Here is the third post I said, this one on Libertarians. I did two for liberals and conservatives. This is the last.  And like the other two, this can be seen as an oversimplification, but with validity.  And yes, it is borderline absurd.

On the surface, Libertarians seem like anarchists.  Both want to have little to no government involvement in life.  This includes economics along with preservation or promotion of certain values in society.  Well, from what I read on Libertarian philosophy, I notice some differences. 

First, Libertarians believe in the right to property with court systems enforcing contracts among individuals.  I also see here, in America, a strong push for the right to bear arms.  Besides this, I see Libertarians pushing non-violence among people, and repulsion to coersion to get people to comply with certain standards and behavior, unless these individuals signed a contract.  These differences separate Libertarians from anarchists.  I had thought maybe this was because Libertarians were more pragmatic.  Well, I think it may be more primal than that.

I think the main reason why these sets of beliefs are so for Libertarians is, if you stuck them in a knife fight they would lose.  They need a legal system which can enforce contracts, and also the ability to own a gun, to make sure private property rights.  These are equalizers.  Without this, the brute who is physical stronger could pick up a knife and demand the weaker person do what they say.

The inability to win a knife fight comes to mind when I think of noted Libertarians.  Answer me which of these do you think could win in a knife fight against a punk (speaking of inividuals in their prime)

* Ayn Rand

* Milton Friedman

* Penn Jillette (Penn and Teller)

* Bill Maher

* Ron  Paul

I don't think   these, or a number of other Libertarians I have met, could win in a knife fight.  What I see from Libertains is individuals w  ho use their property to protect and get what else they want in life.  They need equalizers.  The exist in an society of markets and making deals.  Such individuals are smart enough to put together plans and work out deals with people, and trust they work out.  If they wouldn't, they need to have something to equalize, outside of themselves.

So, in light of this, the inability to win a knife fight is why Libertarian philosophy exists.  Ok, one sec, is Jesse Ventura a Libertarian?  If so, he is the only one I know of who could win a knife fight.  The guy is ex-Navy SEAL.

Wow.

Do you think Obama could win in a knife fight? How about Clinton (Bill or Hillary)?

You pick people who got where they are because of intellect. Of course they won't win in a knife fight. It has nothing to do with there ideology.

It's simple really. If you think the US President/Congress should defend the constitution for all people, your a libertarian. If you think they should care more about one group over another, and sacrifice the liberty of the group they cares less for in favor of the one they care more for, your not.

It's nothing more or less then that. I happen to feel when your elected President, your job is to defend the rights of all 300 million people in this country, not just the ones you like.

That does not mean I will win or lose a knife fight.

I was comparing libertarians to anarchists.  I don't believe liberals can win knife fight, by the way.  But I do believe a true anarchist believes they could win a knife fight, if they needed.  I believe either anarchists believe government is the source of all violence or evil, or that individuals can defend themselves properly, if need be, and the personally could win in a knife fight if they had to get into one.

You forgot the Libetarian's poet laureate: Terry Goodkind, the yeard. He could win a knife fight, he's certainly got the yeard for it.

Most libertarians aren't true libertarians, they're really socially conservative capitalists. They still believe in a lot of "moral" laws that would be abhgorrent to a true libertarian. Take Ron Paul's stance on abortion for example. That's a socially conservative stance, not a libertarian stance. Either he's a liar on the issue and he really does hold to the libertarian view on abortion (i.e. it's a woman's choice) and he's just pandering the the Republican social conservative base in order to stay in Congress, or he actually does hold to that socially conservative view and hence is not really a libertarian.

I don't see why you (and other Americans) hold the constitution to be some sort of timeless document of "WHAT IS RIGHT".

Lets face it, it was written many years ago in a very different society. Your other arguments (while I disagree with them, but I posted about that in one of the other threads) are more compelling because they aren't an appeal to this authority.

A libertarian is essentially someone who puts their faith in who has the most money and persistent greed to shape society, rather than democracy where the people choose. A large part of modern history was defeating the libertarian point of view, and guess what; society was MUCH better as a result of it.

Libertarians...Are these those folks who believe in the Federal government paying over 50% for the construction of a toll bridge or toll road where well over 50% of the toll proceeds will go to the private sector?

To be quite frank, I have an opinion on Libertarians because I met quite a few in college:

Your typical Libertarian is an upper-middle class or upper class son or daughter who is not burdened with having to worry about money because their inheritance or their trust fund will allow them to pick whatever occupation they want regardless of pay. Their private lives tend to be quite mainstream with premarital sex, liberal views on gays and gay marriage, and favoring abortion. However, when it comes to fiscal sanity, this is where they go off the deep end. Libertarians believe in wacky ideas such as toll roads, a flat consumption tax,a consitutional amendment making unionization illegal, no inheritance tax or the DEATH tax as they call it, and drastic cuts in government funding of social services because they want to see that punk who beat them up in high school homeless and alcoholic.

Not all Libertarians have this background. Only the ones I have met throughout the course of my life.

TLDR version: Libertarians are liberal on social policy and conservative on fiscal policy. They believe in a small, nonintrusive government whose prime goals are to protect civil liberties, protect the nation, and promote fiscal policies that allow each and every individual to aspire to become Bill Gates.

Or more like, a libertarian is some one that puts faith in you and your ability to run your life.

You ever seen Bullshit?  That dude is pretty big and good with magic.  He could take a stabbing to the gut and not die or could just make the knife disappear.

Libertarians believe that everybody  else must have it as good as they do, while ignoring the reality that a hell of a lot of people don't.

Just because you can do well enough without government assistance doesn't mean everybody else can.