[Joe Liberty]

If libertarians were ideologically consistent, they'd back the liberals rather than the conservatives.

I'd say it's the other way around: if "liberals" were ideologically consistent, they'd back libertarians. The fact is that ideological consistency is not in great supply among Republicans or Democrats. In fact I had a Republican tell me once that logical consistency was a character flaw. Democrats and Republicans are about maintaining and exercising power, and they don't much care what ideology gets them there. That rank-and-file liberals and conservatives still support them is very much a mystery to me.

After all, the reactionary, authoritarian police State is a much bigger threat to liberty than taxation or economic regulations could ever hope to possibly be.

I have two answers to that:

1) Economic liberty is inseparable from individual liberty. This is probably why most libertarians feel the Republican Party is closer to them than the Democrats, because they at least talk the talk; Democrats can't stand the thought of economic liberty, but without it "social" liberty is meaningless.

2) We've got a Democrat President and a Democrat-led Senate, and they're expanding that reactionary, authoritarian police state.

As others have said, I think the best path for libertarianism is to influence one or both parties. But that's a very slow process. And it's just as likely to backfire, as the Tea Party's failed attempts to hold Republicans to fiscal issues proved; the GOP just co-opted the movement and kept right on pushing their social agenda.

[DBM]

I'd say it's the other way around: if "liberals" were ideologically consistent, they'd back libertarians. The fact is that ideological consistency is not in great supply among Republicans or Democrats. In fact I had a Republican tell me once that logical consistency was a character flaw. :?: Democrats and Republicans are about maintaining and exercising power, and they don't much care what ideology gets them there. That rank-and-file liberals and conservatives still support them is very much a mystery to me.

I think you are both right and own half the equation. Fiscally current conservatism should very much and CLAIMS to support libertarian principles. Their ACTIONS are another matter of course. Socially and foreign policy wise current liberalism should find a lot in common with Libertarian thought, though fiscal politics seem to be the show stopper there. I think thats why you found quite a few liberals AND conservatives at Ron Paul rallies. I don't think either ideology aligns with them on whole though.

That being said, I think your conclusion is dead on and why I can't really bring myself to identify with either party.

[SpaciousBox]

I actually agree with this post given some semantic assumptions(e.g. moral enforcement strictly defined in a common use as in "morality police").

Indeed, that is what I meant. And the other two knew this as well. They just fancied being picky, which is fair enough and their right to be so. The morality of the American right does indeed seem at odds with Libertarian's - after all, one is founded in Conservative morality and the other Liberal.

The sad truth is that the two-party system is rigged, short of totally collapsing the GOP (which libertarians could facilitate by being inside), the LP will not win. Taking over the GOP apparatus and making it libertarian is one of the few avenues available to libertarians to gain political power.

This seems an impossibility to me though. Conservative values are just not compatible with Libertarian ones. Why would they let you take over their party? You are not waging a war of academics here, this is literally a value issue.

I'd say it's the other way around: if "liberals" were ideologically consistent, they'd back libertarians.
...............
1) Economic liberty is inseparable from individual liberty. This is probably why most libertarians feel the Republican Party is closer to them than the Democrats, because they at least talk the talk; Democrats can't stand the thought of economic liberty, but without it "social" liberty is meaningless.

This is something I am never going to get my head around I think. I literally have no idea how Libertarians can't see that economic Liberty is not consistent with Social Liberty. Maybe it will be one day, but that is a day that doesn't involve the present human race. Liberals accept that if Individual Liberty is indeed your end result, then you cannot both champion social liberty and economic. This is probably the real difference between our groups, though whilst seeming small actually expands into an entirely different set of values within reality.

[Joe Liberty]

This is something I am never going to get my head around I think. I literally have no idea how Libertarians can't see that economic Liberty is not consistent with Social Liberty.

I am not free unless I am free to dispose of the product of my labor as I see fit. It strikes me that at least some leftists would agree with that. Perhaps I need someone to explain to me how it's exploitation to exchange my labor with an employer for wages, but it's not exploitation for the State to confiscate its product.

[SpaciousBox]

Do you believe then that exploitation is not a loss of liberty? As economic freedom also means freedom to affect the lives of others, be it in a negative or even exploitative fashion. Regulation can help prevent that, though we certainly have not got the balance right in that department. Regulation however, is not compatible with economic freedom. On a quick mention to taxes; the state does not confiscate the product of your labour. You already exchanged your labour for a pay packet - something our Socialist friends would actually call a loss of Liberty in itself, funnily enough. The state confiscates a portion of the value that you have agreed upon in the exchange: This is not the product, nor is it the value of your product. Markets do not decide how much someone is worth, only how much someone is worth to them at that particular time. I do however fully accept tax is robbery, as per the definition. I just consider it to be the lesser of two evils for the usual reasons given by socially minded people.

[Soixante-Retard]

What right to freedom of speech do I have if the printing presses are owned by the state?

[Rothbardian]

Do you believe then that exploitation is not a loss of liberty? As economic freedom also means freedom to affect the lives of others, be it in a negative or even exploitative fashion. Regulation can help prevent that, though we certainly have not got the balance right in that department. Regulation however, is not compatible with economic freedom. On a quick mention to taxes; the state does not confiscate the product of your labour. You already exchanged your labour for a pay packet - something our Socialist friends would actually call a loss of Liberty in itself, funnily enough. The state confiscates a portion of the value that you have agreed upon in the exchange: This is not the product, nor is it the value of your product. Markets do not decide how much someone is worth, only how much someone is worth to them at that particular time. I do however fully accept tax is robbery, as per the definition. I just consider it to be the lesser of two evils for the usual reasons given by socially minded people.

Government system - you have to do what I want whether you want to or not.

Libertarian system - if you don't want anything to do with me then you don't have to.

You really want to talk about exploitation?

[Rich]

Libertarian system - if you don't want anything to do with me then you don't have to.

That's right as all the Gazelles tell their children, if you don't want to have anything to do with the lions you don't have too. We're so lucky we haven't got some government oppressing us. What are lions daddy? Well actually lions died out. They couldn't survive without government hand outs.

There's a general rule the less government there is in a human society the more it resembles the law of the jungle. In Band and tribal societies murder is a leading form of death. As you move from small bands up through, tribes and chiefdoms into states and then on up to modern liberal democratic states the level of murder declines. No right is worth anything without the right not to be murdered and the right not to be a slave. The intercontinental Black slave trade was founded by Muslim private enterprise many hundreds of years ago. The Trans Atlantic slave trade was a great tribute to free enterprise and the invisible hand of the market. Not all states are equal. Modern liberal states are not the same as the Nazis state or the state of the American founders. Their aims are totally different. Even two hundred years ago many Whites were enslaved by the Muslims, notably the Barbary pirates. A Black an might not be safe from the White man but neither was the Black man safe even form his fellow Black Niger Congo speaker in his own homeland. But neither Black nor White was safe from the Muslim. He could be enslaved murdered, castrated and arse raped at the slaver Muslim's whim.

It is the progressive liberal state state that provides abundant liberty and freedom.

[SpaciousBox]

What right to freedom of speech do I have if the printing presses are owned by the state?

Your gonna have to help me out a little further on this one, Soixante. How is that related to the discussion?

Libertarian system - if you don't want anything to do with me then you don't have to.

Ignoring most of... whatever it is Rich just said... I do need to highlight the first few points he made. The state is not the only group to have power over your life. I support a Liberal state in order to protect freedom. It's almost like you think your present level of rights and freedoms aren't the result of years of campaigning, politics, and in many cases blood. This is a war waged both against government and big business. If you can somehow guarantee that neither of those groups will ever gain enough influence to have power over you, then I'll be very interested to hear it.

[Joe Liberty]

Do you believe then that exploitation is not a loss of liberty?

That depends on how one defines exploitation. I don't believe it's exploitation to trade labor for a wage, in and of itself.

As economic freedom also means freedom to affect the lives of others, be it in a negative or even exploitative fashion.

Merely existing means that you're going to affect other people, and you could even try to exploit some if you want. Economic liberty simply means that you own the product of your labor, whether that's a product that you created or the wage that you've agreed to exchange for it; and by extention, whatever you create or acquire with said wages.

On a quick mention to taxes; the state does not confiscate the product of your labour. You already exchanged your labour for a pay packet - something our Socialist friends would actually call a loss of Liberty in itself, funnily enough. The state confiscates a portion of the value that you have agreed upon in the exchange: This is not the product, nor is it the value of your product.

It exists only because I have labored, so I fail to see how it's not a product thereof. That I had no choice in the matter doesn't change that. That just highlights my point: I have agreed to toil for a certain wage, so it's not exploitation; I haven't the option not to also toil for the State in the process, so that sounds a lot more like exploitation to me. Extortion, really: "give us our cut or you don't work at all."

[Soixante-Retard]

What right to freedom of speech do I have if the printing presses are owned by the state?

Your gonna have to help me out a little further on this one, Soixante. How is that related to the discussion?

That "social" freedom and "economic" freedom are inseparable. You can watch a video on this here.

[Rich]

That "social" freedom and "economic" freedom are inseparable. You can watch a video on this here.

Well yes we know that. How would Socrates, Plato and Aristotle have been free to philosophise without a slave class to look after their tiresome physical work. How would John Locke have been free to write about liberty if his returns form his investments in the Caribbean slave trade had not given him economic freedom. The same goes for Jefferson and Washington. If it hadn't been for the economic freedom provided by slaves they wouldn't have been free to drone on and on about liberty. If they hadn't been slave owners, if they had had to work for their bread like ordinary craftsmen or self employed farmers we'd almost certainly never have heard of them.

On a more mundane level look at Singapore: quite high levels of economic freedom, quite low levels of social freedom. Or modern Hong Kong, very limited political liberty but economic liberty is still pretty high.

[Soixante-Retard]

On a more mundane level look at Singapore: quite high levels of economic freedom, quite low levels of social freedom. Or modern Hong Kong, very limited political liberty but economic liberty is still pretty high.

Instead of asserting, would you like to provide evidence? You say, Rich, that Singapore and Hong Kong have "high levels of economic freedom" while having "quite low levels of social freedom", okay. Compared to what?

[SpaciousBox]

Merely existing means that you're going to affect other people, and you could even try to exploit some if you want.

Bingo. This is one of my primary arguments for government, I am happy that at least one Libertarian understands this! The NAP that is the basis of your philosophy, is in fact unbelievably easy to break due to this very fact; whatever we do will affect those around us. It is the primary argument for some form of government, though maybe I have mistaken you for an Anarchist?

Economic liberty simply means that you own the product of your labor, whether that's a product that you created or the wage that you've agreed to exchange for it; and by extention, whatever you create or acquire with said wages.

So you would accept market regulation in a world without tax? I find that very hard to believe. If so, you would be the first Libertarian I have ever met to not equate economic freedom with the free market and the ability to do business how you wish.

That depends on how one defines exploitation. I don't believe it's exploitation to trade labor for a wage, in and of itself.

Extortion, really: "give us our cut or you don't work at all."

I agree. What's important here however is the possibility of exploitation. Markets do not judge people on their value, they judge them on the value of their skills at that particular time, and to a particular group of people in relation to creating profit - or more cynically; what they can get away with giving for those skills regardless of their actual worth. This also means that the definition of value is set by what can make other people money - so anyone who works for the benefit of society is pretty much out of luck. In a business market, this will always mean that the value attached to the product of your labour will change, even to the point where it is too low to exist upon. This is not an issue with the individual, but an issue with the market. The only situation in which this wouldn't be the case is when companies are competing for all forms of labour, rather than the reverse where workers are very often taking lower pay due to the abundance of unemployment. This is a by-product of capitalism, and one that any monopoly would seek to artificially inflate: The best control is dependence. I very much believe in both wage slavery and the exploitation of individuals by business. It happens all the time. It happened plenty in history. It will happen again if we allow it to.

That "social" freedom and "economic" freedom are inseparable. You can watch a video on this here.

I am going to assume you do understand what we mean when we're talking about regulation and economic freedoms. If this isn't the case, I apologise. But it should be very obvious that the private ownership of the press is utterly unrelated to the reasons why we argue for market regulation.

[Soixante-Retard]

I am going to assume you do understand what we mean when we're talking about regulation and economic freedoms.

Regulation, which has nothing to do with force or fraud but which seeks to minimize the pool of buyers and sellers, does abridge free enterprise.

[SpaciousBox]

Regulation, which has nothing to do with force or fraud but which seeks to minimize the pool of buyers and sellers, does abridge free enterprise.

I think you are mistaking me for one of these "neolibertarians" we hear about so much. I am a Liberal, and do not consider my social and economic views to be presently advocated within western government. The present form of regulation stifles competition in favour of maintaining capital empire. It is for this reason that I support regulation, in order to enforce competition between business, whilst also ensuring fair wages, working conditions, and rights for all employees. As for your press: Freedom of speech is a social liberal aim, and one that is helped best through the free press. As far as I am concerned, they can buy sell and print whatever they like. We already have facilities for individuals who want to sue over lies and/or slander. The only area of regulation I would impose upon the press is in response to their constant breaching of peoples personal privacy - this is simply not on, and may one day require a Watch Dog organisation in Britain to ensure people can go about their lives without having their basic rights breached.

[Rothbardian]

That's right as all the Gazelles tell their children, if you don't want to have anything to do with the lions you don't have too. We're so lucky we haven't got some government oppressing us. What are lions daddy? Well actually lions died out. They couldn't survive without government hand outs.

There's a general rule the less government there is in a human society the more it resembles the law of the jungle. In Band and tribal societies murder is a leading form of death. As you move from small bands up through, tribes and chiefdoms into states and then on up to modern liberal democratic states the level of murder declines. No right is worth anything without the right not to be murdered and the right not to be a slave. The intercontinental Black slave trade was founded by Muslim private enterprise many hundreds of years ago. The Trans Atlantic slave trade was a great tribute to free enterprise and the invisible hand of the market. Not all states are equal. Modern liberal states are not the same as the Nazis state or the state of the American founders. Their aims are totally different. Even two hundred years ago many Whites were enslaved by the Muslims, notably the Barbary pirates. A Black an might not be safe from the White man but neither was the Black man safe even form his fellow Black Niger Congo speaker in his own homeland. But neither Black nor White was safe from the Muslim. He could be enslaved murdered, castrated and arse raped at the slaver Muslim's whim.

It is the progressive liberal state state that provides abundant liberty and freedom.

It's a good thing I wasn't drinking anything while I read the bolded or I would have spit it all over my keyboard. The only times anarchy is chaotic is when it results from a government collapse. The examples of actual anarchist societies that have exited from time to time were far more peaceful than any place you can live today.

That aside, we can easily compare the degrees of government that exist today. If you want to see an example of life with heavy government, just head to your local ghetto. Or better yet, travel on down to a native American reserve. That is where you will see the 'law of the jungle' rule. It will also be where government is most involved with people's lives.

Let's just be honest, shall we? This is an assertion you're just repeating without ever having critically analyzed.

Slavery existed because it was subsidized. If you want to claim a right to not be killed or enslaved, there's no way you can have a government to determine what your rights are. That's completely asinine.

[Joe Liberty]

Merely existing means that you're going to affect other people, and you could even try to exploit some if you want.

Bingo. This is one of my primary arguments for government, I am happy that at least one Libertarian understands this!

It's actually a very good argument against government. If you're going to assume that people will try to exploit you, the last thing you should want is grant them the legal power to do it.

Economic liberty simply means that you own the product of your labor, whether that's a product that you created or the wage that you've agreed to exchange for it; and by extention, whatever you create or acquire with said wages.

So you would accept market regulation in a world without tax?

No. I'm not sure where you got that. I support laws against fraud and coercion (at least as a minarchist...I'm currently waffling between that and anarcho-capitalistm).

What's important here however is the possibility of exploitation. Markets do not judge people on their value, they judge them on the value of their skills at that particular time, and to a particular group of people in relation to creating profit - or more cynically; what they can get away with giving for those skills regardless of their actual worth.

I don't see a difference between "what they can get away with giving" and "actual worth". "Worth" isn't an objective term to begin with, as you pointed out.

This also means that the definition of value is set by what can make other people money - so anyone who works for the benefit of society is pretty much out of luck.

Who works for the benefit of society? What does that even mean? Society is comprised of individuals. So which of those individuals are those folks working for? I find typically that when someone claims a benefit to "society", it's really only a benefit to a certain sub-set of society, since society is literally every individual who comprises it.

Adam Smith correctly observied: "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."

In a business market, this will always mean that the value attached to the product of your labour will change, even to the point where it is too low to exist upon. This is not an issue with the individual, but an issue with the market.

How is that not an issue with the individual? I mean, I suppose you can say that the death of the buggy whip industry was the fault of the market, but how do we hold those blameless who insisted upon continuing to make buggy whips? And how do we hold them blameless for not seeking another skill set when that one became valueless?

The only situation in which this wouldn't be the case is when companies are competing for all forms of labour, rather than the reverse where workers are very often taking lower pay due to the abundance of unemployment.

That's why we can't hold the individual blameless. One is responsible for one's own skill set and one's own marketability, right? For instance, my skill set is in what some would consider a dying market: mainframe systems programming. If my company rids itself of the mainframe, I don't think I should just sit back and blame the market for screwing me over; I need to see that trend coming and upgrade my skills.

That "social" freedom and "economic" freedom are inseparable. You can watch a video on this here.

I am going to assume you do understand what we mean when we're talking about regulation and economic freedoms. If this isn't the case, I apologise. But it should be very obvious that the private ownership of the press is utterly unrelated to the reasons why we argue for market regulation.

I think he's simply addressing the point that economic liberty is required for individual liberty. Market regulation (beyond laws against fraud and theft) is by definition a limit on economic liberty.

[SecretSquirrel]

Both parties are fascist corporatists. They mutually have a strangle hold on the TV media and the electoral process. Trying to "infiltrate" one of the parties in order to change it "from the inside" is a misguided effort, as one attempting it will just end up corrupted or marginalised.

Libertarians are never going to change this society. This ship is too big and heavy to turn around in time. It will hit an iceberg and sink; when it is gone, then the libertarians can build a new one that is actually based on liberty.

[JethroDull]

The GOP are not libertarian, at all. Quite the opposite in fact. It surprises me greatly that you guys would even be in bed with them in the first place. The Republican party seems quite happy to support policy on state religion, moral enforcement, subsidies for business, majority rule, and a whole other bunch of things you shouldn't ever see near a libertarian manifesto. There isn't even any reasonable argument for progressing the cause through an unholy alliance of sorts. They will never allow you to take power, they will never allow you to influence policy. If you stick about it will only hurt the case for Libertarianism in the end, as I doubt the sort of people who may be swayed by libertarianism would have anything in common with the GOP.

With some popular news media decrying the impending extinction of the Republican Party in America, I recently decided to take a look at the 2012 Republican party platform (gop.com) to get a sense for who they are and what they stand for (at least publicly).

The Republicans, with whom I identify fiscally, have a social platform directly from the 1950s. While their platform incorporates Federalist notions embodied in the 9th and 10th Amendments (good), references to 'faith' and 'traditional marriage' stand out like ubiquitous hairy moles. For the most part, the Republicans have co-opted those portions of libertarian thought which suit their purposes, but ignore the balance.

Aside from a few notable political successes, American libertarians have generally failed to articulate to the public how liberty, freedom, and the opportunity to pursue happiness remain the bedrock ideals upon which America was founded.

What America needs, and I also predict is an unfallible candidate for policital office, is the 'practical libertarian.'

We need a little less government. Yet some government is a necessary evil.
Our government needs to spend a little more time being both the champion and protector of individual liberties. However offensive.
Personal liberties, however, needn't cost taxpayer money.