Oh no, another libertarian thread.
I'm actually becoming more and more libertarian after having been raised in a conservative Republican family. I have always been pro-gun, obviously, but there are increasingly more and more issues that have been inspiring me to lean further and further to the right.
Vermont, my home state, is facing an imminent ban on bar smoking. In the midst of this stupidity, there is also the threat of banning cell phone use while driving, banning certain breeds of dogs in New York state, and who knows what else. Enough is enough.
After reading a few libertarian threads here tonight, I see that there is a considerable amount of disagreement on what may or may not be authentic libertarianism, and that there is some ideological deviation like there would be with any other party.
Maybe we can use this thread to discuss those differences, and determine exactly what would still qualify as libertarianism amongst the variances.
I personally consider myself a small "l" libertarian who does not embrace the absolutist position on a few key points, but remains strongly opposed to the "ban-prohibit-regulate-tax" mentality of the Socialist Liberals and mainstream Republicans.
Where I sway from the traditional Libertarian party, or the Libertarian party associated with the Harry Browne-types, is in the following:
1. Some social welfare is necessary, and is even logically quantified.
If someone were to ask me, "What is the root of poverty and welfare in this country?", wanting to know how we could tackle the problem, I would answer, "It doesn't matter what the root is. There will always be poverty."
This is true because there will always be poor people. If we could snap our fingers and every single American adult suddenly was well-educated, ambitious, and desirous in seeking a prestigious job, there would not be enough good paying jobs. Minimum wage is not enough to currently live by, and sometimes good, hard-working people need to go on welfare temporarily. These are facts of life.
There would be minimum wage workers barely able to scrape by, those who were physically or mentally unable to hold a job, those who needed temporary welfare to get through a bad streak of luck, as well as the single mother problem.
There is NOT one person on this forum who would pick abject poverty for their children over taking welfare for a brief period of time. So if you are in a position to use it, and NEED to use it, then it should be there for anyone else who may NEED to use it.
Libertarians are smart people and frequently embrace sensible scientific theories. My above position quantifies-- through simple mathematical deduction-- that there will always be poor people who reprsent the weakening of the herd. However, as a rational, intelligent, insightful species, we have the ability and moral right to prevent the "natural selection" of poverty casualties. Welfare-- in a highly reformed state-- is a necessary evil. For any libertarian to claim otherwise is obviously disregarding the party's motto-- "The Party of Principle."
2. Some wars need to be fought on foreign soils.
Self defense and retaliatory actions are necessary and moral practices for the security of a free nation in a frequently oppressive and envious world.
3. Some drugs should never be legalized.
Meth-amphetamine is a perfect example of a drug that frequently damages both the long term and short term mental stability of the user, therefore making the abuse everyone's business, and not just the user's.
4. Partial birth abortion should be prohibited, unless the mother's health is actually in danger.
The right-to-life of a fetus that is developed enough to live outside the mother takes moral and legal precedence over the right to body rights of the mother.
5. Capital punishment is sometimes appropriate.
6. No open borders!
Convicted and confessed murderers, unless a minor or pathologically mentally ill, should be executed by the state.
I have invented a catchier term for my party:
Progressive Republican
I'm actually becoming more and more libertarian after having been raised in a conservative Republican family. I have always been pro-gun, obviously, but there are increasingly more and more issues that have been inspiring me to lean further and further to the right.
Vermont, my home state, is facing an imminent ban on bar smoking. In the midst of this stupidity, there is also the threat of banning cell phone use while driving, banning certain breeds of dogs in New York state, and who knows what else. Enough is enough.
After reading a few libertarian threads here tonight, I see that there is a considerable amount of disagreement on what may or may not be authentic libertarianism, and that there is some ideological deviation like there would be with any other party.
Maybe we can use this thread to discuss those differences, and determine exactly what would still qualify as libertarianism amongst the variances.
I personally consider myself a small "l" libertarian who does not embrace the absolutist position on a few key points, but remains strongly opposed to the "ban-prohibit-regulate-tax" mentality of the Socialist Liberals and mainstream Republicans.
Where I sway from the traditional Libertarian party, or the Libertarian party associated with the Harry Browne-types, is in the following:
1. Some social welfare is necessary, and is even logically quantified.
If someone were to ask me, "What is the root of poverty and welfare in this country?", wanting to know how we could tackle the problem, I would answer, "It doesn't matter what the root is. There will always be poverty."
This is true because there will always be poor people. If we could snap our fingers and every single American adult suddenly was well-educated, ambitious, and desirous in seeking a prestigious job, there would not be enough good paying jobs. Minimum wage is not enough to currently live by, and sometimes good, hard-working people need to go on welfare temporarily. These are facts of life.
There would be minimum wage workers barely able to scrape by, those who were physically or mentally unable to hold a job, those who needed temporary welfare to get through a bad streak of luck, as well as the single mother problem.
There is NOT one person on this forum who would pick abject poverty for their children over taking welfare for a brief period of time. So if you are in a position to use it, and NEED to use it, then it should be there for anyone else who may NEED to use it.
Libertarians are smart people and frequently embrace sensible scientific theories. My above position quantifies-- through simple mathematical deduction-- that there will always be poor people who reprsent the weakening of the herd. However, as a rational, intelligent, insightful species, we have the ability and moral right to prevent the "natural selection" of poverty casualties. Welfare-- in a highly reformed state-- is a necessary evil. For any libertarian to claim otherwise is obviously disregarding the party's motto-- "The Party of Principle."
2. Some wars need to be fought on foreign soils.
Self defense and retaliatory actions are necessary and moral practices for the security of a free nation in a frequently oppressive and envious world.
3. Some drugs should never be legalized.
Meth-amphetamine is a perfect example of a drug that frequently damages both the long term and short term mental stability of the user, therefore making the abuse everyone's business, and not just the user's.
4. Partial birth abortion should be prohibited, unless the mother's health is actually in danger.
The right-to-life of a fetus that is developed enough to live outside the mother takes moral and legal precedence over the right to body rights of the mother.
5. Capital punishment is sometimes appropriate.
6. No open borders!
Convicted and confessed murderers, unless a minor or pathologically mentally ill, should be executed by the state.
I have invented a catchier term for my party:
Progressive Republican
