Big "L" Libertarians vs small "l" libertarians???? wtfisthedifference?

6SpeedTA95 · 11-28-2006, 04:09 PM

Whats the difference?

I'd like to know.

lew · 11-28-2006, 04:13 PM

Big L Libertarians typically are in line with the LP 100%. They tend to sometimes over emphasize minor issues like drugs.

Small l libertarians usually tend to be paleolibertarians, anarcho-capitalists, or some other blend. They may vote for Libertarians but realize that a lot of Libertarians running for office are quacks. They also disagree with Libertarians on some issues, such as border control. A lot of libertarians are not for open borders where as a lot of Libertarians are.

6SpeedTA95 · 11-28-2006, 04:15 PM

Originally Posted by lew

Big L Libertarians typically are in line with the LP 100%. They tend to sometimes over emphasize minor issues like drugs.

Small l libertarians usually tend to be paleolibertarians, anarcho-capitalists, or some other blend. They may vote for Libertarians but realize that a lot of Libertarians running for office are quacks. They also disagree with Libertarians on some issues, such as border control. A lot of libertarians are not for open borders where as a lot of Libertarians are.

Interesting...

Diamond Cross · 11-28-2006, 04:26 PM

There are different varieties of libertarianswim as there are liberals or conservatives, but libertarianism can never work.

Little to no laws just doesn't cut it because people will always push boundaries, either purposefully for the fun of it or by neccessity. Not to mention the people who'll go to the government to protect their interests.

In order to keep the government from expanding and spiraling out of control, more legislation would have to be enacted to prevent the exansion.

DosEquis · 11-28-2006, 05:29 PM

Originally Posted by lew

Big L Libertarians typically are in line with the LP 100%. They tend to sometimes over emphasize minor issues like drugs.

Small l libertarians usually tend to be paleolibertarians, anarcho-capitalists, or some other blend. They may vote for Libertarians but realize that a lot of Libertarians running for office are quacks. They also disagree with Libertarians on some issues, such as border control. A lot of libertarians are not for open borders where as a lot of Libertarians are.

So big L libertarians are the crazys who have problems getting elected...

and small l libertarians are republicans?

Scrum · 11-28-2006, 05:36 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

So big L libertarians are the crazys who have problems getting elected...

and small l libertarians are republicans?

lew · 11-28-2006, 05:44 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

So big L libertarians are the crazys who have problems getting elected...

and small l libertarians are republicans?

A lot of small l libertarians were Republicans until Bush.

thomez · 11-28-2006, 06:01 PM

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

In order to keep the government from expanding and spiraling out of control, more legislation would have to be enacted to prevent the exansion.

To make the government smaller, more legislation will be necessary.

motivez · 11-28-2006, 06:02 PM

Less is more, np!

TheScatman · 11-28-2006, 06:15 PM

big L usually refers to members of the US Libertarian Party

small l refers to belivers in the libertarian philosiphy, ie. non aggression axiom, property rights, etc.

as for their common differences, lew highlighted them above pretty well

RMNIXON · 11-28-2006, 06:16 PM

Originally Posted by thomez

To make the government smaller, more legislation will be necessary.

Just get back to what is really in the Constitution:

Amendment 10:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

TheScatman · 11-28-2006, 06:17 PM

Originally Posted by lew

A lot of small l libertarians were Republicans until Bush.

The 1994 Republican revolution was libertarian in nature, but as Rothbard pointed out, it wasnt truly libertarian and was bound to fail

6SpeedTA95 · 11-28-2006, 06:37 PM

Mayb I should be a small "l" libertarian in my profile?

hsmith · 11-28-2006, 07:47 PM

I'd vote for a real conservative. True conservatism ie: Robert Nisbet conservative theory is appealing to me.

Sadly, Republicans come no where close to that.

RMNIXON · 11-28-2006, 08:40 PM

Originally Posted by TheScatman

The 1994 Republican revolution was libertarian in nature, but as Rothbard pointed out, it wasnt truly libertarian and was bound to fail

"The Era of Big Government is over" truly rang hollow. As soon as people looked the other way that was over and done with by both parties!

RMNIXON · 11-28-2006, 08:43 PM

And if the Republicans are cowards in this regard don't forget who screamed that we would starve the children and push old folks out of wheelchairs and leave whole families homeless on the streets when the 1994 congress took power. If people are going to fall for that crap banded about by liberals perhaps they get what they deserve in government?

TheScatman · 11-28-2006, 10:11 PM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Mayb I should be a small "l" libertarian in my profile?

sometimes it sounds like it

Thorgrim · 11-28-2006, 10:20 PM

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

Just get back to what is really in the Constitution:

Amendment 10:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.[/size]
[/size]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people'. The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers

From the beginning and for many years the amendment has been construed as not depriving the national government of authority to resort to all means for the exercise of a granted power which are appropriate and plainly adapted to the permitted end

Whatever doubts may have arisen of the soundness of that conclusion they have been put at rest by the decisions under the Sherman Act and the National Labor Relations Act which we have cited

The Tenth Amendment does not deprive the national government of authority to resort to all means for the exercise of a granted power which are appropriate and plainly adapted to the permitted end.

Supreme Court of the United States
UNITED STATES
v.
DARBY.
No. 82.
Argued Dec. 19, 20, 1940.
Decided Feb. 3, 1941.
As Amended Feb. 17, 1941.
312 U.S. 657, 61 S.Ct. 451
U.S. 1941.

A decision from a very conservative court, many members who shot down parts of FDR's new deal

The debate has been over for decades, let it go

6SpeedTA95 · 11-28-2006, 10:50 PM

Please do not plagerize
FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Tenth Amendment: Annotations pg. 1 of 2

Scrum · 11-28-2006, 10:56 PM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Please do not plagerize
FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Tenth Amendment: Annotations pg. 1 of 2

So now we can leave bad rep for people not putting things in quotes?

If anyone didn't know that was a copy/paste I feel sorry for you.