Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbie
By WHO'S definition is my point.
As I already said...if 99% of the people who state they are Libertarian believe a certain thing. And that thing goes against what some article/book says that a Libertarian SHOULD believe...then which is correct?
Well, here in the real world, that would be the living, breathing Libertarians.
And I'm not arguing that Ron Paul is a "by the definition" Libertarian.
But like ALL Libertarians (remember, they don't FOLLOW the "rules") he has many viewpoints that argue that a man should be FREE, and that the govt. doesn't have the right to control us.
I think we can agree that Ron Paul's views are more in line with what a person who thinks of himself as "Libertarian" would identify with as opposed to the other Republican candidates.
|
Libertarians actually have a fairly strict set of rules. Not following rules means you are an anarchist, not a libertarian.
Anarchism also has a lot to be said for it as political theory - but that's neither here nor there.
No, Paul says a few things that have libertarian qualities - he never says certain things that are characteristic policies of either classic libertarianism or any of it's modern variants.
Libertarians do NOT say that individuals have the right to be free, they say that government's roles should be limited in specific ways. It is up to the individuals to manage their own lives and economies within the environment of limited government roles.
There is a litmus test that can be applied to all claims of libertarian theory and policy - and I have yet to read a single person in this thread mention the legitimate role of government that colors that litmus test.
Very few people here seem to understand libertarian theory.