Please explain thisone to me. I am a nevermo and saw this on a Mormon's page. How can this be? Doesn't that mean he is for legalizing drugs, etc. A Mormon????
Libertarian has been broadly construed to mean "keep your government away from my choices and don't force me to pay for anything I don't personally benefit from."
Conservative means "keep everything the way it always has been."
Mormon means "allow me to make everyone believe that magic underwear will protect them from harm and that God lives on a planet called Kolob."
Yeah, I'm seeing some basic contradictions, here...
I'm a libertarian, but I think it's largely misunderstood as a political choice. There are two branches of libertarianism (some people adhere to both). There are social libertarians, which is what I am. We think that the government has no place interfering in anything that doesn't hurt anyone else. So yes, legalized drugs just like alcohol is legalized (with age-restrictions and taxes and better education). No denying rights to gays or any religious groups. If you want six wives and they're all of age and they all want to marry you, go for it. Seriously. Keep the cops doing what we want them to do, which is keeping us safe. I've never felt safer because someone got a dangerous pot-head off the streets. Safe your resources for muggers and rapists, please.
There are also economic libertarians, who believe in a system very much like extreme capitalism. Every man for himself, taxes only going to things we all use, like roads and government employees and maybe schools. I shy away from this sort of libertarianism, but I do think our entire economic system is jacked up and in serious need of a revamp. I know that all my bitching about military spending won't do any good, since we've pissed off enough countries that we'd be screwed if we didn't have a really solid military in place. I'm more in favor of funneling money away from churches (they make mad cash and do NOT need my tax dollars to stay alive), idiotic programs that cost a lot more than they're worth, and of course the war on drugs, which costs us billions and accomplishes nothing. I want to see more money going to schools. I dream of a future where broke-ass kids like myself who got kicked out for being gay (or for whatever reason) and who badly wanted to attend college but had to work two jobs to stay alive could get an education without worrying about cost. I would love to see on-site child-care as the rule more than the exception at workplaces, as I've known so many single moms who struggled to hold on to a job that paid enough for them to afford daycare. And yes, I want to see more service officials like cops and firemen on the payroll. The last problem would actually work itself out if they would stop the stupid war on drugs.
Sure, one can have libertarian ideals without being a Libertarian. Most conservatives are the small government type of libertarian, while liberas are usually social libertarians. The small government libertarians within the GOP butt heads with the social conservatives who want to use the power of government to enforce their moral agenda. It's fun to watch.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/09/2011 01:30PM by Stray Mutt.
Okay I guess I get your connection that Mormons may like the have 6 wives aspect of libertarianism (according to you). I didn't know they (Mormon libertarians) believed in that. But seriously you saying that potheads couldn't be muggers or rapists is just a bit ridiculous don't you think???? Of course they could be but it doesn't mean they WILL be. I totally agree with all your education comments. Thanks for sharing.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/09/2011 03:44PM by honestone.
S/he didn't mean potheads couldn't be muggers/rapists (although I'd be surprised if someone who uses only pot would mug you to support it), s/he meant that serious criminals like muggers/rapists don't get due attention because of nonviolent possession charges and subsequent court time/jail space.
Keep the government the hell out of everything except police, military and courts. Individuals have the right to do absolutely anything unless it interferes with the rights of others. This is the basic concept. www.lp.org If you are confused, simply check out the party website and read the platform.
Mormons are obviously not all the same. Just like any other group of people, some of them want to legalize drugs, and some of them justify using drugs. We shouldn't think in such black and white terms and rely on our own extreme stereotypes to inform our thinking.
The same thing should apply to them. We should celebrate it when a Mormon develops an opinion that isn't 100% in line with what the church HQ wants them to think, not punish it.
Americans tend to fall in two camps with most people somewhere in-between.
On one side you have the authoritarians who believe that government should be heavily involved in the lives of people in telling them when, where, and how to do things.
On the other side you have the libertarians who generally believe that individual rights trump the rights of government to control people.
On the extremes you have the anarchists who don't agree to any government and those who support tyranny and frankly don't want anyone making their own decisions.
For Mormons its a paradox because they believe in their leaders having great authority over them. When government interferes with the GAs' authority its resulted in a long tradition of Mormons being pro-libertarian on government (i.e. so the government doesn't interfere with the GAs' authority) except in cases where the GAs want something legislated (such as making sure gays can't marry) and then the LDS will stay true to the Brethren.
Here's what "freedom of religion" means for Mormons: freedom for the LDS church leaders to do whatever the hell they want to do.
Mormons are as authoritarian as the day is long. We all know that. You do not question your church leaders, ever, period. The answer to 'jump' is *always* 'how high?'
Utah recently passed a law making it illegal for the area where a drink is mixed or poured to be visible to the patrons in Utah restaurants. I kid you not. This has caused great expense rearranging things, putting up walls or other barriers in a lot of restaurants. On what planet would that be 'libertarian'?
In most states you can buy liquor in various sized bottles, including mini-bottles (aka airline bottles). In Utah, a person was not allowed to buy liquor by the drink for decades, and had to buy the whole bottle. If you wanted a single drink, you could buy a mini-bottle. this is a very expensive way to buy a single drink, BTW.
When the legislature legalized liquor-by-the-drink, they made the purchase of mini-bottles *illegal*, apparently on the theory if they give the citizens some right, they must take something else away in compensation. Again, on what planet is this 'libertarian'?
In most states (Bible Belt excepted, being even weirder than Utah in some ways) you can buy liquor by the drink, or you can buy a 750 ml or 1 liter bottle, or you can buy a mini-bottle. Lots of good reasons to buy a mini-bottle. You want to try something without having an entire bottle of something you might hate, or you just need 3 TSP for a recipe, or whatever. Should be simple, but not in Utah.
Authoritarian to the bone. Utahns do NOT favor government that leaves the people alone. They screw with people every chance they get. There are other examples besides liquor laws, but the liquor laws are the most obvious.
Utah legislature (overwhelmingly LDS) is conservative-authoritarian. For those of you in Utah, the recent dust-up over the bill to keep electronic communications of legislators unavailable to the public is all the proof you need of their authoritarian mindset. It was a *major* controversy here, and the lege got their heads handed to them. As far as the legislature was concerned, those in authority don't have to answer to anybody.
Leaving the cult let me become a complete libertarian. Its fun telling conservatives that they are actually big government minded. How can you say your a social conservative when you want laws against other people using their agency socially? Pretty funny stuff.
Mrs. Estzerhaus. Needless to say I don't agree with the link. If we had a true libertarian philosophy we would have a deficit of 0 dollars. Wow! Think of how that could help our economy and the middle and lower class, A STABLE DOLLAR :). Also artficial government funding wouldn't have been given to Fannie and Freddy therefore we could have avoided the housing collapse. As far as the link about government teachers getting laid off. In a libertarian society it wouldn't have happened because teachers will work in a private not public sector.
I don't like to be coerced by a religion anymore than I like to be coerced by government. They go hand in hand
Conservative: You can do whatever you want with your own money, but the government can tell you what to do with your body. Liberal: You can do whatever you want with your own body, but the government can tell you what to do with your money. Libertarian: You can do whatever you want with your own body and your own money.
yep thats a pretty good definition badgirl. Camilo that is a poor definition. A libertarian still can under no circumstances harm someone elses rights. They just think when 25% of all of the worlds prisoners are in American jails then we are in a tyranny state. And most of these prisoners harmed their own bodies, not someone elses (drugs).I don't think you can call them right wing when they are campaigning for things like gay marriage and end to the wars. A libertarian would disagree with a republican economically in many many ways.
While I personally don't agree with them, there are plenty of libertarians who are pro-life. Ron Paul is a good example of this. He is universally acknowledged as a libertarian, but still holds on to a lot of social conservative values.
I've been a libertrian (note small 'l') for more than 30 years and met Ron Paul in 1988 when he was running for President and I was running for Congress. Neither of us won.
Dr. Paul was a Republican Congressman who didn't get re-elected. He then became a Libertarian (note uppercase 'L') and ran for president in 1988. Later he became a Republican again and got re-elected to his old House seat. Today he is sometimes mentioned as a possible presidential candidate--but a Republican one. In the words of Groucho Marx, "These are my principles-and if you don't like them, I have others...."
I suspect his official House of Representatives stationery says "Republican," and I therefore suggest that he is not "universally recognized" as a libertarian with either type of 'L'.
There are quite a few conservatives (U.S) who don the title "Libertarian" in order to distance themselves from the stigma of flying under the title of "Republican." I.E, it's a sock-puppet title.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/10/2011 04:20AM by Strykary.