Paul: 'Libertarian' isn't 'libertine'

[Natural Citizen]

This is an old report but the principle is timeless. So I share it here. It's important to acknowledge that Libertinism is not Libertarian. An understanding of the difference is imperitive for a better understanding of Liberty itself.

'To many of us libertarian means freedom and liberty,' Paul says.

“‘Libertarian’ …doesn’t mean ‘libertine,’” he said. “To many of us libertarian means freedom and liberty. But we also see that freedom needs tradition.”

He added: “I don’t see libertarianism as, you can do whatever you want. There is a role for government, there’s a role for family, there’s a role for marriage, there’s a role for the protection of life.”

Paul stressed that the value of marriage is economic, as well as “moral” and “religious,” and that those virtues can be communicated through families and communities as well as through the government.

Continued - Paul: 'Libertarian' isn't 'libertine'

[robert68]

Some (ahem) have called it an "albatross" they don't want to have around there neck.

[Natural Citizen]

Some (ahem) have called it an "albatross" they don't want to have around there neck.

Well. He doesn't claim to be a libertarian. In fact, he specifically states that he isn't a libertarian. So his rejection of the label makes sense. Why would he accept labels from other people when they don't reflect his views? Would you not agree? Seems like an honest statement to me. I appreciate honesty.

[euphemia]

But the Libertarian party is full of libertines. That's why they have one as their candidate for President.

[Natural Citizen]

But the Libertarian party is full of libertines. That's why they have one as their candidate for President.

True. I'm more concerned with the movement, though. Especially given the extent of digital activism. Libertinism, unfortunately, is being promoted in a way that creates the illusion that it is consistent with the principles of Individual Liberty. It's being promoted under the banner of Liberty, no less. The libertine view is, of course, contrary to the foundation for moral code that establish the fundamental principles of Individual Liberty itself. So this is a problem. It's essentially coercion.

Education is critical. As is the insertion of counter-points when the phenomenon is observed.

Of course, pride sometimes gets in the way of wanting to learn or acknowledge. Will likely serve as an obstacle to education. But even a presence of the fundamental truth within discussion where libertinism is being pawned off as libertatianism is essential.

[robert68]

Well. He doesn't claim to be a libertarian. In fact, he specifically states that he isn't a libertarian. So his rejection of the label makes sense. Why would he accept labels from other people when they don't reflect his views? Would you not agree? Seems like an honest statement to me. I appreciate honesty.

He's deviated from libertarian principle in ways beyond opposing the idea "you can do whatever you want". Also, his father calls himself a libertarian and isn't perceived as a libertine.

But the Libertarian party is full of libertines. That's why they have one as their candidate for President.

Gary Johnson isn't a libertarian.

[Natural Citizen]

He's deviated from libertarian principle in ways beyond opposing the idea "you can do whatever you want". Also, his father calls himself a libertarian and isn't perceived as a libertine.

Well. As I'd mentioned, I'm more concerned with the shortcoming within the movement.

In terms of Paul, I believe that his statements there in the op are spot on. Do you agree or disagree? That's the discussion I'd like to have.

Do you agree that Libertarian doesn't mean libertine? Do you agree that the libertine view is contrary to the moral foundation for the principles of Individual Liberty?

[specsaregood]

Well. As I'd mentioned, I'm more concerned with the shortcoming within the movement.

In terms of Paul, I believe that his statements there in the op are spot on. Do you agree or disagree? That's the discussion I'd like to have.

Do you agree that Libertarian doesn't mean libertine?

For a so called "movement" that is supposed to be about individuality, it has always seemed strangely obsessed with labels, their definitions and applying them to others.

[Natural Citizen]

For a so called "movement" that is supposed to be about individuality, it has always seemed strangely obsessed with labels, their definitions and applying them to others.

I think it is important in terms of outcome that a movement in Liberty, that defines its function as one that promotes the fundamental principles of Individual Liberty, share the same intent in Liberty. Would you agree with that, specs?

[specsaregood]

I think it is important in terms of outcome that a movement in Liberty, that defines its function as one that promotes the fundamental principles of Individual Liberty, share the same intent in Liberty. Would you agree with that, specs?

I would disagree on the existence of such a movement.

[Natural Citizen]

I would disagree on the existence of such a movement.

Why? Do you think that a Liberty movement is collectivist and that a Liberty movement should not be equally libertarian in principle and moral foundation? Do you disagree that a Liberty movement should share equal intent upon its outcome based on true Liberty's fundamental principles and moral foundation? Surely you must agree that Liberty's fundamental principles and moral foundation must be accepted or rejected in whole in order to legitimately claim its benefit. Its fundamental principles and moral foundation must be accepted as an indivisible whole. They cannot be rejected or accepted piece-meal. That's what I meant when I said that a movement for true Liberty must share the same intent. Perhaps you misunderstood what I was saying. While I understand your distaste for "labels", the fact of the matter is that philosophies that differ have names. To adhere to Liberty's moral foundation and fundamental principles as an Indivisibe whole aligns with true libertarianism. To reject Individual liberty's moral foundation is libertine.

[specsaregood]

Why? Do you think that a Liberty movement is collectivist and that a Liberty movement should not be equally libertarian in principle and equally intent upon its outcome based on its fundamental principles? Surely you must agree that Liberty's fundamental principles must be accepted or rejected in whole. They cannot be rejected or accepted piece-meal. In order to claim its benefot, it's fundamental principles must be accepted as an indivisible whole.

I just think that no such movement exists and doubt it ever will.

[Natural Citizen]

I just think that no such movement exists and doubt it ever will.

Oh, I see. I agree with you.

I can't fault you for being realist, specs.

I do think the major malfunction within the movement, though, is that libertines are abundant and they think they're libertarians when they're not. And the shortcoming leads them to forward the wrong message in Liberty and ultimately at its expense. It's counterintuitive in scope.

[hells_unicorn]

Gary Johnson isn't a libertarian.

Nope, but he is a libertine, or at least he has been since he began campaigning this election style. To be fair, he is far less of a libertine than some of the clown-show I saw at this year's Libertarian Party convention. I never felt so bad for being associated with that party in the past as I did when that idiotic display was blasting on C-span.

[robert68]

Well. As I'd mentioned, I'm more concerned with the shortcoming within the movement.

In terms of Paul, I believe that his statements there in the op are spot on. Do you agree or disagree? That's the discussion I'd like to have.

Do you agree that Libertarian doesn't mean libertine? Do you agree that the libertine view is contrary to the moral foundation for the principles of Individual Liberty?

Certainly. Doing "what you want” can’t be aggression, threatening aggression, or fraud and be libertarian. Put another way, doing "what you want" can't alter or acquire another persons property without invitation.

[pcosmar]

One can be a libertarian without being libertine.

one can be a libertine and still be an authoritarian.

A libertarian can not be authoritarian,, as they are total opposite.

[otherone]

This is an old report but the principle is timeless. So I share it here. It's important to acknowledge that Libertinism is not Libertarian. An understanding of the difference is imperitive for a better understanding of Liberty itself.

what is this "better understanding of liberty"?

[phill4paul]

One can be a libertarian without being libertine.

one can be a libertine and still be an authoritarian.

A libertarian can not be authoritarian,, as they are total opposite.

One can be libertine in personal enjoyments and libertarian in political belief.

A libertarian can not be authoritarian, as they are a total opposite.

[pcosmar]

One can be libertine in personal enjoyments and libertarian in political belief.

A libertarian can not be authoritarian, as they are a total opposite.

True enough. and historically documented that one can be libertine and Authoritarian in political belief (and practice)

One could be very Spartan or Religious, and be libertarian in political belief. as opposed to authoritarians with similar views.

[phill4paul]

True enough. and historically documented that one can be libertine and Authoritarian in political belief (and practice)

One could be very Spartan or Religious, and be libertarian in political belief. as opposed to authoritarians with similar views.

Indeed. This is why I choose to affiliate as a libertarian. Although these days the brand is muddied. But, I recognize that others have beliefs that are different to mine. As long as we can agree that a government that will not enforce my beliefs on you or your beliefs on me then we are walking the same path.

[Natural Citizen]

Indeed. This is why I choose to affiliate as a libertarian. Although these days the brand is muddied. But, I recognize that others have beliefs that are different to mine. As long as we can agree that a government that will not enforce my beliefs on you or your beliefs on me then we are walking the same path.

Liberty in terms of our traditional philosophy of governance simply means Freedom from Government-over-Man. Or Liberty against Government-over-Man. So, I agree with that.

Would you agree that coercion of Man by Government is immoral?

[phill4paul]

Liberty in terms of our traditional philosophy of governance simply means Freedom from Government-over-Man. Or Liberty against Government-over-Man. So, I agree with that.

Would you agree that coercion of Man by Government is immoral?

Yes. I would.

[Natural Citizen]

Yes. I would.

Yeah, me too. Agreed. Man has a natural right to freedom from violation of his rights by others. As well, Individuals have a moral duty to respect the equal rights of others based on Natural Law (God's Law) on which Man's God-given, unalienable rights are based.

So we get into Individual Liberty and Responsibility there. Which, of course, are inseparable. An Indivisible whole so to speak.

[heavenlyboy34]

But the Libertarian party is full of libertines. That's why they have one as their candidate for President.

More wishy-washy conservatarian with libertine streaks.

[hells_unicorn]

More wishy-washy conservatarian with libertine streaks.

I'm sorry, but Gary Johnson is a dyed-in-the-wool libertine, the guy is more concerned about using government coercion to insure that sodomites get their faux wedding cakes made by Christian bakers than he does about the survival of western civilization. The people in the Libertarian Party might not be libertines, but the fact that they nominated Johnson after the stuff he said during the debates draws questions as to their intelligence.

[otherone]

I'm sorry, but Gary Johnson is a dyed-in-the-wool libertine, the guy is more concerned about using government coercion to insure that sodomites get their faux wedding cakes made by Christian bakers than he does about the survival of western civilization. The people in the Libertarian Party might not be libertines, but the fact that they nominated Johnson after the stuff he said during the debates draws questions as to their intelligence.

Or understanding of libertarianism.

If you don't mind, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "libertine", at least politically?

[euphemia]

From my point of view, a libertine is someone like Johnson who lacks a moral or political principle, who lives like it, and wants the government to support his right to do it.

Example 1: He likes pot and wants to legalize (not just decriminalize which would be the liberty position), and will personally profit if this happens.

Example 2: Says government should not sanction relationships, but would bring the full force of government to bear on private citizens whose deply held religious convictions will not celebrate some relationships.

[otherone]

From my point of view, a libertine is someone like Johnson who lacks a moral or political principle, who lives like it, and wants the government to support his right to do it.

Should the government enforce morality?

[euphemia]

Should the government enforce morality?

That would depend on whether you think robbery or murder are issues of morality.

You are missing my point. Gary Johnson has very few moral principles (maybe marital faithfulness is a point in his favor). His politics reflects that. He supports only certain liberties that he likes. Ron Paul is thoroughly principled man and his liberty thinking flows from his personal moral principles.

[Natural Citizen]

Should the government enforce morality?

Do you accept that Natural Law (God's Law) is the foundation for moral code that provides for the legitimacy of the fundamental principles of Individual Liberty?

If so, do you accept that the principles of Individual Liberty that are based on this foundation for moral code are also the foundation for proper Man-to-Man relations and ultimately proper Government-to-Man relations?