Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
×




Details

Submitted on
October 22, 2006
Image Size
4.6 KB
Resolution
100×57
Thumb

Stats

Views
10,445
Favourites
100 (who?)
Comments
43
Downloads
20
×
Libertarian Personal Freedom.. by webgoddess Libertarian Personal Freedom.. by webgoddess
Libertarian
Personal Freedom * Individual Responsibility

I don't know too much about the Libertarians, but what I do know about the party I agree with. I think before the next election I will learn more about them and if there is a libertarian canidate, then that is the way I will vote.

The official Libertarian Party Website-> [link]
Add a Comment:
 
:iconaa-l-i-n-a:
Aa-l-i-n-a Featured By Owner Dec 13, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
Muy bien!
Reply
:iconrelativeequinox:
RelativeEquinox Featured By Owner May 7, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
My views are so muddled now...I used to be a Centro-Conservative with a touch of Green party.

Now I'm an Eco-Capitalist Centro-Conservative Libertarian. bladhkjsdhfjd ....since when does anyone wholeheartedly agree with everythign a single party says anyway, I guess?

I find myself being pushed more and more towards that are of thought, though, soo...into the favs. *click*
Reply
:iconthe-laughing-rabbit:
The-Laughing-Rabbit Featured By Owner Aug 3, 2011  Hobbyist General Artist
Modern Libertarians worry me. I heartily agree with the need to smash or at least remove the state, as it is an oppressive force. The goal of the libertarian is the same as an anarchist ans is as Emma Goldman put it "perfect individual liberty." Most Anti-statist, Anarchist, and Libertarian movements throughout history have been also anti-capitalist for the same reasons their anti-state. capitalism has laborers sign an agreement in which they trade their liberty for a living wage, and in order to maintain a living wage, they have to continually sacrifice their wage, thus does the laborer really have any liberty at all besides the choice of starvation or slavery?
Reply
:iconrelativeequinox:
RelativeEquinox Featured By Owner May 7, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
*comment was not finished, sorry

I mean, I do realize that they do push for smaller government and such, but most moderate ones don't call for the complete destruction of it. Also, well, while we're on the topic of labor, that's why there's rules in place to keep things fair. Maybe they'll never be perfect and they'll never be able to completely prevent either corporations or laborers from overtaking the other, but I just don't think the answer is to simply seize everything from either.
Reply
:iconthe-laughing-rabbit:
The-Laughing-Rabbit Featured By Owner May 9, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
Capitalism maintains an inherently hierarchical system where those who only have their labor to sell are subject to the whims of the of the capital owner. The existence of these two distinct classes means one person has the ability to limit the liberties of another, and thus antithetical to the ideas of libertarianism since libertarianism's goal is to maximize individual liberty provided one does not infringe upon the liberties of another.

Libertarianism, and anarchism historically both have advocated some system of a classless society, where the laboring class is the capital owning class as well, be it collectively or individually, or some combination of the two does not matter, as long as capital is controlled by those who work it. Communism is described as a classless society, and has historically succeeded in agrarian situations such as Chiapas Mexico, or the kibbutzim in Israel/Palestine both of which exist in today's economy. Anarcho-syndicalism has also seen success as being the largest experiment in worker's self-management in western Europe with Catalonia's industry being run almost entirely by the anarchist trade union the C.N.T. and that region also saw an end to unemployment during global depression no less (1936). Market Socialism is a concept best seen in cooperatives such as Ocean Spray (yes, it's worker owned, and thus socialist, and it functions in a market economy) or the Mondragon Corporation based in Basque Country Spain, and that region has the distinction of having the lowest unemployment rate in the country. Distributism is an economic system where capital is owned by individuals not collectives, but only worked by individuals, and is the economic system officially advocated by the Catholic Church. There is also mutualism, which is sort of a mix between market socialism and distributism.
Reply
:iconrelativeequinox:
RelativeEquinox Featured By Owner May 10, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
Being in a democratic society automatically entails not having your own ideal set out though, and over time the western Libertarians (at least the US and Canadian ones that I've seen) have turned more and more away from that extreme. While maximizing individual liberties is the very base of what Libertarianism is, and thus someone who identifies as one *can* want such levels, most are willing to accept that they want a capitalistic society for the flexibility it offers, opportunity for wealth, etc etc- I'm not going to enter into an argument about socio-economic ideals. Most do, however, want limits placed on large employer power just as they want limits on the government, thus they can want small government but small business as well. Of course, again, not all share that view, but still.

What I guess I'm trying to say is that, in my country at least, the most popular form has moderated with different ideals it coexisted with, and it's that form that you'll usually find being supported on the internet.
Reply
:iconthe-laughing-rabbit:
The-Laughing-Rabbit Featured By Owner May 11, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
There are literally tens of thousands of radical left wing libertarians and anarchists in the united states, I know, because I'm one of them, and I know a lot of them. The vast majority of the membership of the group I stared, #Socialist-Anarchists, are from the united states, and we rank over 400. There is also a growing anarchist presence in the communist party of Deviant art. There are plenty of classic libertarians (as opposed to modern right wing contradictions). Libertarian is a french word originally coined to describe anarcho-communists by anarcho-communists.

Hierarchy is contradictory to libertarian ideals, so to promote any system that is inherently hierarchical means one isn't a libertarian. A libertarian only in name perhaps. Most modern right-wing "libertarians" don't advocate democratizing the system, nor do they generally even oppose a republic system, and support capitalism despite being a hierarchical structure. in reality, all these "libertarians" really support is Laissez-faire capitalism. Ron Paul in particular is only libertarian in name. His opposition to the Civil Rights act of 1964 proves it, as he opposed it on the basis that it infringed on the rights of businesses to infringe the rights of individuals. This shows that Ron Paul, does not care about rights, he only cares about capitalist interests. He claims that the market would force businesses to be more inclusive, as if integration wasn't an option for them in the past century and the market clearly let them continue the racist policy.

What I'm saying, is you can't be a capitalist and a libertarian at the same time. You can support the market, as this is a mechanism that exists in several non-hierarchical economic systems such as mutualism and cooperative economics.
Reply
:iconrelativeequinox:
RelativeEquinox Featured By Owner May 7, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
Since when was Libertarianism against the establishment as a whole? Also, most American Libertarians I've seen were pretty pro-Capitalist.
Reply
:iconomiana117280:
OmiAna117280 Featured By Owner Sep 27, 2010
Featured here: [link]
Reply
:iconchesney:
chesney Featured By Owner Jul 13, 2010
And BAM! We have the reason so many are content to give up their freedoms. Too much work and personal responsibility to preserve them.

As a libertarian, I wholeheartedly embrace and welcome those who are content to exchange their freedoms for being taken care of. However, as a libertarian, I wholeheartedly express my own desire to not be forced to do the same.
Reply
:icon365-women:
365-Women Featured By Owner Apr 28, 2008
totally in my journal thank you!!!
Reply
:iconchaosfay:
ChaosFay Featured By Owner Sep 18, 2007  Professional General Artist
I'm a liberal libertarian (basically, more democrat) and I'm definitly going to put this into my journal. Feel free to take a look at it if you wish. :-D
Reply
:iconimperator-zor:
Imperator-Zor Featured By Owner Mar 5, 2007
Libertarians are those who fail to understand the truth of the matter, government authority is nessisary in many things. A modern society (especially a democractic one) requires an educated population and as such, durring the nineteenth century they realised that state and funded mandatory schools are the best way to do that as not everyone can afford to send people to schools. But such schools require taxes to operate and as such the Libertarians beleive that modern public schools should be abolished/privatised. Police is another thing, there nessisary for inforcing the law, especially in a urban setting (BTW, the Ancient Romans also found this out and had a police force known as the Urban Cohorts who walked the beat in rome). If modern libertarians were in charge of the US from 1935 and 1945, they would have cheerfully done NOTHING while Hitler sent the jews to the gas chambers and as Tojo Hedeki's boys massacured and raped millions of chinese people. The also Cling to the beleif that . There are also plans. Libertarians also plan on getting rid of things like saftey and enviromental codes, thinking that the Free Market alone will solve all woes. They have no plans to prevent people from being perimantly being stuck as urban poor. Sure governments can do horrible things, which is why modern democratic nations have checks and ballences in place, but having no central authority will lead to chaos, death and massive problems.

Zor
Reply
:iconshadono:
shadono Featured By Owner Apr 18, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
A very late reply. The legally isolationist US under the Democratic President Roosevelt did do nothing about the Japanese atrocities in China in the 30s and about the Nazi regime. It was the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941 which finally brought the US into the war - and it was Germany (the ally of Japan) which declared war on the US, not the other way round.

You can, like me, be libertarian, but not an "extreme" libertarian.
Reply
:iconcheesesoda:
cheesesoda Featured By Owner Jul 4, 2009
Being the day that my country declared its independence from a tyrannical government and formed from that a nation formed on libertarian ideals, I shall respond to this comment. Not with arguments that would waste my time but wise quotations largely forgotten.

"Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread."

"A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government."

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

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it."

"The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible….Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest."

"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none."

"[America] has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart. …Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."
Reply
:iconsiberianclover:
SiberianClover Featured By Owner Sep 18, 2007   Photographer
You sound like you are talking about the anarchists and not the libertarians.
Reply
:iconwebgoddess:
webgoddess Featured By Owner Mar 6, 2007
First of all, libertarians do NOT believe in no central authority. They believe that more power should be given to the people and less to the government. Secondly the libertarian party did not exsist until 1971. The libertarians believe in the rights of the individual not the rights of the government.
Reply
:iconjball430:
jball430 Featured By Owner Jan 10, 2007  Hobbyist Interface Designer
I'm just recently (ie. last night) changed to the Libertarian Party.

It's a great party, from what I can see. The only thing I don't align with it is abortion, but that's the Republican in me.
Reply
:iconhearts-of-fantasy:
Hearts-of-fantasy Featured By Owner Apr 7, 2014  Student Traditional Artist
Many Libertarians (like myself) don't see abortion as a woman's right, because her "right" imposes on the baby's life, which is totally against Libertarianism. Just wanted to point that out.:)
Reply
:iconjball430:
jball430 Featured By Owner Apr 7, 2014  Hobbyist Interface Designer
Well, right, but I mean the party's official stance is pro-choice, so in that regard I am still at odds. However, I completely agree with your reasoning and why I identified as a pro-life libertarian for years. Now, I'm not quite so sure where I stand on abortion.
Reply
:iconwebgoddess:
webgoddess Featured By Owner Jan 15, 2007
I am not sure if I completely agree with their views on guns, but I guess that's the Yankee in me.
Reply
:iconjball430:
jball430 Featured By Owner Jan 15, 2007  Hobbyist Interface Designer
[link]

Watch that show on Gun Control. It really says all I could say and more about why Gun Control is bad.
Reply
Flagged as Spam
:iconwebgoddess:
webgoddess Featured By Owner Dec 16, 2006
Great!
Reply
:icongaeamil:
gaeamil Featured By Owner Nov 14, 2006   Photographer
Not really libertarian, but b/twn that and liberal, so... yeah.
Reply
:iconwebgoddess:
webgoddess Featured By Owner Nov 17, 2006
I'm not completely Libertarian either, but I am more libertarian than Democratic or Republican. I'm not sure I completely agree with Libertarian's views on Gun Control.
Reply
:icongaeamil:
gaeamil Featured By Owner Nov 17, 2006   Photographer
... What would those be? I really need to orient myself politically...
Reply
:iconwebgoddess:
webgoddess Featured By Owner Nov 17, 2006
This web site has articles about how the Libertarian Party feels about the issues. Take a look over there.

[link]
Reply
:icongaeamil:
gaeamil Featured By Owner Nov 18, 2006   Photographer
Hmm. I'm more Libertarian than I thought. I just took a quick "political assesment" in my Civics class. I ought to take a bigger one sometime.
Reply
:iconwebgoddess:
webgoddess Featured By Owner Nov 18, 2006
I did one like that on the Libertarian website.
Reply
:iconjenndixonphotography:
Neat stamp!
Reply
:iconwebgoddess:
webgoddess Featured By Owner Oct 24, 2006
Thanks!
Reply
:iconmisslittlewood:
MissLittlewood Featured By Owner Oct 22, 2006   Writer
Me and My hubby were discussing American Politics the other day. Beacuse he is studying Law, we were curious as to how your political and legal system works. Whats the difference between the House of Representatives and The Senate? :slow: Being under a Monarchy, its difficult to understand how other countrys govern.. But i will say i think i prefer your way of voting to ours. Our counrty is so... Old Fashioned! :XD:

But yeah, great stamp. You certainly gave me a litle insight with your link too. Thanks! :hug:
Reply
:iconwebgoddess:
webgoddess Featured By Owner Oct 24, 2006
The House of Representatives is a representation of each state by population. In other words states with more people have more representatives than those less. For instance Massachusetts has 10 and Texas has 32.(Are those states good examples for you to understand?) The smallest state(s) based on population only have 1 representative. In the Senate the number of representatives from each state is 2 regardless of the size of the state. Having both allows for smaller states to have more fair representation. I hope that makes sense to you. If you have any other questions feel free to ask. :) I don't understand how your country governs either.
Reply
:iconmisslittlewood:
MissLittlewood Featured By Owner Oct 26, 2006   Writer
! :) Yup! That cleared it up nicely... And as for us Brits,:o Well.. Our Queen instructs her government to run the country. We have Three Major Political Parties - Labour, (Who are like your Democrats) Conservatives (Who are like your Republicans) and the Liberal Democrats (Who is basically a "Third Way" Party) The government is made up of Members Of Parliament (MP's) who represent thier own consituency ( Britain is split into different constituencies based on county borders.. So if you live in London, you will have different constituencies within London for each town. ) the people of each constituency pick what candidate they want in the House of Parliament to represent them. The Candidate with the most votes will sit as an MP. Then, the Majority of whatever parties candidates are elected, run the government. Our Current Leader (Tony Blair) Is leader of the Labour Party, so hence we have a Labour government.

Wales, where i live is somewhat considered a Land of its own, so although we are overall governed from The Houses of Parliament, we do have a seperate "Welsh Assembly" that mostly deals with the social aspects of Wales and the Govenment in London give them the finance for Wales. The Assembly dish out the money to our Police forces, Hospitals, Schools and Prisons here in Wales. Its the same basic concept too for Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Confused Yet?!!!? All in all, i think i prefer the American Way! :p
Reply
:iconwebgoddess:
webgoddess Featured By Owner Oct 26, 2006
Yeah....Wales has especially confused me. Plus the term United Kingdom has always confused me. What does it include? Does it include more than one country? If it does how are they united?
Reply
:iconmisslittlewood:
MissLittlewood Featured By Owner Oct 27, 2006   Writer
Yeah.. there are a lot of small islands off the coast of the mainland like Jersey, Guernsey, the Isle Of Wight, and a few others that im at a loss to remember now :blush: But it basically stems from the days of the old empire when Britain governed half the world and had colonies everywhere.. Like India, Africa and places like the Falklands and Hong Kong. These were classed as within our "Kingdom" The Queen of Great Britain is the still the head of state for Australia, and some countries still use our High Court and House of Lords to settle thier disputes. Thankfully, after Queen Victoria's reign, Britain gave up all it's colonies and Independence was granted to them.

In the middle ages, Wales and Scotland had borders with England. We are different race of peoples known as celts. we have or own language and customs that is separate from the English. During certain parts of history, The English crossed these borders and Anglisiced both Scotland and Wales. However Tradition has survived and when Tony Blair came into power in 1997, he allowed the Welsh and the Scottish to Vote on wether or not they wanted thier own Parliaments. Scotland voted for it and Wales sort-of voted for it. Hence why we have an Assembly in Wales, not a Welsh parliament. We dont really trust ourselves to govern ourselves!
After all, the UK as a whole (Incuding all the Islands, Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland) would fit nice and snugly into Texas. Wales is actually smaller than America's smallest states.

One way of putting it, is that America is "UnitedStates" and Britain has United "Kingdoms Which in modern times basically means that our King (or Queen as it is at present) Is overall state Ruler of England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales. These 4 countries make up what is quitessentially, the UK.
Reply
:iconwebgoddess:
webgoddess Featured By Owner Oct 27, 2006
Ok that makes sense. I knew that Wales and Scottland has their own customs and traditions. I have a friend that studied Welch. I don't know much about the culture though. I didn't know that the Queen of England was still the head of state of Australia. I thought they had their own government. I know that they consider themselves independant.(Atleast it seemed that way when I was their last year.) I also didn't know that England ruled the Falklands, too. So does Wales consider themselves their own Country?
Reply
:iconmisslittlewood:
MissLittlewood Featured By Owner Oct 28, 2006   Writer
Well that depends. North Wales feels more strongly about it than us here in the South. Back in the day, the South was hugely industrialised with coal mines and steelworks, which saw a lot of English migrants come here to work. We in the South speak English and have a more commercial existence than those in the Rural North. However the general feeling is that we do consider ourself a different country. We have our own National Anthem, Flag and (in some cases if you choose to speak it) Language. In Wales we have our own national sports teams (seperate from England). I suppose the biggest problem Wales has is that since the decline of industry here, its suffers from a lot of social deprivation and has areas of high poverty and low-income.. We do tend to rely a lot on English money to keep us all going. A lot of people travel over the border into England to work and state benefits (Social Security) is paid by the British Government in London. I work for the National Health Service which is a UK -Wide organisation thats run buy the state..So even though i live in Wales and work in a Welsh hospital, my wages is paid by the British Government. (well.. the taxpayer actually.. thats how we manage to have free healthcare)

Also, Australia does have thier own Government, but the Queen is still their figurehead. Its like if you were in trouble in Australia and had to go to Court, there would still be the Royal coat of arms in the courtroom, the state would be prosecuting on behalf of the Queen. I think Australia is pretty much on the verge of kicking her out.. I know she was booed on her last state visit there!

Personally, I do think of myself as Welsh first, British second and European third. :XD:
Reply
:iconwebgoddess:
webgoddess Featured By Owner Oct 28, 2006
That's cool. Thanks for filling me in. I think it's important to have an understanding of other cultures. Are you of English heritage? I mean did your relatives move to Wales from England? I am a huge mix. My maternal grandfather's relatives came over on the Mayflower.(The first ship to the US from England of Puritans in 1620.) My maternal great grandmother was from Lebanon. My paternal grandfather's family is from Italy, but that's a few generations back. My paternal grandmother is from Yorkshire. She still has and carries a British passport, even though she has lived in the US for almost 60 years.
Reply
(1 Reply)
Add a Comment: