4 ms·

There are no factions. If you're a libertarian, you're a supporter of both ... because liberty is the point.

by maratd 14y ago

kijin 14y ago
There is such a thing as left-libertarianism...
dlitz 14y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
vidarh 14y ago
If liberty was the point, they'd not be libertarians by US standards. Right wing US style libertarianism is "liberty for all, except when it threatens my ability to monopolize property, when I prefer liberty only for me". Maximizing liberty for all necessarily requires severe limitations on government enforcement of private property, for example.
anon1385 14y ago
This isn't true. People who call themselves 'libertarians' seem quite happy to vote for people who are extremely socially conservative. The economics is what they care about (and perhaps pot). Obviously the GOP is very socially conservative, but so are factions of the Libertarian Party. In 2008 the Libertarian Party nominee for President of the United States was Bob Barr: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Barr https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Barr >During his tenure, Barr was regarded as one of the most conservative members of Congress. In 2002, he was described by Bill Shipp in an OnlineAthens.com article as "the idol of the gun-toting, abortion-fighting, IRS-hating hard right wing of American politics" >He voted for the first USA PATRIOT Act >Barr took a lead in legislative debate concerning same-sex marriage. He authored and sponsored the Defense of Marriage Act, a law enacted in 1996 which states that only marriages that are between a man and a woman can be federally recognized, and individual states may choose not to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another state >Barr was originally a strong supporter of the War on Drugs, reflecting his previous experience as an Anti-Drug Coordinator for the United States Department of Justice. While in Congress, he was a member of the Speaker's Task Force for a Drug-Free America. >Barr advocated complete federal prohibition of medical marijuana. In 1998, he successfully blocked implementation of Initiative 59 — the "Legalization of Marijuana for Medical Treatment Initiative of 1998" — which would have legalized medical marijuana in Washington, D.C. The "Barr Amendment" to the 1999 Omnibus spending bill not only blocked implementation of Initiative 59, but also prohibited the vote tally from even being released. Nearly a year passed before a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union eventually revealed the initiative had received 69 percent of the vote. In response to the judge's ruling, Barr simply attached another "Barr Amendment" to the 2000 Omnibus spending bill that overturned Initiative 59 outright. The Barr Amendment also prohibited future laws that would "decrease the penalties for marijuana or other Schedule I drugs" in Washington, D.C. This preemptively blocked future attempts by Marijuana Policy Project (MPP) to reform marijuana laws in DC via the initiative process. In March 2002, U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan struck down this portion of the Barr Amendment as being an unconstitutional restriction on free speech. Barr's response to the ruling was defiant: >Clearly, the court today has ignored the constitutional right and responsibility of Congress to pass laws protecting citizens from dangerous and addictive narcotics, and the right of Congress to exert legislative control over the District of Columbia as the nation's capital. —Bob Barr, March 28, 2002
- driverdan 14y ago
  The Libertarian party has had some embarrassingly bad presidential candidates. My assumption, as a registered Libertarian, is that they know they're not going to win and select candidates based on who will get the most votes from non-party members while not pissing off party members too much. I personally find this extremely disingenuous considering one of the LP's slogans is "The Party of Principle."
- a5seo 14y ago
  You're right-- I am libertarian and will vote for the candidate that's stronger on economic issues even if they're a social conservative. Here's my reasoning: Social issues tend toward liberalization on their own. Except in a few cases, social issues are part of the culture war, and culture changes generationally. Economic rights are different. They need protection because once lost, they never come back. Once you have the precendent of government intervention, that helps justify the next intervention. Once you use the Commerce Clause to regulate marijuana that is grown and consumed w/o crossing state lines, it's open season on all forms of regulation. So my calculation is that socially retarded candidates will do the least harm.
- smsm42 14y ago
  Looks like Barr did complete 180 degree reversal later and became an opponent of his own proposals. One can only hope he genuinely saw the light and realized what he was doing was wrong.
eru 14y ago
One can be in favour of liberty, but prefer fiat money (privately issued, if you will) to Gold. And disputing the Austrian school's theories about the business cycle doesn't turn you into a non-libertarian, either.

There are no factions. If you're a libertarian, you're a supporter of both ... because liberty is the point.

by maratd 14y ago

There are no factions. If you're a libertarian, you're a supporter of both ... because liberty is the point.

kijin 14y ago

There is such a thing as left-libertarianism...

dlitz 14y ago

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

vidarh 14y ago

If liberty was the point, they'd not be libertarians by US standards. Right wing US style libertarianism is "liberty for all, except when it threatens my ability to monopolize property, when I prefer liberty only for me". Maximizing liberty for all necessarily requires severe limitations on government enforcement of private property, for example.

anon1385 14y ago

This isn't true. People who call themselves 'libertarians' seem quite happy to vote for people who are extremely socially conservative. The economics is what they care about (and perhaps pot). Obviously the GOP is very socially conservative, but so are factions of the Libertarian Party. In 2008 the Libertarian Party nominee for President of the United States was Bob Barr: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Barr https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Barr >During his tenure, Barr was regarded as one of the most conservative members of Congress. In 2002, he was described by Bill Shipp in an OnlineAthens.com article as "the idol of the gun-toting, abortion-fighting, IRS-hating hard right wing of American politics" >He voted for the first USA PATRIOT Act >Barr took a lead in legislative debate concerning same-sex marriage. He authored and sponsored the Defense of Marriage Act, a law enacted in 1996 which states that only marriages that are between a man and a woman can be federally recognized, and individual states may choose not to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another state >Barr was originally a strong supporter of the War on Drugs, reflecting his previous experience as an Anti-Drug Coordinator for the United States Department of Justice. While in Congress, he was a member of the Speaker's Task Force for a Drug-Free America. >Barr advocated complete federal prohibition of medical marijuana. In 1998, he successfully blocked implementation of Initiative 59 — the "Legalization of Marijuana for Medical Treatment Initiative of 1998" — which would have legalized medical marijuana in Washington, D.C. The "Barr Amendment" to the 1999 Omnibus spending bill not only blocked implementation of Initiative 59, but also prohibited the vote tally from even being released. Nearly a year passed before a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union eventually revealed the initiative had received 69 percent of the vote. In response to the judge's ruling, Barr simply attached another "Barr Amendment" to the 2000 Omnibus spending bill that overturned Initiative 59 outright. The Barr Amendment also prohibited future laws that would "decrease the penalties for marijuana or other Schedule I drugs" in Washington, D.C. This preemptively blocked future attempts by Marijuana Policy Project (MPP) to reform marijuana laws in DC via the initiative process. In March 2002, U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan struck down this portion of the Barr Amendment as being an unconstitutional restriction on free speech. Barr's response to the ruling was defiant: >Clearly, the court today has ignored the constitutional right and responsibility of Congress to pass laws protecting citizens from dangerous and addictive narcotics, and the right of Congress to exert legislative control over the District of Columbia as the nation's capital. —Bob Barr, March 28, 2002

driverdan 14y ago
The Libertarian party has had some embarrassingly bad presidential candidates. My assumption, as a registered Libertarian, is that they know they're not going to win and select candidates based on who will get the most votes from non-party members while not pissing off party members too much. I personally find this extremely disingenuous considering one of the LP's slogans is "The Party of Principle."
a5seo 14y ago
You're right-- I am libertarian and will vote for the candidate that's stronger on economic issues even if they're a social conservative. Here's my reasoning: Social issues tend toward liberalization on their own. Except in a few cases, social issues are part of the culture war, and culture changes generationally. Economic rights are different. They need protection because once lost, they never come back. Once you have the precendent of government intervention, that helps justify the next intervention. Once you use the Commerce Clause to regulate marijuana that is grown and consumed w/o crossing state lines, it's open season on all forms of regulation. So my calculation is that socially retarded candidates will do the least harm.
smsm42 14y ago
Looks like Barr did complete 180 degree reversal later and became an opponent of his own proposals. One can only hope he genuinely saw the light and realized what he was doing was wrong.

eru 14y ago

One can be in favour of liberty, but prefer fiat money (privately issued, if you will) to Gold. And disputing the Austrian school's theories about the business cycle doesn't turn you into a non-libertarian, either.