5 ms·

Ehh. I see him more as a true libertarian. I know he's come out in support of the tea party recently, but that's not really his roots (unless you consider the t

by deelowe 11y ago

Ehh. I see him more as a true libertarian. I know he's come out in support of the tea party recently, but that's not really his roots (unless you consider the tea party to be libertarians as well. The definition has changed a bit over time). Generally speaking, I think most people would get behind libertarianism if they could get past the nut job conspiracy theories. Generally speaking, liberterianism is fiscally conservative, socially liberal, in favor of limited government, limited intervention in individual's lives, pro small business, anti crony capitalism, and generally on the right side of most recent issues that have come up from bail outs to wars (overseas and on drugs). Of course, you'll hear the nutjob stories saying that libertarians want to eliminate public schools or privatize fire departments. This is no more realistic than it is to say democrats want a perfect utopia complete with killing people off once they reach retirement age.

JoshTriplett 11y ago
> Of course, you'll hear the nutjob stories saying that libertarians want to eliminate public schools or privatize fire departments. Many do (more so the former than the latter, since public safety is definitely one of the near-universal agreed-upon functions of government), but any reasonable libertarian is well aware that that kind of thing shouldn't happen overnight. When people have relied upon a government service for years, grown up expecting it, and grown up paying for it, it would be the height of irresponsibility to dismantle it without a clear transition plan and a way to make sure people got value for the money they put in.
bcheung 11y ago
Libertarians still count education and security as values, they just think there are ways to do it that don't involve centralized government control. Just because someone is against tax funded public school doesn't mean they are against education.
- judk 11y ago
  You can't be pro poor-people's education without being pro taxation to spend on education.
vezzy-fnord 11y ago
Libertarian who wants to eliminate public schools and privatize fire departments (though I'm not necessarily as enthusiastic about the latter) reporting for duty, sir. I'm afraid it's you who has the limited Beltway understanding of libertarianism. Rand Paul isn't a libertarian and he'd probably gawk at most actual libertarian political theory. He's a states' rights conservative aligned with Old Right ideals (nowadays associated with paleoconservatism). These used to be common, but have been eclipsed by the more warhawking neoconservatives over the past few decades or so. fiscally conservative, in favor of limited government, limited intervention in individual's lives, pro small business None of these things are necessary to libertarianism. Hell, even being socially liberal isn't necessary for some of the more propertarian, extreme Rothbardian interpretations of anarcho-capitalism and the so-called paleolibertarians, like Lew Rockwell.
- seanflyon 11y ago
  > fiscally conservative, in favor of limited government, limited intervention in individual's lives, pro small business > None of these things are necessary to libertarianism. Could you state what you mean by "libertarianism" because the definition I am used to has "limited intervention in individual's lives" at its heart.
  - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
    Various libertarian socialist and left-libertarian movements either reject private property entirely and advocate a common means of production owned by decentralized worker cooperatives, for gradual revolution through democratic worker-controlled labor unions, mutual credit banks that reject traditional conceptions of markets and are instead based on labor theory of value with shared credit pooling, so on and so forth. These would constitute aggression under some right-libertarian interpretations. In certain right-libertarian anarcho-capitalist theories where private property becomes the ultimate foundation of individual sovereignty that trumps all other rights, one may end up in a situation where you have little social mobility from decisions made by adjacent property owners, despite being master of your own dominion.
nso95 11y ago
How exactly does Rand Paul qualify as "socially liberal"?
- adventured 11y ago
  On several things he clearly is. - On drug policy, he's against treating addicts like criminals. He's in favor of allowing states to legalize (that alone puts him in front of nearly all members of Congress). - He's in favor of significantly reducing the incarceration rate in the US. He's in favor of felons re-acquiring voting rights. - He's against minimum sentencing laws. - He's against the police state, the militarization of police, and the surveillance state. - He's against the vast government intrusion into personal lives, through the overly abundant creation of ridiculous laws and regulations. - He's against the current system of civil asset forfeitures that we have, and its abuses.
  - davvolun 11y ago
    - he's against treating addicts like criminals - he's in favor of significantly reducing the incarceration rate in the US. - he's against the police state, the militarization of police, and the surveillance state. - He's against the vast government... Towards all of these points, at least, I don't know that they show he is clearly anything. I would guess you would be hard-pressed to find the politician who says they are against reducing the incarceration rate in the US.
vacri 11y ago
Generally speaking, liberterianism is fiscally conservative, socially liberal, in favor of limited government, limited intervention in individual's lives, pro small business, anti crony capitalism, and generally on the right side of most recent issues that have come up from bail outs to wars (overseas and on drugs). ... no welfare, no requirements for education; little regulation of industry - your only recourse is a post-hoc trip to the courts (hope you can afford that); maintaining network effects for the socially well-off; no attempts to give a hand up to the disadvantaged; wanting government services without having to pay for them; redefining words like 'violence' to mean almost anything; male-centric rhetoric; and should you suffer from an accident, libertarianism's response is: 'sucks to be you, hope you catch the attention of someone rich'... This is just a counterpoint to your incredibly romantic view of libertarianism. You don't have to be a libertarian to want civil liberties - and the lack of colour in the (almost always male) faces of libertarians is pretty telling that it's not an ideology that serves everyone well.
- tracker1 11y ago
  I've heard ideas, and rather like the idea of creating a base-wage system where everyone is taxed, period, at the same percentage (even upwards of 50%), and from that everyone gets a check each month.. not needs based, not analysis based, and would allow the elimination of whole swaths of welfare programs. In general such a system would be less intrusive on people's lives, and also relatively secure from abuse since everyone gets the same amount. As to crony-capitalism, it would take several prongs as an approach. One would have to both eliminate corporate taxes, and enact laws restricting buildups of unutilized and under-utilized assets owned by non-living entities, as well as foreign tax shelters. An option could be a tax system that includes transactions in/out of the country. All of this would reduce the size of government, lessen the burdens on the individual, while encouraging corporations to pay out taxable dividends or reinvest in growth. As to limited regulation of industry, that also goes hand in hand with more limited protections... IP law has been expanded to the point of absurdity especially in conjunction with non-living entities having ownership. Not to mention expressly limiting non-living entity rights, as non-citizens. A person has rights, a corporation has collective bargaining, it's not the same, in that regard it may take a constitutional ammendment. Libertarianism isn't about no government, it's about the most limited yet effective government one can have, and ensuring competition and free markets can exist. WRT insurance or healthcare coverage... this is where I break from the libertarian ideal in favor of a more pragmatic approach... that being to first off, take the funding that already goes into various service (VA retirement, medicare, medicaid and other state-directed funds) and move that into a government owned non-profit insurance company. And given that there is now a baseline for coverage (despite an insane number of exceptions), that requiring any company with more than 5 people working for them more than 10hours/week to provide that baseline. Eliminating exceptions, and allowing any person or business to buy into the public option... Anyone working would be covered, and there would be enough funding (given what is already spent) to cover the rest. All of what I've suggested above, in my mind is pretty much in line with a libertarian mindset offset by a bit of pragmatism for a structure/path that could lead to a better use of public resources, more individual freedom. Beyond any of that, in terms of bringing light to social injustice, the internet (and some news organizations) have held decent stewardship here... on an individual basis you're already limited to the courts, with the odds stacked against you. Having a limited case of something not being better doesn't mean you shouldn't try to improve things otherwise/elsewhere. I had the same argument with a friend recently, in that I feel most drugs should be decriminalized, and he didn't feel so unless one could provide a near instant screening (similar to breathalyzer tests for alcohol)... my opinion is the scenario for a police stop wouldn't be worse with the drug decriminalized, and that public endangerment is as such, regardless of the motivation or reason... from there, police, prosecutors and judges should be encouraged discretion. It doesn't matter if you're 16 and just smoked a bowl, or if you're 85 and just had your third heart attack if you're a danger to others.
judk 11y ago
Libertarians should acknowledge the terrain and spend tbis generation on a fight for a decentralization of power from the Federal govt to a coalition of States. The way to make progress is incremental.

by deelowe 11y ago

JoshTriplett 11y ago

> Of course, you'll hear the nutjob stories saying that libertarians want to eliminate public schools or privatize fire departments. Many do (more so the former than the latter, since public safety is definitely one of the near-universal agreed-upon functions of government), but any reasonable libertarian is well aware that that kind of thing shouldn't happen overnight. When people have relied upon a government service for years, grown up expecting it, and grown up paying for it, it would be the height of irresponsibility to dismantle it without a clear transition plan and a way to make sure people got value for the money they put in.

bcheung 11y ago

Libertarians still count education and security as values, they just think there are ways to do it that don't involve centralized government control. Just because someone is against tax funded public school doesn't mean they are against education.

judk 11y ago
You can't be pro poor-people's education without being pro taxation to spend on education.

vezzy-fnord 11y ago

Libertarian who wants to eliminate public schools and privatize fire departments (though I'm not necessarily as enthusiastic about the latter) reporting for duty, sir. I'm afraid it's you who has the limited Beltway understanding of libertarianism. Rand Paul isn't a libertarian and he'd probably gawk at most actual libertarian political theory. He's a states' rights conservative aligned with Old Right ideals (nowadays associated with paleoconservatism). These used to be common, but have been eclipsed by the more warhawking neoconservatives over the past few decades or so. fiscally conservative, in favor of limited government, limited intervention in individual's lives, pro small business None of these things are necessary to libertarianism. Hell, even being socially liberal isn't necessary for some of the more propertarian, extreme Rothbardian interpretations of anarcho-capitalism and the so-called paleolibertarians, like Lew Rockwell.

seanflyon 11y ago
> fiscally conservative, in favor of limited government, limited intervention in individual's lives, pro small business > None of these things are necessary to libertarianism. Could you state what you mean by "libertarianism" because the definition I am used to has "limited intervention in individual's lives" at its heart.
- vezzy-fnord 11y ago
  Various libertarian socialist and left-libertarian movements either reject private property entirely and advocate a common means of production owned by decentralized worker cooperatives, for gradual revolution through democratic worker-controlled labor unions, mutual credit banks that reject traditional conceptions of markets and are instead based on labor theory of value with shared credit pooling, so on and so forth. These would constitute aggression under some right-libertarian interpretations. In certain right-libertarian anarcho-capitalist theories where private property becomes the ultimate foundation of individual sovereignty that trumps all other rights, one may end up in a situation where you have little social mobility from decisions made by adjacent property owners, despite being master of your own dominion.

nso95 11y ago

How exactly does Rand Paul qualify as "socially liberal"?

adventured 11y ago
On several things he clearly is. - On drug policy, he's against treating addicts like criminals. He's in favor of allowing states to legalize (that alone puts him in front of nearly all members of Congress). - He's in favor of significantly reducing the incarceration rate in the US. He's in favor of felons re-acquiring voting rights. - He's against minimum sentencing laws. - He's against the police state, the militarization of police, and the surveillance state. - He's against the vast government intrusion into personal lives, through the overly abundant creation of ridiculous laws and regulations. - He's against the current system of civil asset forfeitures that we have, and its abuses.
- davvolun 11y ago
  - he's against treating addicts like criminals - he's in favor of significantly reducing the incarceration rate in the US. - he's against the police state, the militarization of police, and the surveillance state. - He's against the vast government... Towards all of these points, at least, I don't know that they show he is clearly anything. I would guess you would be hard-pressed to find the politician who says they are against reducing the incarceration rate in the US.

vacri 11y ago

Generally speaking, liberterianism is fiscally conservative, socially liberal, in favor of limited government, limited intervention in individual's lives, pro small business, anti crony capitalism, and generally on the right side of most recent issues that have come up from bail outs to wars (overseas and on drugs). ... no welfare, no requirements for education; little regulation of industry - your only recourse is a post-hoc trip to the courts (hope you can afford that); maintaining network effects for the socially well-off; no attempts to give a hand up to the disadvantaged; wanting government services without having to pay for them; redefining words like 'violence' to mean almost anything; male-centric rhetoric; and should you suffer from an accident, libertarianism's response is: 'sucks to be you, hope you catch the attention of someone rich'... This is just a counterpoint to your incredibly romantic view of libertarianism. You don't have to be a libertarian to want civil liberties - and the lack of colour in the (almost always male) faces of libertarians is pretty telling that it's not an ideology that serves everyone well.

tracker1 11y ago
I've heard ideas, and rather like the idea of creating a base-wage system where everyone is taxed, period, at the same percentage (even upwards of 50%), and from that everyone gets a check each month.. not needs based, not analysis based, and would allow the elimination of whole swaths of welfare programs. In general such a system would be less intrusive on people's lives, and also relatively secure from abuse since everyone gets the same amount. As to crony-capitalism, it would take several prongs as an approach. One would have to both eliminate corporate taxes, and enact laws restricting buildups of unutilized and under-utilized assets owned by non-living entities, as well as foreign tax shelters. An option could be a tax system that includes transactions in/out of the country. All of this would reduce the size of government, lessen the burdens on the individual, while encouraging corporations to pay out taxable dividends or reinvest in growth. As to limited regulation of industry, that also goes hand in hand with more limited protections... IP law has been expanded to the point of absurdity especially in conjunction with non-living entities having ownership. Not to mention expressly limiting non-living entity rights, as non-citizens. A person has rights, a corporation has collective bargaining, it's not the same, in that regard it may take a constitutional ammendment. Libertarianism isn't about no government, it's about the most limited yet effective government one can have, and ensuring competition and free markets can exist. WRT insurance or healthcare coverage... this is where I break from the libertarian ideal in favor of a more pragmatic approach... that being to first off, take the funding that already goes into various service (VA retirement, medicare, medicaid and other state-directed funds) and move that into a government owned non-profit insurance company. And given that there is now a baseline for coverage (despite an insane number of exceptions), that requiring any company with more than 5 people working for them more than 10hours/week to provide that baseline. Eliminating exceptions, and allowing any person or business to buy into the public option... Anyone working would be covered, and there would be enough funding (given what is already spent) to cover the rest. All of what I've suggested above, in my mind is pretty much in line with a libertarian mindset offset by a bit of pragmatism for a structure/path that could lead to a better use of public resources, more individual freedom. Beyond any of that, in terms of bringing light to social injustice, the internet (and some news organizations) have held decent stewardship here... on an individual basis you're already limited to the courts, with the odds stacked against you. Having a limited case of something not being better doesn't mean you shouldn't try to improve things otherwise/elsewhere. I had the same argument with a friend recently, in that I feel most drugs should be decriminalized, and he didn't feel so unless one could provide a near instant screening (similar to breathalyzer tests for alcohol)... my opinion is the scenario for a police stop wouldn't be worse with the drug decriminalized, and that public endangerment is as such, regardless of the motivation or reason... from there, police, prosecutors and judges should be encouraged discretion. It doesn't matter if you're 16 and just smoked a bowl, or if you're 85 and just had your third heart attack if you're a danger to others.

judk 11y ago

Libertarians should acknowledge the terrain and spend tbis generation on a fight for a decentralization of power from the Federal govt to a coalition of States. The way to make progress is incremental.