to the LIBERAL corner (WTF???). My results were: “Personal” = 80%, “Economic” = 60%

However, my complaint about the “Nolan Chart” is that the questions always seem a little simplistic, and seemingly slanted towards pushing people into the libertarian quadrant. Lots of folks I knew in college who took the test landed somewhere on the libertarian corner, but I knew them well enough to know they weren’t really all THAT libertarian.

And I think my liberal tilt today came from objecting to “free trade.” This may mark me as a “liberal” by the authors of the test, but I consider myself more of a Pat Buchanan Conservative on this issue than I am a Liberal Trade Unionist. Big, big difference there!

Still, this chart is a huge improvement over the nonsensical “left-right spectrum” we all learned in high school. THAT doesn’t mean a dammed thing!

[JimS]

Wikipedia provides some definitions and history of Libertarianism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

This from that article:

In 1955, Dean Russell wrote an article pondering what to call those, such as himself, who subscribed to the classical liberal philosophy of individualism and self-responsibility. He said,

Many of us call ourselves "liberals," And it is true that the word "liberal" once described persons who respected the individual and feared the use of mass compulsions. But the leftists have now corrupted that once-proud term to identify themselves and their program of more government ownership of property and more controls over persons. As a result, those of us who believe in freedom must explain that when we call ourselves liberals, we mean liberals in the uncorrupted classical sense. At best, this is awkward, subject to misunderstanding. Here is a suggestion: Let those of us who love liberty trademark and reserve for our own use the good and honorable word "libertarian."

It is interesting to note that many who call themselves liberals and believe strongly in personal responsibility are in fact, likely talking about a brand of liberalism much closer to the idea of being a moderate or centrist than what is actually pushed by the majority of the Democratic party as it stands today. Unfortunately, many still vote party lines (same on the Republican side) rather than truly listing what they believe (which I did recently and am satisfied that I vote all of my beliefs not just one issue) and then comparing candidates against that belief list. Do this sometime - you might find it interesting to find out that your beliefs do not necessarily follow voting patterns. This was certainly the case for my brother and father a few years ago. They both voted strictly Democrat and had strong beliefs regarding pro-life, self responsibility, taxation, gun control, etc. issues and as such started paying a much greater amount of attention to candidates in place of parties - thus, much of their voting tendencies changed.

That said, Libertarianism is not for me - primarily because we do not live in a closed society where all believe and think alike. The vast majority of the World can not even agree on what constitutes an impact on anothers rights and activities - take for instance odors from pig farms, noise pollution, global warming, etc. Though Libertarian views are very thoughtful and appealing (even to me) - in the end, if they were a major player - things would be much the same as they are today - as compromise is what ends up determining the rule of law in the United States - as it should be.

JimS

[jeff]

I took this test a while ago and ended up firmly libertarian. I tend to support the right wing because they interfere with my life less. I believe that governments exist only to do those things that require a government, Roads, Armies, etc. I also believe the government must prevent the powerful from taking unfair advantage of the weak. This is not the same as redistribution of wealth. The government is not responsible for providing health care, providing for able-bodied individuals or supporting art or public broadcasting. Charity is a private affair. The government should not dictate gas mileage, seat belt wear, the menu at Kentucky fried chicken, tell me how to speak or take care of my kids. States should have a larger role and the federal government smaller. The federal government should not involve itself in those things that are not federal issues (like education). I could write a long time on this topic if I had time. In Killer Angels and again in the movie Gettysburg there is a speech by the SGM of the 20th Mane where he says he is not fighting to be equal but rather for the right to be unequal, Not equality but equal opportunity. Every man should be free to make of himself what he desires.
I have unique views on
Social Security
Gay rights
Abortion
Disaster response
And a dozen other things that fit in no party’s pigeonhole.
Rock of the Marne

[Boogyman]

Good post, Jeff, I agree with a lot of what you say here.

This sorta confuses me tho:
I tend to support the right wing because they interfere with my life less.
To me, it is the Right Wing that is interfering in my life much more than the left ever did.

From the ridiculous price of gas to the outrageous cost of health care and prescriptuion drugs to the eroding of my privacy and individual freedom in the name of the "Patriot" Act to those who are losing their sons and daughters in this mess we call Iraq.... you name it.
I also believe the government must prevent the powerful from taking unfair advantage of the weak.
What happens when it is the government itself who is "the powerful taking advantage of the weak"?

Having a one-party monopoly in all branches of government is a sure recipe for corruption and abuse of power. The present situation is proof of this.

As far as social security, abortion, gay rights, etcetera, I'm not even gonna ask... :lol: Let's just save those for another time... ;)

[jeff]

Boogy
I will agree that there have been numerous attacks on personal liberty in the name of the war. I disagree that this is a right wing problem. Look at what Roosevelt did in WWII. We do need to call them out on it but if the left were in charge we would have the same problem. It is a knee jerk reaction to fear. I not sure where you are getting on prescription drugs and health care We have the best health care in the world. It is not the government’s job to provide it. It is their job to ensure fair competition. And to do things like defining the law to prevent frivolous lawsuits (they aren’t doing either). I remember when the American auto industry almost bought it in the late ‘70s and they are repeating the error, the market will cause them to fix it. The price of gas has a lot of factors I agree that we are too reliant on foreign oil. I bet we disagree on the fix (Opening more areas to drilling, new refineries and increased use of nuclear power).
As for the war I won’t go there I’ve two tours and the administration’s mishandling of it is not tactical or operational but rather their inability to mold public opinion and control the media. Some time I will post in detail on this. The war was as good as won a year ago and they allowed the media to create problems that didn’t previously exist. I have heard commander’s complain about this many times. Well enough for now.

Rock of the Marne

[Boogyman]

Well Jeff, although we do agree on some issues, we are obviously on different sides of others. But that's America, right? ;)

I hold those responsible who have had the monopoly in government for the last 5-6 years. There is no accountability in this administration and no competency in this congress. Nothing gets done with all the partisan squabbling.

Bush's biggest lie was not WMD's, it was "I'm a uniter, not a divider". I've never seen so much hatred between Dem's and Rep's, Lib's and Con's, not even during Vietnam.

Who's in charge? Where does the buck stop?

Anyway, this is a whole can of worms that you and I are letting loose in a thread that's supposed to to be about political definitions and misconceptions.

At least we know where we stand, huh? ;) :lol:

[jeff]

Boogy
Agreed
Rock of the Marne

[Olds]

CENTRISTS here.

[freesw]

That said, Libertarianism is not for me - primarily because we do not live in a closed society where all believe and think alike. The vast majority of the World can not even agree on what constitutes an impact on anothers rights and activities - take for instance odors from pig farms, noise pollution, global warming, etc. Though Libertarian views are very thoughtful and appealing (even to me) - in the end, if they were a major player - things would be much the same as they are today - as compromise is what ends up determining the rule of law in the United States - as it should be.


Good point, though I can agree entirely with a Libertarianism that seeks to protect the rights of people to not be harmed by the activities of others. What I mean by this is that no one has the right to pollute the air others must breathe and the water they must drink; no matter how much profit that economic activity generates, it is a violation of the right to life of those in proximity. No one has to eat at a burger joint, but everyone must breathe air and drink water. Soon, only bottled water will be what's safe in many areas, and then that too will cease to be safe, the way things are going. That is the distinction between freedom to undertake an activity that is potentially harmful to onesself, and the right to be free from the effects of the activities of others that are likely or certain to do bodily harm or cause significant expense, discomfort or inconvenience, with no consent given.

I take objection to one oft-stated "difference" between the two major parties: that Republicans believe in personal responsibility and Democrats do not. This is nothing more than a Republican interpretation - what they think is behind certain Democrat positions. A case at least as strong could be made that today's Republicans seek to institutionalize - and have largely succeeded - the disavowal and outright abdication of personal responsibility for many of those things that have great impact on large numbers of people: the failure to do anything at all about the global economic race to the bottom, with its attendant impact on the environment, workers, and national security (open borders are one aspect of this). The impact of corporate welfare puts welfare for poor people to shame.

[cma g21]

...The impact of corporate welfare puts welfare for poor people to shame...

freesw,

I see the term, "corporate welfare," used quite a bit, and was just curious what that term means to you.

If you mean things like farm subsidies (where the government actually gives money to corporations), I couldn’t agree more.

If you mean tax breaks to corporations, then I disagree with calling it any form of welfare. It may be wrong, unfair, unjust, unwise, etc., but IMHO there’s now way letting anyone (whether person of corporation) keep some of their own money can rightly be called welfare. YMMV

[freesw]

I think you just missed the forest for a couple of trees.

[cma g21]

I think you just missed the forest for a couple of trees.

No, just trying to clarify a possible, "Sweeping generalization and looseness with facts."

[freesw]

There was no "looseness with facts" in my post, cma_g21, and any "sweeping generalization" is in your own mind, as your post showed.

[cma g21]

There was no "looseness with facts" in my post, cma_g21, and any "sweeping generalization" is in your own mind, as your post showed.

Actually, I merely asked you to clarify a term you used.

It seems you don’t want to answer the question. Nothing wrong with that.

"Sweeping generalization and looseness with facts," was just giving you back on your own responses from another thread, and at least as appropriate and accurate as ,"I think you just missed the forest for a couple of trees."

[Zen900]

"Corperate welfare" is a communist code word. When you see ANYONE use the term "corprate welfare" you are assured of their ideology. These code users are not Democrats as they camo themselves but rather they are anti-Amercans. They are enemies of Americans yet they live within Americas borders and they wear cotton shirts and jeans just like you do.

[Boogyman]

"Corperate welfare" is a communist code word. When you see ANYONE use the term "corprate welfare" you are assured of their ideology. These code users are not Democrats as they camo themselves but rather they are anti-Amercans. They are enemies of Americans yet they live within Americas borders and they wear cotton shirts and jeans just like you do.

Ok, Zen, now I'm really starting to get worried about you. I'm serious.

Would it hurt to maybe just make an appointment with some sort of counselor or phsychologist or something? Or just talk to some friends and ask them what they think?

I'm not trying to be a smartass here, no offense intended... :)