do you consider yourself a libertarian?

Being a Britishes, you don't know shit about life among the evangelicals, brother.

you wanna bet? these guys are CRAZY, and, worse, they're mostly scientists!

Yes OK I think you have me there Milo. At the same time, I don't think I've ever met a pure Libertarian in my everyday life. I mean, I know of that blue dude, so I know they're out there, but how many I don't know.

As far as Uni Libertarians, yes, I agree. But in my experience that is often due to taking Econ 101, meeting the linear demand and supply curves, and embracing the simplicity. Doesn't that usually dissipate by the second semester?

no, it doesn't, and i'm not just talking economics students here.

That's mighty strange then. Are you in the US or UK? I encountered some free econ types in Scotland, but the overwhelming majority of things I got dragged to were 'Socialist' rallies, and I have to say that I'd identify myself as Libertarian over that if I was forced to.

i'm in the uk
baitin ur libertarianz

but the notion that private property is anything less than divinely ordained never arises. it's like the one single thing in the world that doesn't melt into air.

it's funny, isn't it? it's not really about a radically different kind of non-government so much as shrinking the borders of the monopoly-of-force state down to, like, your yard.

libertarianism is eternally fascinating to me, it never stops pissing me off in one way or another, where tradition bible, blood n soil conservatism, while a much bigger electoral threat, just looks so pathetic and wrong on its face i don't give it much mind.

this is probably still one of the key differences between anarchists and libertarians today. I know few anarchists who wouldn't find the idea of private property and money problematic.

I need to read more of this thread and I can't right now, but I just wanted to note (as a lifelong 40 year old anarchist who has read more theory than is good for me) that I find this to be true for me. And my only really major issue with libertarians (besides their "fuck the common good" privatization bullshit) is what I call the "bootstrap" mentality, a willful disregarding of race/class/gender privilege and advantage.

I do have some common ground w/these folks, especially the Oregon/Pacific NW style... distrust of gov't gun regulation, distrust of newer supposedly "good" laws like hate crime legislation, emphasis on self-sufficiency, quasi-vigilante neighborhood action groups, tolerance for separatists of all stripes, etc.

Plus they are usually fun to party with, like the few Commies I know.

So now is everyone going to rail at Sleeve, or is anarchism somehow less 'kooky' than Libertarianism? Is it because one is 'on the right' and the other 'on the left'?

thanks to your handy "there is no such thing as idiocy" argument, we don't have to -- it will save time

Marky Mark and the Snarky bunch!

For libertarian fun, go dig up Roger Adultery/Manalishi's posts

I'm not sure how much fun that would be.

i think my dad is a libertarian. not in a mean way, exactly, more in a "oh i can't be bothered with politics" throwing hands up at the world thing.

For a good example of modern libertarians out there in american politics, listen to the first hour of Thom Hartmann's radio show. He has a habit of having libertarians/rightwing conservatives on his show daily, and actually trying to debate them on their points.

<i>Have there ever been any self-proclaimed working-class libertarians?</i>

I knew quite a few who posted at the boards at Reason.com, insofar as they were equally concerned with concentrations of corporate power as they were with state power. The bloggers who write as Mona and thoreau, at High Clearing, are sorta kinda close to that. And they're certainly far from anything you'd consider "right-wing."

I suspect that more than a few conservatives gravitate towards libertarianism given the Republican Party's trend towards imperialism and disregard for anything resembling "limited government." So while there aren't that many card-carrying Libertarians, some of its tenets hold appeal to disillusioned conservatives in America and maybe even a few liberals.

I completely agree with that. Indeed, there was some NPR clip I caught in which a guy was discussing his (?) article / book about being a Liberal Libertarian. I can get with that. I don't know what his point was, exactly, but I think if one were to believe that social equality was important but that limited control by government was an avenue towards that, one might call themselves a Liberal Libertarian. Wow, I'm muddled here, but anyway I've heard someone reference something similar to what you're saying.

The purest form, we all agree, is kind of nuts, but where are these pure Libertarians, and why do people find such joy in railing against them?

I know who they are!

http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/3827/scarecrowvp0.jpg

I don't know if I'd classify myself as libertarian and subscribe to all of their beliefs (this is the old "You can't pigeon-hole MY IDEAS, no, I'm too much of a wild card to be labeled" speech) but I certainly many of them to be wiser than most general right-wing ones, never mind the delusions of the left.

The first book to really make me look at libertarian ideas for the first time and think about them were Sowell's "Knowledge and Decisions." The book doesn't even mention the ideology explicitly but only later did I realize that's what they were. It's hard to still believe in many leftist assumptions after reading that book.

is anarchism somehow less 'kooky' than Libertarianism? Is it because one is 'on the right' and the other 'on the left'?

In its purest form, I think left anarchism is utterly insane. However, I think that ideas (such as fair trade or microcredit or even just things like greater support for community broadcasting) which relate in a mild way to its central tenets of decentralization of power and small-scale co-operative ownership are valuable and possibly essential in terms of moving towards a sustainable and more just society. (I think these things should be supported by bureaucratic state funding, not being much of an anarchist.) AFAICT the self-styled left-anarchists I've known have mostly just been occupied with these sorts of things or with environmental and human rights activism (and in Canada, just voted Liberal or NDP anyway.) I don't think even a mild form of right-libertarianism has anything positive to offer, except maybe re some social issues like legalizing soft drugs, which aren't particular to right-wing libertarianism. (I don't think the problem with most of the world is that it's not capitalist enough.) If, in defiance of logistics and common sense, the world actually were organized into some nightmarish network of little provincial communes, maybe I could see more value in a more pro-capitalist movement. Also, AFAICT, at least in the US, right-libertarianism seems like much more of a prominent political threat. (I sometimes felt surrounded by Communists at York and was similarly reactionary towards them.)

i thought up a devastating take-down of libertarianism while i wz swimming this mornin but i have since forgotten it

all i can remember is it took out nudism also!

adios!

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/02/libertarian-expat-communities-chile

LPD is on the case

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/shouts/2014/03/libertarian-police-department.html

http://www.clickhole.com/blogpost/it-only-took-half-wikipedia-entry-libertarianism-c-695

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2014/10/rand-paul-education-government-in-the-way

If Kentucky Senator and Republican presidential hopeful Rand Paul has his way, classroom sizes will someday rise well beyond their existing ratios of 15-to-1 or 30-to-1.

“I think we should go to a million to one,” Paul said at Vanity Fair’s New Establishment Summit on Wednesday, during a panel conversation with Google executive chairman Eric Schmidt, super-investor John Doerr, and reporter and author Bob Woodward.

Expressing disbelief that class sizes impact test scores, Paul urged educators to take advantage of new technologies that allow massive groups to learn from a single teacher. “I think extraordinary things can happen,” Paul said. "I think the government’s gotten in the way.”

how is that libertarian??!

Expressing disbelief that class sizes impact test scores

Any libertarian worth his or her salt must upon principle desire a free and open marketplace for the delivery of education to our children. Something tells me that this free and open marketplace for would always have a certain number of schools that maintained a 15-1 ratio of students to teachers. They will be private schools for the children of the very wealthy, who don't give a flying fuck about their kids' test scores; they just care about their kids' education.

such schools not only already exist, aimless, but the ratio isn't 15-1, it is often 3-1 or even 1-1

obviously, the government hasn't gotten in their way

http://www.freeexistence.org/freedom.shtml

Apparently I should live in the Netherlands, Germany, Finland or Sweden.

a) i got really annoyed at a bunch of 'yeah, and cut government funding for the libraries -- i never use 'em because i can just buy books!' types on another board

i use and love libraries and want them to be funded by the government BUT one of my best friends exclusively reads books from the library, never buys, even used from a yardsale--and idk why but it actually bothers me. i think i'm projecting a supercilious intent into his obdurate anti-consumerism that may or may not be there

don't worry, some of us buy too many books to make up for it

the freest countries according to freeexistence.org

Rank Nation            Overall    Property   Taxes      Speech     Ltd Govt   Guns       Drugs      Corruption Inflation  Business   
1    Switzerland       76         90         71         94         66         60         45         86         88         82         
2    Chile             73         85         75         100        83         47         45         70         83         72         
3    Estonia           72         90         82         100        55         48         40         70         82         79         
4    Australia         71         90         63         100        62         20         55         79         85         89         
5    Canada            71         90         80         100        50         30         50         83         77         82

From Tim Bateman, far upthread:

as my Head of History at School once put it: 'The only good laws are the ones that create more freedom than they destroy.'

This assertion postulates that "freedom" is the highest possible good. This is not a self-evident proposition. Why should we take this on faith? Why must we promote freedom above "justice" or "happiness" or "community", or a score of other social ideals?

Next, it is entirely unclear to me how any law's amount of created or destroyed freedom would be quantified. If, for example, legally relegating a class of humans to slavery were to allow greatly expanded "freedom" for a somewhat larger class of slave owners, wouldn't that meet this teacher's criteria for a "good law"?

During the Enlightenment this sort of saying used to be scorned as 'cant'.

xp. ah, chile, were abortion is illegal in all cases, so free, just the best freedom.

Libertarians smell like wee.

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Monday, August 26, 2002 7:24 AM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I wonder if Tim Bateman was related to Jay Bateman?

as my Head of History at School once put it: 'The only good laws are the ones that create more freedom than they destroy.'

the problem that most libertarians can't get their heads around is that there are many forms of "freedom" (or liberty) and that they often conflict with one another. so "maximizing freedom" is not really an achievable goal because one freedom may get in the way of another.

sorry for that freshman poli-sci stuff but i have a few libertarians in my FB feed and it drives me nuts when they treat 'freedom' like it's this singular transparent thing.

the problem that most <people> can't get their heads around is that there are many forms of <political idea> and that they often conflict with one another. so <political idea> is not really an achievable goal because one <political idea> may get in the way of another.

― wizzz! (amateurist), Thursday, August 18, 2016 4:11 AM (15 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

ftfy

how is this not a Tim and Eric skit pic.twitter.com/Pv6knmMdqt

— go birds 🦅 (@LarryWebsite) February 8, 2018

hahahahahaha

i am a little concerned by that guy's indignation about needing a license to make toast and i kinda want him to have to pass a test before he can operate any technology with a heat source

No way

they're doing a bit

Toasterman is insane looking though

guys you really need to watch more video clips from the libertarian convention

^^ this is also what I say to anyone who says I don't understand the libertarian party

there was also a moment where a nude fat man bounded across the stage and everyone loved it

omg that twitter thread has more clips

these are all... something

I take it back, it was a underwear-clad near-nude man, and he appears in that twitter thread :)

https://youtu.be/RqZVVvp95nc
best of toasterman