What's Up With the LP (Libertarian Party)?

Fart jokes still amuse me, as do references to the LP.

So I grew up under a liberal roof with me mama. I can remember going to protests and that sort of thing (being bored out of my skull.) I never took a liking to anything that gave even the slightest hint of political until recently discovering a love of economics.

All this reading on economics has made me a confused camper.
[ul][li]Universal Health Care :thumbsdown: [/li]
[li]Minimum Wage :thumbsdown:[/li][/ul]
Sound pretty conservative eh?

Well, I ran into the word ‘libertarian’ the other day. A bit of googling has told me about them, and they seem right up my current alley. Plus, [their website] kicks the shit out of [Demos] and [Repubs] (I’m guessing, I can’t get the Repub site to load.)

I brought this up with big boss man and he spilled the beans on one LP member. Are there others? Is the LP as pimp as it seems?

Libertarians are just Republicans who want weed legalised.

One of my colleagues is an American Libertarian. Hell, I’d probably vote for them too if I thought they had a chance in hell (or believed in voting). Anything to close down the public schools…

And make education a privilege for those who can pay for it?

Are there others? Yes, there are. Not many, but they exist. Myself, I’m not a member of the LP, and my support for policies such as government sponsored education, public roads, roads, parks etc. (and –critically–progressive taxation to finance same) would probably get me kicked out of any truly Libertarian political group.

Regarding your second question, in my opinion the LP is not as pimp as it seems, both because (a) genuine libertarians hold a number of (to me) fundamentally misguided notions, and (b) there just is not much support for the idea – at least for now. Many people hold what would appear to be some libertarian views on some issues, but on closer inspection these views are generally limited to cases in which the libertarian view just happens to coincide with their own. A person who opposes the minimum wage as an over-extension of government power, but supports marajuana prohibition, would be one example. A person who opposes a flag-burning amendment as an over-extension of government power, but supports “hate speech” laws would be another. In each case the person supports the idea that nobody should use violence against another except in self defense “unless I really disagree with the other person and feel like I should be able to use violence against them.”

In terms of a philosophy to take something beneficial from, yes – I find it to be very pimp. The notion that the core of good politics can be boiled down to [color=black]“No person can use violence against any other person except in self defense”[/color] is, in my view, a view well worth considering, and incorporating into one’s political outlook to one extent or another.

As I mentioned above, I, personally, do not accept this view in its pure form (else I could not be in favor of, say, publicly financed parks or schools), but that doesn’t mean that it cannot form a decent starting point from which any deviation should have the burden of justifying itself as a wise and beneficial exception.


Completely wrong.

Libertarians are also overwhelmingly opposed to the Iraq war, for example (just as they opposed the Vietnam war and almost all of the other military conflicts the US has engaged in over the years). They generally oppose government restrictions on abortion. They oppose restrictions on stem cell research, and euthanasia. They are fanatical defenders of the separation of church and state. They oppose corporate welfare to well connected industries. They oppose virtually every provision of the Patriot Act, censorship in any form, and any other government interference in the rights of any individual to do anything that does not directly harm anyone else.

Honestly, I’d be hard pressed to find anything (with the possible exception of the tax cuts, but even that is not clear cut) that Bush or the Republicans have done in the last six years that most Libertarians approve of. They are no closer to Republicans than they are to Democrats. Especially not now.

Isn’t the US a two party ‘democracy’ …? So, what are the Libertarians doing there?

When everyone is living at home, plugged in to some Cronenburgesque virtual-reality game (life) system, and stepping out of doors is considered an unwelcomed adventure, the Libertarian Party might well rule.

Until then, small doses of libertarianism are a healthy tonic, but the commonweal is where the action and work are at.

Thanks Hobbes! I think I’ll hang out with the LPs for a while and see what they’re all about. I like that what I’ve read so far is economically sound (as far as I can see after reading a whole 3 books on economics :slight_smile:.)

In martial arts the term MMA (mixed martial arts) is quite popular now. I think there needs to be an MPP (mixed politcal party.) That’d be like the “other.” (Is there an “other” party?)

You said you’ve googled, so I suspect you have this already. But if not:


Lots of audio and video downloads of lectures, debates and so on.

As I said, I find plenty of the arguments made by some of the people on this site to be laughably stupid. Others are not though.

One of the (many) lectures by Murray Rothbard are probably a good place to start, mostly because he is just an entertaining guy to listen to (well, if you’re interested in the subject anyway :wink: ).

Where’s the cut-off line between libertarian thought and anarchism? I suspect libertarians accept the validity of at least some kind of social contract while your average anarchist would have difficulty accepting anything that smacks of a “received” order. This said, they often look suspiciously similar to me. Might be time to get yourself a black flag MTK…

Would this be the black flag of Anarchy?

[quote]All this reading on economics has made me a confused camper.
[ul][li]Universal Health Care :thumbsdown: [/li]
[li]Minimum Wage :thumbsdown:[/li][/ul]
Sound pretty conservative eh?[/quote]

It took three economic books to discover universal health care is expensive and the minimum wage is a market restriction?

You like reading. Enlighten yourself by studying Congressional transcripts from the two decades leading up to the American Civil War. You will discover a truth that will make your heart glad: one of the primary arguments in favor of slavery was based on economics. You see, the Southern Senators and Congressmen regularly informed their “distinguished colleagues” in the North that their Abolitionists views were simply unrealistic. I mean, after all, how were wealthy plantation owners to continue mass-producing grain and cotton without slaves? Did you expect them to pay Irish and German immigrants as their Northern counterparts were suggesting? No, no. It’s not the Southern way.

Forget the minimum wage, which is so ridiculously low as to be useless anyways. Let’s bring back slavery! And if that doesn’t work, I offer you a modest proposal: eat the babies of the poor. It’s economical! :smiley:


No, I figured that out after the first book.

What you just wrote there says 0, zilch, nada about economics. You too will find that one of the primary arguments in favor of minimum wage is based on economics. The same goes for arguments against minimum wage.

And look at how wrong their economic theory was when compared to their brethren in the North.

It’s funny how the first part of your post suggests that you have at least some mild understanding of basic economics (which, at this point, is all I have), but it deteriorates to this so quickly (eating babies?) First off, minimum wage IS NOT so low as to be useless. Second, I have no idea where you’re going with the comparison between no minimum wage and slavery. Slavery is forced labor, where one person owns the other. No one forces a person to work for X dollars an hour. But they do force employers to pay X dollars.

Remind me to never waste my time reading through links you provide. And if you continue posting in your current form, I won’t spent much time reading your posts (let alone replying to them.) I started this thread in effort to become more informed and “enlightened” in the arena of politics and economics. I feel that all you’ve done is (weakly) attack my current views.

If you have a book to give me, or suggest I read, sweet. If can get my hands on it, I’ll read it (though, you are losing points on the “trust of opinion” scoreboard.") If you want to “battle” please try to be… good at it. :laughing:

Here’s some news clippings to help you decide:



(And I can’t find the one about that scandal in which the treasurer spent Libertarian Party funds on pot.)

[quote=“Screaming Jesus”]Here’s some news clippings to help you decide:



(And I can’t find the one about that scandal in which the treasurer spent Libertarian Party funds on pot.)[/quote]

[quote]Libertarian Reluctantly Calls Fire Department

CHEYENNE, WY—After attempting to contain a living-room blaze started by a cigarette, card-carrying Libertarian Trent Jacobs reluctantly called the Cheyenne Fire Department Monday. “Although the community would do better to rely on an efficient, free-market fire-fighting service, the fact is that expensive, unnecessary public fire departments do exist,” Jacobs said. “Also, my house was burning down.” Jacobs did not offer to pay firefighters for their service.[/quote]

The fundamental proposition of libertarianism as I understand it is that nothing should be forced on an individual that they don’t use, want or determine that they need.

Setting aside land for roads, parks, libraries etc. wouldn’t violate that proposition but forcing individuals who don’t use, want or need paved roads, developed parks, library complexes etc. to pay for them would violate that proposition.

Prohibiting people from using drugs or forcing them to wear seatbelts or motorcycle helmets would violate that proposition.

Forcing people to contribute money to public charity projects (“social programs”) would violate that proposition.

I agree with this kind of thinking… to an extent.

I think that if, through sound economic theory, it is found that having libraries, paved roads, and developed parks is shown to increase the wealth and well being of a nation as a whole, then it might be in everyone’s best interest to pay for things they don’t use.

If someone can use drugs and not infringe on someone else rights, then that seems OK to me. But I somehow think we should protect the rights of the unborn (no crack babies please.) If health care was 100% privatized, then I suppose it wouldn’t matter if people wore seat belts/helmets or not.

But the idea of someone having an accident and being put to the side of the road to be picked at by crows because of a lack in funding seems… strange. :laughing:

Maybe it’d be cool if people were forced to contribute a percentage, but they were allowed to choose which charities the money went to. Or something…

I’m new to all this economic and political thought and don’t know much about anything. What I do feel confident in saying is having a minimum wage is economically bad (especially for minorities) and there is no other party that will publicly admit this.

Three months ago, I would have had no opinion on minimum wage. Three months from now, it might be different. Currently, I see it as a tool to get the uneducated masses to vote one way or another.

“everyone’s best interest” is a fundamentally subjective standard. Prohibiting pregnant women from using drugs which cause birth defects wouldn’t violate the fundamental proposition of libertarianism. Prohibiting individuals from using drugs if they couldn’t control their subsequent behaviour wouldn’t violate that proposition. Compelling individuals to provide for the disposal of their remains wouldn’t violate that proposition.

Forcing people to contribute money for anything they didn’t want, use or need because it was “cool” would definitely violate that proposition and be fundamentally problematic on the grounds of subjectivity.

When I wrote it I was thinking more in respect to economic gain. Say, for example, everyone paid to build a road to a mountain where there was an endless supply of X, thus making Y and Z cheaper for “all.” I know this is vastly simplified and there are more elements to consider, but that’s what I was thinking.

The cost of something is not subjective. (Right?)

I actually probably lean closer to the side of no government social programs than I do for government cheese. What I wrote there was just some random thought that sprang to me at the moment.

I like the idea of organizations like the “Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.” Organizations like this will do more good/dollar then any government could ever wish to.