www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall What stance do the Libertarians have on social issues

This upcoming election will be the first presidential election that I am able to vote in, and wanted to know what the Libertarians hold in regards to social issues.

There are many different breeds of libertarians.

Some would be morally relativistic, and allow each to pursue his own ends. I was at a conservative convention with that kind of "libertarian", but it may have been to their youth more than a claimed politic. The students had wild parties and were always looking for a "hook up". The organization, by the time I joined the convention at Georgetown, had already been banned from every other university in Washington D.C.. Then one of the parties got a little wild and drunken libertarians started throwing chairs around and, breaking a widow, started jumping out of the third floor window (there was a flat on the second floor). Many of those who lived a wild life professed to be libertarians and, even if privately pro-life would support a right to abortion for example.

Other libertarians are morally conservative and have a more local vision of how the power is distributed between the federal and state governments. The libertarians I've met with these views tend to grudgingly vote Republican and then complain of all the wasteful spending in Washington.

I don't speak for libertarians, but perhaps no one can. They are an eccentric bunch. You will find libertarians on both sides of every socal issue.

It is true that there are many different breeds of libertarians, but basically Libertarians argue that we need less government and more individual liberties. They argue that one should be able to do what one wants, as long as it's not harming anyone else.

I guess here are the issues, and here is what they (I am a libertarian Republican, so sometimes I'll put I or they and inject some personal opinion, just easier for me to write that way) believe:

Drugs: Legalize them, or at least stop the war on drugs. The war on drugs is costing us billions of dollars, choking our prisons, and drive up crime due to the black market prices being so high.

Abortion: It's probably split about 50/50 between libertarians on this. One side says individual liberty starts at conception and should be protected, the other side says that it starts later and abortion is a choice. Ron Paul is pro-life.

Marriage: Government should not be involved in marriage.

Foreign Policy: Withdraw all foreign bases. No preemptive wars. Basically most libertarians envision a model of defense and foreign policy that the Swiss have.

Fiscally: Our country is headed for financial ruin. Reign in spending; abolish many bureaucratic wings of the government. Abolish the federal income tax (our nation has survived most of its life without a federal income tax). Abolish the department of education. Abolish and/or merge the FBI/CIA/NSA/Department of Homeland Security (Merge with the military or abolish and have military take care of those functions deemed necessary). Put welfare programs back in the hands of churches and charities.


That's the issues I can think of off of the top of my head. Basically, I think the founding fathers, while many were not ideal Christians, had the right idea in personal liberties playing a key role. I envision a country where the church plays a much larger role in caring for the poor, disabled, disadvantaged and even for the education of the youth.

Anyways, if I missed any issues you were wondering about, fire away.

"Society is produced by our wants, and government by wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices." Thomas Paine

Foreign policy, yeah, that is one place where I've seen agreement. I've seen disagreement on abortion, euthanasia, and with drugs. Not all libertarians push to legalize drugs and some I've seen qualify their statements of freedom by saying that "some" regulation is needed.

Terry

Wow, interesting. I've never seen this, but I'm not doubting that college age libertarians would get drunk, try to hook up, and get out of control, as I think that's common among that age group. What was the organization called?



We do tend to draw some wackos, just as the Republicans draw racists KKK members, and the Democrats draw militant atheists and hippies. I'll be honest and tell you the eccentrics that are drawn to the libertarian beliefs are 9/11 truthers, people preparing for the end of the world, and many other people that are prone to numerous conspiracies. I assure you however, that most people are sane, normal people that just as the founding fathers did, believe in less government and more personal liberties.

You bring up good points, but I think there are disagreements in those areas in all political parites. I think the vast majority believe in some regulation, or they would be anarchists (a lot of anarchists to claim the libertarian title as well). Even the founding fathers believed government was a "necessary evil", but wanted to limit it.

I would say in my opinion the majority of libertarians want to either legalize or not prosecute marijuana users, and there would be disagreement on prosecuting the harder drugs.

Terry brings up a valid point that libertarian beliefs can vary on different issues. If you're thinking of voting for a member of the Libertarian Party, I'd look at the party platform and the members stance on issues.

If you're thinking about Ron Paul. Check out his site, he lays out his views on his website pretty well.

Feel free to PM me if desired.

Is there cohesion among libertarians? Have you read Hayek's work on liberty (I think "Constitution of Liberty", but I can't verify that right now...this computer is acting up) which Margaret Thatcher would give people if they asked 'what do you believe'?

No, I haven't read that, I should check it out. My argument would be that libertarians have as much cohesion as the Republicans and Democrats do. You have prolife Democrats, prochoice Republicans, Republicans who want to kill all Muslims, Republicans who want to get out of the Middle East, Democrats like Dennis Kucinich v. Democrats like Hillary Clinton, etc.

While I'm sympathetic to the basic impulse of libertarians to preserve freedom and to limit the role of government, in my opinion, libertarianism itself (at least when taken to its logical conclusions) is incompatible with Catholic teaching concerning the obligatations of the state with respect to securing the common good, promoting justice, and protecting the poor.

Ryan

I would argue that it is society�s role (voluntary giving), not the government's role (as government uses force) to provide for the downtrodden. But last time we debated church teachings v. libertarianism, I found out I am in no position to argue what the church teachings are (as much more educated people in church teachings humbled me in the discussion!).

That discussion did make me wonder if everyone who pays taxes is in fact doing a good deed even though they did it because they didn�t want to get shot or go to prison, not to help their fellow man.

The organization was Young American Foundation. YAF has a goal of drawing in a lot of college age political activists to shape them into conservatives(they had very interesting speakers). Only a minority of them were wild, but a few of those were in the group I came up with. At the time I just attributed it to a poor spiritual foundation--I had been to conventions populated by Christians for spiritual ends, and the atmosphere is very different.

They called themselves "libertarian" but I only mention that they are because they say so and because they would support more of a constitutional view of the limits of the federal government when sober.

Nathan:

I would agree with you to the extent that you argue that it is better for matters of the social welfare to be taken up by church's, private charitable organizations, charitable individuals/families, etc. When needs are addressed in this manner, solidarity among peoples (which is a basic tenet of Catholic social teaching) is being cultivated in a way that is not at all likely to happen (indeed, I'm virtually positive that it won't happen at all in this way) when being addressed through the intervention of the government. Furthermore, to the extent that government action is necessitated by societal needs, it should begin at the lowest levels, and extend to higher levels only when the lower levels are unable or refuse to fulfill their obligations. It is unfortunate that we are so far removed from this reality. In order for us to get to where we need to be, we must "unlearn what (we) have learned." We need to educate ourselves as to Church teaching and we need better discipline and immersion into Church teaching concerning care for the poor and proper stewardship of God's gifts.

Ryan

Good points Ryan. I don't think I would advocate immediatly doing away with all government social welfare. Actually, now that I think about it, I know I wouldn't. Too many people are dependant (especially just stopping social security would be very, very bad). I would advocate a gradual approach.

I'd write more, but I'm falling behind on my work!

I've been a Ron Paul supporter for several years, and while I agree with the Libertarian position probably 90 pct of the time, the one area where I typically disagree is on the matter of Free Trade. I believe in Economic Nationalism and therefore support high tariffs in order to stop foreign industry from displacing American workers.

As for what kind of people are attracted to Libertarian principles, I'd say it's just alot of people who are sick and tired of an increasingly parasitic tax system who believe the roof over their own heads is more important than the roof over the school down the street.