Why are most libertarians men?

[Kris]

Leaving this here for discussion.

http://m.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/06/heres-why-libertarians-are-mostly-men?utm_content=buffer67781&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

And I'm going to suggest reading the article referenced in this piece, also:

https://newrepublic.com/article/121974/cnn-poll-rand-paul-not-popular-republican-women

I am curious as to what the reaction will be.  Probably not favorable, among men who consider themselves libertarians. But since I am neither...

[Cathy]

I am confused by the reference of the article to "the more libertarian past". When and where was this "more libertarian past" exactly? As far as I am aware, the societies of Canada and the United States are currently the most libertarian that they have ever been. There was no "libertarian past". Indeed, the author's own example proves this point: until relatively recently, women were subjected to blatant and comprehensive discrimination under the law. The use of state power to oppress minorities and women is inconsistent with libertarianism. While it might be true that there was less economic regulation in the past (at least for those people permitted to fully participate in society), that does not mean that society was overall more free in the past because economic regulation is only one piece of the puzzle. I recently replied to another poster on this forum to make a similar point.

[scottish]

To Cathy's point, men had many rights that women did not.   Perhaps that contributes to our Libertarian bias?

And then there's the whole "lone cowboy who saves the day" mythos in North America.    Perhaps women are less likely to buy into the idea that lone actors are responsible for great change.

[MDM]

And then there's the whole "lone cowboy who saves the day" mythos in North America.    Perhaps women are less likely to buy into the idea that lone actors are responsible for great change.

Granted, she wasn't referring to a lone actor, but from http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/margaretme100502.html:

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.

Margaret Mead

[scottish]

Heh, of course Donald Trump wasn't around then.

[ender]

I am confused by the reference of the article to "the more libertarian past". When and where was this "more libertarian past" exactly? As far as I am aware, the societies of Canada and the United States are currently the most libertarian that they have ever been. There was no "libertarian past". Indeed, the author's own example proves this point: until relatively recently, women were subjected to blatant and comprehensive discrimination under the law. The use of state power to oppress minorities and women is inconsistent with libertarianism. While it might be true that there was less economic regulation in the past (at least for those people permitted to fully participate in society), that does not mean that society was overall more free in the past because economic regulation is only one piece of the puzzle. I recently replied to another poster on this forum to make a similar point.

It's possible they are referring to the pre-Great Depression days, when there was not much of a social net and you were a lot more "fend for yourselves."

[golden1]

If I had to guess, I would think that women are generally more dependant physically, and staying connected to social networks enhances their well being more than it hurts it.  This translates to a feeling that collective action is beneficial to society in general, and that would include government action.

A.K.A.  "It takes a village."

It is controversial, AND THIS IS AN OVERALL GENERALIZATION but recent studies show that women's brains are wired differently than men, and many of the differences involve superior social networking skills in terms of memory, language and emotional reasoning.  This, to me, would indicate that perhaps women, as a group, find dealing with issues collectively much easier than men would.  The stress of social interactions may be less pronounced leading to more effective and productive group actions. 

[andy85]

Modern day libertarianism stems from "classical liberalism"...and I really like this overly simplistic definition of a classic liberal:

"A classical liberal is someone who is liberal in the original sense of the word: namely, advocating personal freedom over the divine right of the state."

I honestly don't know why people wouldn't be for:
Freedom of speech
Freedom of religion
The right to form political parties and vote
Freedom to invest in and use private property
Freedom to work as one chooses
Freedom to enter into economic contracts
Free trade and freedom of migration
Sexual freedom
Equal rights independent of race or sex

I honestly think the big government social policies of modern day liberals pull on the heart-strings of people. At the same time, the big government foreign policies of modern day conservatives do the same with fear mongering. Both parties' answer to any problem is more government intervention....overseas, domestically, economically, sexually, socially...etc. How about you stay the fk out of my business, give us a flat tax, quit wasting so much fking money, quit bombing people, and let me live my life? The government was basically established for 3 reasons: provide a sound currency, enforce contracts, provide for a national defense. It could be argued that they currently really suck at all three things.....and now i have no idea if i have answered OPs question :)

[Mr Dumpster Stache]

Because boys are smarter than girls!!!!!



*runs and hides*

[yuka]

I read the NewRepublic article. I found it significantly riddled with fallacies to the point that I think discussion would have to start by addressing those.

The author uses the date when the modern libertarian movement was founded as disproof of its having ideological origins in the founding of the country. Also, given that the people at whom his article is most squarely aimed, he does himself a disservice when citing Hayek rather than Friedman. If he had chosen the latter, his argument of ideological origins might have had some stronger basis, although he still would have needed to back it with facts and coherent argument.

He implies that libertarianism is a movement aimed at helping the fringes of society, and then compares that to feminism, where he establishes a false equivalency between its number of supposed beneficiaries, and its number of ideological allies (ignoring which particular brand of feminism he may have meant.) In both cases, it seems that the groups are minorities armed with changes that they believe would improve the whole of society. His implication otherwise is misleading absurdly cynical.

He argues that the "nanny state" is assigned a feminine gender because of that term being applied. One could just as easily argue that complaints against "paternalism" prove the opposite.

Throughout his article, he shows a fundamental misunderstanding of libertarianism; this is shown nowhere better than in the paragraph where he declares that libertarians are hostile to policies that help women. While three of his four examples (paid leave being the exception) are things that the most ideologically pure libertarians would oppose, he does not accurately portray the reasoning. His article implies neglect to handle those issues, rather than correctly recognizing that heavy-handed government action of the type he mentions is diametrically opposed to the core principles of libertarianism (although I think it's pretty common to preempt certain issues from ideological scrutiny out of a sense of urgency.)

He also suggests that Paul is pandering and bending on criminal justice reform. It's accurate to say that it's expedient to accelerate addressing that issue (when spending is surely Paul's biggest target), but reigning in systemic government abuse of an entire demographic is entirely in keeping with libertarian ideals.

There's certainly not any expectation that everyone understand what libertarians want; that's on libertarians, and perhaps if they did so more effectively they'd have more supporters. But the author is speculating on the mindset of libertarians; surely some background research would be justified in this case.

This is by no means an exhaustive list.

[Jeremy E.]

I am confused by the reference of the article to "the more libertarian past". When and where was this "more libertarian past" exactly? As far as I am aware, the societies of Canada and the United States are currently the most libertarian that they have ever been. There was no "libertarian past". Indeed, the author's own example proves this point: until relatively recently, women were subjected to blatant and comprehensive discrimination under the law. The use of state power to oppress minorities and women is inconsistent with libertarianism. While it might be true that there was less economic regulation in the past (at least for those people permitted to fully participate in society), that does not mean that society was overall more free in the past because economic regulation is only one piece of the puzzle. I recently replied to another poster on this forum to make a similar point.

It's possible they are referring to the pre-Great Depression days, when there was not much of a social net and you were a lot more "fend for yourselves."

I thought the same thing,

Modern day libertarianism stems from "classical liberalism"...and I really like this overly simplistic definition of a classic liberal:

"A classical liberal is someone who is liberal in the original sense of the word: namely, advocating personal freedom over the divine right of the state."

I honestly don't know why people wouldn't be for:
Freedom of speech
Freedom of religion
The right to form political parties and vote
Freedom to invest in and use private property
Freedom to work as one chooses
Freedom to enter into economic contracts
Free trade and freedom of migration
Sexual freedom
Equal rights independent of race or sex

I honestly think the big government social policies of modern day liberals pull on the heart-strings of people. At the same time, the big government foreign policies of modern day conservatives do the same with fear mongering. Both parties' answer to any problem is more government intervention....overseas, domestically, economically, sexually, socially...etc. How about you stay the fk out of my business, give us a flat tax, quit wasting so much fking money, quit bombing people, and let me live my life? The government was basically established for 3 reasons: provide a sound currency, enforce contracts, provide for a national defense. It could be argued that they currently really suck at all three things.....and now i have no idea if i have answered OPs question :)

Sounds like Rand Paul, he is republican on some social issues, but other than that it's right, flat tax, don't bomb people, etc. and I think he said he's not dealing with those social issues as they've been decided by the supreme court.

[Cathy]

I am confused by the reference of the article to "the more libertarian past". When and where was this "more libertarian past" exactly? As far as I am aware, the societies of Canada and the United States are currently the most libertarian that they have ever been. There was no "libertarian past". Indeed, the author's own example proves this point: until relatively recently, women were subjected to blatant and comprehensive discrimination under the law. The use of state power to oppress minorities and women is inconsistent with libertarianism. While it might be true that there was less economic regulation in the past (at least for those people permitted to fully participate in society), that does not mean that society was overall more free in the past because economic regulation is only one piece of the puzzle. I recently replied to another poster on this forum to make a similar point.

It's possible they are referring to the pre-Great Depression days, when there was not much of a social net and you were a lot more "fend for yourselves."

I thought the same thing

My post, which you both quoted, acknowledges that "the old days" are sometimes considered, especially by non-libertarians, to be representative of libertarianism. My post then goes on to assert that those "old days" were not particularly free unless you happened to be a member of the right privileged groups, and hence, those "old days" were in fact not really libertarian at all compared to the present. Although you may disagree with that assertion, both of you seemed to have missed the point, as you did not even engage with the assertion in my post.

[yuka]

I am confused by the reference of the article to "the more libertarian past". When and where was this "more libertarian past" exactly? As far as I am aware, the societies of Canada and the United States are currently the most libertarian that they have ever been. There was no "libertarian past". Indeed, the author's own example proves this point: until relatively recently, women were subjected to blatant and comprehensive discrimination under the law. The use of state power to oppress minorities and women is inconsistent with libertarianism. While it might be true that there was less economic regulation in the past (at least for those people permitted to fully participate in society), that does not mean that society was overall more free in the past because economic regulation is only one piece of the puzzle. I recently replied to another poster on this forum to make a similar point.

It's possible they are referring to the pre-Great Depression days, when there was not much of a social net and you were a lot more "fend for yourselves."

I thought the same thing

My post, which you both quoted, acknowledges that "the old days" are sometimes considered, especially by non-libertarians, to be representative of libertarianism. My post then goes on to assert that those "old days" were not particularly free unless you happened to be a member of the right privileged groups, and hence, those "old days" were in fact not really libertarian at all compared to the present. Although you may disagree with that assertion, both of you seemed to have missed the point, as you did not even engage with the assertion in my post.

I wasn't one of the people who quoted without responding, but I'll bite (not implying your post is bait.)

I'll agree with you that the past could only have been called more libertarian if you were the correct class: not a woman, not a slave, not Irish in the early-to-mid 1800s, Chinese in the late 1800s, etc. But aside from that oppressive framework, which is not the aspect that libertarians yearn for, there seems to have been less government. I admit that I don't know the state of tariffs in the 1800s to the point of specific numbers, but I believe it unlikely that they were anywhere near the level of income+payroll+Medicare+social security taxation we have now, especially considering how much more trade was (comparatively) local. Additionally, the much smaller amount of resources afforded the government meant that it was not feasible for them to intrude on everyday life to nearly the degree that they do today. If I'm wrong about the tax burdens, please let me know so I can never make that flawed argument again, and reevaluate accordingly.

Unless there is some reason why oppressing women and minorities was fundamentally necessary for everyone else's freedom (in a "Ones Who Walked Away from Omelas" sort of way?), the 1800s can still provide a useful example of smaller government while simultaneously showcasing some really dumb mistakes that we've since corrected. My assumption is that oppression was not a necessary ingredient, so I believe the rest is a worthwhile example (assuming I'm not wrong about the tax burden before 1914). I'm sure there were advantages to the oppression, because all mono-cultures have those advantages (and corresponding disadvantages), but I don't think they were instrumental to the rest of how the government functioned.

[bobechs]

Because Ayn Rand was a heavy smoker.

[thepokercab]

For what its worth, i come bearing some data.  In my home state, you can register as Democratic, Republican or Libertarian.  Women make up 56% of Democrats, 48% of Republicans and 38% of Libertarians.  Only one data point, but is interesting. 

[GuitarStv]

I honestly don't know why people wouldn't be for:
Freedom of speech
Freedom to invest in and use private property
Freedom to work as one chooses
Freedom to enter into economic contracts
freedom of migration

Are there any republican or democrats who are against these?

Freedom of religion

This is a bit of a fantasy.  You can't have total freedom of religion.  Many religions have core concepts that tell their followers to take rights away from others.  That would encroach on the freedoms of others.  You can only have freedom of religion within limits.

Equal rights independent of race or sex

How about you stay the fk out of my business, give us a flat tax, quit wasting so much fking money, quit bombing people, and let me live my life? The government was basically established for 3 reasons: provide a sound currency, enforce contracts, provide for a national defense. It could be argued that they currently really suck at all three things.....and now i have no idea if i have answered OPs question :)

If the purpose of government is to provide a sound currency, enforce contracts, and provide for national defense then that means that the people of the nation will don't live free.  Any large group of people can get together to oppress minority groups and enslave them / treat them poorly.

Without regulations to prevent pollution people are no longer free to enjoy their own private property . . . because large companies will damage it.

[infogoon]

Without regulations to prevent pollution people are no longer free to enjoy their own private property . . . because large companies will damage it.

No, that will be fixed by the Invisible Hand something something.

I used to work with an ardent libertarian who tried to convince me that the FDA was unnecessary, because if any company started selling tainted pharmaceuticals, the magic of the Free Market would ensure that they go out of business once people start dying.

[Jeremy E.]

of the people that voted for Rand Paul at the Iowa caucuses, it was even between men and women, what's weird is that a much higher percentage of young people voted for him than any other age group

[bacchi]

of the people that voted for Rand Paul at the Iowa caucuses, it was even between men and women, what's weird is that a much higher percentage of young people voted for him than any other age group

That's not really surprising.

[TheOldestYoungMan]

Leaving this here for discussion.

http://m.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/06/heres-why-libertarians-are-mostly-men?utm_content=buffer67781&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

And I'm going to suggest reading the article referenced in this piece, also:

https://newrepublic.com/article/121974/cnn-poll-rand-paul-not-popular-republican-women

I am curious as to what the reaction will be.  Probably not favorable, among men who consider themselves libertarians. But since I am neither...

I've not found it to be the case that libertarian-ism is less popular among women.  So I'll put that in my "assertion based on facts not in evidence" pile.  It may be true, I haven't researched it either way.

The post was interesting from the standpoint of:

Claim:

Political ideology is a fantasy because [whatever].

I suppose the counter-argument that comes to mind first is...yea...so?  The exact same could be said of any ideology.  The underlying framework of ideas that go into an ideology do not exist in a vacuum.  Libertarian ideas can inform current reality in such a way as to make meaningful and important improvements in society.  In exactly the same way that progressive and conservative ideas can.

What I find is that a huge number of people, men and women, don't even understand what it is.  There are probably millions of people right now that personally identify as democrat or republican, liberal or conservative, who don't actually give enough fucks to really pay attention to what their party is doing and compare that to what they really want.

It is equally as possible that women just get caught up in single issue items that stop them from actively engaging in the process at all, as it is that the "history of subjugation by men" makes them wary of the ideas of freedom.

Put another way, maybe men are just more likely to keep pressing for an answer, to the point where they have the extra handful of serious conversations about public policy, and end up more clearly defining themselves, as opposed to sticking with the "conservative" or "liberal" moniker.

That is just as likely as the possibility presented in the article, and backed by just as much actual information on the subject, which is none.

[Kris]

Leaving this here for discussion.

http://m.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/06/heres-why-libertarians-are-mostly-men?utm_content=buffer67781&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

And I'm going to suggest reading the article referenced in this piece, also:

https://newrepublic.com/article/121974/cnn-poll-rand-paul-not-popular-republican-women

I am curious as to what the reaction will be.  Probably not favorable, among men who consider themselves libertarians. But since I am neither...

I've not found it to be the case that libertarian-ism is less popular among women.  So I'll put that in my "assertion based on facts not in evidence" pile.  It may be true, I haven't researched it either way.

The post was interesting from the standpoint of:

Claim:

Political ideology is a fantasy because [whatever].

I suppose the counter-argument that comes to mind first is...yea...so?  The exact same could be said of any ideology.  The underlying framework of ideas that go into an ideology do not exist in a vacuum.  Libertarian ideas can inform current reality in such a way as to make meaningful and important improvements in society.  In exactly the same way that progressive and conservative ideas can.

What I find is that a huge number of people, men and women, don't even understand what it is.  There are probably millions of people right now that personally identify as democrat or republican, liberal or conservative, who don't actually give enough fucks to really pay attention to what their party is doing and compare that to what they really want.

It is equally as possible that women just get caught up in single issue items that stop them from actively engaging in the process at all, as it is that the "history of subjugation by men" makes them wary of the ideas of freedom.

Put another way, maybe men are just more likely to keep pressing for an answer, to the point where they have the extra handful of serious conversations about public policy, and end up more clearly defining themselves, as opposed to sticking with the "conservative" or "liberal" moniker.

That is just as likely as the possibility presented in the article, and backed by just as much actual information on the subject, which is none.

I've been refraining from commenting (I'm the OP) because I more wanted to see what other people, especially those who either identify as libertarian or who feel like they have some insight into libertarianism, had to say, rather than argue any particular of my own feelings.

That said, I wanted to comment on your remark that 'maybe the "history of subjugation by men" makes women wary of the ideas of freedom.'

I think the concept of "freedom" tends to be thought of by different people in different ways. I'm not sure whether your line of reasoning is true, but assuming it tends to be so, then I wouldn't say women are wary of "freedom," but rather that for groups that don't have a history of being subjugated, maybe for those groups (or rather that group: white heterosexual males), "freedom" tends to be defined as "freedom to (do whatever I want)," whereas for groups that have a history of being subjugated or oppressed, freedom tends to be defined as "freedom from (having the dominant group limit what I can do or make decisions for me)"

I personally think perhaps libertarians might not always realize that their "freedom to" sometimes has the consequence of limiting others' "freedom from."

[coolistdude]

of the people that voted for Rand Paul at the Iowa caucuses, it was even between men and women, what's weird is that a much higher percentage of young people voted for him than any other age group

That's not really surprising.

I am a young guy and I would vote for Rand. The last couple elections I voted for his dad Ron. That whole not blowing up people and wanting to end the Fed resonates with me. Take whatever you will out of this anecdotal reply.

[former player]

Because "libertarian" is a more socially acceptable label than "social Darwinism"?

How many so-called "libertarians" think the government should have the right to interfere with what a woman does with her own body?  Rand Paul, for one, apparently.  Libertarian?  My ass.

[acroy]

Modern day libertarianism stems from "classical liberalism"...and I really like this overly simplistic definition of a classic liberal:

"A classical liberal is someone who is liberal in the original sense of the word: namely, advocating personal freedom over the divine right of the state."

I honestly don't know why people wouldn't be for:
Freedom of speech
Freedom of religion
The right to form political parties and vote
Freedom to invest in and use private property
Freedom to work as one chooses
Freedom to enter into economic contracts
Free trade and freedom of migration
Sexual freedom
Equal rights independent of race or sex

I honestly think the big government social policies of modern day liberals pull on the heart-strings of people. At the same time, the big government foreign policies of modern day conservatives do the same with fear mongering. Both parties' answer to any problem is more government intervention....overseas, domestically, economically, sexually, socially...etc. How about you stay the fk out of my business, give us a flat tax, quit wasting so much fking money, quit bombing people, and let me live my life? The government was basically established for 3 reasons: provide a sound currency, enforce contracts, provide for a national defense. It could be argued that they currently really suck at all three things.....and now i have no idea if i have answered OPs question :)

Fantastic. Nailed it.

[Jeremy E.]

Because "libertarian" is a more socially acceptable label than "social Darwinism"?

How many so-called "libertarians" think the government should have the right to interfere with what a woman does with her own body?  Rand Paul, for one, apparently.  Libertarian?  My ass.

Rand claims he is a "different type of republican" rather than a libertarian, but he's the closest thing to a libertarian in the running for president. Although Libertarians think women should have the right to do whatever she wants with her body, they still don't want to fund planned parenthood, but just because they don't want to fund anything.

[Philociraptor]

Although Libertarians think women should have the right to do whatever she wants with her body, they still don't want to fund planned parenthood, but just because they don't want to fund anything.

This is my problem with libertarianism. They ignore evidence-based ways of improving lives with government spending. Like how free birth control and sexual education leads to the improvement of the status of women all around. Or how unconditional grants given to low income families lead to increased spending on necessities, including income-producing assets which will increase their quality of life going forward while also putting money back into the market.

[Jeremy E.]

Although Libertarians think women should have the right to do whatever she wants with her body, they still don't want to fund planned parenthood, but just because they don't want to fund anything.

This is my problem with libertarianism. They ignore evidence-based ways of improving lives with government spending. Like how free birth control and sexual education leads to the improvement of the status of women all around. Or how unconditional grants given to low income families lead to increased spending on necessities, including income-producing assets which will increase their quality of life going forward while also putting money back into the market.

Well this is debatable, hence the reason for more than one political party

[Russ]

Although Libertarians think women should have the right to do whatever she wants with her body, they still don't want to fund planned parenthood, but just because they don't want to fund anything.

This is my problem with libertarianism. They ignore evidence-based ways of improving lives with government spending. Like how free birth control and sexual education leads to the improvement of the status of women all around. Or how unconditional grants given to low income families lead to increased spending on necessities, including income-producing assets which will increase their quality of life going forward while also putting money back into the market.

Well this is debatable, hence the reason for more than one political party

If you're gonna refute it, a citation or two would be rad

[cheapass]

I really believe that most people, if they analyzed their true political leanings would identify more with Libertarian ideals than the Rep/Dem parties.

"Socially tolerant and fiscally responsible"

http://alibertarianfuture.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/people-on-the-left-people-on-the-right-and-libertarians-believe-in.jpg

Reduce military interventionism
Stop illegitimate wars
Close down most of the HUNDREDS of military bases we have worldwide
Stop warrantless wiretaps and NSA overreach
Get rid of the "Patriot Act" that allows citizens to be detained indefinitely without charges if some bureaucrat calls them the "T" word
Reduce taxes
Stop corporate subsidies, bullshit bailouts, etc.
Balance the budget, reduce the national debt
Reduce government meddling in the economy and let free markets decide the winners and losers (most efficient use of capital)
Allow people the freedom to defend themselves and their families with firearms
Equal rights for all citizens: gays, muslims, everyone
Reduce the size and scope of entitlement programs (government playing Robin Hood).
Stop banning substances that adults choose to put in their bodies, reduce/end the failed drug war.

Granted, all of these wouldn't be magically achieved if a Libertarian won the white house. But the country could definitely be pulled in this direction a little bit.

[Jeremy E.]

Although Libertarians think women should have the right to do whatever she wants with her body, they still don't want to fund planned parenthood, but just because they don't want to fund anything.

This is my problem with libertarianism. They ignore evidence-based ways of improving lives with government spending. Like how free birth control and sexual education leads to the improvement of the status of women all around. Or how unconditional grants given to low income families lead to increased spending on necessities, including income-producing assets which will increase their quality of life going forward while also putting money back into the market.

Well this is debatable, hence the reason for more than one political party

If you're gonna refute it, a citation or two would be rad

I'm not going to refute it, It's probably true that those things help, but they are debatable, hence why most republicans/libertarians want to reduce/reform entitlements

[bacchi]

I really believe that most people, if they analyzed their true political leanings would identify more with Libertarian ideals than the Rep/Dem parties.

[...]

Reduce taxes
[...]
Reduce government meddling in the economy and let free markets decide the winners and losers (most efficient use of capital)

This is where most people have concerns. The "free market" is often wrong and ineffective. Or, at best, it's late to recognize problems.

Since we're chatting on a DARPA initiated project, I'm sure you can see the importance of government spending.

[The Happy Philosopher]

There is a difference between Libertarian and libertarian. Looking at the Libertarian candidates they often times are actually quite authoritarian in many of their beliefs. Many women (and men) I know have strong libertarian beliefs when you ask them, but would never identify with an actual candidate because most of them are nuts!

In my opinion the biggest problem with Libertarianism is that it can not work. It is an impossible political philosophy. At it's extreme it leads to breakdown of government, anarchy and eventually a despot with an army seizing power. Humans are not designed for pure Libertarianism. Where is works best is when it is applied to each individual using the little 'l'.

That said, as previous commenters have pointed out, when many people declare they are libertarian they are really identifying with classic liberalism.

[MDM]

Although Libertarians think women should have the right to do whatever she wants with her body, they still don't want to fund planned parenthood, but just because they don't want to fund anything.

This is my problem with libertarianism. They ignore evidence-based ways of improving lives with government spending. Like how free birth control and sexual education leads to the improvement of the status of women all around. Or how unconditional grants given to low income families lead to increased spending on necessities, including income-producing assets which will increase their quality of life going forward while also putting money back into the market.

Well this is debatable, hence the reason for more than one political party

If you're gonna refute it, a citation or two would be rad

I'm not going to refute it, It's probably true that those things help, but they are debatable, hence why most republicans/libertarians want to reduce/reform entitlements

Pertinent and reasonable opinion piece: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/28/opinion/compassionate-conservatives-hello.html?rref=collection%2Fcolumn%2Fnicholas-kristof&_r=0.  Includes

The parties see each other as the root of all evil. But when they have cooperated on humanitarian efforts, real progress has been made: on AIDS, on prison rape, on the earned-income tax credit.

The sad truth is that neither party has done enough to address the shame of deep-rooted poverty in America.

[infogoon]

There is a difference between Libertarian and libertarian. Looking at the Libertarian candidates they often times are actually quite authoritarian in many of their beliefs. Many women (and men) I know have strong libertarian beliefs when you ask them, but would never identify with an actual candidate because most of them are nuts!

Official Libertarian dogma seems to head straight over a cliff pretty quickly. People are generally okay with relaxing vice laws, cutting government spending, getting rid of goofy nanny state cruft -- and then Libertarians try to follow that up with disbanding the FDA, returning to the gold standard, and turning every highway into a privately owned toll road. That's where they lose people.

[Cathy]

Official Libertarian dogma seems to head straight over a cliff pretty quickly. ...

There is no "official Libertarian dogma". As I previously noted, libertarianism is a framework for analysis, not a specific set of views. Libertarians have wildly different views from each other on pretty much every topic.

Are there any republican or democrats who are against these [policies]?

This question is premised on a false trichotomy. "Democrat" is not logically inconsistent with "libertarian". "Republican" is not logically inconsistent with "libertarian". Libertarianism is a framework, not a political party. Many libertarians are nonpartisan, willing to evaluate each proposition on its own merits. Libertarian discourse typically consists of sophisticated and open-minded analysis, not blind adherence to the published positions of any particular political party.

I used to work with an ardent libertarian who tried to convince me that the FDA was unnecessary, because if any company started selling tainted pharmaceuticals, the magic of the Free Market would ensure that they go out of business once people start dying.

You are willfully misrepresenting how a free market alternative to regulators like the FDA would work. I express no view on the merits of such an idea, but it can't be intelligently discussed if you just argue against strawpersons and silly caricatures.

Under a free market system of drug regulation, the FDA or similar would still exist; the only difference is that it would be a private entity rather than backed by the force of the state. However, drug companies and drug stores would still essentially be required to participate in a regulatory system because no one would purchase drugs not approved by the regulator (unless they knowingly want to take their chances, similar to how they can already do so by purchasing drugs online). As far as I know, trademark law is generally accepted by libertarians and it could be used to enforce unique and prominent insignia that would visibly designate the drug as approved by the regulator.

Under current contract law, a private regulator would not have the power to apply penalties to violators in excess of actual damages because contractual penalties are generally unenforceable at common law. This would be problematic because actual damages are likely insufficient to act as a deterrent against bad actors. Luckily, libertarians generally oppose the rule against penalties. Although it remains part of the law in most or all American and Canadian jurisdictions, the rule against penalties has been called "a blatant interference with freedom of contract". Elsley v. JG Collins Ins Agencies, [1978] 2 SCR 916, 937. I don't think many libertarians would support retaining that rule.

Another difference from the present system is that, most likely, there would be more than one regulator and they would compete for acceptance. An analysis of whether that is a good or bad thing is complicated. In fact, the entire issue is complicated. If you want to discuss it in earnest, that's one thing, but your posts display a distinct lack of curiosity. You seem more interested in declaring ideas to be silly without even understanding them.

Again, I express no view on the merits of free market drug regulation. As far as contemplated deregulation goes, I should imagine that that would far down on the list of possibilities. More obvious candidates for privatisation are entities that regulate and limit the practice of certain professions.

[infogoon]

Official Libertarian dogma seems to head straight over a cliff pretty quickly. ...

There is no "official Libertarian dogma". As I previously noted, libertarianism is a framework for analysis, not a specific set of views. Libertarians have wildly different views from each other on pretty much every topic.

I intentionally used the big-L version of Libertarian to denote the stance of the Libertarian Party; hence my use of "official". It was a continuation of the post that I was responding to.

You are willfully misrepresenting how a free market alternative to regulators like the FDA would work. I express no view on the merits of such an idea, but it can't be intelligently discussed if you just argue against strawpersons and silly caricatures.

No, I'm recalling a conversation I had with a onetime coworker. I don't recall whether he was made of straw.

Under a free market system of drug regulation, the FDA or similar would still exist; the only difference is that it would be a private entity rather than backed by the force of the state. However, drug companies and drug stores would still essentially be required to participate in a regulatory system because no one would purchase drugs not approved by the regulator (unless they knowingly want to take their chances, similar to how they can already do so by purchasing drugs online). As far as I know, trademark law is generally accepted by libertarians and it could be used to enforce unique and prominent insignia that would visibly designate the drug as approved by the regulator.

So something like Underwriters' Laboratories for pharmaceuticals? What would be the advantage of running this as a private entity rather than a state agency?

[Cathy]

I intentionally used the big-L version of Libertarian to denote the stance of the Libertarian Party; hence my use of "official".

Regardless of what you were saying, it was (and is) worth emphasising that the published positions of a particular relatively unpopular political party do not dictate or govern libertarianism or liberty in general. I have never even looked at the website of either the US Libertarian Party or the Canadian Libertarian Party, so I don't actually know what their positions are, but I don't think it is relevant to this discussion or to a discussion of libertarianism in general (unless the topic is "Who should I vote for if I am a libertarian?").

No, I'm recalling a conversation I had with a onetime coworker. I don't recall whether he was made of straw.

The alleged coworker and the conversation with him may have been real, but the purpose of introducing them into this thread was not to start a serious intellectual discussion about the merits of special state powers for drug regulation; it was just to suggest that libertarianism is silly. As such, your use of the coworker was as a strawperson, even if he is real.

What would be the advantage of running this as a private entity rather than a state agency?

As mentioned above, I express no view on the merits of special state powers for drug regulation. Since I express no view on that, I'm not particularly interested in debating the merits of it either. However, I will answer your question in general terms in case it is helpful.

Generally, libertarians are sceptical of unnecessary state power because of what they consider to be a history of abuse of it. Libertarians generally accept a role for the state, for example, in the enforcement of trademarks and the prevention of fraud -- which are both very relevant to drug regulation. However, when you propose special state powers for drug regulation, a libertarian would want to know why we the people should trust the state with that additional power, if it can be handled just as well without extra state powers. Generally speaking, I'm guessing the answer would be along the lines that the injection of foreign chemicals into human bodies is too serious of a matter to be left to private business because of the potential for life and death.

A libertarian might be willing to accept that answer as a matter of principle, but only if justified by actual reasoning and analysis and empirical data, rather than just assertions. I'm sure you want to argue that that data exists, and maybe it does or maybe it doesn't -- as mentioned, I'm not here to debate that. I'm just explaining the framework that libertarians would consider.