lewrockwell.com — Conservatives and everyone else should politely be put on notice that libertarians do not believe that everyone is good, nor that everyone is an all-wise expert on his own interest, nor that every individual is an isolated and hermetically sealed atom. Libertarians are not necessarily libertines or hedonists, nor are they necessarily atheists.
Jul 8, 2006 View in Crawl 4
Closed AccountJul 9, 2006
bwd01 is an idiot. I'm sorry but you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. First off, you make the assumption that libertarians push for individualism purely on the basis of principal. Yes, while principal is a very guiding force in libertarian philosophy, most libertarians genuinely believe that individualism in all aspects of society and economics BENEFIT society as a whole and do not infringe on society's welfare at all. All other political parties (especially conservatism) believe the same. Secondly, you completely butchered the definition of libertarianism and can't even differentiate between modern day conservatism, liberalism, and libertarianism. So please, before you make stupid comments, go read a book, or at least Wikipedia. Other than that, GREAT article. I'm personally libertarian and am glad something like this is being read. A little wordy, but well said and quite explanatory.
bitgodJul 9, 2006
Interesting, maybe I've found out what I've always been.
sp3ttJul 9, 2006
@allthewhile "Voting libertarian is wasting a vote." Well, voting for the democrats in any election that the republicans won was wasting a vote. Everyone who didn't vote for the guy who won wasted his or her vote. Now, would you like to vote for the electric chair, lethal injection or freedom?
gmaleticJul 10, 2006
False like all the others. But most importantly: where did these "myths" come from? I've never heard any of these raised in any discussion about libertarianism...
miseseanJul 10, 2006
politicalcompass.org is truly AWFUL. Leading from the very first question ("If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.")Try this one: <a class="user" href="http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html">http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html</a>(Also <a class="user" href="http://www.mises.org/quiz.asp)">http://www.mises.org/quiz.asp)</a>
pcking1Jul 10, 2006
We have those institutions now as the result of FDR, although the welfare state makes perennial appearances in civilizations. Those institutions also ensured we wouldn't climb out of the depression til after WW2
pcking1Jul 10, 2006
lol, transnational companies DO serve the interest of humanity! It's the state that is anti-human!
pcking1Jul 10, 2006
Great explanation of liberty
ccranJul 10, 2006Submitter
toc,I agree with your criticism of corporations in the context of a centralized state. However, I don't think that an anarcho-capitalist form of libertarianism precludes the existence of corporations. They would just be the result of aggregate, voluntary cooperation and association. The absence of state control of the economy does not mean no contracts will be made between individuals.
devilsfanJul 12, 2006
Rothbard is one of the few dozen men in history that deserve the title Intellectual Giant. I have never encountered another author who has his ability to take seemingly complex topics and make them unstandable and enjoyable to laymen, particularly on such a wide array of topics.If you want to get a better economic education than you will at virtually any university in the country, read "Man, Economy, and State". If you want to understand what money is, how the market created it, and how the government has bastardized it, read "What Has Government Done to Our Money". If you want to truly understand the philosophy of liberty, read "For a New Liberty". If you read these books and understand them, you will never view the world in the same light ever again.
Closed AccountAug 4, 2006
I like the "many, if not most, are atheist" part. That right there shows that they (many or most) are critical thinkers and open minded by default. However, to me, I'm not sure if "most" is good enough. It doesn't make sense to take a middle ground in religion. You either support false beliefs being imposed on others for personal or group gain, or you don't. Many things are not black and white, but whether or not god (which one) is real, is.This article seems to be as old as me, I wonder what changes there are. Specifically, any party can write a generalized manifesto like this, I'm sure even the republicans could write one that gives people tingles. So it means nothing without knowing their specific stances on real world issues, and how well they follow their own belief structure. What do they think about Iraq? What do they think of the permanent bases we're building over there? Do they find "enemy combatant" synonymous with "kidnap victim"? Do they think that insurgents are justified to call themselves "freedom fighters", considering we attacked first, aka "preemptive strike"? Or like another popular article on Digg today, how would they treat whistle blowers? If we are justified to attack North Korea because they have long range missiles, then are they justified to "preemptive strike" us, because we also have them?I've got lots of questions, I could go on forever. I guess my point is, that I've been under the impression that voting for someone just because of their party is ignorant.
Closed AccountAug 11, 2006
Seeing how libertarians support the GOP's extremists, it does make sense to call the right wing extremists.
Closed AccountAug 11, 2006
No more handouts? How would Microsoft, Dell, AOL, Haliburton, and Paris Hilton make money? They need their tax cuts. Having millions, or even billions, is next to poverty.
Closed AccountAug 11, 2006
Agreed.