The 6 types of Libertarians, which are you?

Limited Government Libertarian

75 (28.3%)

Minarchist

50 (18.9%)

Free Market Retributionist

33 (12.5%)

Free Market Reparationist

45 (17%)

Self Defense Libertarian

35 (13.2%)

Pacifist

9 (3.4%)

None of the Above

18 (6.8%)

Total Members Voted: 81

[moar]

Because the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, States' rights, and laws about Congress officially declaring a war before fighting it are doing a wonderful job of limiting Federal power.

Ideally, you'd want absolute limits on government but not this wishy-washy "the constitution is a living document" interpretist nonsense that'd laughed out of a Sunday school if you tried it. But let's not forget the major reason why this happens: It's aided and abetted by people who want it to.

The "Congress officially declaring a war" part is silly though as it's hardly such a cut and dry issue. In fact, it's a pretty good argument towards my point.

That said, with Protection Agencies, you have a choice. The agency does not come to your house, impose its will upon you,and make you pay for its services "for your own good." That, I believe, is the heart of the matter.

I'm failing to see the dfference between having a "minority" agency and a minority party in government.

that is because you (like many others here) are under the false impression that beyond a certain point (Locke's proviso) force is NOT inherent in dominion over a specific territory even in the absence of any government.

Curses! We've been found out! Quick, to the Bourgeoismobile!

[rabidfurby]

Ideally, you'd want absolute limits on government but not this wishy-washy "the constitution is a living document" interpretist nonsense that'd laughed out of a Sunday school if you tried it. But let's not forget the major reason why this happens: It's aided and abetted by people who want it to.

The "Congress officially declaring a war" part is silly though as it's hardly such a cut and dry issue. In fact, it's a pretty good argument towards my point.

How do you intend to enforce these absolute limits on government? They can only be enforced by the people. Remember, the price of liberty is eternal vigilance.

In the scenario of 90% of the people wanting to tyrannize the other 10%, all the absolute limits on government you want won't stop the politicans from throwing the limits right out the window, with the consent of the majority of their constituents.

[moar]

How do you intend to enforce these absolute limits on government? They can only be enforced by the people. Remember, the price of liberty is eternal vigilance.

Seeing as the burden ultimately lies on the people, there is a limit (ha ha) to what you can do. I would say what's needed is a constitution that is explicitly worded agianst re-interpretation and judicial activism, and demands a literal plain text reading. Include a dictionary-like addendum defining all the terms used for legal purposes. The aim would be create a document that any citizen could read, take to court with them and win. If you keep it simple, then vigliance becomes a whole lot easier.

In the scenario of 90% of the people wanting to tyrannize the other 10%, all the absolute limits on government you want won't stop the politicans from throwing the limits right out the window, with the consent of the majority of their constituents.

The rule of law does. If you get past that point, then it doesn't matter whether you have a government or not.

[mbd]

I would say what's needed is a constitution that is explicitly worded agianst re-interpretation and judicial activism, and demands a literal plain text reading. Include a dictionary-like addendum defining all the terms used for legal purposes. The aim would be create a document that any citizen could read, take to court with them and win. If you keep it simple, then vigliance becomes a whole lot easier.

You're asking for something to be both simple and comprehensive at the same time. I can't even rent an apartment without signing 50 pages of small print. I say keep it simple and apply more vigilance. And a little hot sauce.

[moar]

You're asking for something to be both simple and comprehensive at the same time. I can't even rent an apartment without signing 50 pages of small print. I say keep it simple and apply more vigilance. And a little hot sauce.

A simple preamble ought to deal swifty with issues of interpretation and the addendum would certainly be optional, my reason for including it is to preserve the meaning and intent of the document in the future. Ideally, you'd want to work to make the document so culturally signifiicant that these precautioins wouldn't be necessary, at least for the time being.

It would be a be a matter of crafting a  set of simple, fundamental principles that can be broadly applied. One for the private citizen and one for the government. I don't see it as an impossible task.

[MobileDigit]

The question is raised, WHY HAVE A GOVERNMENT?   

"I could make the government work, if only I was in power!"

[Laetitia]

"I could make the government work, if only I was in power!"

No you couldn't. Because I won't cooperate... unless I see a chance to off you and seize control.
Yes.... I'll apply for a job in your adminstration.... pastry chef. Arsenic - I mean Apricot - confectionary, sir?

[Evenstar]

Ah... crime and punishment... this has been my last major hurdle in the race from Republican to Anarchist... at this point, I guess I'm solidly over the line on the side of anarchy, because I think there's got to be a better system than having Government to mete out punishments on criminals.  I kind of like the idea of voluntary contracts that form the ground rules for basic "legal" behavior, but I haven't solved the problem of those who would chose no contract at all.

I guess at this point I'd have to say I'm somewhat undecided in the range between Free-Market Retributionists and Self-Defense Libertarians, but leaning more toward the self-defense side (so that's how I am about to vote).  This is definitely where I have the most work to do in fully defining my political beliefs.  Anyone have any reading suggestions on books about crime and punishment from an anarchist/libertarian standpoint?

[Karrde188]

I'm a fan of Street Justice. Which is essentially what Free-Market Retributionist is. It's simple, doesnt involve the Government, and its for people who are willing to take a risk to dish out a little payback on whoever wronged him/her.

Whatever happened to good old fashioned Duels? Back then, People settled their disputes like MEN. They didn't cry to Mommy government to right their wrongs, they Handled their business & that was it. If you failed in your quest, well thats life.   

[rabidfurby]

I kind of like the idea of voluntary contracts that form the ground rules for basic "legal" behavior, but I haven't solved the problem of those who would chose no contract at all.

Manwich tried attacking the DRO idea over this concept in a show awhile back. He called them "rogues", and claimed the only reason someone would want to live like that is so they wouldn't be bound by any contracts, making it easier to engage in criminal activities. He then asked Ian, who was defending the DRO concept, what the DROs would do about that.

I sent in an e-mail that didn't make it on the air about it. My point was that if there's only a few of these "rogues", then it's a non-issue. Above a certain threshold number of rogues, DROs would include a clause in their contracts forbidding their customers from participating in commerce with rogues (though people wouldn't want to deal with rogues in the first place, as you would have no recourse if one cheated you).

Thus, rogues would only be able to deal with other rogues. But even rogues, when they're not being criminals, have to eat. This creates an undergound economy of rogues that trade with each other for the necessities of life. However, rogues don't like getting cheated any more than you or I do. So, they form their own DRO-like entities to protect their legitimate trades between each other. At some point, it will make business sense for the rogue's DRO to open itself up to the other DROs, and then the rogues aren't rogues anymore. If that ever happened in real life, which I think is pretty damn unlikely, it would be a solved problem.

[TackleTheWorld]

This is similar in essence to the "Worlds Smallest Political Quiz" - only it focuses on one quadrant. There's another dimension though - having to do with property rights such as what is property and what does ownership entail?

I bring this up mostly because of the Georgists/Geolibertarians - bless their souls - who have helped me understand my own positions on these matters better.

Some examples:

1. What do you consider property:

a) Your Body
b) The fruits of your labors
c) Land / other natural (at one point unowned) resources
d) Intellectual property

2. What is ownership?

a) control use of the property
b) benefit from the property (examples: mining rights and rent)
c) transfer or sell the property
d) exclude others from the property.

and which kinds of property can you exercise which types or ownership rights?

thoughts?

You're right, the 6 categories are pretty much all dealing with the use of force, very similar to the horizontal scale "personal freedoms", of the WSPQ.
And property rights would be the "economic freedoms" vertical scale of the quiz. 

Now all we need are some easily understood questions and we will have the World's smallest libertarian quiz.

[Travis]

Minarchist/Exilist. Violation of rights wherein adaquit reperations can not be paid Murder, Rape, Battery resulting in Permenent Loss of Mental or Bodily function punishment would be removal from society.

[JNagyJr]

Crap, I can't remember which I voted for.

[francisckrs]

i am a limited goverment libretarian.

[mbd]

libretarian? Is that like a religious librarian or something?