Libertarians
A nice post on the influence of libertarians in American politics.
Card-carrying Libertarians are few and far between. Yet, seen as the guiding philosophy of a bloc of dissatisfied, independent-minded voters whose views align with Republicans on economics and Democrats on social issues, libertarianism is palpably gathering steam.
As Reason magazine Editor in Chief Nick Gillespie explains, the term “libertarian” is more useful as an adjective than a noun. “It’s an impulse; it’s pre-political or at least pre-partisan,” he says. “In any given situation, it asks, ‘Do you favor giving people more freedom or less?’
I think this is a pretty solid way to think about libertarians. Libertarianism can be best understood as a sentiment that is the disinclination to support legislation that expands the state’s ability to control the citizenry. Since its more of a sentiment, it lacks the full articulation of a platform found in other political parties, however, this also means that people of those other political parties will indulge in a libertarian sentiment when it suits their needs.
Say you oppose banning same sex marriage. The libertarian sentiment will be in full effect here. Why should the state forbid it’s citizens from being able to marry.
Say you oppose redistributing wealth to the poor. The libertarian sentiment will respond by questioning why the state should be able to forcibly take wealth from its citizens.
What I have always found amusing is that Republicans will use libertarian arguments to defend economic policy while ignore it in social policy while liberals will use libertarian arguments against social policy and ignore those arguments when proposing economic policy.
November 25th, 2007 at 8:11 pm
Hmmm…. Didn’t you just recently say that we should ban same sex marriage?
November 25th, 2007 at 9:36 pm
No offense, but seriously, are you retarded?
November 26th, 2007 at 2:18 am
I liek the idea of asking whetehr each choice gives people more freedom. The places I think I disagree with you are 1. Corporations aren’t people and 2. I think that people (and corporations) can apply coercive power to each other (whereas you think only the government can). This is why I’m for legislation that I think protects people from coercive control by others, including things like factories polluting people’s drinking water and parents not giving their children needed medical care.
November 26th, 2007 at 10:16 pm
Wow does your stupidity show… If you drank I could give you the benefit of the doubt. I’d simply believe that you were too drunk to remember…. Please take back your comment….
http://enableate.com/steve/2007/812#comments
I’m thinking you won’t respond.
November 27th, 2007 at 12:12 am
I’m totally baffled. The post you linked to has me stating no less than twice that I’m against a ban on same sex marriage.
November 27th, 2007 at 11:03 am
“push to amend the constitution to ban same sex marriage.” - Steve
You are on extremely shaky ground trying to call someone retarded for misinterpreting that (although my interpretation is that it was part of a list of several things you saw as problems, rather than something you were actually advocating) since we all know that if someone is misunderstood it is safe to assume it is -their- fault for being unclear (unless you are changing your position in regards to your serial failure to understand my posts).
November 27th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
Your wording left much to be desired….
November 27th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
Sheesh. Technically that comment, and lets all remember it was a comment, was in response to a question asked by Darwin.