Talk:Libertarian Party (United States)

Earlier discussion

• /archive1

Famous individuals who support the part/ libertarianism

I don't know if this is appropriate on thus entry, but I recently stumbled upon a list of prominent individuals in the fields of entertainment and science that identify as Libertarians. Is this article-worthy information? The link is here: update: I added a small section regarding this.

Snake666 (talk) 23:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

50 state ballot access

In the year 2000 the LP did not gain 50 state ballot access. Harry Browne was not on the ballot in Arizona. See http://www.harrybrowne.org/2000/WillisCampaignReport.htm, about halfway down the page in the "Ballot Access Problems" section of the report. If nobody objects in the next few days, I'll change the page to reflect that.

Courteously, Tom —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.255.108.21 (talk) 02:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Can we update the 2008 ballot access? http://www.lp.org/ballot-access 68.58.152.238 (talk) 00:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)Talk

"Libertarian Views of Rights" vs. "Social Liberalism"

"Social liberalism" describes a belief system that most libertarians do not share. For instance, just in the first two paragraphs, it says "Social liberalism, as a branch of liberalism, contends that society must protect liberty and opportunity for all citizens." First the assertion that social liberalism is an offshoot of liberalism; then the assertion that society must protect "opportunity". Libertarians typically reject "liberalism" on its face; and would argue that society is under no obligation to protect "opportunity", at least not with government. In other words, libertarians would say that everyone has the right to *pursue* happiness, but there is no guarantee from government that they will achieve it.

The next paragraph begins "It has been a label used by progressive liberal parties in order to differentiate themselves from classical liberal parties...". This is an indication directly from real-life practitioners of "social liberalism" that in their opinion, classical liberals (viz. libertarians) are not their allies.

The last sentence of that paragraph is another example of the divergence of libertarians from social liberalism: "Social liberalism however sees a role for the State in providing positive liberty for individuals. They believe that lack of positive rights, such as economic opportunity, education, health-care, and so on can be considered to be threats to liberty." Most libertarians would have none of that.

I could go on citing the many reasons why libertarians cannot be "social liberals", but I think if a reasonable person were to read the article, it should be fairly obvious why that "social liberal" tag simply doesn't apply to libertarians.

MarcMontoni (talk) 00:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The confusion arises from the fact that Libertarian political theory inherently assumes a low population density and Social Liberalism is what happens if population density increases above the critical point.

With low density population, the most basic voiced Libertarian assumption pretty much automatically applies: your neighbors failures do not affect you. For instance Libertarians assume your neighbor's house or business burning down is their problem; unlike the case of a large apartment building or crowded downtown where a neighbors failure can chain react quickly with your home or business.

Social Liberatarians attempt to preserve Libertarian values but recognize subconsciously that in high density populations, you cannot isolate yourself from your neighbors sufficiently to allow that absolute unregulated freedom...unless being included in randomly burnt out sections of society is acceptable. Unfortunately the inherent laziness of people inevitably leads to extensive compromises usually lots of regulation (yuck phewy) or a very powerful civil court with vague limitations (assumption of many wise informal judges and juries). Thus the controversy. "True" Libertarians consider these folk cowards for overvaluing human life.

Truly honest Libertarians will admit that they believe the world needs a dramatic world population decrease (100:1 or greater) to make Libertarian dreams come true. Except for a few Timothy McVeighs, most are not stupid enough to try to make that happen themselves. Most just assume some foreign or domestic terrorists will provide the favor in the near future.

Ask "true" Libertarians the burning home question and they cite looking to rent apartments built to self-contained bunker standards even if at a premium cost. But ask them what they would do if it is their personal money into construction and most honest ones say build it to normal standards, sell it condo style, and get out of the investment fast. Quandry you can only buy what is available so if you are not rich.... thus only voluntary cooperatives for shared facilities are needed. Cooperative efforts like fire fighting are not automatically successful as MOST of pre-1930s history shows; especially if most everyone is at distant workplaces when that apartment fire starts or vice versa. Contracts for emergency services would be especially vulnerable to buyer beware as one failure is sufficient to destroy a buyer's life if the contractee is overbooked, etc.69.23.124.142 (talk) 06:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

open borders?

I have removed the section in the first paragraph stating that libertarians stand for "minimal" regulation of migration across borders. Im sure some libertarians do believe in this, however several libertarian politicians including the current one, Bob Barr are actually asking for much more border security than either Republicans or Democrats. Its just not consistent enough of a stance to list as an integral libertarian value. Perhaps a section can be added elsewhere in the article to elaborate on this change within the party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.246.208.41 (talk) 08:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Please read the entire paragraph. The section was reviewing what is in the party's *platform*, not necessarily what individual members or candidates think. MarcMontoni (talk) 05:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Website

Is the website down or something? It hasn't worked for me for weeks. 75.80.139.24 (talk) 18:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

An outsider questions why the Party's ideology is listed as "Libertarianism" and "Non-interventionism"...

I'm writing from Australia, so this may reflect one of those cross-Pacific misunderstandings, but I notice that the Information Box on this page states that the Libertarian Party's ideology is "Libertarianism" and "Non-interventionism". I then go to (its 2008 Presidential nominee) Bob Jarr's page and find that in his Congress positions he has been the exact opposite of "libertarian" on drug law enforcement, same-sex marriage, 'terrorism' and religious freedom (re the practice of Wicca). It seems to me that if the Party's Presidential nominee is at all reflective or representative of the Party's ideological position(s), then the Libertarian Party's ideology is a mixture of "Conservatism" and "Neo-liberalism".

Where am I getting this wrong? Is it that Jarr does not in fact represent the views of the majority of Party members? If I'm not wrong, I suggest that the Information Box be changed to reflect a broader sense of reality than that which is held by the LP itself.

Wikipedia isn't really the place to get into a long discussion about this, but in short, Barr has changed his mind and changed parties. He used to be a Republican when he had those ideas, and he has said many times since then that he was wrong. This all came out mostly when he first joined the Libertarian Party. He has worked against the Patriot Act, the drug war, encroachments on civil liberties, etc. since joining the Libertarian Party. Those previous issue positions of his do not reflect what the Libertarian Party thinks, nor, according to Bob Barr, what he thinks now.--Gloriamarie (talk) 02:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

He has come along in a more libertarian direction which is the goal that all libertarians pursue. He hadn't come far enough according to many people, but he got the nomination, did a good enough job, and that's the story Carol Moore 00:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, a non-radical libertarianism is inherently self-contradictory. When is the use of force OK and when is it not? A moderate campaign fails to provide a satisfactory answer. His shortcomings have been adequately documented here. Lightning Thundercat (talk) 04:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Libertarian Youth Caucus?

I can't find any information on this other than its listing on thi artic;e. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.175.36.113 (talk) 21:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Bob Barr

Are sexual & religious freedom really on the official party platform? Bob Barr authored the Defense of Marriage Act and tried to get Wicca banned from the military. We also have self-identified libertarian right-wing talk show hosts that are vehemently anti-gay and anti-non-christian. We must also check Bob Barr's voting record on drug issues. In comparison, Bob Barr was instrumental in getting the sunset clause inserted into the Patriot Act and has opposed some foreign interventions.

We're seeing here that academics espousing the libertarian philosophy deduce one set of social corollaries from their philosophy, while average practicing libertarians simply don't often agree. In practice, average right-wing people identify themselves as libertarians merely because they don't support Republican military adventures, wire tapping, etc.

I'd suggest reordering the list with the obvious core libertarian issues first, but issues like gay rights and religious freedoms need to be treated like abortion, with some acknowledgment that many members and major figures don't support the academic sides official stances.

Btw, I suspect you want to handle intellectual property and capital punishment similarly, state the official position but acknowledge descent. You don't even admit the official position presently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.139.146.153 (talk) 07:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Libertarian Party and the Word Libertarianism

Moved from my talk page to where more relevant, here: C.M. I see that you've undid my edit to the Libertarianism page on the section of internal debate. I do not see the relevancy in the statement, "Another debate was created by Mike Hihn's claim the term Libertarianism has been used by anarchists longer than by statist minarchists.[29]" My addition change that from a claim to a fact, since insinuating that such a remark is little more than a claim isn't quite accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnarchistAssassin (talk • contribs) 16:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Libertarianism article clearly shows a first use by someone else than who you put up there in this diff showing edit. Looks like what Mike Hihn said was part of that debate. Trying to prove or disprove it probably would be WP:original research, but maybe not. However both the 18th century use the libertarianism article says is first and the one you mention do both prove his point. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd say this is appropriate for the Libertarianism article, but doesn't seem very relevant to the Libertarian Party. I'd have an early section on how the party's views diverge from the philosophy, which is quite radically really. Wouldn't that attract enough attention that people would read the philosophy's article too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.139.146.153 (talk) 18:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, sure, the statement is a little bit involved, but maybe the statement about Hihn should be changed a little bit to something more compact. Instead of stating that "Mike Hihn's claim the term Libertarianism has been used by anarchists longer than by statist minarchists," we might say, "Mike Hihn pointed to the fact that the term was developed and originated from Anarchists," rather than the claim. The point isn't necessarily revelant to the Libertarian Party, but it is somewhat relevant to the way that statement was original phrased, which was in a section about the debate over the origin and use of the word "libertarian." —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnarchistAssassin (talk • contribs) 19:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

What matters is what the source says, not what an editor wants it to say. Twisting things to the way you want them to appear is what is called WP:original research and is a wikipedia No No. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

primary or secondary sources

Reading this piece it sounds more of a blog then a encyclopedia entry. Also in rules of referencing or citation you can't use blogs and opinion pieces as verification. When one blogger says an opinion you can't use the words "many' or "most". It is simply one persons opinion. When reading through Britanica you will not find opinion pieces used a primary or secondary sources.

Dave Brady 3/11/09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brvynky (talk • contribs) 21:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Opening segment really necessary?

I don't think it's appropriate to have, quite literally, all the tenants of the Libertarian Party stated as if copied directly from someone's website. ekedolphin (talk) 09:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. In addition, there were numerous editorializing changes made to the actual text. Unless some good reasons are given in the next few days for keeping it as-is, it should be reverted to the previous "summary".MarcMontoni (talk) 03:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)