[JakeLibertarian]

Libertarian Principals are briefly as such, taking Government out of areas it does not belong, people's personal lives and individual choices for a start, this would mean firstly, deregulating everything that you can do that does not directly affect those around you, so it's up to you to take responsibility for yourself, people argue that if you deregulate drugs for example, everyone would start doing drugs, I personally believe this is false as drugs are easy to obtain and if you decided to do them you would, whether it be legal or not, secondly a non-intervention foreign policy, not to be confused with Isolationism, this foreign policy would result in an end to us feeding the Military Industrial Complex, stopping all abroad wars, and encouraging diplomacy and giving people less reason to hate us, this is not cutting our defence it's cutting our military spending not defence spending, we'd keep our nuclear weapons as a deterrent of war, and start trading with countries we've previously had issues with, and finally separating church from Government fully.
That's my short case for Libertarianism, I look forward to responses.

[Will Lucky]

You'll find there are quite a few Libertarians around here. I tend to agree with most Libertarian ideals but getting a successful Political party that actually implements these ideas doesn't look likely anytime soon.

[prog2djent]

Depends what type of libertarian you are.

If you are most likely between 16-24 and have been a libertarian for less than a year then the libertarian party, duh!

Other than that libertarians either do not vote, and would not vote for a libertarian party, or favour a revolution, libertarianism isn't just strictly contained within right wing social liberal minarchists.

[rich2606]

I get the impression that the Lib Dems would be a vaguely Libertarian Party if they weren't overrun with lots of ex-Labour rejects gaining prominent positions in the party and they didn't pander to the incorrect view of the general public that they are just like Labour in terms of ideology but with less *****.

So yeah once they stop doing that I could support them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ora...ing_Liberalism

[JacobW]

Nope. And the harm principle is just as absurd as it was in 1857. There are no totaly private actions: why should the length of a causal chain determine the legitimacy of intervention?

[Ocassus]

(Original post by JacobW)
Nope. And the harm principle is just as absurd as it was in 1857. There are no totaly private actions: why should the length of a causal chain determine the legitimacy of intervention?

Eh, yes there are.

Also, I am therefore I think?

What?

[Keckers]

As long as they weren't as woefully incompetent as the current UK libertarian party.

I'm almost certain the TSR Libertarian Party would do a better job as a real party than they would.

[JacobW]

(Original post by Ocassus)
Eh, yes there are.

Also, I am therefore I think?

What?

Name one.

And yeah, it denotes a causal relationship not a logical one; perhaps I should have used igitur but, let's be honest, it would have sounded ****e. I don't believe Descartes' argument to be sound and decided to make a pretentious joke about it.

[Ocassus]

(Original post by JacobW)
Name one.

And yeah, it denotes a causal relationship not a logical one; perhaps I should have used igitur but, let's be honest, it would have sounded ****e. I don't believe Descartes' argument to be sound and decided to make a pretentious joke about it.

No philosopher worth their salt believes Descartes argument to be totally sound. But it does make a good starting point when trying to address the various fundamental assumptions in Philosophy, how we go about them, clarify them and interpret them.

The thought/to think is arguably a totally private action.

I have thought of a great deal of what I believe to be 'random' things in the space of writing this post aside from the topic we are discussing. None of these thoughts have, to my knowledge, had any affect on the world around me.

[TheHansa]

Non-intervention FP makes good sense. Our military should be for protection of our oversees possessions such as the Falklands and an elite crack team for getting Brits abroad out of sticky situations. It's called the Ministry of Defence.

[AirRaven]

Christ on a bicycle, no.

There's more to freedom than simple lack of oppression- any party that takes no heed of the virtues of enablement as a means to greater freedom repulses me on a spectacular number of levels.

[milkytea]

Although I don't agree with most libertarians on foreign policy, and I also believe that the transition away from the public-sector based economy should be slow, so that people acclimatise - particularly during the recovery from the recession. However, I would probably vote for a sufficiently respectable and sizeable Libertarian Party if I could. Particularly one that was very socially liberal and supported legalising weed, for example.

[JacobW]

(Original post by Ocassus)
No philosopher worth their salt believes Descartes argument to be totally sound. But it does make a good starting point when trying to address the various fundamental assumptions in Philosophy, how we go about them, clarify them and interpret them.

Of course. I'd never deny Descartes' importance.

The thought/to think is arguably a totally private action.

I have thought of a great deal of what I believe to be 'random' things in the space of writing this post aside from the topic we are discussing. None of these thoughts have, to my knowledge, had any affect on the world around me.

I'm rather a fan of the behaviourist analysis of thinking; but even supposing it did take place in a private ontological realm, thoughts still appear to have effects on our public actions on thus on the world around us. Not every thought, I'll admit, but I can't think of any feature of thought that would signify its lack of external causal efficacy; so whilst we'd accept the existence of private actions, it would be an empty discovery since we'd have no criteria for the application of the harm principle and it could still (in theory, I'm not arguing for thought police and telescreens) be legitimate to regulate any and all thought.

[Ann Widdecombe]

Certainly not. State paternalism works, not state absenteeism. What so-called "libertarians" conveniently forget is that if it weren't for the government keeping people in check, a sizeable chunk of the populace would be swinging from lamp posts in their underwear and flinging their excrement at each other.

I'm sure you think a political system that lets you smoke cannabis and play violent video games all day is really cool, but that's exactly why it's never really caught on: the only demographic it really appeals to is adolescent boys who grasp onto the first ideology they come across without really thinking it through properly.

[TheHansa]

(Original post by Ann Widdecombe)
Certainly not. State paternalism works, not state absenteeism. What so-called "libertarians" conveniently forget is that if it weren't for the government keeping people in check, a sizeable chunk of the populace would be swinging from lamp posts in their underwear and flinging their excrement at each other.

I'm sure you think a political system that lets you smoke cannabis and play violent video games all day is really cool, but that's exactly why it's never really caught on: the only demographic it really appeals to is adolescent boys who grasp onto the first ideology they come across without really thinking it through properly.

You're really good at this

an that's not the only thing adolescent boys grab onto

[najinaji]

(Original post by Ann Widdecombe)
Certainly not. State paternalism works, not state absenteeism. What so-called "libertarians" conveniently forget is that if it weren't for the government keeping people in check, a sizeable chunk of the populace would be swinging from lamp posts in their underwear and flinging their excrement at each other.

I'm sure you think a political system that lets you smoke cannabis and play violent video games all day is really cool, but that's exactly why it's never really caught on: the only demographic it really appeals to is adolescent boys who grasp onto the first ideology they come across without really thinking it through properly.

I fear you have a point.

Libertarianism seems wonderful in theory, however, you have to factor in the existence of every other human being in society and then the idea somewhat falls down the toilet.

[The Hedonist]

(Original post by Ann Widdecombe)
Certainly not. State paternalism works, not state absenteeism. What so-called "libertarians" conveniently forget is that if it weren't for the government keeping people in check, a sizeable chunk of the populace would be swinging from lamp posts in their underwear and flinging their excrement at each other.

I'm sure you think a political system that lets you smoke cannabis and play violent video games all day is really cool, but that's exactly why it's never really caught on: the only demographic it really appeals to is adolescent boys who grasp onto the first ideology they come across without really thinking it through properly.

You think far too little of yourself and your fellow citizens, shame on you.

[Ann Widdecombe]

(Original post by najinaji)
I fear you have a point.

Libertarianism seems wonderful in theory, however, you have to factor in the existence of every other human being in society and then the idea somewhat falls down the toilet.

Precisely. Which is why its main proponents tend to be naive, idealistic teenagers who grow out of it in their mid twenties when they get a real job, and start to understand the real world. It's not just libertarianism, of course; other idealistic ideologies like anarchism, Marxism, etc are all the same in this respect.

[Ann Widdecombe]

(Original post by The Hedonist)
You think far too little of yourself and your fellow citizens, shame on you.

No, shame on you for being blinded by your own naiveté. Do you think the sort of scum who live on housing estates their whole life are suddenly going to become stock brokers and entrepreneurs when the libertarians come to power? No, they'll drink and take drugs and to pay for it all they'll turn to crime, because the state has put its teets away. The only way to deal with these people is to keep them as subdued and dependent on the state as possible. Once you start giving them free will, the law abiding and intelligent will suffer.

[prog2djent]

(Original post by Ann Widdecombe)
appeals to is adolescent boys who grasp onto the first ideology they come across without really thinking it through properly.

Socialism?