Rand Paul

[Ryantology]

That was my point! You said "They were never liberal, never wanted to be."

The Libertarian movement evolved out of the classical liberal movement, after liberal started to mean something else. Libertarians were at one point the very definition of "liberal".

True enough, but that was back so long ago - who cares? Today's libertarians find modern liberalism repellent. They have no use for social welfare programs, they just want no regulations, no taxes, privatize everything and if you don't make it on your own, too bad.

I think that probably more accurately describes anarcho-capitalism. Many libertarians allow for limited forms of everything above.

[Tiberius]

True enough, but that was back so long ago - who cares? Today's libertarians find modern liberalism repellent. They have no use for social welfare programs, they just want no regulations, no taxes, privatize everything and if you don't make it on your own, too bad.

I'm a Libertarian and I don't think this at all. Neither do any of the Libertarians in other forums I frequent.

I think that probably more accurately describes anarcho-capitalism. Many libertarians allow for limited forms of everything above.

Well said.

[Raven]

Many is not all, and I've yet to meet any that do advocate even limited forms of regs, social safety-net, etc. I don't doubt what you are telling me, but such has not been the case in my personal experience.

[Ryantology]

I can't say anything of your experiences. I do know that, in discussions with Tiberius in the past, he has favored a flat tax, which would ostensibly be used to provide social services of some variety.

I have also encountered a fair number of libertarians who have anarcho-capitalist viewpoints, I don't really think they're entirely exclusionary. But, I've met more who favor a reduction in government to some greater or lesser extent, rather than complete elimination.

[Tiberius]

The Libertarian position depends on a government being there, just one that is as non-intrusive as possible into the lives of its citizens. Libertarians who do not want any level of government should call themselves a type of anarchist instead.

For the record, I support a fair tax for everyone, minimal regulation (but not completely eradicated), a large degree of privatization (except for things concerning national defense and justice...i.e. courts, prisons, the police), and I'm fine with some level of social welfare as long as there are proper rules in place to restrict welfare fraud.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think that national defense would be much better handled by private interests, personally. So would justice. Privatization and competition can only increase the quality of the service, amiright...and don't we want the highest quality service from both defense and justice?

[Raven]

The Libertarian position depends on a government being there, just one that is as non-intrusive as possible into the lives of its citizens. Libertarians who do not want any level of government should call themselves a type of anarchist instead.

For the record, I support a fair tax for everyone, minimal regulation (but not completely eradicated), a large degree of privatization (except for things concerning national defense and justice...i.e. courts, prisons, the police), and I'm fine with some level of social welfare as long as there are proper rules in place to restrict welfare fraud.

Thanks for laying your cards on the table. In my case, I was one of the founding members of the Democratic Socialist Party chapter at college. Obviously that puts us on opposite sides, which keeps things from getting boring. FWIW I doubt that any of the Libertarians I am personally acquainted with would go for being labeled any kind of anarchist. They'd consider it an insult. Can't see why, myself. After all, it fits the definition of anarchy, doesn't it? But these guys consider anarchism to be radical left wing political philosophy, no better than my socialist leanings. Oh, well.

For me, the whole purpose of government is to take care of the citizenry, social welfare is it's primary purpose. If it can't manage that, what good is it?

[The Grand Nudger]

No good at all. Private interests will take care of themselves, if they can't, fuck em. No free lunches!

[Ryantology]

I think that national defense would be much better handled by private interests, personally. So would justice. Privatization and competition can only increase the quality of the service, amiright...and don't we want the highest quality service from both defense and justice?

If we have private armies, what is to stop them from fighting each other if there are buyers willing to make it happen?

If we have a private justice system, what's to stop the proprietors from becoming the law themselves, de facto?

[The Grand Nudger]

Haven't taken a close look at the history of the US -Army- Air Force eh? We do have private armies. They just get public finding, lol.

If we have a private justice system, what's to stop the proprietors from becoming the law themselves, de facto?

Competition, of course. Others can deliver justice ,more efficiently, at a lower cost, to a broader base.