I use to be a liberal (culturally, socially, economically, ect.) but Ron Paul's presidential campaign opened my eyes to the evilness of the state. I am now a hard-core libertarian (the libertarian party is too statist for me) in the Rothbardian tradition.
However, on cultural issues I am still rather liberal. I support same-sex marriage and adoption, pornography, I more or less support the idea of free love, I'm an Atheist, I gamble, and while I don't use recreational drugs I have no problem with those who do (it's their body). The only exception really is my opposition to abortion. I view these actions as wholly personal chooses, which the state should neither endorse nor oppose.
I ask this because I have noticed the tendency of some libertarians to be more conservative culturally. I understand the core concepts of libertarianism are property rights and opposition to the state. One of the main reasons why I am a libertarian is because I want to be able to do as I please, regardless of whether or not others approve.
I was just wondering if my counter-cultureish values are at odds with libertarianism.
0069twiggy:The only exception really is my opposition to abortion.
0069twiggy:I was just wondering if my counter-cultureish values are at odds with libertarianism.
Ultimately, Libertarianism is about the non aggression axiom and property rights - as you do properly understand. The discussion about whether the community / people will become more "conservative" as it moves towards Libertarianism, or more "liberal" is pointless and creates needless factions were none are necessary.
So to answer your title question, 'yes'.
0069twiggy: I use to be a liberal (culturally, socially, economically, ect.) but Ron Paul's presidential campaign opened my eyes to the evilness of the state. I am now a hard-core libertarian (the libertarian party is too statist for me) in the Rothbardian tradition. However, on cultural issues I am still rather liberal. I support same-sex marriage and adoption, pornography, I more or less support the idea of free love, I'm an Atheist, I gamble, and while I don't use recreational drugs I have no problem with those who do (it's their body). The only exception really is my opposition to abortion. I view these actions as wholly personal chooses, which the state should neither endorse nor oppose. I ask this because I have noticed the tendency of some libertarians to be more conservative culturally. I understand the core concepts of libertarianism are property rights and opposition to the state. One of the main reasons why I am a libertarian is because I want to be able to do as I please, regardless of whether or not others approve. I was just wondering if my counter-cultureish values are at odds with libertarianism.
As far as I am concerned the common link between libertarians is they all agree on which kind of means are permitted and which are not. Means involving force or fraud are not permitted, while the remainder are. Ends are outside the scope of libertarianism. You could be a bleeding heart hippie, or a racist hillbilly and still be a libertarian if you restrict your means to those which are purely voluntary.
"I cannot prove, but am prepared to affirm, that if you take care of clarity in reasoning, most good causes will take care of themselves, while some bad ones are taken care of as a matter of course." -Anthony de Jasay
Most libertarians I meet are cultural liberals. Very few being conservatives.
I am a cultural conservative, so I almost always cut down my talks with libertarians to economics and politics. I don't want to touch cultural issues, because I'm never gonna change my positions on certain issues. But it's nice to see a cultural conservative like Ron Paul lead the libertarian movement in the US.
Libertarianism: you own your life and you own the fruits of your labor. Freedom to do whatever without harming others = libertarianism.
Nothing you are for is against libertarianism. We have our charming disagreements on abortion but there is a libertarian argument to be made for either case.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Laughing Man:We have our charming disagreements on abortion but there is a libertarian argument to be made for either case.
Including the 3rd option, which is the most Libertarian, since it is both at the same time. Pro life & pro choice.
Evictionism.
Conza88: Including the 3rd option, which is the most Libertarian, since it is both at the same time. Pro life & pro choice. Evictionism.
Evictionism is something I find myself agreeing with.
You can identify yourself however you want, you just can't force anyone to identify with you.
Criminals, there ought to be a law.
Criminals there ought to be a whole lot more. Bon Scott.
You have a great grasp about non-aggression and private property. You are making a collective judgement that the Libertarian plus 1/2/3 crowd are true believers in nonaggression and private property. This is not true and I believe that it is a mistake to lump these folks in with the rest of the liberty loving property rights respecting unaggressive folks like me.
Libertarian + 1 are people who love freedom and property rights EXCEPT in this/these instances. Some of the most common instances are: abortion, public education, policing and law enforcement, defense, drug prohibitions, safety regulation, etc. These are a dangerous group of people when in power as they will trade liberty and private property rights for their plus 1 issue. The classic case is when Ronald Reagan argued for free markets and was a self professed reader of Mises and then increased the defense budget and increased taxes on Social Security.
Nope. In fact there is a movement within libertarianism that seeks to integrate (or re-integrate) the libertarian struggle against state oppression with the traditionally left-wing struggle against non-state oppression: left-libertarianism.
Here's some links to check out:
The Left Lane of Liberty
Why We Fight (the Power)
Culture and Liberty
Interview with Roderick Long
Framing Left Libertarianism: A First Pass
AnalyticalAnarchism.net - The Positive Political Economy of Anarchism
Sage: 0069twiggy:I was just wondering if my counter-cultureish values are at odds with libertarianism. Nope. In fact there is a movement within libertarianism that seeks to integrate (or re-integrate) the libertarian struggle against state oppression with the traditionally left-wing struggle against non-state oppression: left-libertarianism.
Also twiggy, there are important reasons to be wary of left-libertarianism.
You can be a cultural anything and be libertarian. Welcome!
Lilburne:Also twiggy, there are important reasons to be wary of left-libertarianism.
I think that Mill is more of a precursor of progressive liberalism more then left-libertarianism.
Laughing Man: Lilburne:Also twiggy, there are important reasons to be wary of left-libertarianism. I think that Mill is more of a precursor of progressive liberalism more then left-libertarianism.
I view him as the precursor to both. I think libertarians put more emphasis on his On Liberty and progressives on his Utilitarianism. Since he wasn't as consistent as modern libertarians, it is no wonder that people can draw different conclusions from his work.
Half of this forum is a "culture war," and your side is certainly well represented. Most people on either side, though, don't want to exclude anything not-unvoluntaristic; the disagreement is more about whether or not the opposing culture is conducive to, or able to survive in a libertarian society.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
I really don't understand you're question.... Of course if you believe in the idea of total liberty, then you are at liberty to do whatever you want so long as it doesn't violate the NAP. Many Libertarians are socially conservative, but the point is it is your choice, so long as you don't interfere with the choices and property of others then you're viewpoint can NEVER be at odds with libertarianism
Juan:While they may be in favor of individual freedom to a point, they seem to be more interested in being 'free' to create a nice hierarchical society controlled by the 'will of god' (as interpreted by the authorities of the church...).
If it is voluntary and consensual, why would you oppose it?
Juan: ignored.
It is convenient to ignore the inconsistencies in our arguments. Thanks for making my point. Your position is not libertarian.
Juan:Sorry sonny. What is not libertarian is theocracy.
If people consent to it and the NAP isn't violated, what would be wrong with it?
of course theocracy isnt libertarian, since it is a state (non libertarian) run on religious lines.
you are using theocratic as a slur against religious groups be they statist or anti-state. therefore If you mean it to be taken literally then you mean to be wrong.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Giant_Joe:If people consent to it and the NAP isn't violated, what would be wrong with it?
That is the question Juan will not answer.
liberty student: If it is voluntary and consensual, why would you oppose it?
If it is immoral, of course. Which would include things that are collectivist in nature i.e. religion.
Eioul:If it is immoral, of course.
If it is voluntary, how can it be immoral?
Eioul:Which would include things that are collectivist in nature i.e. religion.
So you don't believe people have a right to consensually form collectives?
Nir:of course theocracy isnt libertarian, since it is a state (non libertarian) run on religious lines.
you are using theocratic as a slur against religious groups
Juan:I already answered all your questions on the matter sonny.
No, you haven't. You're still dodging providing an answer.
After 18 months of your attacks subtle and obvious on the people who run LvMI, I think today is as good a day as any to bring this to a conclusion.
No, you haven't.
Juan:No, you haven't. Yes I have. Go read some previous thread. In case you or other 'mod' didn't delete it.
Still dodging an answer. And I don't blame you. I would also be embarassed to be called out on being opposed to spiritual freedom after getting away with such unlibertarian opinions for so long.
Juan:Rather, if you are for spiritual freedom you'd never support revealed religion...
Why not? I'd like to find out what the contradiction is here.
liberty student: If it is voluntary, how can it be immoral?
Any collective is anti-individual.
Oh anyone certainly has the right to consensually form collectives, because they have not initiated force. But just because you don't initiate force does not mean you are a moral person. It simply means no one has the right to do anything to you forcibly.
Eioul:Any collective is anti-individual.
You didn't answer my question. How can something voluntary be immoral?
Eioul:But just because you don't initiate force does not mean you are a moral person. It simply means no one has the right to do anything to you forcibly.
If you believe this, then you have refuted your own claim about immorality. Which is it?
Juan: LS, if making things up makes you feel better, go for it. I don't blame you.
Sure you blame me. You've never taken responsiblity for anything you do since I have known you. But really, what have I made up? I am simply asking you questions, and you are equivocating or dodging. Your inability to answer a question is in no way linked to my dishonesty, but rather your own.
Juan:But in reality, denouncing religious fraud has nothing to do with opposing 'spiritual freedom'.
You know that was never the question.
Actually, if I was for spiritual freedom, I would support anything that is consistent with libertarianism, including revealed religion if practiced voluntarily. And I do that, even when I disagree with someone's spiritual beliefs, I am tolerant of their right to their own voluntary associations.
Here are the questions you are still trying to avoid by attacking offtopic subjects,
liberty student:If it is voluntary and consensual, why would you oppose it?
What is your answer Juan? Or will you have to resort to more ad hom and strawmen?
Juan:Religious fraud is the opposite of free minds and free thinking.
Are you saying that the Christians who run LvMI don't have free minds or free thinking?
Juan:Anyway, this is the sort of thing that the 'libertarian' theocrats advocate : http://www.bkmarcus.com/blog/2005/07/does-gary-north-want-to-stone.html http://reason.com/archives/1998/11/01/invitation-to-a-stoning
Ah yes, your famous links. When did you email me those? A year ago? Those two links get a lot of mileage with you. Are we supposed to believe that Gary North speaks for all libertarians or Austrians? What happened to methodological individualism?
Juan:People in this site also like to pretend that the catholic church which has been a supranational state for more than 1500 years is some sort 'libertarian' institution...
Who? Name names please.
liberty student: I'll be more specific; what is moral is to act in your self-interest, rationally. Collectivism is not in an individual's self-interest, and in fact is entirely irrational.
I'll be more specific; what is moral is to act in your self-interest, rationally. Collectivism is not in an individual's self-interest, and in fact is entirely irrational.
I'm not sure I follow how that refutes anything. Initiating force happens to be immoral, since it violates a persons rights. But the only reason I would say that initiating force should be illegal is because it is a violatiion of rights, not because it is immoral. In a practical sense we agree, but where we differ is our moral reasoning.