Are most people here Libertarian?

[Republicanguy]

Hi there

Are most people Libertarian when it concerns wars going on let's say, the Central African republic gets attacked by some of the rebel groups from Sudan to the East or the South the Congo, you would never want America to send a few thousand soldiers just for the sake of trying to A nation build or B just out of generouisty of trying to stop people from being killed there.

This is just an example I picked, since I have taken a little interest in the central country of Africa, totally gridlocked by countries that once exploited it, traders who happened to be muslim enslaved the people of this country from 1850 to the end of the century when France took over the territory. It becamse known as the CAR in 1958, and became independent from France in 1960. The country fell apart as the leading figure was killed in a plane crash in 1959. Failed civilian government to dictatorship.

On the good news, this country has never ever had ethnic strife similar to what you may find in countries like Kenya or the Congo or Where ever.

I personally think the country could work out so long as the leader of that country who was an ex general changes his attitude and the rest of those politicians.

How does a country like that with four million people, with so many problems there, health, education etc

How does this state that has an American embassy defend itself to prosperity. It relies on so many organisations for it's funds.

The military is only under 5,000 personal. The airforce is about seven aircraft, one funny as it sounds a 1950's US helicopter I think, possibly personally purchased by the Francois Bozize.

He was elected in 2005, but the 2010 elections were cancelled by him or the government altogether. Democracy can't happen there when most people need the basics.

I personally have adopted this Libertarian principle of non-intervention. :rolleyes: I am personally a pacifist to a point I suppose.:)

[johnrocks]

I'm registered Republican but people call me a libertarian, concerning foreign policy, I support the "trade with all, entangle with none" philosophy and the Taft F/P....


"Nor do I believe we can justify war by our natural desire to bring freedom to others throughout the world, although it is perfectly proper to encourage and promote freedom. In 1941 President Roosevelt announced that we were going to establish a moral order throughout the world: freedom of speech and expression, “everywhere in the world”; freedom to worship God “everywhere in the world”; freedom from want, and freedom from fear “everywhere in the world.” I pointed out then that the forcing of any special brand of freedom and democracy on a people, whether they want it or not, by the brute force of war will be a denial of those very democratic principles which we are striving to advance"
http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=37

[Sola_Fide]

http://www.allisonbooks.com/i_dont_understand_front_cov.jpg

[Bruno]

^ me too

[Republicanguy]

Oh, my example of the country I have mentioned was just an example, just muttering on, that's all.

Is that what's confusing about this thread?

[angelatc]

Republicans would never advise non-intervention.

[Republicanguy]

Well today, no. But America has it's interest everywhere, and I wouldn't be suprised if America had a base milies away from that country I've mentioned as an example.

The chinese are now investing there loads, even the Zambian election back in 2006 the chinese faced one person in Zambia who said he would stop the chinese from trying to get rich on his watch and affecting the safety of Zambian workers in mines. Guess who won? It certainly wasn't that guy. The chinese intefered in that country's democratic process by scaring people into thinking the country will be worse off with this guy instead of the current government at the time.

China and America are in a struggle for resources. We can't deny that.:rolleyes:

[lucius]

hell no...sovereign being here

[Mystical Nationalist]

Hi there

Are most people Libertarian when it concerns wars going on let's say, the Central African republic gets attacked by some of the rebel groups from Sudan to the East or the South the Congo, you would never want America to send a few thousand soldiers just for the sake of trying to A nation build or B just out of generouisty of trying to stop people from being killed there.

This is just an example I picked, since I have taken a little interest in the central country of Africa, totally gridlocked by countries that once exploited it, traders who happened to be muslim enslaved the people of this country from 1850 to the end of the century when France took over the territory. It becamse known as the CAR in 1958, and became independent from France in 1960. The country fell apart as the leading figure was killed in a plane crash in 1959. Failed civilian government to dictatorship.

On the good news, this country has never ever had ethnic strife similar to what you may find in countries like Kenya or the Congo or Where ever.

I personally think the country could work out so long as the leader of that country who was an ex general changes his attitude and the rest of those politicians.

How does a country like that with four million people, with so many problems there, health, education etc

How does this state that has an American embassy defend itself to prosperity. It relies on so many organisations for it's funds.

The military is only under 5,000 personal. The airforce is about seven aircraft, one funny as it sounds a 1950's US helicopter I think, possibly personally purchased by the Francois Bozize.

He was elected in 2005, but the 2010 elections were cancelled by him or the government altogether. Democracy can't happen there when most people need the basics.

I personally have adopted this Libertarian principle of non-intervention. :rolleyes: I am personally a pacifist to a point I suppose.:)



As much as I tremendously respect the LP, I no longer vote for Libertarian candidates - at least not at the federal level.

It's my view that ultimately culture - not merely politics - are what make or break a civilization.

I'm glad that the Libertarian Party helps advance the rights of the individual. I've also come to realize over the years that just as individuals have interests and wield influence, groups also have interests and exert influence - be they for better or for worse.

I guess you could say, as my name somewhat implies, that I am something of a Paleoconservative Nationalist. Some of my views are probably off the beaten path a bit here in this forum; however, I generally find far more common ground with Libertarians and Conservatives than with Liberals.

[bowen161]

Yes i would consider myself either a libertarian or as the guys from Free Talk Live have described, a neo-abolitionist.

As to your theoretical situtation to me the answer is that no tax dollars should be used to influence the politics of any region, especially not militarily. This however doesn't preclude intervention from NGO or that of private armies to help prevent the violence.

The problem of sending troops for humanitarian reasons is that the state is declaring a moral stance on a subject of the area. Morality is an individual choice not something that is determined by group action. Not to mention the practical facts that committing violence in the attempt to stop violence typically only creates more violence. Look at the Vietnam War, which was to stop the violence of communism, or the Iraq war that after a couple of other excuses was stated to be to stop the violence of Saddam Hussein

If you feel that these lives are precious enough to defend, then you raise the army of willing volunteers, which you pay. I might not agree with your choice, or your method, and you have no right to tax me or draft me to carry out a process that i might object to.

[klamath]

Non interventionist REPUBLICAN here.

[tekkierich]

libertarian Republican. Capitalization is important

[JoshLowry]

I'm anti-preemptive war. I don't know what that makes me.

[Agorism]

No government

[surf]

i'm a libertarian and so is Ron Paul. i was elected as a libertarian precinct committee officer a few times until they basically outlawed third parties in my state. since then i was appointed a republican precinct committee officer in 2007 and elected as such in 2008 and 2010. the reason that i am now considered a republican is to elect Ron Paul as our president in 2012.

does this answer your question?

i'm a pacifist as well and i would love to see all the murderous gov'ts around the world implode on themselves - if there neighbors helped out that's fine with me.

[BuddyRey]

I'm a very radical libertarian...a Voluntaryist really, but I choose to keep that on the DL for now, looking respectable and playing the Reagan Republican part until the philosophy is advanced to the point that I don't have to be stealthed anymore. That's how the Fabians took over the entire west and drove it toward authoritarianism, so I figure it's smart to adopt their tactics and use them to achieve the opposite aims; peaceful non-intervention, free enterprise, and individualism.

[Rifleman]

While I would love a non-interventionist foreign policy, at this point I'd just be happy if we actually declared wars, instead of giving the President broad authority.

[DamianTV]

Some people here will choose to accept labels bestowed upon them by others, some people here won't, but all of the people here are sick and tired of the enslavement of humanity.

[acptulsa]

libertarian Republican. Capitalization is important

Hey, Republicanguy, and welcome.

If you need a little explanation, we are careful around here to differentiate a libertarian idea, which is an idea that promotes individual liberty, from a Libertarian, who is a person who belongs to a third party. So, maybe you didn't ask the question you thought you asked.

And as for your example, suppose you were living in Texas and y'all decided to have a civil war down there. Suppose my home state of Oklahoma decided to intervene because we were having trouble sitting on our hands with a bloodbath underway. Well, we aren't Texans, are we? So, would our intervention be considered humanitarian and welcome, or would our interference be considered an attempt to meddle in internal Texas affairs and violate Texans' rights to be governed by people of your own choosing? In short, would we be their friends, or would we be much too nosy for our own good?

That's one point. The other is, despite what you're told most of our 'we've got to help them sort this out' wars over the years have had an ulterior motive that just wasn't talked about. And that's just as true today. Plug the phrase 'Afghan pipeline' into your search engine and prepare yourself for some not-so-tasty food for thought.

Oh, and in answer to your question, I was a Libertarian--registered independent--for twenty-seven years, and now that the Republican Party is showing some small interest in catering to a real conservative (who has thought deeply about what is worth conserving in this nation), I'm a libertarian Republican.

[pcosmar]

Howdy Republicanguy

I am an Angry American. An independent voter.
Though I have often voted (R) I have been continually disappointed with those I have voted for.
I suppose I lean to the conservative side of libertarian. Or to the old republican promises that were never kept.

I ain't getting any less angry as time goes on.
:(

[lester1/2jr]

fascist government agent masquerading as An Cap

[wormyguy]

I'm a libertarian. Political parties are irrelevant.

[LibertyEagle]

Republicans would never advise non-intervention.

They used to. Conservatives did anyway.

[heavenlyboy34]

I'm a very radical libertarian...a Voluntaryist really, but I choose to keep that on the DL for now, looking respectable and playing the Reagan Republican part until the philosophy is advanced to the point that I don't have to be stealthed anymore. That's how the Fabians took over the entire west and drove it toward authoritarianism, so I figure it's smart to adopt their tactics and use them to achieve the opposite aims; peaceful non-intervention, free enterprise, and individualism.

Nice to see more fellow Voluntaryists around here. I thought you were a Spoonerian anarchist, but oh, well! It's all good. :cool::D

[Philhelm]

Republicans would never advise non-intervention.

*cough* Ron Paul *cough*

[Rothbardian Girl]

I would most generally classify myself as an anarcho-capitalist, but I do happen to agree with RedStripe on a fair number of important points, so I don't really know what that makes me. I do try to hide it and play the Constitutionalist game, especially in my AP Gov class where I think I would end up scaring everyone if I revealed my true colors... (but this is becoming harder and harder especially now that we're talking about specific details regarding the Constitution) I can't bring myself to pretend to be a Reagan Republican. Only one person that I talk to knows about my anarcho-capitalist slant, and he's a good online friend of mine. Nobody I know in real life is interested in getting out of the left-right paradigm I suppose. Libertarians are unfortunately treated with a lot of disdain.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I would most generally classify myself as an anarcho-capitalist, but I do happen to agree with RedStripe on a fair number of important points, so I don't really know what that makes me. I do try to hide it and play the Constitutionalist game, especially in my AP Gov class where I think I would end up scaring everyone if I revealed my true colors... (but this is becoming harder and harder especially now that we're talking about specific details regarding the Constitution) I can't bring myself to pretend to be a Reagan Republican. Only one person that I talk to knows about my anarcho-capitalist slant, and he's a good online friend of mine. Nobody I know in real life is interested in getting out of the left-right paradigm I suppose. Libertarians are unfortunately treated with a lot of disdain.

That's why when you get older you need to move to where there are more people of your persuasion. There are quite a few An-Caps up here right now relative to most places, and that jumps even more in NH! The bigger the blob we become the bigger our influence. That is why NH is where it is at. Anyways, I wouldn't hide your true beliefs. With knowledge we win any argument we get ourselves into.

[georgiaboy]

red-blooded Republican here, the way Republicans are supposed to be and most grass-roots Republicans are, truth be told. Ron Paul gets it.

[heavenlyboy34]

red-blooded Republican here, the way Republicans are supposed to be and most grass-roots Republicans are, truth be told. Ron Paul gets it.

What's a "red-blooded Republican"? The definition of the R-word has changed so many times I lost track. :eek:

[anaconda]

I re registered Libertarian after registering Republican in 2007. If Ron runs I'm gonna have to re register as Republican again. I'm not educated on the Libertarian candidates for office. I simply check their respective boxes when I get into the voting booth. I have stopped voting for the lesser of two evils. I did it with John Kerry because I was stupid. I hope Fiorina beats Boxer, but I will not vote for either of them.

[BuddyRey]

Nice to see more fellow Voluntaryists around here. I thought you were a Spoonerian anarchist, but oh, well! It's all good. :cool::D

Oh, I do loves me some Spooner. He was the man in his day, along with Benjamin Tucker. The only subject upon which he and I would probably disagree is Labor Theory of Value vs. Subjective, but he's still my biggest philosophical hero, along with Murray Rothbard and, of course, Ron Paul, without whom I would have never even heard of the others. :)

[heavenlyboy34]

Oh, I do loves me some Spooner. He was the man in his day, along with Benjamin Tucker. The only subject upon which he and I would probably disagree is Labor Theory of Value vs. Subjective, but he's still my biggest philosophical hero, along with Murray Rothbard and, of course, Ron Paul, without whom I would have never even heard of the others. :)

Cool beans. :cool: It may be heresy around here, but Spooner strikes me as a more articulate defender of individual liberty than RP. JMHO.

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

Anarcho-capitalist/Voluntaryist here who prays for at least Minarchy to be implemented in his lifetime so that eventual dismantling of the State can begin. If it weren't so frakking cold, I might consider moving to New Hampshire (of course, I might do so anyway if things go well enough the coming year and I can secure a job up there).

[Rothbardian Girl]

That's why when you get older you need to move to where there are more people of your persuasion. There are quite a few An-Caps up here right now relative to most places, and that jumps even more in NH! The bigger the blob we become the bigger our influence. That is why NH is where it is at. Anyways, I wouldn't hide your true beliefs. With knowledge we win any argument we get ourselves into.

Thank you for the advice. I have started to speak up more in my class and I'm asking more challenging questions designed to try to get the people in my class to start questioning what adults have told them their entire lives. I can tell that my teacher is considerably neo-liberal, so she doesn't have much patience for my queries, but at least she lets me ask them.


Anarcho-capitalist/Voluntaryist here who prays for at least Minarchy to be implemented in his lifetime so that eventual dismantling of the State can begin. If it weren't so frakking cold, I might consider moving to New Hampshire (of course, I might do so anyway if things go well enough the coming year and I can secure a job up there).

Definitely agree with this. Minarchy isn't perfect to me by any means, but it would be a lot better of a situation than the current system.

[GreenLP]

Libertarian with a slight liberal slant. I oppose any military intervention, including pre-emptive strikes.

Giving our imperialist government the green light to order our military beyond our borders gives us what we have today, the US soldiers in so many countries around the world with US military bases in many.

Can you imagine a foreign military base in the US?

[Carl Corey]

I'm a hereditarian with a libertarian leaning.

My views on economics are fairly accurately described in IQ and the Wealth of Nations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations).

I probably have a more pessimistic view on things than most people here as it's my belief that the poor are a genetic group, and as such there is no social cure.

[RonPaulGetsIt]

Why would want to risk even one American life on a quarrel between two other nations?

If that life were your own or a loved one would it be worth it?

[heavenlyboy34]

I'm a hereditarian with a libertarian leaning.

My views on economics are fairly accurately described in IQ and the Wealth of Nations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations).

I probably have a more pessimistic view on things than most people here as it's my belief that the poor are a genetic group, and as such there is no social cure.

Does the author of that book take into account the fact that there is no universal agreement among psychologists on exactly what "intelligence" is or how to properly test it? :confused:

[Sola_Fide]

Cool beans. :cool: It may be heresy around here, but Spooner strikes me as a more articulate defender of individual liberty than RP. JMHO.



Spooner's No Treason threw a monkey wrench into everything I ever believed about politics.


I regard Spooner as one of the most articulate voices of Liberty in history.

[Carl Corey]

Does the author of that book take into account the fact that there is no universal agreement among psychologists on exactly what "intelligence" is or how to properly test it? :confused:
They're testing IQ, the most important aspect of human intelligence for individuals, which has an estimated heritability of 80% for adults.

And the mainstream science has a pretty universal agreement on the validity of IQ, its heritability, and its impact on everyday life. The mainstream media still spreads the liberal message of the 60s that intelligence is irrelevant, unmeasurable, non genetic, or all of the above.

[Republicanguy]

Hmm, okay so far a number of you tend to agree with not interfering military in other countries, as the example I gave.

Just to add, the Central African republic will be commiting about two hundred and fifty soldiers along with another three countries bordering it, to make up a 1000 personall force to go after the rebels that keep attacking small villages and people in each country.

The CAR cannot fund it's own mission, so South Africa will be helping with planning and implementing it out, and generally.

Just to add Uganda's new runway is being funded by Ireland so it can launch new fight jets purchased from Russia, 44 million Euros are going to it each year. As Kevin Myers a columnist, wrote in the Irish newspaper called, the Irish independent.

Ireland doesn't even have an airforce, and it's helping a poor country with having one.

How could the Depart of Foreign Affairs commit money like that a year, when it could spend that on its own people.

[FreeTraveler]

I'm an individual. Anybody farther down the road to freedom than the current regime I regard as a fellow traveler, as long as they're headed the same way I am.

When we get a government that acts like Republicans claim they want government to act, then we can talk about getting rid of the rest of it.