What It Feels Like to Be a Libertarian

John,

Start a new series: "What free market?"

There's nothing left of it. Everything's regulated and screwed up.

The emperor wears nada.

OR, start a new series:

"The Century of Regulation"

Because that's what we've had, and that's what has failed.

100 years of choices taken away. 100 years of forcing others to comply.

Imagine the Beatles: "All you need is laws...".

John, keep fighting.

Democrats liken Republicans to Hitler and Republicans liken Democrats to Hitler. But if you're a libertarian, everyone thinks you're Hitler.

Every game needs rules, and rules need to be enforced by the referees. I don't know if what has happened here has more to do with bad rule enforcement or bad rules, but in the end if the game isn't called fair, nobody wins.

"Frustration" isn't a strong enough word. We live at a time when we are witnessing a way of life that is flailing. People voting themselves special privileges at our expense. Others spending money that even their grandchildren won't be able to repay. When does it end? How will it end? What will be left?

I am generally a libertarian. However, there is one issue which I, with admittedly limited research, have not seen discussed in libertarian circles. An that is, what is your basis for moral decisions. One must start with the understanding and agreement that laws are a codification of moral choices. Murder, theft, fraud, child molestation, ... and all moral decisions. So to say that you disagree with conservative stances on trying to legislate moral issues, misses the point - which is where do you draw your moral code and which of your moral codes do yo want to encode in law?

Indeed, it is lonely being a libertarian, but at least we know that we're right, that without us the world would go to hell, and can take solace in each others' company.

Being a libertarian is like being the father of a drug addict.

You are NOT a Libertarian.

You are a Movement Conservative and a right-ring pundit.

You parrot the right-wing talking points of the day, just like all the O'Reilly/Limbaugh/Hannity/Becks.

"which is where do you draw your moral code and which of your moral codes do yo want to encode in law?" Most of us who call ourselves Libertarian, would base our moral concepts with the "natural law of non-aggression." or in like manner, Hillel's "That which you would have not done to you, do not do unto others." Another concept would be the "Victim vs Non-victim crime" An example would be, 'It's ok to buy and use a drug, but if you get high and kill or injure someone, you are libel.' Admittedly not the best example, but the best I can think of at the moment.

I am also primarily a libertarian. It is frustrating. In a sense you want to change the country's path, but then the reality of such a task being impossible hits you. Those that believe in personal and fiscal responsibility can only watch as the country spends itself into the toilet of no return.

John Hasnas hit that nail on the head.

I'm a libertarian attorney and I thought I had it bad but
Hasnas is a libertarian amongst a left wing college faculty. Stossel is a libertarian amongst left wing journalists. My life as a libertarian is a cakewalk compared to theirs.

Hey now, more and more people are leaving the Republican and Democrat parties. Hopefully us Libertarians won't be so lonely anymore!

I'm thinking of redoing Ann Coulter's book. Instead it will be If Democrats or Republicans Had Any Brains They'd Be Libertarians!!

Top 10 Signs You Might Not Be A Libertarian

10. If you think Ron Paul isn't conservative enough and Fox News is fair and balanced, you might not be a Libertarian.

9. If you believe you have an inalienable right to attend Presidential townhalls brandishing a loaded assault rifle, but that arresting participants inside for wearing a pink shirt is an important public safety precaution, there's a chance you're dangerously unbalanced, but no chance you're a Libertarian.

8. If you think the government should stay the hell out of Medicare, well, you have way, way bigger problems than figuring out if you're really a Libertarian.

(read the rest:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/8/30/773243/-Top-10-Signs-You-Might-Not-Be-A-Libertarian )

true statement, though it comes off a bit whiny. so it 'feels bad' to be a libertarian - but the real issue is, can we make any headway or will we be increasingly marginalized in the discussion about the direction of our nation?

abe - Understand the references. So when one goes from general statements to laws, where is the line. For instance, do libertarians considered it violence or aggression against a person or property for consensual sex between an adult and non-adult (see state codes for definition of adult)?

Excuse me (misread the format) - Bob.

David Pruett in his earlier comment asks: "...what is your basis for moral decisions?" Presumably he wants to legitimize government power based on morality. The problem with that approach is that well-intended people have different moral judgements, which leads to a desire to control the morality of others through government power.

But there are other justifications for power. John Stuart Mill held in the "harm principle" that each individual has the right to act as he wants, so long as these actions do not harm others. So, morally, government has the legitimate power to keep individuals from harming others. The problem is who judges harm? Mill ends up arguing that despotism is an acceptable form of government for those living in "backward states of society" where they cannot judge their own harm. NOT!

I was reading a book the other day by John Ringo, the science fiction author. He said that the government's sole legitimate purpose is to enforce contracts. I like that a lot. Harm is decided by the individuals entering the contract. A group of individuals may contract to not kill each other, with penalties laid out. Laws can then be very simple, laying out procedures to follow when there is an aggrieved party. Standard contracts would take the place of laws. Could be fun to try!

Regardless of the justification for government power, Libertarians want that power to be extremely limited. The U.S. constitution does just that. Unfortunately, the general welfare clause has been misinterpreted to allow unlimited power by our government, which has gotten us in this mess. It turns out that there is no limit to the busy bodies who want to control other's lives and take the fruit of other's work for presumed "good." Sigh.

The difference between laissez-faire capitalism and anarchy is the level of violence you are willing to do in order for your system to "win". Good article.

Oh cry me a river! You poor, put upon, Libertarians! (I am a little 'l' libertarian (and lean conservative), but this sort of whining and crying is not only unbecoming but laughable--stop moaning and go out and get something done!)

Also: would someone actually answer Mr.Pruett's question? Some of you try but you dance around it or simply fail to actually address what he is asking. (Probably because you don't have a good answer for what is a rather tough question for big 'L' libertarians.)