What's a Libertarian?

By now you've probably heard at least a little something about the Libertarian party. Libertarians have had a Presidential candidate on the ballot for the past three election cycles, and the Badnarik campaign marks the fourth year, with 49 ballots (not on New Hampshire or Oklahoma). We have candidates running for local and state level positions all across the country, and currently boast over 600 Libertarians in public office. It's difficult to find a place in America where you can pick up a ballot, and not find a Libertarian running for office.

In spite of this familiarity with the party, the one question that many people still seem to have is, "What exactly is a Libertarian?"

The ideas behind Libertarianism can be traced back over 400 years, to a period in history when the concepts of individual liberty & consensual government were first finding a foothold through the writings of people like John Locke and Algernon Sidney. The right to free one's self from tyrannical government was an infuriatingly-radical notion at a time when kings were thought to be divinely-ordained rulers. It was the bravery and clear-thinking of these early libertarian writers that served as the inspiration for the American Revolution, and the founding of our country as a free and independent nation. Nowhere is this clearer than in the Declaration of Independence, which makes the libertarian case perfectly, that government should exist to secure the life, liberty, and property of every one of its citizens.

Despite the historical connection behind the ideas of Libertarianism and the roots of our own nation, today's political pundits seem to have a difficult time figuring out how to label us: People with conservative beliefs see us as "liberals" because of our outspoken defense of personal freedoms—like the freedom of expression. On the other hand, people with liberal beliefs tend to see us as "conservatives" because of our staunch defense of economic freedoms, like the freedom for people to trade with one another in a way that they decide is in their own best interest. These misconceptions say more about the prejudices of the people who hold them, than they do about the Libertarian perspective.

Despite this confusion, the Libertarian philosophy is really very easy to understand. Libertarians are, quite simply, people who believe in "Self-Ownership": You own yourself, and no one else on Earth has a higher claim to your body or your labor than you do. So long as people act in a way that doesn't interfere with anyone else's freedom, Libertarians believe that they should be free to do what they please.

The idea of "Self-Ownership" is what distinguishes us from both liberals and conservatives. Every political position that Libertarians take can be traced back to this simple idea. For example, Libertarians are opposed to "liberal" attempts to use the government to regulate people's buying practices, by imposing tariffs on certain goods & industries. We oppose this kind of regulation not because we think that all goods & industries are equally wonderful, but because we believe that people own themselves, and should be allowed to buy what they like, based on their own beliefs and values. If for some people that means buying fair-trade coffee at the local co-op grocery store, then that's great—just as long as they don't use the government's power to force other people to do the same.

Likewise, Libertarians are opposed to "conservative" attempts to use the government to regulate people's morality, by imposing laws that restrict their behavior on the Sabbath, or at the pharmacy, or in the bedroom. We're opposed to these kinds of legal restrictions not because we think that all lifestyle choices are equally worth pursuing, but because we believe that people own themselves, and should be allowed to decide how to live their lives as they see fit, so long as they aren't hurting anyone else in the process.

Wait a second...If you're not conservative & you're not liberal, then where do you fit on the political spectrum?

The traditional left-right spectrum is one that political scholars have recognized is incomplete for some time. In fact, it's really only useful for tracking the answer to one question: "What part of your life do you think government should control?" On the left-hand side of the spectrum we find people who believe that it's the government's job to regulate our economic lives—that is, our interactions with one another that involve exchange. Democrats and Green party members tend to be on this end of the spectrum. On the right-hand side, we find people who believe that it's the government's job to regulate our social lives. Republicans and Constitution party members tend to be on this end of the spectrum. This one-dimensional view of politics as something for controlling one area of life or another, explains why Libertarians cringe when we hear politicians talk about passing "bi-partisan legislation"!

The closest you can come to charting Libertarians on a one-dimensional left/right spectrum is to plot us directly in the middle of the two extremes. This is the only place on the line where you can put people who don't believe in controlling each others lives either in an economic or a social sense. However, this fails to take into account that, like all other political groups, Libertarians come in varying degrees. It also makes it difficult to find a place to put people who believe that government should control both economic and social decisions.

When you think about it, it's easy to see that the simple left/right political spectrum fails to accurately describe the various mix of political opinions held today. Several ideas have been conceived about how to address this problem—the most prominent of which has resulted in something called the "Nolan Chart " [ed: find out where you are on the chart with a short quiz], which has been used as the basis for the "World's Smallest Political Quiz" mentioned in the sidebar on this page.

More important to notice, however, is the fact that the current "two-party" political system—with its major players fitting neatly along the left/right line—fails to accurately represent the range of political opinions held by voters today. Even when you include the other "third parties", without the Libertarian party, the system fails to provide a political home for people who value both economic and social freedom. Though they all still use the rhetoric, there is no other party that is willing to trust you to make all of your own decisions, or to respect all of your rights to life, liberty, and property. There is simply no other party that can truly say its policies will allow you all your freedoms, all the time.

Libertarian ideas are ideas that people still agree with in great numbers. Unfortunately, too often people are lead to believe that they don't have a choice—that they must give up something in order to have a just society—or worse, in order to elect "the lesser of two evils"...but how can being compelled to choose between your "social" freedoms and your "economic" freedoms be anything but unjust and evil?

There is another choice: If you think as we do, and if you want to send a clear message to Washington this November—a message that, if nothing else will force politicians in both major parties to think twice about passing laws that restrict your self-ownership, then vote for the candidate that you agree with most, instead of the candidate that you fear the least. Vote Libertarian!

To learn more about how the Libertarian philosophy and it's concept of Self-Ownership is being applied to specific political issues, click here.


(This text is from the campaign website of Michael Badnarik, Libertarian presidential candidate. You'll see him on your ballot. Know who you are voting against when you vote for someone else...)

Oh, I read it as "What's a Librarian".

*slinks off*

Nice to meet a fellow Libertarian...most people think that we are militia sponsored, gun toting radicals when really it is the only party looking out for the constitution. Thanks for offering a wonderful clarification to those who don't already know.

But my numero uno goal this november is to get Bush out of the Whitehouse. So I will be voting Kerry for president and libertarian when possible for everything else. This is not the year to send a statement. This is a year to get one man out of office before he tries to create a dictatorship based on terror.

My home state's 10 electoral votes look to go to Kerry already, so only Libertarians here who prefer Bush over Kerry need to vote off-party for the "lesser of two evils".

See how your state is likely to vote. If it's a foregone conclusion that the one you dislike least between Bush and Kerry will win your state, vote to send a message showing your true political views.

I'm a registered Republican, I perfer Kerry over Bush a little bit, and will be voting for Badnarik. If the Librteraian party can only get a LITTLE more publicity, then their candidate will be allowed to debate in the next election by the Democrat and Republican controlled debate organization. (Unless they change the rules and make it even harder for non Dem. and Rep. candidates to get in.)

You know, most people say "What's a Libertarian?" and "Who's Michael Badnarik?" when I tell them who I'm voting for. It's so sad that most people don't even know who is running for president. I blame it on all the "Snoopy for President" and such campaigns of old. Funny, yes, (and old, yes) but I think it causes most people to think of anyone other than the Dem. and Rep. candidates as pathetic write-ins that will get only a handfull of votes. Badnarik is on the ballot in 49 states. By contrast, Nader (whom everyone has probably heard of) is only on 34 state's ballots. This means that more people signed the neccessary pettitions to get Badnarik added than Nader had. Even Bush and Kerry had to go through this procedure (though for them, their estabished parties made that a cake-walk). Nader is better known both for his long time pounding on the gates and for his outright oddness that makes good media. I have yet to see anything but a passing mention of Michael Badnarik on any network outside C-SPAN.

I suggest this site as a great way to see, in their own words, each candidate's views on all the major issues.

What is the Libertarian position on Gay Marriage or Civil Unions? I can't seem to find a dominant party position on this issue.

(This text is from the campaign website of Michael Badnarik, Libertarian presidential candidate. You'll see him on your ballot. Know who you are voting against when you vote for someone else...)

Here is a complete list of all the 2004 Presidential candidates. http://www.politics1.com/p2004.htm. I want to party with the Personal Choice Party! http://www.clubmarilyn.com/ Haha! Right on!

Tiger - Based on most of what I stand for, I'm closer to a Libertarian than any other political philosophy. However, as Isis has pointed out, I'm voting for Kerry for the same reasons (I am in a swing state).

One point - The other two parties are just beginning to discover the power of the internet as a publicity and fund raising tool. No one has control of it yet and it is a perfect opportunity for libertarians to state what they stand for and to raise sufficent funds to form a power base. With so many people unhappy with both candidates, they are stepping in at a good time.

The only problem that I can see is that there are radical and moderate libertarians. Some think that Social Security should be abolished. (I won't state where I stand on that). The reality is - anyone who avocates anything this radical will not be listened to. This country is ripe for a moderate libertarian and I for one would love to back one.

Someone who advocates personal responsibility, stregthening our own internal infrastructure, personal privacy, true justice and free choice. Problem is - the people who are presently in power are a formidable foe and the average joe dosen't feel threatened enough to do anything about it yet. And they won't - until they find themselves face to face with law enforcement or are unable to work because there are no jobs or are unable to obtain health care for themselves or their families. By then it might be too late.

Because I live in DC I voted for the Socialist Workers Party, just because i figure it will make someone happy. We vote around 80% Democrat, so I enjoy my freedom to check any box I want.

It's so bad here that half the seats are filled by the Democrat primary as there just aren't any Republicans running.

If you live in a swing state, by all means, DO vote for the Bush or Kerry of your choice! I'm a very practical person, and would do the same if I lived in one of those states. Which states are those? Here's a list:

Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin

All the other states are leaning in one direction or another strongly enough to be pretty much in the bag by this point. Ohio is likely to be this year's Florida when it comes to importance in the final counting. Let's just hope they have a better time counting than "one, two, many, lots" Florida had.

I had never heard of the Libertarian party before a few months ago. My agreement with the Democratic and Republican agendas was running about 50% each. I'd say the Libertarian party is pushing 80%. There will NEVER be a party that I agree 100% with. I don't even agree with MYSELF that much.

So I say to myself:
Don't vote Bad, vote Badnarik!

I'm a Libertarian.

People who give up personal freedom for personal security deserve neither.

In juxtaposition to Neehai and DC, I am in a "red" state that will, no doubt, go for Bush. I have oft been told that my political philosophies tend toward the Libertarian view. Not until this election cycle, though, did I thoroughly investigate the Libertarian party's core platform.

At any rate, given that my state is most certainly going "red," I voted for Badnarik to make a protest statement that you swing-state voters cannot afford (I bet you are champing at the bit for this thing to be over and done!!). I hope there is more than a fraction of a percent return for Badnarik on election day -- that could really help Libertarians make some headway during the next (ugh!) election cycle.

Tiger, thanks for the great info! Badnarik's position on gay marriage is icing on the cake.

Love the quote, Ferran! I use Ben's version on my email signature line:

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

- Benjamin Franklin

I consider myself a Green Party Member - and believe I can serve that party best by giving my vote to Kerry in order to stop the environmental devastation Bush will wage.

excuse the blurb not trying to promote over libertarian - just for information:

GREEN PARTY 10 KEY VALUES
1. GRASSROOTS DEMOCRACY
Every human being deserves a say in the decisions that affect his or her life and should not be subject to the will of another. Therefore, we will work to increase public participation at every level of government and to ensure that our public representatives are fully accountable to the people who elect them. We will also work to create new types of political organizations which expand the process of participatory democracy by directly including citizens in the decision-making process.
2. SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY
All persons should have the rights and opportunity to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by society and the environment. We must consciously confront in ourselves, our organizations, and society at large, barriers such as racism and class oppression, sexism and homophobia, ageism and disability, which act to deny fair treatment and equal justice under the law.
3. ECOLOGICAL WISDOM
Human societies must operate with the understanding that we are part of nature, not separate from nature.
We must maintain an ecological balance and live within the ecological and resource limits of our communities and our planet. We support a sustainable society which utilizes resources in such a way that future generations will benefit and not suffer from the practices of our generation. To this end we must practice agriculture which replenishes the soil; move to an energy efficient economy; and live in ways that respect the integrity of natural systems.
4. NON-VIOLENCE
It is essential that we develop effective alternatives to society's current patterns of violence. We will work to demilitarize, and eliminate weapons of mass destruction, without being naive about the intentions of other governments.
We recognize the need for self-defense and the defense of others who are in helpless situations. We promote non-violent methods to oppose practices and policies with which we disagree, and will guide our actions toward lasting personal, community and global peace.
5. DECENTRALIZATION
Centralization of wealth and power contributes to social and economic injustice, environmental destruction, and militarization. Therefore, we support a restructuring of social, political and economic institutions away from a system which is controlled by and mostly benefits the powerful few, to a democratic, less bureaucratic system. Decision-making should, as much as possible, remain at the individual and local level, while assuring that civil rights are protected for all citizens.
6. COMMUNITY BASED ECONOMICS
Redesign our work structures to encourage employee ownership and workplace democracy. Develop new economic activities and institutions that will allow us to use our new technologies in ways that are humane, freeing, ecological and accountable, and responsive to communities.
Establish some form of basic economic security, open to all.
Move beyond the narrow "job ethic" to new definitions of "work," jobs" and "income" that reflect the changing economy.
Restructure our patterns of income distribution to reflect the wealth created by those outside the formal monetary economy: those who take responsibility for parenting, housekeeping, home gardens, community volunteer work, etc.
Restrict the size and concentrated power of corporations without discouraging superior efficiency or technological innovation.
7. FEMINISM AND GENDER EQUITY
We have inherited a social system based on male domination of politics and economics. We call for the replacement of the cultural ethics of domination and control with more cooperative ways of interacting that respect differences of opinion and gender. Human values such as equity between the sexes, interpersonal responsibility, and honesty must be developed with moral conscience. We should remember that the process that determines our decisions and actions is just as important as achieving the outcome we want.
8. RESPECT FOR DIVERSITY
We believe it is important to value cultural, ethnic, racial, sexual, religious and spiritual diversity, and to promote the development of respectful relationships across these lines.
We believe that the many diverse elements of society should be reflected in our organizations and decision-making bodies, and we support the leadership of people who have been traditionally closed out of leadership roles. We acknowledge and encourage respect for other life forms than our own and the preservation of biodiversity.
9. PERSONAL AND GLOBAL RESPONSIBILITY
We encourage individuals to act to improve their personal well-being and, at the same time, to enhance ecological balance and social harmony. We seek to join with people and organizations around the world to foster peace, economic justice, and the health of the planet.
10. FUTURE FOCUS AND SUSTAINABILITY
Our actions and policies should be motivated by long-term goals. We seek to protect valuable natural resources, safely disposing of or "unmaking" all waste we create, while developing a sustainable economics that does not depend on continual expansion for survival. We must counterbalance the drive for short-term profits by assuring that economic development, new technologies, and fiscal policies are responsible to future generations who will inherit the results of our actions.
Make the quality of life, rather than open-ended economic growth, the focus of future thinking.

For those that would like to see the differences between the Green and Libertarian parties, a RealPlayer recording of a debate between their two candidates can be watched through this link to C-SPAN's archives.

It's nice to see another libertarian, I feel kinda lonely at times.

Here's a piece of Libertarian propaganda, the U.S. Libertarian Party's statement of principles:


I would love to include the entire National LP's platform here, but I don't think such a huge document would be good forum etiquette.

So, here are some links:

United States National Libertarian Party
Libertarian Party Platform

I'm not really political or anything, but some of my favorite celebrities are Libertarians and a lot of the points of the platform appeal to me personally. Especially that whole diversity bit.

Linden Larouche gave Libertarians somewhat of a bad name. WAIT A MINUTE! LINDEN?!!!

Here's a thread that I started a while ago... wow it was just january? crazy...

Political Compass

The political compass I linked to is similar to the one you mentioned I believe... i'll have to read through all the replies again, that was a fun thread

Lyndon (not Linden ) LaRouche is a Democrat. He has no association that I know of with the Libertarian Party, or for that matter, with little-L libertarianism.

I am certainly no political expert but from what I have read the Libertarian position is that might makes right. In other words no government interference in anything no matter what.

Statism strikes me as more the belief that might makes right. My libertarianism is based on the extremely restricting notion that I have a moral obligation to respect the rights of everyone else in the world to do with as they chose with their life, liberty, and property. Far from granting me the absolute freedom to anything darned thing I chose, a respect for the rights of others contrains my use of might against them in as great and pervasive a manner as possible.

Thanks Suezanne for your intelligent response but I fear that most Libertarians do not share your beliefs. I still see no government interference as a chance for big business to run roughshod over us. Not all of us are looking to personally profit from our dominence over others which is what the Libertarian platform is all about.

Oh, whew! Thx.

"I'm not really political or anything, but some of my favorite celebrities are Libertarians and a lot of the points of the platform appeal to me personally."

Well heck if Drew Carey's doin it , count me in !!!!