Am I libertarian?
It doesn't.
I am not sure that all libertarians accept the paradox, at least that the phenomenon you describe would provide any unified group with a similar amount of power as the government. I am also not sure that most libertarians believe they are on their way to the top, as that kind of statement would only seem true with a younger crowd(who generally believe they are on their way to the top whatever they believe), but I can't imagine seeing this with older people or even with the intellectuals libertarians have.
Generally speaking though, I think that the summary of the views was relatively accurate. Possessing a negative bias? Sure, as I am sure the some libertarians will present different facts and different concerns. I mean, certainly an anarcho-capitalist wouldn't care as much about what the constitution actually said given that they want to get rid of the government entirely.
Sometimes they can, sometimes they have been given the opportunity for many years and failed to take up the mantle.
Much of private business is obsessed with perks, protectionist incentives like "intellectual property". Without incentivising things they don't want to do, they won't do them. It is as simple as that. You can idealise all you like about it, it doesn’t change a thing.
Ok.... um.... Neanthumain never said that all libertarians were bigots or intolerant, only that there was a significant population influenced by paleoconservatism. There is also a significant population that is less connected to paleoconservatism that takes a much more socially liberal view on things.
You really have to qualify this. Anarcho-capitalists are typically in the libertarian camp, and they want to privatize the entire government, I know you probably don't go this far, therefore, you probably have to figure out how far you really are going. Once again, this is vaguely libertarian, but a more market-oriented liberal could possibly agree to this(while still upholding some regulations, tax rules and redistribution and things like that), as could most conservatives.
I also believe that free enterprise can deliver goods and services to the consumer better than government can. I just have a problem with people confusing consumership with citizenship.
Libertarianism generally thinks that unregulated free market capitalism is the solution to all of the ills of society. What disturbs me is not just that people are STILL looking for "the answer to everything", but it's what they've come up with: "money is the answer to everything".
"Pay workers more, and they'll be happier/in a better mood, and thus, nicer to the customers". My response to that? There is never a good excuse to not be kind to a stranger/customer. If I am paying my workers a decent wage and they somehow require MORE just to do what they ought - I'd rather just hire someone else - someone who isn't missing a sensitivity chip; someone who gets the point of pro-social behavior.
And that's what gets me about Capitalism/The Marketplace/Money/Free Enterprise -- I don't understand why human beings need to be bribed so much with shiny trinkets just TO DO WHAT OUGHT TO COME NATURALLY.
I was talking to someone recently on another forum about Libertarianism, and they were going on and on about the difference between "Civilized Freedom" and "Uncivilized Freedom". This is how the described the difference between Civilization (Civilized Freedom) and The Jungle (Uncivilized Freedom). My problem with their description of "Civilized Freedom", Anarcho-Capitalism, what have you - is that it's nothing more than Savagery under the cloak of social etiquette. They see Virtue as a side-effect of commercial trade LoL. They treat it like an after-thought instead of a guiding principle that only works when people are DELIBERATELY and CONCIOUSLY engaged in pro-social activity. To a Libertarian, Life/Civilization is still nothing but a "game" where there are "winners" and "losers" and it's all based on competition and "survival of the fittest". Kindness is a way to lure customers - it's a way to MAKE MONEY- it has no real significance on its own (I'm sorry, but that's just CREEPS me out that people out there can actually live with themselves in this mode of thinking LoL )
They are equating Social Darwinism with Civilization, and I think that is a huge mistake. "Incomplete" as 'John Nash' said in the movie "A Beautiful Mind'. It's an incomplete picture of what makes Civilization work. Competition may be an incentive to do something (plant crops, for example) But nothing can be accomplished without Cooperation, and for that, there must be some established sense of UNITY among people. To me that's the biggest problem in America - maybe it's because of the cultural melting pot, or god knows what - but there's no such sense of Unity - of having a common goal or purpose.
Those two concepts are usually pitted against each other: Competition vs. Cooperation. They are really two sides of the same coin.
Life in America is a rat race - I believe the imbalance of Competition to Cooperation is unhealthy for the human psyche, but a Libertarian would tell me the opposite - that it IS healthy for the human psyche and that I'm just "weak". Am I weak for wanting to be a part of something? Am I weak for wanting to live by the principles of cooperation, not JUST competition? Am I weak for basically wanting to see society adopt THE OTHER HALF of the equation that makes us Civilized?
"Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of supply and demand; it is the privilege of human beings to live under the laws of justice and mercy" - Wendell Berry
I only speak for myself here, but I think Libertarianism is a very unoriginal, lop-sided, and uninspired way of approaching the problems of the human condition. Capitalism is a good MEANS of exchanging goods, etc. - but it should never be THE REASON for doing things. If there is a way we can use Capitalism WITHOUT rewarding sociopathic behavior - then definitely count me in LoL But this crony-capitalism we have in the United States is no bueno...
Examples:
I support legalizing marijuana because I feel that people should decide for themselves if they want to do it.
I feel that the government should stay out of the marriage business altogether, and that marriage licenses should be issued by the private sector.
I strongly oppose 99% of forms of censorship.
I mostly agree with you but....
If people want to smoke marijuana, that's ok but what if they want to take Cristal Meth that will destroy their brains and make them wards of the state at our expense?
Censorship? Are you happy with "Queer as Folk" and "Californication?
I'm not!
Do you want your children shown (in great detail) the most perverted sexual acts as if they were normal?
Two issues there:
1) Does meth "destroy brains"? This assertion will require some evidence. And I don't think it's relevant, because:
2) Must we pay for the user's error? A libertarian state would assume no responsibility for anyone voluntarily harming himself.
With liberty comes responsibility. A libertarian state treats you like an adult, and assumes that you both know what you're doing and that you're willing to shoulder the consequences. If you do something stupid, you, not your neighbors, pay for it.
I'm not!
Do you want your children shown (in great detail) the most perverted sexual acts as if they were normal?
Freedom of speech is worthless if it only protects speech you agree with.
I am willing to grant you the power to censor what your children see. I'm not willing to grant you the power to censor what I can see.
I left home many years ago eager to start my life as an adult. Tragically, I ran straight into the welcoming arms of Big Mother government, insisting on running my life for my own good.
I did a quick Google and found this page that gives a good summary of what libertarianism is about:
http://libertarianplace.com/overview.aspx
The page offers elaboration on this principle.
This used to be something you had to sign before you could join the Libertarian Party.