ExRx.net

Here are the basic ideals, I apply logic and reason to. The ideals themselves are also based to a certain extent on logic and reason, however the very core comes from the subjective moral feelings people have in common, which arise from our instinctual social behaviors. Other people have that at the core as well, provided they have not been conditioned with some posteriori ideology overriding that.

I take into consideration ALL people, but only people. I do not consider corporations or other such entities into this. Therefore the only consideration they get is inherited from the people involved.

I am primarily for maximum freedom for ALL people and only people. This freedom must arise from lack of government interference on one hand. Then on the other hand we must prevent the tyranny that would arise from a power vacuum. So we start with an anarchy, and then limit things in ways to protect people from being exploited, and provided rights no entity can infringe on. People should at minimum have the basics of life, such as food, shelter and medical care. There would be some sort of balance between enforcing a fair wage and providing assistance.

There would still be some who have many many times more than others, but that is unavoidable in the real world. We do not give additional privilege to anyone, but we do provide for people to a small extent so they get the right to a certain minimal standard that is upheld for everyone.

That is the ideal I have in mind. Anything that can be done to move towards that in any small way is good.

You don't even have to be egalitarian in any way to support this. You can look at it from the point of view of eliminating poverty to improve the health of the society. It is the desperation, and ignorance of poverty that cause so many problems. It is no coincidence that bad neighborhoods are poor. That's what happens when people are desperate and uneducated. I'm not exactly a bleeding heart. My motivation comes from this just as much as caring about others.


the realization of the problems of lack of financial regulations and enforcement of workers rights is what led me from typical far right libertarianism* to left libertarianism. Although I tend to be slightly more conservative then your typical left libertarian.


So hopefully that gives people a good understanding of where I am coming from. That way we can avoid the stereotypes that seem to be inherent in some people's ideas about what different political positions are. That way everyone knows what my position actually is rather than conflating it with propaganda about it's possible labels.


* When I say this I mean REAL Libertarianism. Not Ron Paul or teabagger pseudo-libertarianism.

Agreed that some people would mistakenly say that fascism is far right. I don't think most people would, but would need to see polling data on it, I suppose to be certain.

In what way is Ron Paul not a "real" libertarian for you?

Well he has supported creationism for one thing. He is also somewhat conservative on some social issues. The stuff he advocates is less authoritarian than other republicans and it is further to the right. He is a lot more conservative. However he is still far from libertarian. I like the idea of getting rid of the fed, and not being the world police anymore. So I agree with him on those issues. That's about it though. You also have to keep in mind that being conservative on fiscal issues and liberal on social ones has some similarities with far right libertarianism, but even that is not the same thing.


When I was a far right libertarian, I was for fairly standard stuff.
No central military, only state militias.
Eliminate 90% of government departments
no programs of any kind
tax revenue would come from tariffs only. No income or sales tax.
Legalize all drugs
no more age limits
no more drug schedules
The only regulations would be for safety.
Little to no financial regulation.
etc, etc.


I am still for legalizing drugs, but I realized the rest of that stuff may look good on paper, but there are many flaws. My attitude towards people in need wasn't quite "fv(k em'", but it was close. Now I know a lot more, so I have a much less cynical view on that.

That's it? What does ones belief in creationism, if any, have to do with libertarian policy?

Wait, are you saying that you used to want no financial regulation?

And if yes, what are your thoughts know?

Just curious cause I think i'm on the same page as you.

No, that's not it and no, it's not his belief in it. It's that he said he was for teaching it in science class, and it's not science. Libertarians strictly uphold church and state separation, it is a core definitive Libertarian issue. If you have any even remotely conservative positions on social issues, that makes you a conservative, not a libertarian. You may lean more libertarian than authoritarian (like Ron Paul does), but that just means you are not authoritarian. You are near the middle in that way. So in that case you are a conservative.

Most Republicans are more authoritarian than they are conservative. Now the Ron Paul fans are different because they are not authoritarian and they actually are conservative. Teabaggers are conservative also, but they tend to be authoritarian, except for the people who are kind of a crossover between the two.

So I would say Ron Paul is a real conservative where as many Republicans aren't. He just isn't a libertarian.

Yes, indeed I was. None or virtually none anyway.

If you have read any of my political posts you should know what I think now. Now I think we need regulations to keep financial meltdowns from happening. To protect people from corporations. Keep different financial sectors separate, stricter anti-trust regulations, etc.

As I said I'm more liberal now. Look up "left libertarian", I am close to that. They are just a tad closer to the anarchy side than me. I am also slightly more conservative. In other words they take it just a touch too far for me, but it's close. They are like a less extreme version of anarcho-socialism if you are familiar with that.

Teaching Creationism in public school has nothing to do with libertarian/not libertarian. The very -existence- of Govt-controlled schools is however not libertarian, and I found links where Ron Paul was introducing voucher legislation, which is a libertarian move away from Govt-controlled schools, so still sounds libertarian to me. (http://citizendia.org/Family_Education_Freedom_Act) I suspect Ron Paul would win or show in most Tea Party straw polls.

Teaching creationism violates church state separation, that is not libertarian. Neither public schools nor vouchers are far right libertarian. It is even debatable whether or not they are conservative. Ron Paul is also pro life. That also is not libertarian. Any crossover he has with libertarians is simply from being on the right (conservative). I was a far right libertarian, I was well versed in the official party platform, I was a big supporter. I know what is and isn't libertarian.

Well, putting aside the "church state separation" constitutional misnomer, that whole thing is still irrelevant. Libertarianism is about reducing govt intrusion. Tweaking the curriculum is a side issue, the point would be to remove govt intrusion into education.

Also their are lots of libertarians arguing the pro-life side, so that's pretty flimsy as well. He still seems libertarian.

Political parties are defined by there social and economic stances, to dismiss a politicians stance on controversial social issues as irrelevant to their party is ludicrous.

Ah, well that's a subtle distinction then if you're referring to the Libertarian Party, as opposed to 'libertarian' with a lowercase "l". There are plenty of libertarians that are pro-life, but the official Libertarian Party platform is pro-legalized-abortion.

I guess I would flip the argument and say libertarianism is about maximizing individual freedom. Creationism, the it would be taught as a science class, singles out one religion and therefore skews access to the truth, and thereby diminishes ones ability to freely interpret the world.

If there are a lot of libertarians who are pro-life, then they are mislabeling themselves. That is one of the most clear cut issue on social rights. Furthermore, the only real libertarians are the Libertarian party members. The abstraction that is a "libertarian" is just an ideology defined by being very liberal (wanting freedom) on both axes in something like the Nolan chart.

Not a misnomer. Let me quote The main author of that document, Thomas "wall of separation" Jefferson.

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state."

-Thomas Jefferson Jan 1 1802


Far right Libertarianism is in PART about reducing government intrusion. It is also about eliminating religious intrusion. Or any other kind of intrusion for that matter.

If people argue pro-life they are NOT libertarian. They are the faux libertarians that seem to be coming out of the wood work lately.

You and many other people don't seem to understand the different between a conservative and a libertarian. I was a far right libertarian, now I am a left libertarian. Therefore my position on social issues remains unchanged.

Being more conservative and less authoritarian than your average Republican does NOT make you a libertarian. adopting one little issue like abolishing the Fed does not make you a libertarian. Being a little conservative on fiscal issues and a little liberal on social issues does not make you a libertarian.

Why are you so keen on being a libertarian anyway? It's a fringe party! When I was voting libertarian, I don't think any of my candidates ever got more than 3% of the vote. It sounds like a bunch of conservatives who don't want to be as utterly lame as they have realized they actually are.

Let me bring up one more point too, just to make things easier.

I am rationalist, an empiricist and a skeptic. That means I advocate 3 similar philosophies. They make up the whole of my position on epistemology. Epistemology is simply the philosophy of knowledge. It says what knowledge is, how we acquire it, what we know and how we know whatever it is we know.

You may have noticed proper logical arguments and empirical evidence contrary to my position cause me to change my mind each and every time. For example Frogbyte convinced me that the weight gain relationship to aspartame is proven and that this observation makes the cause/effect relationship a valid hypothesis worthy of an experiment to prove or disprove it.

My political views are different than just a few years ago. That is another example.

So you might consider that if after arguing something with me for while, I still hold exactly the same position I did at the beginning of the discussion, you might be mistaken.


For example do you ever see a conservative that is suddenly like" Yea in this one situation, let's strip state and local government of all rights on this one issue, completely socialize it and raise taxes on the wealthy to pay for it"?

Well, me disregarding a proper argument or continuing to dishonestly defend something rather than examine the possibility it is wrong, is just as ridiculous.

Just an FYI.