Slashdot Mirror

You sound more like a Libertarian than a current-day liberal. Join us!

Then again, current-day liberals really aren't liberal any longer - they have evolved into dictatorial leftists.

Soros, if you use the diamond method, is probably a libertarian which doesn't mesh well with the the left or right model.

That is, Soros is for economic AND self determination, which is smaller government with less taxes and regulations. I always thought the republicans were for that too, but they're too influenced by the "christian right" these days...

Refer to libertarian.org for a short, concise intro to libertarian philosophy (it's not long, I promise).

There are lots of good parties out there. The Libertarians are a good example of a balance between Dems and Reps. Lots of freedom, little govt. Essentially though the Dems and Reps have many more simliarities than differences. If we could get past the personal freedom issues (e.g. abortion, birth control, gun rights, etc... ) a lot more would get accomplished in this country because we'd actually have politicians being elected based on what they would DO in congress, not whether they support the left or right wing positions on these relatively petty issues.

If you're interested, here is a good intro to the philosophy of voluntary association. You are certainly not the only one who doesn't "get it" right off the bat. I didn't either.

So Free Software is 70% anarchist and 30% socialist.

I would actually categorize Free Software as Libertarian. Check this web site for more information on what Libertarianism is all about. This quote is the essence of it: "everyone should be free to do as they choose, so long as they don't infringe upon the equal freedom of others."

What Stallman rebelled against was the fact that his employer had freedom regarding his code, but he did not. GNU, FSF and OSS is about ensuring that we all have equal freedom to the greatest extent possible with software. The Libertarian is not an anarchist, he realizes that some sort of controls are necessary to protect the freedom desired. He is not a communist who believes in the dictatorship of the proletariat that will "wither away", nor is he a socialist who believes in leveling the playfield, economically speaking. RMS believes in protecting IP, that keeps me from infringing on your freedom, but he doesn't believe that you should be able stop me from modifying what you have done, as long as I don't steal your work. That's the essence of the GPL, and is a very Libertarian idea.

I just feel that trying to battle the MPAA in the lobying arena is not very fruitful. The real power of voters is in their vote. We have to change the way governments make desicions before we have a chance against big business. This whole problem is here because of a black market that the MPAA created through their virtual monopoly. A free market would make everybody happy IMO. I, for one, would rather buy 4 CD's for $5 each than one for $15. It seems to me that the MPAA needs to fire their economists.

Here is a good intro if you are interested.

Intro to Libertarian philosophy

I don't know where you get the idea that "capital L" Libertarians support the constitution. Maybe these "Libretarian"s you speak of are a subtle variant of Libertarians.

The lowercased word, as found in your dictionary, means "a supporter of personal freedom".

The uppercased word means either a vague political movement or an American political party.

The names of political parties are mostly just branding- the dictionary definitions of "republican" and "democrat" have little to do with the partys' platforms- no moreso than products called "Zest", "Brawny", or "Coca-Cola" really describe what you're buying.

If you have some other definition of "Libertarian" beyond what is presented on those 2 websites, then I guess we're talking about something else, and you can stop reading here (but I suggest you stop using terms that others will misunderstand).

Now, Libertarian Party candidates might claim they support the Constitution- or rather that they will obey the Constitution, until such time (in a distant, imaginary future) when they have sufficient national majority to pass amendments to re-write it to their liking.

But if anything, they just support the first line of the Declaration of Independence, which is paraphrased on
their statment of principles. Reading that page, you can find this line in principle #2:

we oppose all government interference with private property, such as confiscation, nationalization, and eminent domain

This is in conflict with a number of parts of the consitution, such as "Congress shall regulate commerce with foreign nations", or Amendment V,
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
which, by requiring it to be compensated, implicitly permits confiscation and eminent domain.

The copyright clause of the Constitution is also a form of "government interference with private property", and thus something Libertarians will oppose. If they consider "Intellectual Property" to be property, and covered under their principle, then the "for a limited time" statement amounts to a declaration of intent to eventually confiscated and nationalize said property. They won't support the Constition on that score.

Or, if a particular Libertarian decides "Intellectual Property is a fiction of the state, and my government will have no part of it", then there's principle #3: ...we oppose all attempts by government to abridge the freedom of speech and press, as well as government censorship in any form

and platform #10:
We defend the rights of individuals to unrestricted freedom of speech,

That means they don't want the government telling you what you can't print. So then they don't want the government telling me that I can't reprint some author's works without his say-so.

Of course, "Libertarians" always support your right to abridge your own rights via contract. Which is why in a hypothetical Libertarian world, corporations would be able to write their own virtual-copyright law, in the form of a giant web of publisher-to-consumer contracts.

I could go on and on, and any of these principles and platforms could be argued either way, but the fundamental point is that just because something's in the US Constitution doesn't mean the Libertarian Party will support it. Whether that's good or bad is up to you.

Aha, yet another benefit of Big Government: incompetency, along with its twin brother, inefficiency.

Next time we have a problem we think is solvable only by government, let's remember to think twice. Our current bloat of a government is built on the special interests of people just like me and you: people who don't consider that somebody, somewhere, doesn't want to be forced into adopting the special interests of other people. The solution? Government needs to go on a diet. See this website if you like the sound of this.

Funny, that's exactly why I believe in a government that protects its citizens against coercion (force and fraud), and nothing more. (Yes, the Libertarian idea of government.) Everything else is just a battle of special interests, becuase beyond these core functions of government, everybody has different ideas as to what government should do. There's no way in hell they can please one person without offending another, so the proper solution is to give people the liberty to run their own lives.

Vote Libertarian

In other words (for anyone who is interested), the government put the responsibility on the taxpayers to clean up the mess created by government. More support for the philosophy that government should be responsible only for securing our human rights and protecting us against coercion. Everything else is just a battle of special interests.

libertarian.org

Again, this is an entirely seperate concept. By "voluntary interaction" I am talking about the interaction between two or more people, not the "interaction" between one person and himself/herself. We are talking about social interaction here, not psychology.

Space exploration is fair game, not coercion.

Anything and everything that government does is coercion. Space exploration by government requries taxes which is a form of coercion. Politics is the "art" of deciding who gets to apply coercion and where. This will never change, because government is defined by organized coercion. I am completely in favor of space exploration/development, as long as I'm not coerced into supporting it. If I'm going to invest my savings in space exploration, I want to do it on my own will. This requires private, voluntary exchange -- not coercion.

You would have a much easier time understanding this point of view if you take a quick look at this introduction.

Ok ... assuming this wasn't an attempt at tongue-in-cheek humor ... please pay attention to the formatting.

The submitter, "John Deere", who is the libertarian and is quoted in italics, did not ask for legal recourse.

Cliff, the /. person who actually posted the question and in normal non-italicized text, mentioned legal action.

...

Note that Cliff also mentioned arbitration, which might appeal to some libertarians as a non-governmental solution (though many libertarians rail against the term arbitration since it has come to be synonymous with "mandatory arbitration" as is used in many legal contracts to revoke a contractor's rights).

...

Most Libertarians I know (and if I were to classify myself, I would probably be a moderate Libertarian ... but that in and of itself is an oxymoron to most people) are against government interfering in private life but are quite willing to have government be involved in law enforcement and regulating business. So even if "John Deere" had asked for a legal resolution, it would not have contradicted his Libertarian views.

See libertarian.org for more information. A very generalized summary would be:

Liberal = left-wing social and economic views
Libertarian = left-wing social views, right-wing economic views
Conservative = right-wing social and government views
Authoritarian = right-wing social views, left-wing economic views

Of course each group has moderates and radicals.

For an intro to Libertarian philosophy, see libertarian.org. As for monopolies, only government can yield a true (invincible) monopoly, because only government has the power to impose coercion (force) on consumers. Any other form of market dominance is temporary.

First of all, I am not trying to advocate anarchy. I subscribe to the Libertarian school of thought which advocates limited government. But hypothetically speaking, yes, security services could very well be run by private organizations. There is loads of theory on this, and some of it is very interesting. See anti-state.com if you are interested. For an intro to Libertarian philosophy, see libertarian.org.

You have just described the great paradox of government. It never ceases to amaze me just how many people are willing to blindly trust government to "do the right thing", when in reality, government is just as likely to "do the wrong thing" as any private organization. Government is nothing more than a group of human beings, who operate according to the [perfectly natural] profit incentive just as normal citizens do. Year after year, our government becomes wealthier and more powerful, and the private sector scrambles to get a piece of the coercive pie. This is no coincidence. The goals of government are identical to those of the private sector: profit (wealth) and market dominance.

The critical difference is that government does not operate by voluntary association. Government officials are not subject to the same set of rules as private citizens. Government does business by force, always and by definition. This, of course, is the precise reason why the founders of the USA, along with our early citizens, held government to the highest level of suspicion.

Who do you trust more: The man who does business by voluntary association, or the man who does business by legalized coercion? Now that's something to think about.

libertarian.org

... "How about the Libertarian Party?"

("Radical" group of political nerds who value individual liberty, for those who didn't know.)

Yes, although there are a few schools of thought on this issue as far as Libertarian thinking. Some Libertarians are in favor of IP, and some are not. Personally I oppose IP (especially patent law), because I believe the costs outweigh the benefits.

Ok, so, tell me, once you subtract all forms of coercion, what is left?

Anarchy, which is the complete absence of government. Note that I only refer to coercion imposed by the state.

Of course Libertarians believe in coercion. They just want *less* of it, right?

Correct. Even a minimal Libertarian state would need to sustain itself through coercive taxing, although the cost of government, in terms of both money and liberty, would be far, far less than it is today under most governments. Government is defined as organized coercion, and the minimal Libertarian government is no exception. Check out libertarian.org if you want a good intro to Libertarian philosophy.

he DID do something. hacking is a crime. so the fbi had every right to raid his house. threatening violence, and then the fbi finding a stockpile of homemade weapons is grounds for detention until all the facts are straightened out AT LEAST.

throughout my childhood i hacked many websites, and built many MANY bombs in the name of film. hell, i even built built 4ft high models of our school and filled it with 2 sticks of dynamite worth of explosives. (4 quarter sticks electronically ignited). i would sneak out during my tv production classes, and blow stuff up in a nearby forest with my friends.... who of course spent most of the outing smoking weed.

what i did was extremely illegal, and after columbine, and sept. 11th, if i was caught back then i would have probably been publicly shot. did i ever intend to harm anyone??? NO. was what i did illegal? YES.

I am on the side of this kid, but he did break the law, got caught, and deserves whatever they do to him.

if you support this kid, you are probably a libertarian. LINK

The revolution is coming. We are biding our time and letting the political franchise devour itself in tyrannical gluttony.

Read this

And now, a Haiku:
now is history
yesterday sees tomorrow
today is finite

I was actually looking into emmigrating to Aussieland in the next couple of years.....

Does Australia even have a Libertarian Party or it's equivalent??

I also wonder how this might affect my website since I use an Australian host provider. EEEK!

Actually, when the host provider gets a few e-mails cancelling accounts because of the new law, they might just be interested in doing something substantial about stopping this law. You know what they say, you want to affect politics, affect commerce.

You outlaw marajuana and hate speech, but with me you get one or the other....

Hammy
Nothing4sale.org
Making our billions in the ".org" boom.

• The Greenhouse Hoax...Noel Mc Donald
• Global Warming: A Chilling Perspective
• Greenhouse Syndrome: Just Hot Air?
• Global Warming: A Political, Economic and Scientific Backgrounder
• A BRIEFING ON GLOBAL WARMING, THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STORY
• There are many questions regarding Global Warming
• Global warming has failed experimental test.
• GLOBAL WARMING: INVENTING AN APOCALYPSE
• Home Page of John Daly, author of The Greenhouse Trap.
• John L. Daly Profile of a Greenhouse `Dissenter'

If you knew any actual facts about the Libertarian Party's position, you would know that they do not believe in any form of violence.

I think it's time to review the Libertarian Party's web site. I quote: "The only time force is acceptable is when you are defending against force."

I think defense qualifies as a "form of violence".

--

See the this page for details the main points of libertarian policy.

To me, Nader might as well be running for the Socialist party. Although I agree with many of the goals of the Green party, I think the way they want to accomplish them, through a bigger government, is not the way to go. I am for less government/rules/taxes, not more.

I agree. Vote Libertarian. If you don't know what Libertarianism is, go to http://www.libertarian.org.

I have always, and always will vote libertarian. Just because there's a very high chance that the candidate you vote for won't win doesn't mean you should just pick one of the other ones. Your vote still counts. You're taking 1 vote away from the other candidates with the views you hate and giving it to a party that needs it. A high percentage of the population will vote democrat or republican just because they know one of those candidates will win, even though they don't agree with their views. Please don't use that rationale for voting, if you have to do this, you might as well not vote at all.

That said, I'm voting for Brown on the Libertarian ticket regardless of the ability to make a few bucks by voting for someone else.

What do Libertarians really believe?

Libertarian.org is the best place to start for an introduction to libertarianism... which is not exactly the same thing as the 'technolibertarianism' the Ms. Borsook describes, as far as I can tell. Here is a a snippet from the opening page of libertarian.org:

WHAT IS LIBERTARIANISM?

Libertarians and their ideas are often misunderstood. Libertarian.Org is here to offer an overview of the libertarian philosophy and the libertarian movement. It is designed to be an introduction to the breadth and depth of libertarianism, for the long-time libertarian and the curious newcomer.

While libertarians are a diverse group of people with many philosophical starting points, they share a defining belief: that everyone should be free to do as they choose, so long as they don't infringe upon the equal freedom of others.

Human interaction should be peaceful, voluntary, and honest. It is never acceptable to use physical force to achieve your goals. The only time force is acceptable is when you are defending against force.

This might not seem very radical. After all, your parents probably taught you not to cheat, steal or pick fights -- in other words, not to use force against others. What sets libertarians apart is that they don't make any exceptions to this principle -- not even for governments.

In the libertarian view, governments should be held to the same standards of right and wrong as individuals. As a result, libertarians believe that governments should not interfere with the interactions and exchanges of peaceful people.

At this point, a few questions might come to mind. For example, why do libertarians believe so strongly in individual rights? What about other social values, such as equality and security? Or you may be wondering about the historical origins of the libertarian philosophy and movement -- where does libertarianism come from? Who are its leading thinkers? And how do libertarians apply their principles to contemporary public policy issues?

Libertarian.Org is here to help answer all those questions, so read on.

Some other good links:

Libertarian Party

Harry Browne for President

Liberzine

Counterprotest.net

Libertyboard.org

--

Libertarian.org is the best place to start for an introduction to libertarianism... which is not exactly the same thing as the 'technolibertarianism' the Ms. Borsook describes, as far as I can tell. Here is a a snippet from the opening page of libertarian.org:

WHAT IS LIBERTARIANISM?

Libertarians and their ideas are often misunderstood. Libertarian.Org is here to offer an overview of the libertarian philosophy and the libertarian movement. It is designed to be an introduction to the breadth and depth of libertarianism, for the long-time libertarian and the curious newcomer.

While libertarians are a diverse group of people with many philosophical starting points, they share a defining belief: that everyone should be free to do as they choose, so long as they don't infringe upon the equal freedom of others.

Human interaction should be peaceful, voluntary, and honest. It is never acceptable to use physical force to achieve your goals. The only time force is acceptable is when you are defending against force.

This might not seem very radical. After all, your parents probably taught you not to cheat, steal or pick fights -- in other words, not to use force against others. What sets libertarians apart is that they don't make any exceptions to this principle -- not even for governments.

In the libertarian view, governments should be held to the same standards of right and wrong as individuals. As a result, libertarians believe that governments should not interfere with the interactions and exchanges of peaceful people.

At this point, a few questions might come to mind. For example, why do libertarians believe so strongly in individual rights? What about other social values, such as equality and security? Or you may be wondering about the historical origins of the libertarian philosophy and movement -- where does libertarianism come from? Who are its leading thinkers? And how do libertarians apply their principles to contemporary public policy issues?

Libertarian.Org is here to help answer all those questions, so read on.

Some other good links:

Libertarian Party

Harry Browne for President

Liberzine

Counterprotest.net

Libertyboard.org

--

Libertarians and their ideas are often misunderstood. Libertarian.Org is here to offer an overview of the libertarian philosophy and the libertarian movement. It is designed to be an introduction to the breadth and depth of libertarianism, for the long-time libertarian and the curious newcomer.

While libertarians are a diverse group of people with many philosophical starting points, they share a defining belief: that everyone should be free to do as they choose, so long as they don't infringe upon the equal freedom of others.

Human interaction should be peaceful, voluntary, and honest. It is never acceptable to use physical force to achieve your goals. The only time force is acceptable is when you are defending against force.

This might not seem very radical. After all, your parents probably taught you not to cheat, steal or pick fights -- in other words, not to use force against others. What sets libertarians apart is that they don't make any exceptions to this principle -- not even for governments.

In the libertarian view, governments should be held to the same standards of right and wrong as individuals. As a result, libertarians believe that governments should not interfere with the interactions and exchanges of peaceful people.

Read more at http://www.libertarian.org/

Actually, the libertarian.org site is an introduction to libertarianism, sponsored by the Henry Hazlitt Foundation.

The Libertarian Party site is at www.lp.org

Maybe slightly off-topic but on Saturday, February 5, C-SPAN will air a speech by Jacob Hornberger, President of the Future of Freedom Foundation and one of the finest speakers in the libertarian movement.

Hornberger's speech is entitled "Exploding Myths about Open Borders."

However, it is far more than a speech on immigration. Hornberger begins by speaking directly to the C-SPAN audience -- describing libertarianism and the libertarian movement.

AIRING TIME:

The speech will be broadcast as part of C-SPAN's "American Perspectives" program. Jacob's speech is scheduled to begin "approximately" ten minutes after 10 pm, Eastern Standard Time, Saturday, February 5.:

C-SPAN tells me your best bet is to tune in at 10 pm, where you'll see the concluding minutes of another speech, which will be immediately followed by Hornberger's speech.:

REPEAT AIRING:

The speech will be repeated three hours later, beginning "approximately" ten minutes after 1 am, Eastern Standard Time, early Sunday, February 6.

They didn't ask what Harry Browne thinks, but I bet I can guess. How are most slashdot readers planing to vote? Almost every geek I know is a libertarian, though many don't realize it..

Libertarian.org
Harry Browne for President!

Maybe now is a good time to mention the Libertarian party.

After I've watched our government attempt to take literally every freedom they can away from me, I made a stand and became a card-carrying Libertarian. The name alone means the world to me, "Libertarian." Liberty. I wish I knew what it was like.

I will vote a straight Libertarian ticket from this point on, and do everything I can to promote the freedom that this country was built on. Our founding fathers would be rolling in their graves if they knew what the country their brothers died fighting to create had turned into. And our greedy politicians (with their own, personal agendas) are only too happy to increase the RPM of their spinning.

"The essential principles of our Government... form the bright constellation which has gone before us and guided our steps through an age of revolution and reformation. The wisdom of our sages and blood of our heroes have been devoted to their attainment. They should be the creed of our political faith, the text of civic instruction, the touchstone by which to try the services of those we trust; and should we wander from them in moments of error or of alarm, let us hasten to retrace our steps and to regain the road which alone leads to peace, liberty and safety." --Thomas Jefferson, 1st Inaugural Address, 1801.

Politics has become a game all of its own, where the people we elect either don't feel they can, or simply don't, vote to protect what truly made American special in years past. Some of the ideas the Libertarian party present scared me a bit, at first; some of the Libertarian ideals may scare you at first. Really think about it, though. Is there ANYTHING you can think of that you think the government can handle better than you, yourself?

Obviously, defending our borders is not a one-man job. But, the Libertarians allow for National Defense. The Libertarians do NOT allow for offensives that take our resources and cause national attention to be focused on us (can you say Yugoslavia?)

But, do you think you know better how to spend the money they take for income tax? Imagine what you could do with the money that gets taken out of each and every check you've busted your butt to earn. Imagine if that went into investments, instead. Think you'd be able to pay for all your children's education, privately? Not a problem.

Do you think you know better whether or not you should take drugs into your body? Do you want the violence in your neighborhood to go away, because now you can buy pot, crack, and meth at Eckerds or Revco. Prices go down, violence stops (because dealers are no longer protecting their territories), and the only people who use are the people who choose to. Kind of like smoking, now. And we can EDUCATE those people, just as we are doing and have done with tobacco; it's not as "cool" to smoke as it used to be, because people know it's stupid.

Certainly, the government doesn't know how to censor yourself or your children better than you. Every time we turn around they are making more and more choices for us on what can and cannot be allowed to fall into our vision.

Perhaps the most telling thing for me is the symbol of the Libertarian party: The Status of Liberty. Much better than an Ass and an Elephant.

"Give me liberty, or give me death."

--Xar

quote from Libertarian.org