Social liberty/libertarianism? Foreign policy?

[Liberty99]

Hello, everyone!  I'm a possible FSW mover (although not for at least a few years since I just graduated college and whatnot) here in St. Louis County, MO (Ballwin suburbs at the moment).  I got intrigued when I heard about this from a video with Boston T. Party. I noticed that a lot of people mentioned stuff like big gov't, esp. in economic matters, and gun control as reasons for leaving other areas and going to WY.  However, as a libertarian, social issues have been just as important to me as economics.  Obviously, we need free markets, low taxes and a small or nonexistent welfare state to succeed.  However, when I was reading the posts from people who had moved, they mainly explained that they were fed up with 'socialism' in states like California and also wanted gun rights.

I respect that, but what about social freedom?   What about fighting the War on Drugs or better drug policy? Medical marijuana? What about the freedom to consume whatever the hell you want? What about sexual privacy and freedom? What about if someone's gay and doesn't wanna be treated like a pariah and want the freedom to marry and whatnot?  What if you wanna drink in moderation and don't want some jackass bureaucrat restricting that freedom (I hear that WY is an alcoholic beverage control state)?  How judgmental and anti-freedom are average Wyomingians in this regard?  Are they moderate or more conservative?

I understand that Wyoming is called "The Equality State", was first to give women suffrage and had the first woman governor.  However, if what I read on wiki, for what it's worth, is right, it has a whopping 79% Christians (and about 10% are Mormons, o jeez), AND it's a red state (and if I recall, not a swing state, either).  Republicans have long-dominated state and federal politics regarding WY, which kind of worries me.  I'm glad the Republicans, at least in rhetoric (since few of them actually practice what they preach anymore, esp. on spending), are right on economic issues, but their stances on social issues and alliances with the Religious Right frightens me.  As you can imagine, I'm an agnostic, and I don't like moralist religious folks telling me how to live or that "being gay is sinful" or whatever.

So that brings to mind a few big questions:
1) Are there a lot of FSWers who are 'full-blown' libertarians?  Aka favor economic AND social liberty (not merely libertarian-conservative or libertarian-leaning cons)
2) Would you say the average Wyomingian favors shit like the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, or are they more noninterventionist?
3) Are there any good 'libertarian' cities in Wyoming that aren't as conservative or Republican-leaning (and don't favor Dems much either)? 
4) Are there any people in this forum who moved from big REPUBLICAN/Red states because they felt stifled by statist neocons who are more Bible-thumping in their areas?  I know there are already plenty who moved from places that had less economic freedom.

[Stratispho]

I'm not in Wyoming, just biding my time til I can move. But from the interactions I have with people here on the board here is my opinion.

1. Yes, there's some that would call themselves just about every political persuasion. From anarchist, voluntaryists, and a healthy dose of Libertarians to some more mainline conservatives. The people that are here are looking for their own personal freedom. It's not like the guys up in NH that are looking to change the world by being pushy.

2. Search through the forums to see about the stance on war. The last thread was many, many pages with all sorts of differing opinions. But going off your comment that WY is a "red" state, where do you think the general stance of the state is? Opinions of board members are all over the place.

3 and 4. Someone else will be able to answer that better then I.

I respect that, but what about social freedom?   What about fighting the War on Drugs or better drug policy? Medical marijuana? What about the freedom to consume whatever the hell you want? What about sexual privacy and freedom? What about if someone's gay and doesn't wanna be treated like a pariah and want the freedom to marry and whatnot?  What if you wanna drink in moderation and don't want some jackass bureaucrat restricting that freedom (I hear that WY is an alcoholic beverage control state)?  How judgmental and anti-freedom are average Wyomingians in this regard?  Are they moderate or more conservative?

I understand that Wyoming... is a whopping 79% Christians (and about 10% are Mormons, o jeez),

As you can imagine, I'm an agnostic, and I don't like moralist religious folks telling me how to live or that "being gay is sinful" or whatever.

I know of no activism being done for fighting the War on Drugs in WY. Most of the people I talk to seem to want to just live their life out without being bugged and aren't as interested in making waves about topics other then gun rights.
On being gay. You didn't say if you were or not, and it doesn't matter to most people. Just keep your sex life in the bedroom where everyone else does and it's not a big deal. But keep in mind, the state is mostly "Christian" and the viewpoints of Liberty minded people may not reflect the general population of the state.

I've only visited WY, and only Lincoln County which is HEAVILY Mormon saturated, and I never felt like anyone was pushing me to go to their church or pushing their beliefs on me. Most of the people seemed to judge you solely on your character and if you were a good worker or lazy.

Liberty means different things for different folks. Your idea of personal freedom probably won't match mine, and mine certainly doesn't match everyone else's. Work on achieving your version of Liberty in your life and then worry about others. If you're free, does it matter if you're surrounded by people that aren't as long as they aren't forcing you to be someone you're not?

[Liberty99]

Interesting.

I'm not gay, for the record, but gay rights has always been a big issue for me.  I was asking about all that stuff to see if FSW or the general Free State Project in New Hampshire is better for me.  It looks to me like maybe NH might be best for someone very politically motivated and interested like me.  I'm always hankering for more freedom, but I don't feel terribly threatened at the moment, seeing as how I'm unemployed, live with my mom (until I can afford to move out), and am not paying any big taxes like property taxes.  Missouri politics doesn't seem to have really affected me in a big way, either.  Only time will tell. 

Also, I've never been a fan of cold weather.

[socalserf]

Most of the West seems to have a 'mind your own business' culture.

You can find routine stories of gay bashing in 'liberal' metros like NY, LA, or San Fran.
Crimes that will include gang rape of Lesbians and outright murder of gay men.

Statistics are hard to find but I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that gays are safer in Wy than any lefty city in America.

Don't let democratic rhetoric fool you.
Gay rights mean nothing without the basic Human Right of self defense, which of course liberals hate.

[manfromnevada]

from Liberty99:
So that brings to mind a few big questions:
1) Are there a lot of FSWers who are 'full-blown' libertarians?  Aka favor economic AND social liberty (not merely libertarian-conservative or libertarian-leaning cons)
I don't know if there are "a lot". I consider myself "full blown". I believe there should be NO drug laws. I believe there should be no abortion laws. I don't really like homosexuals, but agree they can do whatever they want. Whether they should be able to be "married" like a man and woman I'm not really sure about. I don't believe in ANY public schools, but think it's unrealistic to get rid of them since they are so entrenched in the public mind. I don't like illegals coming across the border. Don't know what that says about my libertarianism.


2) Would you say the average Wyomingian favors shit like the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, or are they more noninterventionist?
I don't know.

3) Are there any good 'libertarian' cities in Wyoming that aren't as conservative or Republican-leaning (and don't favor Dems much either)?
I doubt it.

4) Are there any people in this forum who moved from big REPUBLICAN/Red states because they felt stifled by statist neocons who are more Bible-thumping in their areas?  I know there are already plenty who moved from places that had less economic freedom.
I don't know.

Furthermore, in my experience, I find that most FSW folks do NOT get involved in politics. I don't know of any running for office. I don't know of any who have run for office. I don't know anyone part of a campaign. I don't know of any who have organized a Tea Party. Some will write to their elected officials. Many don't. Some think that it's a lost cause. One or two think that even voting is a form of aggression.

Glad to have been of help! Just because I don't know of anyone doing this or that doesn't mean much. Lots of people keep to themselves. It's the libertarian way. Go off by yourself and hope that nobody bothers you. Sadly, reality doesn't work that way.

Mac

[socalserf]

Liberty99, have you ever considered the premise of Individual Rights vs. Group rights, i.e. Gay rights?

Individuality of Rights
FOURTH, that we shall regard Rights to be neither collective nor additive in Character -- two individuals shall have no more Rights than one, nor shall two million nor two thousand million -- nor shall any Group possess Rights in Excess of those belonging to its individual members;
http://www.lneilsmith.org/new-cov.html

Here is some more along the same lines;

"There is no such thing as Gay Rights, Women's Rights, or Minority Rights. The only rights that exist are Human Rights, those that apply to ALL people. Any 'rights' that apply only to certain groups are privileges that they are attempting to obtain by mislabeling them as rights." -- John Dobbins
http://freedomkeys.com/rights.htm

[Seniortech]

Liberty99,

I'm no authority here, just one old guy, listening in to the forum.  Judging from your first posts, I expect you are right; you would probably be better off just heading on up to NH.  Just my guess.

[Liberty99]

Liberty99, have you ever considered the premise of Individual Rights vs. Group rights, i.e. Gay rights?

Individuality of Rights
FOURTH, that we shall regard Rights to be neither collective nor additive in Character -- two individuals shall have no more Rights than one, nor shall two million nor two thousand million -- nor shall any Group possess Rights in Excess of those belonging to its individual members;
http://www.lneilsmith.org/new-cov.html

Here is some more along the same lines;

"There is no such thing as Gay Rights, Women's Rights, or Minority Rights. The only rights that exist are Human Rights, those that apply to ALL people. Any 'rights' that apply only to certain groups are privileges that they are attempting to obtain by mislabeling them as rights." -- John Dobbins
http://freedomkeys.com/rights.htm

Well, when I use a term like "gay rights" I am referring to extending human rights and equality to those people that they have been denied that the majority get for free, primarily when gov't itself and public institutions discriminate.  I personally would favor just completely privatizing marriage and get the gov't out of it.  However, since that seems almost impossible to convince legislatures to do, and there aren't any current movements to do that, I'm afraid we're gonna have to work within the legal framework.  Therefore, in my opinion, gay couples who wanna marry should have every right to, esp. what with all the legal advantages of marriage that straight couples get.    

I'm not necessarily saying that people get rights b/c they belong to certain groups, as I favor individual rights first and foremost, but that is just the rhetorical framework that I'm used to, so I use those terms since most people know what I'm referring to easily. 

[socalserf]

However, since that seems almost impossible to convince legislatures to do, and there aren't any current movements to do that, I'm afraid we're gonna have to work within the legal framework.  Therefore, in my opinion, gay couples who wanna marry should have every right to, esp. what with all the legal advantages of marriage that straight couples get.     

Do you believe that a majority of the electorate can, or should have the power to decide who does and doesn't have rights?
Is the cure for cancer more cancer?
Is the solution for bad government more bad government?

Liberty99,
I'm no authority here, just one old guy, listening in to the forum.  Judging from your first posts, I expect you are right; you would probably be better off just heading on up to NH.  Just my guess.

I had the same feeling.
The Porcupines are good people. No shame in having an Activist agenda if that is what appeals to you.
 

[jubal]

Politics and politicians, and bureaucrats make my ass tired. I do not practice any organized religion. Doctrine and dogmatism also make my ass tired. I do however believe in a a supreme being, I call it God or the supreme entity of the universe. I don't believe those who practice any religion have any more higher morals than those who do not practice an organized religion. I do not live up to or down to any one else's standards or morals, I have my own and have found they're not worse or better than anyone else's regardless of spiritual philosophy. If you are agnostic thats fine and dandy with me, just don't prosyletise it to me (Spelling) I aint gonna look up the right way to spell it either, you get my drift on it I presume, if not, Oh well, In my opinion FSW is a herd of cats and I like it that way, if you cannot handle that and need supra organized affairs I don't suppose you'll fit in to well. Other'n that you can give us a whilrl and see if it fits. What more can I say??

[Liberty99]

However, since that seems almost impossible to convince legislatures to do, and there aren't any current movements to do that, I'm afraid we're gonna have to work within the legal framework.  Therefore, in my opinion, gay couples who wanna marry should have every right to, esp. what with all the legal advantages of marriage that straight couples get.     

Do you believe that a majority of the electorate can, or should have the power to decide who does and doesn't have rights?
Is the cure for cancer more cancer?
Is the solution for bad government more bad government?
 

Well, of course I don't believe in democracy or a tyranny of the majority.  This nation was founded as a republic and should stay that way. That's one big reason why I vehemently oppose all those gay marriage amendments passed by all the states.  The majority should never have the power to take away ANYONE's rights.  We all have unalienable, natural rights, of course.  Some people may think using initiatives or recalls is simply "taking back power from the representatives who squandered it", but it can and oftentimes has been abused.  People should not fool themselves into thinking the ballot initiative process is any less corrupt or has less of a chance of bringing about bad outcomes. 

Obviously the solution for bad gov't is not more bad gov't; however, I am also a pragmatist.   Until we can reasonably convince people that privatizing things like marriage is preferable to gov't giving all these special privileges to married couples, I'm afraid we're gonna have to work within the system.  Most people, esp. many proponents of extending marriage or civil unions to gays, still have this mindset that the only way to do it is through gov't.  I don't foresee that we'll be able to convince them to favor privatization of marriage in this country, which would be a much better situation for all, until years down the line.  That's just a fact of life.  And of course, the religious conservative types who vehemently oppose gay marriage and want it banned aren't just gonna give up on all those gay marriage amendments and initiatives anytime soon, esp. if you tell them "Just leave it up to society and get the gov't out."  They might view it as "admitting defeat", at least until we can convince them otherwise.

Also, there are some emergency or special situations where I think even if we DO privatize marriage, one could still reasonably require operations such as hospitals to let partners have visitation rights, gay or straight.  I mean, no one plans on getting sick and having to go the hospital, and I highly doubt many hospitals do or would automatically share info on whether they accept domestic partners or gay couples.  Maybe they would in a privatized marriage environment (who knows).  So it'd be harder to use the market to figure out which hospital is best, esp. if your partner has a heart attack or something and needs an ambulance immediately.  The driver can't just go to one that's farther away because "they let gays have visitation rights."  That could put the victim at further risk.  I'm a big fan of the free market and private property rights (defended Rand Paul's statements as well), but I think there are some rare circumstances where that may need to be bypassed, nonetheless.  Nothing too coercive, but sometimes there may be no alternative or a vibrant enough market to leave it to itself, at least presently.

[Liberty99]

Politics and politicians, and bureaucrats make my ass tired. I do not practice any organized religion. Doctrine and dogmatism also make my ass tired. I do however believe in a a supreme being, I call it God or the supreme entity of the universe. I don't believe those who practice any religion have any more higher morals than those who do not practice an organized religion. I do not live up to or down to any one else's standards or morals, I have my own and have found they're not worse or better than anyone else's regardless of spiritual philosophy. If you are agnostic thats fine and dandy with me, just don't prosyletise it to me (Spelling) I aint gonna look up the right way to spell it either, you get my drift on it I presume, if not, Oh well, In my opinion FSW is a herd of cats and I like it that way, if you cannot handle that and need supra organized affairs I don't suppose you'll fit in to well. Other'n that you can give us a whilrl and see if it fits. What more can I say??

I won't proselytize if you don't.

[John]

Hello, everyone!  I'm a possible FSW mover (although not for at least a few years since I just graduated college and whatnot) here in St. Louis County, MO (Ballwin suburbs at the moment).  I got intrigued when I heard about this from a video with Boston T. Party. I noticed that a lot of people mentioned stuff like big gov't, esp. in economic matters, and gun control as reasons for leaving other areas and going to WY.  However, as a libertarian, social issues have been just as important to me as economics.  Obviously, we need free markets, low taxes and a small or nonexistent welfare state to succeed.  However, when I was reading the posts from people who had moved, they mainly explained that they were fed up with 'socialism' in states like California and also wanted gun rights.

Yeah, we do like our guns. Even me, and I'm one of the least gunny of the bunch.

I respect that, but what about social freedom?   What about fighting the War on Drugs or better drug policy? Medical marijuana? What about the freedom to consume whatever the hell you want? What about sexual privacy and freedom?

I'm an anarcho-capitalist libertarian, so I'm all for freedom on all that. Bu-ut.....

What about if someone's gay and doesn't wanna be treated like a pariah and want the freedom to marry and whatnot?

No one has any "right" to not be treated like a pariah. Many people *should* be treated like pariahs.

  What if you wanna drink in moderation and don't want some jackass bureaucrat restricting that freedom (I hear that WY is an alcoholic beverage control state)?

Umm, if it is, you wouldn't know it. There's more liquor stores per capita in Gillette than you can believe. And actually, that's the only visible effect of any gov't laws about alcohol sales -- there's tons of liquor stores because there's a law that you can't sell it in gas stations. 

  How judgmental and anti-freedom are average Wyomingians in this regard?  Are they moderate or more conservative?

Being judgmental and anti-freedom are two very different things. Perhaps opposite things in a way. Nothing wrong with being judgmental.  I think this "alternative lifestyle" trend is a terrible thing. I am opposed to all this tolerance and multiple-cultural garbage.  Old-fashioned family values are the best.  Some standards and morals are better than others, some ways of living are profoundly unsuccessful, and I'm not afraid to say so. 

As you can imagine, I'm an agnostic, and I don't like moralist religious folks telling me how to live or that "being gay is sinful" or whatever.

I think you must ask yourself whether you are a libertarian or a libertine. Is your dream world to be surrounded by gay, drug-using, functionally-illiterate prostitutes with every square inch of their body tatooed or pierced?  For everyone to give up believing in any kind of traditional morality?  That is not my dream world. The gov't shouldn't be involved, on that we agree.  But no social pressure either?  No religious people telling you that you're wrong, making you a pariah, nor even just looking judgmetally on you?  That's a very different issue. Saying that unwed mothers shouldn't be locked up is different than saying "we need more unwed mothers". 

So that brings to mind a few big questions:

1) Are there a lot of FSWers who are 'full-blown' libertarians?  Aka favor economic AND social liberty (not merely libertarian-conservative or libertarian-leaning cons)

Most of the ones actually in Wyoming actually are full-blown libertarians. More so than you'd expect just from reading the forum, which has some more moderate and right-wing voices.

[John]

To understand more where I'm coming from about libertinism vs. Libertarianism, here's a snippet from Hans Hoppe:

On the libertarian side, the cooperation with conservatives was motivated by the insight that while libertarianism may be logically compatible with many cultures, sociologically it requires a conservative, bourgeois core culture. The decision to form an intellectual alliance with conservatives then involved for the libertarians a double break with “Establishment Libertarianism” as represented, for instance, by the Washington DC “free market” Cato Institute.

This Establishment Libertarianism was not only theoretically in error, with its commitment to the impossible goal of limited government (and centralized government at that): it was also sociologically flawed, with its anti-bourgeois—indeed, adolescent—so-called “cosmopolitan” cultural message: of multiculturalism and egalitarianism, of “respect no authority”, of “live-and-let-live”, of hedonism and libertinism.

The anti-establishment Austro-libertarians sought to learn more from the conservative side about the cultural requirements of a free and prosperous commonwealth. And by and large they did and learned their lesson. At least, I think that I did. -- http://www.libertarianstandard.com/articles/hans-hermann-hoppe/the-property-and-freedom-society-reflections-after-5-years/

And also this:

http://mises.org/journals/jls/11_1/11_1_7.pdf

Just because I believe in drugs being legal, does not mean I believe we should all go out and use drugs!  I, like Harry Browne, want to back to a 1950s kind of situation on drugs, where any 10 year old can buy opium with cash, no questions asked, but yet there was no drug problem. 

[Liberty99]

If you think for a second that I'm a libertine, you're sorely mistaken.    I just believe in a lot of personal individual liberty, perhaps more so than the traditional American, but I think we should at least be given the right to commit so-called victimless "crimes" without being arrested and whatnot.  Of course I believe in responsibility, and all those behaviors should be done in moderation, if at all.  One thing I do know, esp. since I've taken quite a few econ courses as well as read up a LOT on economics, mostly during college, is that prohibition very rarely works.  If something is in high demand, people will find a way to get it, and if it's banned, a black market will ensue.  That's the only possible route things can go.  Obviously, I don't think we all should be drug-addicted prostitutes having all kinds of kinky sex all the time, but I do think the freedom to do those behaviors in moderation under the right circumstances, within reason, should at least be given.  After all, you can't be responsible without having the freedom to make the right choices.  Otherwise, it's totalitarianism or borders on it.

Of course I'm not totally against morality or any code of conduct. Far from it, I believe that all the usual things like rape, murder, stealing, lying (in general), fraud, abuse, vandalism, arson, etc. are wrong.   Initiation of force, with few exceptions (e.g. spanking your very young child who may not be able to understand right from wrong just yet by explanation or logic), is obviously wrong.  So I guess in that respect, I am in principle an anarchist.  But realistically, I am a libertarian since I've come to realize that there's no way America will ever go anarchist.  There's far too many statists in this country who want a piece of the tax pie.  And there are of course far too many warmongers who won't give up the world police role of the U.S. easily.  Maybe it could work in the U.S. on a community-wide scale, esp. in small towns, but the entire U.S. could never go anarchist as one nation and survive.

And as for anarcho-capitalism, while I understand the classic reasons for having that ideology, I can't say I support it, at least not if it were applied to the real world.  To me, anarcho-capitalism seems like the "anti-government" version of a utopian worldview, sort of like how Marxists envision their own communitarian utopia.  With no central authority to regulate big business or business at all, I'm not so sure things would go so smoothly. Yes, you've eliminated state force, but it seems to me like that could just as easily be replaced by business force.  Yes, I know all about how great the free market is, but I'm a libertarian pragmatically precisely BECAUSE I see at least a minimal need to regulate the market and prevent certain abuses of power from taking place, esp. when it comes to things like asymmetric information, which seems to me would be much more prevalent in a totally anarcho-capitalist society.  Anarcho-capitalism seems far too theoretical to me.  Whenever you google or look up the topic, you'll see lots of postings on how it could be done but very few actual real-world examples.  Show me a truly anarcho-capitalist society in practice anywhere in history, esp. recently, and then maybe I'll start buying into it.

I'm the kind of libertarian who sees both unrestricted big business and big government as anathema to a free and just society.  Neither one should be off the hook.  To me, the most important entity is the individual.  His rights should be protected first and foremost.  Big business can be just as detrimental to our freedoms and livelihoods at times as big government. I'm sure you've heard of the term "corporatism" and situations such as eminent domain abuse?  I also don't particularly care for the seemingly blind anti-regulation viewpoint among many libertarians.  They seem to automatically assume all regulation is bad, but it depends on WHAT the regulation is.  Yes, I'd say that at perhaps 60-75% of the regulations on the books right now, esp. federally, are probably unnecessary and drag down the economy.  However, there are a few here and there that could be necessary.  And from my research, at least some of the financial crisis seems to stem from key deregulations of the financial sector, as well as bad gov't such as Fannie and Freddie on steroids (to put it mildly) and the Fed's tampering with interest rates.