Are Libertarians the only ones that are truly for smaller government?

You're right, it's just an assumption on my part that Americans would be decent enough to prevent it from happening without the Federal government. I think it's a safe assumption to make, though. The vast majority of Americans see slavery as a pure evil.

 

People who bring up slavery when discussing libertarianism are apparently clueless to the very foundation of the ideology. It's the root of the word.

Statists support slavery. They make everyone slaves to every war, every handout, every bailout, every subsidy, every pet project, every enforced moral, every decision of their hired masters.

 

I would so love to believe you. But I don't.

And in any case, there would always remain those people, hopefully a minority, that were willing to practice slavery. How do you, as an individual, stop them? Remember, they'll have some economic advantages from the practice. You'd be limited to the resources that you can acquire on your own, while they're consuming the energy and resources of many people.

 

Oh absolutley. The Republican party, imo, supports bigger government than the liberals in a ton of areas. They're both horrible though.

 

But you still have the problem that the only reason some people don't practice slavery is because other people don't allow them to.

Libertarianism will require a state in order to enforce liberty, won't it? Yes, I know, that sounds like an oxymoron, 'enforce liberty.' But it's still true. If you don't have men with guns forbidding the practice of slavery, slavery will be practiced.

And by enforcing this little market adjustment, those men with guns are making themselves the de facto state. Aren't they?

So far as I'm aware, only very strong governments that many people saw at the time as oppressive have been capable of ending slavery. Are there any exceptions?

 

No, they're not. They would only become a state if they successfully established a compulsory territorial monopoly of ultimate decision-making (jurisdiction) and of taxation.

 

Fine, then don't believe me.

 

I suppose it depends on your definition of "smaller." In truth, there is only about a dime's worth of difference between conservatives and libertarians in terms of preferred size and scope of government. I can tell from what you've typed here that, like most liberals, you are unaware of how much government intervention your side actually supports on social issues. In a side by side comparison, liberals still support more intrusive government policies into people's personal lives than do conservatives. The "conservatives are for big government on social issues" argument is a myth that is easily debunked once a quantifiable comparision is laid out.

 

I think I agree with you. Most Libertarians would hold the position you outlined, and then the radicals like myself would take it even further, but as much as us radicals would like to call ourselves the true libertarians, the majority of people calling themselves libertarians just want a slightly more liberal (in the classic sense) constitutional government.

However, I would hardly call the modern Democratic party a party for limited government any more than the modern GOP.

 

They would be establishing a compulsory territory monopoly of ultimate decision-making on the practice of slavery, specifically it being forbidden.

I don't think whether or not there are taxes actually matters to whether or not there's a state.

A state = the way it is. When you make a rule about the way it is, and enforce it, you're the state.

 

The only way I can think of to test which of us is right or wrong would be for you to put on the appearance of being a likely slave and see if anyone tries to enslave you. I don't recommend this test, though, since I'm pretty sure someone eventually would.

 

I would love to see that quantifiable comparison. I think that, like most conservatives, you are unaware of how much government intervention your side actually supports on all issues.

 

No human being has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, nor to delegate such initiation of force.
Every living creature has the absolute right to self defense by any means necessary.

Defending against being enslaved is not the same as the establishment of a state.

 

Aside from drugs, abortion, and marriage (which is technically still your side trying expand the law, but for the sake of argument I'll give it to you anyway), what else do conservatives support government intervention in on social issues?

Your side either supports or has supported:

public smoking bans
private smoking bans
fast food bans
light bulb bans
circumcision bans
pet store bans
asthma inhaler bans
Christmas decoration bans
large size soft drink bans
repeal of the second amendment
censorship of politically incorrect opinions on radio and television
cap and trade
Fairness Doctrine
net neutrality
limitation of public expression of religion
removal of Rush Limbaugh
removal of Glenn Beck
removal of Fox News
removal of anti-Obama signs on people's private property

And you guys even sent armed federal agents to raid a Gibson guitar factory last year and confiscate "illegal wood" made from "endangered trees."

Illegal wood? Really, guys?

 

I'm sure someone would try to enslave me but that has no relevance to our contention. I am saying that slavery as an institution would never be tolerated by Americans at large. Sure, some sick freaks will always manage to evade justice, but the open practice of slavery would never be tolerated anywhere in America. The deluge of outrage and negative publicity alone would be enough to deter most people from trying it.

 

I think you'd be surprised. Certain parts of the USA still puts up with blatant racism.

 

Holy (*)(*)(*)(*). I don't think most liberals are in favor of banning any of those really. You're confusing liberals and democrats again. And Christmas decoration bans? Are you talking about bans in public establishments? Because those are unconstitutional anyway.

 

That's quite the leap, from blatant racism to institutional slavery.

 

Each is popular to varying degrees among the left. The circumcision and pet store bans were really popular in San Francisco. Arguably the most liberal city in America.

Would you like to explain how Christmas decorations on public establishments are unconstitutional? Quite ironic that you're denying what I've put forth here while packaging it with an insistence on banning something, wouldn't you agree?

 

Sure, Read the First Amendment. It is easy enough to see that Christmas decorations, an expression of the Christian religion on government buildings are "respecting the establishment of religion", something the Congress and by extension the government, is explicitly prohibited from by the Constitution.

 

The difference is principles. Libertarianism relies on the simple principle that it's wrong to initiate aggression against peaceful people. This stems from natural rights and self-ownership, and from that principle, the rightness or wrongness of political action can be objectively determined. To give an example, a liberal/progressive claims that gays should be allowed to marry. That is a libertarian position as well. However, the liberal/progressive does not argue that the government has no right to regulate marriage, only that it's unfair to prevent some people from marrying. The libertarian, based on the non-aggression axiom, argues that the government has no right to intervene in the activities of peaceful, consenting adults.

 

Why would any of those countries want to take over a region populated by 330+ million people who already shrugged off the most powerful and demanding government on Earth?

 

Libertarian's are strictly driven by philosophy. They do not know or care if it would produce better results because that is not what they are after. They are simply after the freedom to do whatever they want regardless of the consequences.

 

They Lie and they are Arians

 

As a syncretic ideologue (combination of classical liberalism, neoliberalism, and libertarianism, with a directional path towards anarchism), I espouse philosophical and result-based desires. I seek greater liberty and freedom, yet I want to ensure that the devolution to such constitutes feasible objectives. This is why I consider such a process to be highly gradual. Even the movements of Ron Paul are too abrupt to render proper products.