CreateDebate


Debate Info

6
10
Of course Of course not
Debate Score:16
Arguments:13
Total Votes:16
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Of course (6)
 
 Of course not (5)

Debate Creator

nobodyknows(745) pic



Are you a libertarian?

I am told many people are libertarians they just don't know it. Do you believe in limited government (not the republican idea of a "limited" government that checks up on how you choose to live your social life and has a larger military than the next 10 countries combined)? Do you belive that free association and non-forceful persuation is the best way of solving societies problems (not forcing others to act on your values as many democrats would have it)? Then you may be a libertarian.

Of course

Side Score: 6
VS.

Of course not

Side Score: 10

I am a libertarian paternalist, for now. I believe that the government should make markets work through extremely limited regulation. They should try to realize the assumptions of the economic models: perfect information, zero barriers to entry, no externalities, etc. I believe in convincing others to give to the poor, sick, and to universities instead of forcing them. I believe in local governance and data-driven policy making (try it before you make it law for 300 million people). I added the paternalism thing because most people are stupid, and can hardly take care of themselves, so they need to be given defaults that take care of them. This should not come at the expense of the more intelligent, though. Those who can plan for themselves should be able to do so (let me opt out of social security!). So for instance, the government may, if it passed a cost-benifit analysis, enact a law that automatically takes some pay out of your check and invests it in a well structured international fund appropriate to your age, but you should be able to opt-out if you found something better! I know it's not very libertarian of me to have the government run such a thing but people won't save properly unless you show them how.

Of course, in the end, I am (or was, I am in a ethical crisis as of late) a utilitarian, so whatever helps the most people in the long run is what I want. I place no value in the ideas of "liberty", "freedom", and "self reliance". I only care about what makes people better off. I have, for some time, been trying to make myself a socialist, mostly because I like new ideas but also because I don't care for the people who are in the liberty movement. So if you could convince me to turn, I would be so grateful.

Side: Of course
1 point

I am. Libertarians are further right then Republicans. When you look at it, Republicans sort of lean to the left a bit. Libertarians are just a more extreme right wing party. Just like the Communist Party of America is a more extreme left wing party then the Democrats.

Side: Of course
nobodyknows(745) Clarified
1 point

Meh. People usually associate the far right as fascism and nationalism. This is usually how libertarians are depicted on the political spectrum

Side: Of course
DevinSeay(1120) Clarified
1 point

Don't all parties say they are centered?

The right wing and left wing political spectrum has been used since the late 1700's. Event though they are "socialist libertarians" that's pretty much an oxymoron.

Side: Of course
AngryGenX(463) Disputed
1 point

Nationalism has nothing to do with the right/left scale.

Most people oversimplify the political spectrum and it is poorly taught in schools. For example, people teach that hitler and stalin were on opposite ends of the political spectrum, which I consider completely incorrect. The were close in economics (socialist Hitler and communist Stalin). They were both extreme authoritarians. The greater lie we teach is that republicans are related to Hitler while democrats are more like stalin. Economically republicans are further away from both. Stalin was atheist while hitler was non-religious, closer to democrats.

I think the scale needs to be re-considered. You have your economic right/left. You have authoritarians vs libertarians. Then you have your social liberals/progressives vs social conservatives/traditionalists.

You can believe in free economics, believe in libertarian values, but be a flaming atheist at the same time. You can believe in free economics, be a christian fundamentalist, but believe the government needs to step in and prosecute gays for sodomy and ban abortions. Obama is a socialist, a social liberal/progressive, but he is the biggest (worst) authoritarian ever to be president.

Another thing to consider, most Republican/tea party types are big supporters of states' rights. That also confuse things. If I were in charge I would push to let the states decide issues like gay marriage, legalization of marijuana etc etc. so if you were living in a liberal state you would see a lot of "progressive" change... If I were the governor of a state i would be pushing for gay marriage bans, abortion bans, etc etc.

Another issue is how we teach that social liberals are all about freedom... But you can't go around giving special rights to some people without taking them away from others. Abortion rights takes from the unborn. You gave gay people the right to marry and now photographers and bakers are forced to serve them even if they don't want to.

Side: Of course not

Live~and~Let~Live..:

Each to there own as long as we are not hurting anyone else. Do unto others and you would want done to you.

Side: Of course
3 points

I am not a libertarian.

"libertarianism" does not necessarily include free markets, government, or even capitalism. You're referring to capital L Libertarians, as in the the party. There is a difference.

Gary Johnson is a "Libertarian", and a "libertarian"

Noam Chomsky is a "libertarian", but not a "Libertarian"

Side: Of course not
3 points

Close but no cigar. I DO support limited governance, however I assess when government should be invoked based on information, not ideology. I DO put a fair amount on emphasis on personal liberty, but ONLY if the liberty is backed by responsibility. I do not feel most Libertarians spend nearly enough time looking at the responsibility part of the freedom equation. I DO believe in limited government intervention in economics, but I am no anarcho-capitalist. Workers, consumers and the environment need to be protected, and we can't normally depend on corporations to do that on their own, so regulations and tax incentives are the lesser evil. Also, even though Libertarians don't line up with the Republicans OR Democrats, but the most famous and influential ones have aligned with the Republicans. This is probably a necessity, to pick one of the main parties. NOTHING about our system fosters significant third party development, so due to "spoiler effect", the Libertarians feel the need to latch on to one of the big parties and effect change from within. However, by selecting the Tea-Party infused neocons, they have shown that their priority is economic issues over social issues, and that's ass-backwards in my opinion. What makes it worse is how extremist they get on these economic issues.

So yeah, I see where they are coming from, but I cannot agree with their methods.

Side: Of course not
2 points

I must admit that, as an ex libertarian, I agree. If prominent Libertarians would have instead placed the same amount of investment in the Democrat party, would you have sided with them?

"Freedom to Facism" is a documentary that best depicts almost everything that is wrong with the Libertarian "community". Although I will always agree with their emphasis on protection of our civil liberties and of the bill of rights, but it gets quickly turned into radical statements such as any non flat rate income tax leading to an inevitable erosion of any and all civil liberties, ending the federal reserve out right, and switching straight to a commodity standard.

This person gives a pretty scathing and hilarious rant, although I disagree that it applies to every libertarian:

"Libertarianism is the One Weird Trick For Solving Any Issue, Politicians HATE Us! of politics. It reduces many of the most complex problems in the world to a set of answers concise enough that they can fit on the back of a business card (isolationism, tiny government, bare minimal taxation).

There are quite a few CMVs here from people arguing about the effectiveness of libertarian solutions in the real world, but I want to go further. I believe that most libertarians simply do not care about the real world of the effects their intended policies would have. Rather, the primary goal of most libertarians is to feel like they have the 'correct' answer, and the primary draw of libertarianism is that it provides a singularly simple way to get this feeling.

I have honestly yet to see a proposed policy solution from a libertarian which addresses the complexities of the real world, only a stream of restatements of the core beliefs. All healthcare and entitlement debates are reduced to "taxation is theft", all defense and national security debates are reduced to "withdraw and isolate", and all economic debates are reduced to "deregulate", with no sense of reality or nuance. When libertarians defend this with "well of course I don't have a developed policy, because the government shouldn't have any policy on the topic" it's invariably followed up by the nebulous phrase "market solutions" (often backed up by a misinterpretation of the First Welfare Theorem), with zero information on how these markets would actually develop in the real world.

Ultimately, every libertarian I've ever met has been marked by the same lack of humility (I've never heard a libertarian say "I don't know the answer") and oversimplification, leading me to the view that their primary goal is to feel correct and "win" debates, rather than a genuine attempt to engineer real world solutions of any kind."

I personally find the Democrat party (for a lack of better wording) too soccer-mom-ish, libertarians too ideological and naive (mostly in business matters), and I disagree with the core tenets of the Republican party. However, I feel that the Democratic Freedom Caucus is a group that represents my views quite well. Unfortunately, that only helps me feel less alone, and I'll probably find myself biting the bullet and voting Democrat when I'm old enough to do so provided that their candidates will still at least be marginally better than the Republican ones.

Side: Of course not

No. I tried to be a libertarian, but it didnt work out. .

Side: Of course not