Humor will not be tolerated!! -Portia

For or against libertarianism. Go.

For.

I don't understand the question

For the idea, against the party.

Are they even organized enough to be a party?

I think it would be more correct to say agree or disagree with the party or idea instead of asking if people or for or against the party. Even if you disagree with it you can still acknowledge their right to form and not be against it.

I don't know if I understand your comments PBW.

I just wanted to see a general discussion on libertarianism. The more I've contemplated political issues, the more libertarian my stances have become. I am registered with no party affiliation and tend to vote Republican, but vote Republican mainly because they are (or were) closer to the financial ideals of libertarianism.

Libertarianism the philosophy is so appealing to me because I think it reflects very much the importance of the individual in society and not the importance of society to the individual. I personally believe that compelling others to act for other's good is effectually theft. Now, that being said, I recognize the need for institutions in society that counter-act previous institutional failures. For instance, the underprivileged status of many African Americans in the United States stems from a century institutionalized slavery followed by a century of institutionalized racism. To end that and say, "Well, now we're all equal!" is ridiculous because it fails to recognize that African Americans initial endowments are biased to be lower than others. This is just one example of an institutionalized failure. So while I am libertarian in goal, I am pragmatic in approach because I know that my idealized libertarian world doesn't conform to reality. I am okay with certain social programs that try to remedy the endowment effect, but other programs that become more expansive than this are societal thuggery. (I don't mean those words nearly as strong as they come off... I just can't think of a more fun way to point out my distaste for them.) For example, social security is meant as a safety net for individuals who are not prudent enough to plan for their retirement. A huge transfer of finances from a younger generation to the older generation is then required to compensate for others' poor choices. Same for Medicare. Medicaid is far more tolerable, especially for young children, because it seeks to remedy the endowment effect.

I was a little confused by Dr. Smeed's response to the question. I think if he is talking about the party, his response might hold weight. Even then, I don't know that it does. I think his critique is probably most relevant to the issue of abortion, which Democrats and Republicans take a firm stance on, but the Libertarian Party does not. The Libertarian Party's refusal to take a stance there doesn't stem from wanting everyone to like them, but is a result of their underlying ideology. Believing the gov't shouldn't interfere in the rights of others can lead to different results on the abortion debate, depending primarily on people's understanding of whether a fetus constitutes a human being or not. Some believe fetuses ought to have the same rights as born-citizens while others think that the woman's right to control her bodily autonomy trumps a not-yet-born individual's right to life. Essentially, the Party is saying, "We won't take a stance on which right is subservient to the other in this case."

Hey Wired,

According to the infallible wikipedia, "The majority of libertarians consider a right to abortion as part of their general support for individual rights, especially in regard to what they consider to be a woman's right to control her body." From what I've heard elsewhere, this is true, although the party may not take a position.

Others,
As you might have guessed, I think libertarianism is severely flawed. Unfortunately, I don't have time to justify this answer or argue about it, sorry. But I would like to suggest these podcasts from Planet Money:
First, a living breathing socialist talks about socialism and the democratic party: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/09/ ... ans-part-1
Second, a libertarian talks about libertarianism and the republicans: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/09/ ... rtarianism

I'd be interested in what you guys think of the podcasts. If you can put the preconceived labels aside, and try to weigh these arguments fairly, I'd love to hear your reaction to both. Those who like libertarianism - is that a good spokesperson for your movement? And do you agree with anything the socialist says?

If you listen to those podcasts and like them, I suggest listening to this one to get an idea of the severity of the National Debt and the insignificance of pretty much any proposable solution:http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/09/ ... et-deficit

Hey, those links are both to NPR! I don't trust anything they say. Those crazy liberal progressive socialist communist nazis!

.....(insert Juan Williams joke here)

Waldorf and Sauron wrote:Hey Wired,

According to the infallible wikipedia, "The majority of libertarians consider a right to abortion as part of their general support for individual rights, especially in regard to what they consider to be a woman's right to control her body." From what I've heard elsewhere, this is true, although the party may not take a position.

I don't know if I buy this line in particular. I could be cherry picking, but the sources seem to be unsupported by any tangible data. (I'll probably pull up the two references next time I'm in the library.) Even accepting that >50% of libertarians support abortion (which is probably true) it doesn't change the fact that it comes down to a common-sense disagreement about the underlying factual assertions, not the libertarian philosophy. Many of the big name libertarians (Ron Paul, Bob Barr) are anti-abortion.

I'll listen to the podcasts you listed. They should be interesting.

@ Sauron, I'll be listening to the podcasts to let you know what I think.
@thebigcheese No, not really. It is more of an ideology than a party. It would be cool if there was a party that had actual political clout and could get libertarians elected.

Yeah.... I think I was really high or sleepy or something when I wrote my earlier comment... Just forget I said anything and I won't further embarrass myself by trying to elaborate. It didn't really add anything to the arguments anyway. Really.

If you're an agency-happy LDS person, I could see how you might support libertarianism. That's the biggest pro I can think of, personally.

If I were more familiar with the ideology, I could probably say more...

Waldorf and Sauron wrote: I'd be interested in what you guys think of the podcasts. If you can put the preconceived labels aside, and try to weigh these arguments fairly, I'd love to hear your reaction to both. Those who like libertarianism - is that a good spokesperson for your movement? And do you agree with anything the socialist says?

I listened to the first two podcasts. Interesting on both ends and generally reinforced my positions. I think the socialist has some fair points (none of which I can recall at this time.) But I think his overall premise is flawed, including that some negative externalities have infinite consequences so they can't be adequately captured. His point on a more motivated labor force when they are involved in decision making is something I can agree with in certain circumstances. For the most part, though, I think he is ignoring the idea of rational ignorance that is a part of everyday life and would make his socialist utopia an impossibility. In order to make it happen, the amount of freedoms you would have to surrender would be far greater than any freedom gained from involvement in labor decisions. His entire argument also ignores the ability for laborers to make their own decisions through entrepreneurship and career decisions.

The libertarian did a fine job for the most part. I don't know if his "bigger, faster, stronger" hyperbole was meant to be humorous, but if he was being serious... that's too bad. I don't think EVERY single situation would be better, but I do agree that for the most part we would be better off without the government directing what we ought to do.

Amen to wired's comments on the podcasts. Both very interesting, and I agree with his summations of them. I would also like to add that (like it has already been mentioned) that the Libertarian "Party" doesn't have a firm stand on abortion. The interviewee has his own opinion which he projected onto all libertarians, and he can't for the reason that, science hasn't proved when life starts, and so there is no definitive way to say whether the mother or the child's rights supersede the other's in this case.

I laughed when he obviously (at least to me) joked about being taller and better looking under libertarianism and I thought it was funny that the interviewers focused on that and treated it like he was dead serious.

For me it depends on how libertarian we're talking.

I agree that the emphasis on the individual is very important, but I also believe that most individuals are and always will be fundamentally flawed in their capability to reason the right decisions. To emulate a pessimist, I largely think people are stupid quite frankly. I believe giving such people the right to make all of their own decisions is heartless as they'll often make the wrong ones.

I believe we as human beings crave order and direction. We as members of the church get this on a regular basis and often times it works out for the better for us. If we take away much of that order and direction I believe it inevitably will lead to chaos which will necessarily revert back to some sort of strong government.

Anyway, long story short. I agree on idea and principle, in practice I disagree.