For self-styled "libertarians" what do you actually believe in and how do you differ from the various types?

Question

Some issues seem very unclear to me, do you actually support the banning of legal prohibition related to recreational drug use, abortions and gay marriages?

Do you support on the state or federal level of any grants given to organizations or individuals? Does that infringe on personal liberties?

Do you support capital punishment? What is your libertarian rationale for supporting it if its cruel and unusual punishment infringes on a person's civil liberties?

How do you differ from the lefty libertarians who advocate an egalitarian framework under which property and wealth distribution would be available for everyone?

Jebul, very excellent response. I liked how you descriptively gave me the fleshy details

Azred_tx and Jenny, thank you for explaining your reasonings - this has been a very informative experience for me

Bigsky_52, eloquently spoken opinions & personal philosophy. ;-)

Answer 1

I am a dues paying Libertarian, but I can only speak for myself when it comes to what I believe in. I might agree with the Libertarian Party on a lot of issues, but nowhere will you find 100% agreement. To answer your questions:

1) I believe that the government does not have the right to tell me what I may or may not do with my own body so long as my choices do not infringe on the rights of others. Hence recreational drug use should not be banned, both on the moral level and because, as we've seen, prohibition simply doesn't work. In the same vein I do not think abortion is the government's business. I do think abortion is wrong. However I feel that way based on my religious beliefs, and not everybody shares those beliefs. I think the question is one best left to a woman, her partner, and her doctor. Anyone else really doesn't have a say in the matter. Regarding gay marriage, I think so long as a marriage is consensual, without coercion by any party, then the government should play no part whatsoever. I don't think the government should play a role in heterosexual marriage. Or gay marriage. Or polygamy. Or group marriage. So long as everyone enters into the contract with their eyes open the state should not be involved in any way. Marriage is between two (or more) people and their god. Judges simply aren't necessary.

2) I do not support the state or federal government giving "grants" to individuals or organizations unless the monies collected for the purpose are given voluntarily. If the government wants to act as a collector of donations that's fine, but they do not have the right to hold a gun to my head, take my money by force, and give it to somebody else. That's simple robbery, and violates the natural law as spelled out by John Locke.

3) I do support capital punishment, as personal responsibility for your actions is necessary to civilization. If you voluntarily hurt somebody or infringe on their rights then you must pay a fine equal to the damage you have done. If you have deprived them of life then you must pay in the same manner, as monetary recompense will mean nothing to a dead person. The execution need not be cruel, but the end result is necessary.

4) I've never heard a Libertarian calling for wealth and property distribution. I think under a Libertarian framework wealth and property would be much more easily acquired, but distribution involves somehow taking by force and then giving away. There is NOTHING libertarian about such a belief! Right now the government takes over 50% of our income in the form of taxes. Federal income, social security, FICA, medicare, medicaid, state income, property taxes, gas taxes, sales taxes, cell phone taxes, the list goes on and on. Libertarians believe that if all these taxes were instead left in the hands of the individual to use as he or she saw fit then there would be immensely more wealth to be shared in the first place. You would just have to work for your share of the pie.

Answer 2

There is nothing "legal" about why certain drugs are "illegal". Go research on why certain drugs are actually illegal and you will discover that some, Marijuana in particular, were banned on what would be perceived by today's standards as completley unethical and racist. So yes, I support the idea that there is no reason why the governent should have any say over what you should or should not put in your body. It's your body, your life, you make the call when you are mature enough to. Information on drugs should be made available to people and people should decide for themselves. We don't need to be babysat, and for those who do will only suffer the consequesnces of their own choices.

There is no prohibition on abortion and I think that there never should be becasue again, no government or state body should have the right to tell women what to do with their bodies. I do, however, support making abortion something monitored so people would never use it as a method of birth control, which yes, is highly unlikely, but it might make pro-life people feel better.

Gay marriage should be tolerated and no one has the right to take away constitutional rights based on sexual orientation. Again, see above with regards to goverments and "your body". If a CHURCH wants to refuse to marry gays/lebians in their CHURCHES, well then I think they have the right to do that if they want. After all, it's THEIR CHURCH not the gay/lesbian communities church.

I think that yes, people should be given grants so long as the proper qualifications are met on both a state and federal level, but it might be smarter to leave it up to the states and reserve federal grants for things maintained by the federal governement. We should be able to spend money on helping to improve our standards of living and technological advances so I really do not think this infringes on anyone's personal liberties, it's more a matter of wanting to help make everything as best as it can be, and since you live in a society and utilize public benefits, you should be willing to allow the government to give money to said public benefits.

Capital punishment is something of a grey area I think because you need to ensure that the criminals are aware of harsh penalties for crimes that hurt/kill innocent people and you must be beyond 100% sure that the accused is actually guilty before carrying out the death penalty. I am still on the fence about this myself, I think there must be another solution but at the same time, if someone killed another innocent person, does that person deserve to live? I don't think so, if you kill another innocent person in cold blood, I think you lose the privelage of civil liberties and therefore you can be subjected to punishments that are "cruel and unusual" because what you did was "cruel and unusual".

I don't know how I differ and am not sure what you mean and am too tired to type any further.

Answer 3

I support dropping the War on Drugs--after decades of time and billions of dollars spent more people use drugs now than did in 1977. All that money and effort could have gone to better uses.

Abortion. If the child must be supported by the father if born, then the father must also consent to having the fetus aborted if not born--it shouldn't be up to only the woman. I would rather the woman give the child up for adoption, but the parents' choice should be respected.

Homosexual marriage...consenting adults should be allowed to marry whomever they please. They are adults, after all.

Capital punishment...I do agree with capital punishment. If you are a dangerous felon (murder, armed robbery, etc) then you deserve to put put down like a rabid dog.
I have also always favored a humane approach if capital punishment cannot be used--exile. Find an island out in the South Pacific, drop them off, and leave them there. Problem sovled--they weren't killed and no one else will be hurt by them.


Wealth distribution? Forget that nonsense--I worked for what I have earned and I see no reason I should share that with anyone. No person who has worked for what they have earned should have to give anything to anyone else unless they choose to do so.

Answer 4

Let me see if I can answer your concerns one at a time.

What do I believe in and how do I differ? I believe that the government has no business making laws concerning personal ethics. If I drink, smoke, do drugs, I'm hurting myself. AS LONG AS I'M IN MY HOME. If I drive while drinking, smoke in public, or give drugs to a minor, that's wrong. In that I differ from my normally conservative view.

Some issues seem very unclear to me, do you actually support the banning of legal prohibition related to recreational drug use, abortions and gay marriages? :

I support banishment of prohibition on all illegal drugs. It's my opinion that it worked with Alocohol and the gang activity and violent crimes that went with prohibition ceased. I believe it will work again. Why imprision someone for wrongs committed against self? Are we interested in overrunning the prisions with such people when murders and rapist and set free?

I don't believe that abortion is an ethical question. I believe that abortion is murder so it's not on the same level as drug use and gay marriages. I don't think that gay marriages are illegal now. No one is jailed or arrested because they are gay and have a service to express that. The government has no business meddling in citizen's personal relationships. There should be no law for or against it. People should mind their own business. Churches have a right & obligation to teach and preach how they see fit. If they see homosexuality as wrong, then they have a right to say so. Folks, you can't have it both ways. If the ten commandments has no place in the court house, and prayer has no place in school, then there should be no laws prohibiting churches to practice as they see fit. In fact, I believe there is an amendment that says so.

Do you support capital punishment? What is your libertarian rationale for supporting it if its cruel and unusual punishment infringes on a person's civil liberties?

Yes I support capital punishment. It's not cruel and unusual punishment for a person who is guilty of heinous acts of cruelty and violence who are not capable of being rehabilitated. The Jeffery Dahmers and John Wayne Gacy's of the world. Doesn't common sense come in to play here? Of course I don't support capital punishment for someone who makes a mistake, even if they commit murder. But if a person is beyond help, then why should we consider his/her rights when they repeatedly didn't consider the rights of their victims and the victim's family? Why should we show one ounce of pity for them? Mercy is God's job. And why should they enjoy the same rights as law abiding citizens? Why are they equal to one who helps their fellowman? When you willingly and repeatedly take lives, you have only your own life to give for recompense.


How do you differ from the lefty libertarians who advocate an egalitarian framework under which property and wealth distribution would be available for everyone?

This is the total opposite of the American Dream. And it just plain doesn't work. Why should a few work so others can live? If the others are able to work, they should. And those that do work, should decide how they want to spend their money. Sure many are selfish, but that's another moral and ethical decision that's an individual's right to make.

Answer 5

There are different types of liberatarians. I'm a minarchist Libertarian meaning a small government with little interference. There are some anarchists libertarians who basically want no government at all. Libetarians are divided on abortion and gay marraige. Most of us support abortion to remain legal, I'm pro-choice. Yet, there are some who opppose abortion. I don't have a problems with grants. I support capital punishment, some libertarians don't. That person violated a person's right to live therefore, he also lost his right to live. I'm not a lefty liberatarian, I'm a fiscal conservative. I think wealth distribution is socialist and basically against capitalism.

Answer 6

Libertarians are not socialist by any means. Go to their website and find out. they are more free-market capitalist than republicans are because they don't think that govt should support any business.

The way I understand libertarians is that they don't think the govt has the right to tell you what drugs you can use. While they are not advocating drug use they just don't think govt has the power to tell you what you can ingest.

Answer 7

I believe that the body of Jesus Christ was "conceived" by the Power of the Holy Spirit! Jesus had NO "biological" earthly father, other than Joseph...who raised Jesus as his "own son" but was NOT the biological dad. Jesus Christ is God veiled in Human Flesh.

Answer 8

* I believe in a smaller government who's role is to DEFEND our freedom as Americans, not control our lives.

* I believe drug use is a CHOICE, therefore we shouldn't waste over $60 BILLION a year on a failing war on drugs.

* I believe that gays and lesbians getting married is none of my business.

* I believe in AMERICA first.

* I believe in a flat tax system where everybody pays their fair share base on a flat percentage of their income.

* I believe that women murdering their unborn children and calling it a "choice" is still murder.

Answer 9

oh please...self-styled...you assume in a pre-ordained manner to know how someone came to their value system..

amazing..and you are a self-styled what?

is this as opposed to homogenized libertarians..now we have left leaning libertarians too