I really liked this letter to the editor from today’s WSJ. This letter was in response to an article called A Truce for Our Tribal Politics
The authors detail the letdown that either the Democrats or Republicans would feel after the election results are known. If you are a libertarian, like me, the letdown is a nonstop ritual. The election of either a Democrat or Republican will always mean higher taxes, more debt, more regulations, a continuous stream of unnecessary wars and an erosion of our civil liberties.
In a free society, the purpose of government is limited in scope, but mostly to protect the rights of all citizens equally from both domestic and foreign enemies. No special rights, no interference in the governments of other countries and no crony capitalism. Libertarians believe that everyone can be on the “winning side.”
Too bad the Libertarian Party ran a candidate who cares nothing about a free society.
The Libertarian Party has been taken over by “thick” libertarians(near-libertines) who believe a certain worldview is necessary, or should be forced upon others, for a libertarian.
Ugh. Yeah, I didn’t like his response to that question either, Nick. He blew that one. I read an interview where he talks about religion and discrimination here, and liked what he said, but he wasn’t being pushed to get down to the details.
I do like some of a lot of his ideas on trade and immigration. I think he’s sincere about limiting government and fiscal responsibility.
I mentioned this on the Election Day thread, but I put this Libertarian-minded post on FB the day after the election. “Guess who doesn’t care who you voted for? The $20 Trillion National Debt doesn’t care, that’s who.” Haha.
There’s a lot of emotional language right now. I’m tempted to start couching my arguments for Libertarianism that way. We tend to rely on logic, but this works for me if people want emotion. “Sorry, but I don’t vote for people who hate my kids. If you don’t care about our debt, then you must hate my children.”
Federal Courts side with Libertarians on making the FEC enforce laws the Commission on Presidential Debates has been violating, locking third parties out of the debates.
@DoubleDuce, I didn’t want to wade into the abortion debate in the other thread with this, and it fits better here. This essay helped me a little bit in trying to understand where Progressives are coming from. You may already know the history.
You can scroll down to the numbers, where they talk about rights and the roll of government. Points one and two are especially pertinent. Completely different ideology about where rights and freedoms come from for sure. It’s hard for me to relate to it at all.
I came across this, and thought it was interesting. He’s talking about psychopaths, but he talks a bit about libertarians in just the last minute of the clip. About 7:55. I don’t know if this is true, but I’d be so curious to see. There’s some stuff in _The Righteous Mind_about political thought/ slant having some genetic basis. Of course, he identifies as Libertarian, so we wouldn’t be surprised that he describes that in positive terms. Does anyone relate to this?
About the incidence of Libertarians. Around 11% according to a 2014 Pew Poll, 15% of men, and only 7% of women. I suspect more people actually identify with our values, but aren’t sure how to describe themselves. found that interesting, along with what James Fallon says about logic and reason. I’ve been told many times that I’m level-headed or less emotional. Anyway, I’d like to think we’re more reasonable. smile.
I just stumbled across this and thought some of you might enjoy it. Not all of it resonates with me, in terms of the Big 5 personality research, character traits, but I thought it was interesting. I’m happy to see people like Haidt attempting to separate Libertarians out, instead of viewing us as simply a flavor of “Conservative.”
From the article, the interpretation that the founders were Classical Liberals. Amen.
"… the most important and intriguing fact about libertarian morality. It changed history by enabling at least a portion of humanity to escape our natural state of abject poverty. Libertarian morality, by rising above and rejecting primitive moralities embodied in the universalist collectivism of left-liberals and the tribalist collectivism of conservatives, made the rule of law, freedom of speech, religious tolerance, and modern prosperity possible. Liberals and conservatives may love people more than do libertarians, but love of liberty is what leads to true moral and economic progress.
No. I don’t think so, but I wonder how many Americans really understand that, or even know what a Classical Liberal is. I don’t think people are being taught that a libertarian philosophy brought more “moral and economic progress” than any other type of political morality. It’s at the heart of what we are, this value on freedom.
Proportionally, I’d wager about 15 - 20% - maybe 1/4. I’m more concerned with how many who do understand it, how much they care…
I agree. I remember my initial exposure to Enlightenment philosophy and philosophers (Hume, Mill, Locke, Rousseau, etc) and it was basically glossed over. It was mentioned that Locke’s writing influenced the Founders but anything deeper than that wasn’t emphasized. Of course, I may have not been paying attention as my 15 yr old mind was really focused on girls and sports during that time in my life. I had no room for moral or political philosophy. I took for granted “freedom” as I knew it at the time.
Some of you might enjoy this. Of course, there are different kinds of LIbertarians, but I related to a lot of this. Minute marker 14 is great.
Warning: There’s a very twisted story at about 18:40 to 21. You may want to skip that if you don’t want to hear this sort of twisted philosophical dilemma type thing.
Published on Feb 26, 2013
“Morality isn’t just about stealing and killing and honesty, it’s often about menstruation, and food, and who you are having sex with, and how you handle corpses,” says NYU social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, who is author of THE RIGHTEOUS MIND: WHY GOOD PEOPLE ARE DIVIDED BY POLITICS.
Haidt argues that our concern over these victimless behaviors is rooted in our biology. Humans evolved to feel disgusted by anything that when consumed makes us sick. That sense of disgust then expanded “to become a guardian of the social order.”
This impulse is at the core of the culture war. Those who have a low sensitivity to disgust tend to be liberals or libertarians; those who are easily disgusted tend to be conservative.
Haidt discussed his views on morality and politics at an event hosted by the Reason Foundation, which was held on February 19, 2013 at the Museum of Sex. Haidt’s lecture was followed by a Q&A with New York Times Science Columnist John Tierney.
With fewer people understanding or supporting the First Amendment, this is a nice article about what speech restrictions look like throughout the world. It’s not pretty.
@polo77j, I enjoyed the Rippetoe Podcast. I wish he would have talked about politics more, but that was fun. Thanks.
Certainly there’s some truth about the human condition in Rand. I love the heroes in her books. It’s not perfect, or complete for me, but I don’t think it’s intended to be. There’s a lot that resonates, and I think it’s because she gets to the absolute beauty of human achievement, in it’s purest sense. Internally motivated growth and progress for it’s own sake. Her heroes are never motivated by stepping on someone, or envy, or a desire to dominate. It’s always about people who are motivated to be their very best selves for the pure joy of achievement or personal growth. The world is always better when people strive to do that.
As for individual freedom, we’re unusual in that Libertarians place it so high in our value hierarchy. It’s sacred to us in a way that it just flat out isn’t to other people. I consistently see people in our society trying to fix other people, complaining about the callousness of someone else. There’s a pride in that, and it’s easier to look sideways, instead of getting to work on your own flaws and shortcomings, and your own heart, and the things in life where you can make some difference.
The research is showing the Millennials to be the first generation (in at least 3-4 generations), where they are moreauthoritarian than their parents and grandparents. I’m really, really low on any kind of authoritarianism and so that really frightens me.
Ha! Well, there are more than one kind of Libertarian, but I remember you saying something in another thread one time. I can’t remember your words specifically, but it was related to the tendency of humans to exercise power over each other when given the opportunity. I think Libertarians are more willing to restrain power because we’re more sensitive to how very wrong things tend to go in the hands of some flawed humans. It’s not pessimism. It’s just better analysis of the data.
Oh I’m no Rand neophyte. I enjoyed her books certainly. She expounds upon Smith’s rational self interest quite well. But that is the title of one of her books. I thought it was an apt comment given @belligerent 's comment.
Rand’s ideas align too much with Nietzsche for my taste. The ubermensche isn’t a necessary part of limited government or free market theory. I’m a dystopian libertarian. The principles are important not primarily because of the virtues of liberty, but because the cost of centralized power is always blood, and lots of it.
In terms of heroes. John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty is like scripture for me.
@ Nietzsche, I keep putting off reading him. I was turned off at the “god is dead” quote, and I’m about as far from a nihilist as you can get . I know he’s much deeper than that, and my original impressions aren’t the whole story. I guess this would go in the book thread. I’m reading GK Chesterton’s Orthodoxy, and he assumes a background in Neitzsche and so I’m sort of missing things. Also, I like some of Jordan Peterson’s lectures, and he talks about Neitzsche frequently as just being so brilliant. Anyway, my ignorance is sort of getting in my way so that’s next.
