Libertarians and Funkmen - General Posted by Jeff (Thursday March 11 2004 @ 11:37PM EST)

In a recent comment, Funkman compared libertarians with liberals of old. I disagree. Libertarianism is less a political philosophy than it is a parlor game. Practitioners of the faith see themselves as heirs to the legacy of Locke, Jefferson, etc. They've labeled these men "classical liberals" in an effort to hijack the term. (Classical implies outdated; yet when I last checked the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence were doing just fine, thank you.) Libertarianism is not a similie for liberalism in part because it misrepresents or bastardizes commonwealth ideals. I've heard libertarians tell me that they shouldn't have to pay for any roads they don't use. I'm not sure how many toll booths you want to drive through on the way to work, but for me the answer is considerably less than the sixteen I'd be required to pass through in the libertarian uptopia. Aside from commonwealth ideals, there is one MAJOR reason why libertarianism does not equate to liberalism. I leave that talking point open... To see how closely your views match the libertarians, try this Libertarian purity quiz Here was my result: 51-90 points: You are a medium-core libertarian, probably self-consciously so. Your friends probably encourage you to quit talking about your views so much. That's probably accurate. Libertarians have it half right....

< Tasteless Photos | The Passion of the Christ >

By Funkman (Friday March 12 2004 @ 06:25AM EST)

32 - And I will become a future nutter.

[ reply | parent ]

By Cher (Friday March 12 2004 @ 09:34AM EST)

My result: 31-50 points: Your libertarian credentials are obvious. Doubtlessly you will become more extreme as time goes on. I'm not sure how accurate this is because they only let you answer yes or no. "No opinion" wasn't an option.

[ reply | parent ]

By Suzi H (Friday March 12 2004 @ 10:11AM EST) Me, 31-50 [ reply | parent ]

By GeoGiant (Friday March 12 2004 @ 10:13AM EST)

18 baby - You are a soft-core libertarian. With effort, you may harden and become pure. I am not sure how I feel about this.

[ reply | parent ]

By Jeff (Friday March 12 2004 @ 10:59AM EST) I'm most surprised by this result... [ reply | parent ]

By GeoGiant (Friday March 12 2004 @ 11:36AM EST)

I was very surprised. I think I scored an 18 because, generally, I do not think the system is broke or inherently evil. In addition, there were several issues that I said I do not want privatized because I felt that while “X” may not be perfect, having “X” controlled by profits would create a far worse situation. Then there were other questions concerning credits or vouchers that I said no to because I felt that the intended recipient (not the abusers of the system) would not better off.

[ reply | parent ]

By Suzi H (Friday March 12 2004 @ 12:08PM EST) So that would make you close to a Nazi......according to the rating scale anyway [ reply | parent ]

By Adolf (Friday March 12 2004 @ 12:56PM EST) Today the blog, tomorrow the world!" [ reply | parent ]

By doctordoug (Friday March 12 2004 @ 01:22PM EST)

Holy Crap... 47

[ reply | parent ]

By beakesm3 (Friday March 12 2004 @ 01:56PM EST)

90. Jeff how does that make you feel that we are both in the same "catagory".

[ reply | parent ]

By Jeff (Friday March 12 2004 @ 02:24PM EST) It makes me think that there is some hope for you :-) [ reply | parent ]

By GeoGiant (Friday March 12 2004 @ 02:12PM EST)

I am confused. If Nazi is at one end of the spectrum, what is at the other?

[ reply | parent ]

By Jeff (Friday March 12 2004 @ 02:25PM EST) According to them: * GeoGiant has trouble with replies * Libertarians are at the other end of the spectrum [ reply | parent ]

By Will is Right (Friday March 12 2004 @ 07:44PM EST)

36. Yeah, that seems right!

[ reply | parent ]

By Miss Ginger (Sunday March 14 2004 @ 05:10PM EST)

31.

[ reply | parent ]

By MattC (Monday March 15 2004 @ 09:38AM EST)

I noticed the lack of evidence in your claim that libertarians believe they shouldn't have to pay for roads. That is certainly not the platform of any Libertarian party candidate running for office. The use of "classical liberal" is a reaction to the hijacking of the term "liberal". Perhaps you never noticed the etymology of the word, and the similar root - "liberty". Until recently a liberal was someone true to the ideals of soveriegn individual rights and limited government; these are the ideals our Republic is suppsoed to be operating on. A modern day "liberal" [sic] cares not for individualism or liberty and believes he should be allowed to use force to control others. The "World's Smallest Political Quiz" is a tool for recruiting people's interest in the Libertarian party. It is the equivalent of a campaign poster and has the political sophistication of such a device. However when you use it out of context it does seem silly, but please consider the target. So Funkman is right, libertarians are the heirs of the liberalism of Locke and Jefferson. The Libertarian Party is the closest political party in the United States to the philosophy of liberalism. That doesn't mean that it is perfectly in line, since it came 200 years later, ut it is closer, far closer, than any of the others.

[ reply | parent ]

By Jeff (Monday March 15 2004 @ 11:06AM EST) Libertarians prescribe for you a type of government (small to non-existent with no restrictions on the market), while liberals proclaim an inherent right to self-government. To liberals, humans have rights that precede society. Their happiness and welfare are the yardsticks by which society's institutions are measured. If an institution fails with regard to those measures, then humans have a basic right to change them. It's right there in the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying it’s foundation on such principles, and organizing it’s powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." While early American liberals prefered small govt's, free markets, etc, it was not unintentional that they provided the means to change the institutions that they established in 1787, albeit over a high hurdle. [ reply | parent ]

By MattC (Tuesday March 16 2004 @ 09:33AM EST) This is all true, but it proves my point. Liberals of old believed and libertarians believe in self-government! [ reply | parent ]

By Jeff (Tuesday March 16 2004 @ 09:47AM EST) Liberals today believe that humans are entitled to self-government. Libertarians believe in self-government as long as it fits their worldview. [ reply | parent ]

By MattC (Wednesday March 17 2004 @ 10:54AM EST) Not true. Self-government IS the world-view of libertarians. Modern day liberals believe in oligarchy and the nanny-state, the opposite of self-government. [ reply | parent ]

By Jeff (Wednesday March 17 2004 @ 01:30PM EST) Self-government entitles the people to be a collective group of jackasses. If the Founders wanted to prevent that occurance, then they would have explicitly prevented it. You can't claim to be for self-government, then oppose it when the result runs counter to your world-view. More to the point, liberals strive to maximize justice in the system in which they find themselves as opposed to fantasizing about a State of Nature that has never existed. [ reply | parent ]

By MattC (Thursday March 18 2004 @ 11:53AM EST) Actually they did try to prevent it in the Constitution and through the principles of Federalism. But the problem with your position is that by definition any government that does not allow one to govern one's self is no longer self-government. That is why modern-day liberals have no consistence with principles of classical liberalism and why libertarians don't call themselves liberals. And again you are hijacking libertarian principles and giving them to modern day liberals. Maximizing justice in the system is the foundation of libertarian philosophy. Specifically, it seeks to eliminate coercion and violence except in acts of self-defense. Modern day liberals (and many modern day conservatives, too) are quick to offer violence to solve any social problem they see or imagine. This is actually a more useful way to politically classify people - either you believe it is acceptable to use violence to force someone to act a certain way, even if that person is not harming another, or you believe such acts of violence constitute a fundamental injustice and should be avoided at all costs. [ reply | parent ]

By Jeff (Thursday March 18 2004 @ 12:02PM EST) On self-government, I agree with these definitions. On your second point, please provide some examples of the so-called liberals who "are quick to offer violence to solve any social problem they see or imagine." [ reply | parent ]

By MattC (Thursday March 18 2004 @ 12:43PM EST) Yep, this is the one I am using: Self-government is the ability of peoples to govern themselves according to their values, cultures and traditions. If I can not govern myself by my own values, then I am not living under self-government. And examples of so-called liberals would be just about every Democrat. The social problem - drug addiction. The violence as solution - the Drug War. [ reply | parent ]

By Jeff (Thursday March 18 2004 @ 01:42PM EST) You selected a group level definition and then applied it to yourself? MattC is certainly a participant, empowered to combat all the political bug-a-boos that he despises. But liberal philosophy holds that the people (plural) have the right to change social institutions that fail with regard to the measurements specified above. A libertarian supports this concept as long as the changes do not contradict with his worldview. Um, I requested names of liberals not democrats... [ reply | parent ]

By MattC (Thursday March 18 2004 @ 02:36PM EST) What is a group if not a collection of individuals? Hey, these are self-described liberals. Take it up with them... [ reply | parent ]

By Jeff (Thursday March 18 2004 @ 03:37PM EST) You don't see a difference between attributes of a group and attributes of an individual? Individual level analysis may determine that MattC wants no standing army. But group level analysis of the body politic of which MattC is a member may yield an entirely different result. [ reply | parent ]

By MattC (Thursday March 18 2004 @ 04:31PM EST) And when those results are diametrically opoosed? [ reply | parent ]

By Jeff (Thursday March 18 2004 @ 04:48PM EST) We've run out of room and you and I are the only two people in the world who care so I think we should call it a day. [ reply | parent ]

By MattC (Friday March 19 2004 @ 08:16AM EST) Damn, I wanted to see this continue until there is only one character per column! [ reply | parent ]

By Jeff (Friday March 19 2004 @ 10:01AM EST) For some strange reason, the last time the column got this narrow, the thread ran: Matt, Jeff, Matt, Jeff, Matt, ... [ reply | parent ]

By MattC (Friday March 19 2004 @ 11:12AM EST) These margins aren't big enough for the both of us... [ reply | parent ]

Post a Comment

Name: Email: URL   Remember my information (uses cookies)   I would rather be anonymous Comment: * HTML tags are allowed. * Your email will not be made public. * LINK SPAM WILL BE DELETED!