Why Aren't you a Libertarian?

[Nakosis]

This statement seems to be ignorant of certain realities.

But not your lack of trust in people?

I don't trust the government either, which is why I demand transparency and accountability from my government... things that I can't demand from private individuals or businesses.

Demanding it doesn't mean you'll get it. If the government was transparent, it really wouldn't be a issue.

 

[Revoltingest]

Let's see...the biggest issues for me (off the top of my head):

End the wars/Massively cut military spending
Living wage
Medicare for all
Free public college
Combat climate change/Green New Deal
End the drug war
Criminal justice reform/De-militarize the police/end for profit prisons and policing
Common sense gun control
Rank choice voting

Show me a Libertarian who stands for these things first.

No party stands for all those things.
But which one comes closest?

 

[metis]

I find that the libertarian position often comes down to "screw the poor, go ahead and pollute everywhere, and give my future oppressors the tools to oppress me." No thank you.

But not with left-libertarian, which is why it's "left". In regards to right-libertarian, I tend to agree with you.

 

[sun rise]

Medicare for all

I'd change that question to be "Medicare as an option which people could choose"

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But not with left-libertarian, which is why it's "left". In regards to right-libertarian, I tend to agree with you.

Left-libertarian seems a contradiction in terms, since the "libertarian" part would deprive the "left" part of the resources it would need to do "left" things.

Edit: kinda like "fiscally conservative, socially liberal."

 

[averageJOE]

No party stands for all those things.
But which one comes closest?

Green Party stands for ALL of that. Including eliminating current student debt (which I think is almost impossible).

However, these are all Bernie Sanders policies. (Except for rank choice voting)

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm not going to debate that with you as there are many more who are very articulate on the subject such as http://thoughtsonliberty.com/what-is-left-libertarianism

I'm not expecting debate.
But the Libertarian Party, which is the subject of
the OP, is about both social & economic liberty.
Left libertarianism is too opposed to the latter to
want to join the Party.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But not your lack of trust in people?

I have no idea what you're trying to say, except that you seem to have taken a caricature of my position and just ran with it.

Demanding it doesn't mean you'll get it. If the government was transparent, it really wouldn't be a issue.

Government is imperfect, but this is a reason to improve it, not to burn the whole thing down.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I don't trust the government either, which is why I demand transparency and accountability from my government... things that I can't demand from private individuals or businesses.

I don't see why individuals and organizations of any sort should be exempt from being transparent, when they want to do anything that could or would affect anyone else in a negative manner. Or even in a positive manner. Especially if the costs and/or benefits only accrue to a limited portion of the population...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't see why individuals and organizations of any sort should be exempt from being transparent, when they want to do anything that could or would affect anyone else in a negative manner. Or even in a positive manner. Especially if the costs and/or benefits only accrue to a limited portion of the population...

Demanding transparency and accountability from private individuals is the exact opposite of the libertarian position.

 

[Revoltingest]

Green Party stands for ALL of that. Including eliminating current student debt (which I think is almost impossible).

However, these are all Bernie Sanders policies. (Except for rank choice voting)

Sounds like you've found a good home.
Many people have to settle for a party which
doesn't comport so well with their own goals.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There's a saying "never trust a bald barber - he has no respect for your hair." I think a similar view for governments is healthy: never vote anyone into government if they have such contempt for government that they'd call themselves a libertarian.

 

[Frank Van Den Bossche]

Here is a link to the Libertarian platform.

https://www.lp.org/platform/

Sorry to those who don't like to go to links but it's a bit much to post the entire platform here.

I'm just curious what specifically folks dislike about the libertarian platform that would cause people to vote against a Libertarian.

I suppose the main concern would be a lack of political power of the party but wouldn't that mean you are more concerned about political power than principle?

The problem with Libertarians is that they consider their personal freedom paramount, and it doesn´t work that way, particularly when a libertarian is a member of a wider community and his-her actions, therefore his-her freedom, will have an impact on the freedom of others. Many libertarians quack aloud about their individual rights but do not, or pretend not to understand that their individual rights are limited by the rights of the others who live with them in the context of a community or a society. That´s why we need laws, rules and conventions, so everybody can live peacefully in society, collectively, otherwise we´ll live in chaos and anarchy, in a society where individuals do whateve they want regardless of the consequences of their actions on others

 

[joe1776]

So you don't feel people can cooperate without government involvement?

No I don't. Cooperative efforts of any size have to be managed. That's the job or a government.

 

[sun rise]

I'm not expecting debate.
But the Libertarian Party, which is the subject of
the OP, is about both social & economic liberty.
Left libertarianism is too opposed to the latter to
want to join the Party.

That reads positively Trotsky-like to me.

 

[Revoltingest]

That reads positively Trotsky-like to me.

If I knew what that meant, I'd take great offense.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Demanding transparency and accountability from private individuals is the exact opposite of the libertarian position.

Perhaps, but the OP is asking why I am not a libertarian. While I test liberal-libertarian (by one site's test), I do not think that individuals should be exempt from transparency and accountability. Nor should their non-governmental organizations.

Therefore, I am not Libertarian, and unlikely to vote or support the LP.

 

[metis]

Left-libertarian seems a contradiction in terms, since the "libertarian" part would deprive the "left" part of the resources it would need to do "left" things.

Edit: kinda like "fiscally conservative, socially liberal."

Depends how it's done. In my case, I prefer Gandhi's (and E. F. Schumacher's-- economist who authored "Small Is Beautiful"-- which I keep telling my wife, btw) approach, namely putting great emphasis on a combination of private investment plus labor and community ownership with no one of them being able to dominate, and federal power at a minimum with the exception of emergencies. Some call this "Neo-Marxism", although I'm not in favor of using that terminology.

The reason why I like this model is that the vast majority of the decision-making is local whereas you know the people on a more personal level and also understand better the local conditions. I think a relatively close analogy would be the Amish communities, which I've spent some time in.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The problem with Libertarians is that they consider their personal freedom paramount, and it doesn´t work that way, particularly when a libertarian is a member of a wider community and his-her actions, therefore his-her freedom, will have an impact on the freedom of others.

Except they really don't consider personal freedom paramount; IMO, they're really only about limited regulation. They're still fine with removing regulations that help protect freedom.

Take rental accommodations: the libertarian position is that the landlord should be free to set the rent however the market will bear and can put any unfair conditions in the lease that they want; anything short of outright crime is fine. This does not maximize freedom. That's the arrangement that allowed things like the Highland Clearances; imagine going back in time and asking those tenants thrown off their lands whether they felt free.

A position that made personal freedom paramount would put reasonable restrictions on landlords to ensure that their tenants had secure housing.

 

[Revoltingest]

Many libertarians quack aloud about their individual rights but do not, or pretend not to understand that their individual rights are limited by the rights of the others who live with them in the context of a community or a society.

This libertarian has quacked about balancing rights & actions which could interfere
with each other, eg, environmental regulation which prevents damage to one person
due to another's conduct.

That´s why we need laws, rules and conventions, so everybody can live peacefully in society, collectively, otherwise we´ll live in chaos and anarchy, in a society where individuals do whateve they want regardless of the consequences of their actions on others

I think you're not addressing the Libertarian Party (the subject of the OP), which
most certainly does advocate the rule of law. IOW, we favor the existence of
government, the extreme straw men erected by some wags notwithstanding.
The issues are how much government, its cost, its powers, & its legal foundation.
You'll find much agreement with Libertarians regarding the positions you criticize.