32 votes

What kind of Libertarian are you?

Came across this little ditty on the Tube. The narrator in this video disects the different strands of libertarianism and how Ron Paul brings them together.

Personally, it helped me understand the mindset of some of you and how we compare and contrast. Everyone on here should watch this. Then maybe we can be one big, happy, crazy, freedom family!


1) Identify your category of libertarian. (In the spirit of avoiding collectivism don't post it here.)

2) Comment with your favorite aspect of liberty.

I'll start:
I love freedom of speech and using it to preserve all other liberties!

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Im a moderate one..

I think in terms of winning. More of the politician type. Im not a purist. Dismantling 100 years of the state will not happen overnight. Moving in the direction of Liberty is my goal.

We can meet conservatives and liberals on certain issues. That is my focus... making our tent bigger.

'Peace is a powerful message.' Ron Paul

i dont identify with any of this stuff

I recognize that I live in a world of constant threats, and try to minimize them as much as I can. What ever that is...


I use the term Dignitarian

whose ideology can be identified by raising the political Status of conscionable choice.

Practically this means that citizens can endow whichever public chapter they believe has intrinsic value through municipal Trusts, while reserving the right to withdraw from abuse.

More here

I don't mean this as a cop out butt...

I am a Ron Paul libertarian. I agree with some of all those forms of libertarianism. I love the 1st and 2nd amendements. The first is about the power of ideas and the other is about self defense. As with the rest I learned it from Ron Paul. I didn't agree with some of his positions but after looking into it some more I found myself agreeing 100% with RP. The way I would describe a Ron Paul philosophy is to say he is for the most humane form of government. Only the abusers would suffer with his ideas.

Deep down everyone is Libertarian.
Live and Let Live, form of government.

I like classical liberalism

And think that we should use that description instead of libertarianism and point out that modern liberalism should be call socialism, which is what it is.

Lord Acton, Lord Chief Justice of England, 1875 - "The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is the People v. The Banks."


Very interesting and informative. A diagram of how all this branches out would be helpful. Anyone have a diagram of how it all looks on a piece of paper?

I am a Constitutionalist - John Locke Presents the Difference

The person doing the video attempts to make sense without any foundation, which many libertarians, liberals and Conservatives do;

He confuses "Constitutional Originalists" Thomas Jefferson & John Locke as "Classical Libertarians" which comes from the lack of understanding with regard to the "Law of Nature", the "true definition of Liberty" and the requirement for these to be present in and out (as in the "state of nature) of a free society.

John Locke on Civil Government:

"6. But though this be a state of liberty (man while in the "state of nature" with no government), yet it is NOT a state of "license"; though man in that state have an uncontrollable liberty to dispose of his person or possessions, yet he has NOT liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any creature in his possession, but where some "NOBLER" use than its bare preservation calls for it. The "State of Nature" has a "Law of Nature" to govern it, which obliges every one, and REASON, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions; for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent and infinitely wise Maker; all the servants of one sovereign Master, sent into the world by His order and about His business; they are His property, whose workmanship they are made to last during His, not one another's pleasure.

And, being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of Nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us that may authorise us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another's uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for ours. Every one as he is bound to preserve himself, and not to quit his station wilfully, so by the like reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he as much as he can to preserve the rest of mankind, and not unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another.

7. And that all men may be restrained from invading others' rights, and from doing hurt to one another, and the law of Nature be observed, which willeth the peace and preservation of all mankind, the execution of the law of Nature is in that state put into every man's hands, whereby every one has a right to punish the transgressors of that law to such a degree as may hinder its violation. For the Law of Nature would, as all other laws that concern men in this world, be in vain if there were nobody that in the State of Nature had a power to execute that law, and thereby preserve the innocent and restrain offenders; and if any one in the state of Nature may punish another for any evil he has done, every one may do so. For in that state of perfect equality, where naturally there is no superiority or jurisdiction of one over another, what any may do in prosecution of that law, every one must needs have a right to do.

8. And thus, in the "state of Nature", one man comes by a power over another, but yet NO absolute or arbitrary power to use a criminal, when he has got him in his hands, according to the passionate heats or boundless extravagancy of his own will, but only to retribute to him so far as calm reason and conscience dictate, what is proportionate to his transgression, which is so much as may serve for reparation and restraint. For these two are the only reasons why one man may lawfully do harm to another, which is that we call punishment. In transgressing the "law of Nature", the offender declares himself to live by "another rule" than that of reason and "common equity", which is that measure God has set to the actions of men for their mutual security, and so he becomes dangerous to mankind; the tie which is to secure them from injury and violence being slighted and broken by him, which being a trespass against the whole species, and the peace and safety of it, provided for by the "law of Nature", every man upon this score, by the right he hath to preserve mankind in general, may restrain, or where it is necessary, destroy things noxious to them, and so may bring such evil on any one who hath transgressed that law, as may make him repent the doing of it, and thereby deter him, and, by his example, others from doing the like mischief. And in this case, and upon this ground, every man hath a right to punish the offender, and be executioner of the law of Nature.

12. By the same reason may a man in the state of Nature punish the lesser breaches of that law, it will, perhaps, be demanded, with death? I answer: Each transgression may be punished to that degree, and with so much severity, as will suffice to make it an ill bargain to the offender, give him cause to repent, and terrify others from doing the like. Every offence that can be committed in the state of Nature may, in the state of Nature, be also punished equally, and as far forth, as it may, in a commonwealth. For though it would be beside my present purpose to enter here into the particulars of the law of Nature, or its measures of punishment, yet it is certain there is such a law, and that too as intelligible and plain to a rational creature and a studier of that law as the positive laws of commonwealths, nay, possibly plainer; as much as reason is easier to be understood than the fancies and intricate contrivances of men, following contrary and hidden interests put into words; for truly so are a great part of the municipal laws of countries, which are only so far right as they are founded on the law of Nature, by which they are to be regulated and interpreted.

21. The "natural liberty" of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but to have only the law of Nature for his rule. (APP Note: See this exact wording in the Rights of the Colonists) The liberty of man in society is to be under no other legislative power but that established by consent in the commonwealth, nor under the dominion of any will, or restraint of any law, but what that legislative shall enact "according to the trust put in it" (i.e. ORIGINAL CONSTITUTIONAL COMPACT WHICH A REPUBLIC WAS CREATED).

>>>>>Freedom, then, is "NOT" what Sir Robert Filmer tells us: "A liberty for every one to do what he LISTS (i.e. WANTS), to live as he pleases, and not to be tied by any laws"; but freedom of men "under government" is to have a "standing rule to live by", common to every one of that society, and made by the legislative power erected in it. A liberty to follow my own will in all things where that rule prescribes not, not to be subject to the >>>inconstant, uncertain, unknown, arbitrary will of another man, as freedom of nature is to be under no other restraint BUT the "LAW OF NATURE".

57. The law that was to govern Adam was the same that was to govern all his posterity, the law of reason. But his offspring having another way of entrance into the world, different from him, by a natural birth, that produced them ignorant, and without the use of reason, they were not presently under that law. For nobody can be under a law that is not promulgated to him; and this law being promulgated or made known by reason only, he that is not come to the use of his reason cannot be said to be under this law; and Adam's children being not presently as soon as born under this law of reason, were not presently free. For law, in its true notion, is not so much the limitation as the direction of a free and intelligent agent to his proper interest, and prescribes no farther than is for the general good of those under that law. Could they be happier without it, the law, as a useless thing, would of itself vanish; and that ill deserves the name of confinement which hedges us in only from bogs and precipices. So that however it may be mistaken, the end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom. For in all the states of created beings, capable of laws, where there is no law there is no freedom. For liberty is to be free from restraint and violence from others, which cannot be where there is no law;

>>>and is NOT, as we are told, "a liberty for every man to do what he lists. (i.e. WANTS)"

>>>For who could be free, when every other man's humour might domineer over him? But a liberty to dispose and order freely as he lists his person, actions, possessions, and his whole property within the allowance of those laws under which he is, and therein not to be subject to the arbitrary will of another, but freely follow his own."

In Full: http://www.pacificwestcom.com/oregonpatriotparty/Locke_Civil...

Also see the need for smaller states for proper representation: http://www.pacificwestcom.com/americanpatriotpartynewsletter...

And the removal of all state born Exclusive Privileges: http://www.pacificwestcom.com/americanpatriotpartynewsletter...

And the Fallacy of the "Nolan Chart" often used by Libertarians: http://www.pacificwestcom.com/leftright

American Patriot Party.CC

RichardTaylorAPP - Chair - American Patriot Party.CC

John Locke #201, 202, 212 to 232; Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions 1798; Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788; Rights of the Colonists 1772.

I wonder if someone who has

I wonder if someone who has seen mostly nothing but monarchies and complete control can grasp at a free market (anarchy, anything else is a socialist market), considering Locke knew none of the many theories we kno today about economics, such as subjective value. Objective value used to be the old look on production. Yes, I am saying John Locke is out of date. Read Rothbard

Low taxes and low spending

For me, it's all about low taxes and low state spending. Deprived of funds, the state is a paper tiger. All social issues are secondary.

Please visit my site for more information about my libertarian book. Thanks!

Defining one's self through...

labels and titles created by others only detracts from the diversity of thought.

For me logic and reason are too complex and diverse to reduce to a singular label, take everything as it is alone, don't try to shape it into some ideological bubble.

Don't fucking label me, hell don't fucking label this movement.

"The radical of one century is the conservative of the next. The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out, the conservative adopts them." - Mark Twain

I agree I think we are part of something bigger than a label...

Can contain. We are part of a movement that has no name. Because as soon as we put a name on it, the co-opt it. That is why a guy lik G Beck can say he is libertarian, he is not. He says the same things Romney says.
Unfortunately our group name is our line in the sand and we have to stand for something. I have neo-con and corporate-liberal friends and I can show them the appeal of Ron Paul to either of their ideologies.

Deep down everyone is Libertarian.
Live and Let Live, form of government.

How can we sell ideas

to others if we cannot agree on which is the correct one?

Logic and reason is not complex. Each mind has its own ability. Mind's focus and discipline can make one's brain sharper. To bypass complexity, do not accept anything on faith or feelings, make sure your mind understands every concept of an ideology you accept. Make sure there is no contradictions. Always use YOUR mind, do not blindly copy ideas of others.

Too much mental work? Then go for MJ and "Don't fucking label me, hell don't fucking label this movement."

The point I’m raising...

The point I’m raising is why accept any ideology at all? An idea and an ideology are two different things. Ideas bring change, ideologies divide and stagnate. The way I see it if logic and reason weren't complex then we wouldn't find ourselves in the mess we are in; with a lack of logic and reason being applied in our everyday lives, and a lack of any real progress or solutions from their usage. Also, as a graduate student of philosophy I challenge anyone to take an advanced level formal deductive logic class and make the statement: logic is not complex. On this concept of ideas and ideology though, I must admit that there are ideas I agree with from Karl Marx, however, that doesn't make me a Marxist, nor does it necessarily suggest that I support Marx’s entire theory, nor the body of his entire ideology. You see what I'm saying? The point being that I wouldn't define myself as a libertarian, although I agree with libertarian ideas from time to time, I am not, nor will I even be, a libertarian. If this movement is about actually moving things forward in the realm of ideas we need to objectively look at this concept. Ideology creates pure division, and division is not what we need. I'm not saying you can't identify with a particular ideology and progress that if you choose, just don't say you can't progress an idea without an ideology, because it is not true. If it was I wouldn't be a member of this site, or have donated a ton of money to the good Doc. Ideologies are really just tools that strictly limit the conversation, a good example of this is in the field of philosophy, which through the dogmatism of various ideologies, has not progressed significantly for a long time, and as such has seen very little value applied to it (you could argue the same for the field of politics as well, even though it is a high-end pursuit so to speak, most people seem to think of it as boring and useless to them). Ideologies are a lot like religions in that they claim to know all the answers when in fact they probably (because likely no one truly has all the correct answers) don't. This is they Hayekian concept involving the pretense of knowledge "what men imagine they can design." Ideologies propose a finite set of standards that become so dogmatic even clear evidence of their failure (see soviet communism and the various forms of socialism that followed) does not limit their perpetuation. This is not the same with ideas, as ideas operate in infinite probabilities, meaning that if one fails it can be easily modified or replaced by another idea, as the idea is not bound within the doctrine of any given ideology. Also, one idea, let’s say liberty, does not pertain exclusively to any one particular ideology. Ideas are shared amongst a cornucopia of ideologies, some of which use good ideas to endorse bad policies. Ideology simply through its operation limits ideas by creating a matrix of semi-competing ideas which congregate to make up the whole of the ideology. This web of ideas becomes larger that than the ideas themselves, and the ideology eventually becomes a slave to its own doctrine, unable to change. It is pretty sad if we are reduced to arguing over whether we should be identified as this or that, when the ideas we endorse should always be seen as more important and more powerful than any ideology, or label.

"The radical of one century is the conservative of the next. The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out, the conservative adopts them." - Mark Twain

Anarcho capitalist is probably where I fall

The quest for liberty which has brought us together is what intrigues me the most.

Anarcho-capitalist as well...

Anarcho-capitalist as well... check out libertyclassroom.com by tom woods if your into that stuff.

I made that. Thanks for

I made that. Thanks for posting it!

liberty lover in Nor Cal!

You're Welcome

I just came across it by chance and knew the DP community would love to have a crack at it. Was very thought provoking, thanks for making it.
(Probably boosted your view count eh?) :P

"There is only one kind of freedom and that's individual liberty. Our lives come from our creator and our liberty comes from our creator. It has nothing to do with government granting it." -Ron Paul

Fine educational video to

Fine educational video to gain points for unifying people.

reedr3v's picture

Much needed discussion, well done video


NAP and Property Rights


My case is simple

Since the core of Libertarian idea (personal liberty) is a mere subset of Ayn Rand's philosophy, any Randian is by default a Libertarian (even if he/she does not belong to any political movement.)

On the other hand, some RP supporters do not understand how a free society works. They mostly whine about sideline scapegoats or offer anarchist Utopia. Had RP offered trade union members to take care of their stress syndrome (as he had offered to millitary), they too would be here today.

Pray tell,

How does a free society work? Please explain to all the uninformed, whining, utopian anarchists how the NAP is wrong without carrying water for kochtopus, neocon fascists.

In my opinion

* Free society should not be confused with a happy, problem free one.

* Free society works when majority accepts idea of individual liberty. Capitalist economy is the necessary requirement but not sufficient. No matter how strong costitutional law's chains are, they cannot hold the majority down for ever.

* For the STABLE free society to work, majority has to adopt RATIONAL morality, otherwise, new generations will drift back to group demands and democracy.

* Reality is bigger than any ideology and cannot be caged into clever concepts. Thus, there is no clear recipe for how to create a perfect small government and a perfect law enforcement. One thing is clear, Rothbard and his followers failed to address criticism of anarchy without resorting to Utopia of creating a "new man."

All looks gloomy. One thing works for us, though. 90% of people are "followers" by nature. They will parrot any idea that becomes popular and gives them a good standard of living. And the same thing is what holds us back - the same 90% do not use their rational mind consistently.

Im not trying to down vote

Im not trying to down vote anymore and just trying to up vote what I like... but please look into Rothbard, Tom Woods and dive deeper into the Austrian school of economics and its base has moved from a central socialist document like the constitution (mises, hayek) to actual liberty (tom woods, rothbard (yes, Ron Paul is an Anarchist). Because no offense minarchists dont seem to fully grasp at natural rights and liberty.. if a constitution protects my natural rights then clearly it has failed. That you can not argue, that is you can not argue that the constitution worked.

Congrats. You've said nothing at all.

* Who confused a free society with a happy, problem free one? Please show me where any ancap has ever once said "eliminate government and life will be problem-free and happy." Nonsense.

* Good, so all you have to do is convince the majority on the importance of individual liberty. Or, ask brick to be glass. The very reason government devolves in the manner it does is because people understand how to manipulate it. And there's only one group of privileged individuals that can do things like steal, kidnap and murder with impunity (the government). Guess what's gonna happen..

Because, remember; in erecting a government you've allowed a group of individuals to VIOLATE BASIC MORALITY in giving them the right to steal (taxes), kidnap, murder and then asking them politely not to do later. I ask you, who is being irrational here?

* Rational morality? Who get's to decide that one?

Fact is, you didn't address the central issue of the non-aggression principle.

"thus, there is no clear recipe for how to create a perfect small government and a perfect law enforcement." No one said there was. But if you have a group of privileged individuals that may violate basic morality with impunity; who's growth is both inexorable and insatiable; and you say, "We just need a different, better government." I say you're not being honest with yourself.

The common denominator of all governments, in fact their very definition is the sole claim on coercion. Eliminate that and humanity will be capable of solving the rest of it's problems in a market based, voluntary manner.

You can write off anything you want. But if you don't point to something to substantiate your premise, you're not saying anything. Which is what you just accomplished.

Good video

My only objection would be that in arguing that there are different types of libertarians, you're conceding that there are different types of liberty.

You cannot separate the degrees by which you are free.
Are you semi-free because only one hand is shackled to the state?
No. A slave is a slave by matter of principle.
In putting the cuff on one hand, your soul is arrested by implication.

Therefore: My favorite aspect of liberty is simply liberty.
To dissect it, is to murder it.


care to illuminate the flaws in the above statement? i'm all ears.

The origins

The origins of Libertarianism can be traced back to being financed by the global elite.

Luke 3:38
Isaiah 43:3-5

If having received money from

If having received money from some house or central bank disqualifies your legitimacy then you should disqualify yourself immediately.

But you're wrong anyway, libertarianism is just what we had to call ourselves when fascists/progressives starting calling themselves liberals. We go back to the Scottish Enlightenment.

Only the libertarian austrian tradition has the tools to defeat the elites, so it doesn't matter anyway.


class" does not finance a sh{i}t. They only watch TV and b{i}tch that others had stolen their money.