Is this such a thing? It seems like the lion’s share of talk about libertarianism on this board centers around the economic aspects.
Does the ‘libertarian movement’ (such as it is) recognize and/or place value on those people who may not toe the line on every economic edict but buy in fully to the social side?
If by “social side” you are referring to our right to make personal decisions about our private lifestyles and bodies, so long as we don’t violate the rights of others, then the answer is: yes, absolutely.
The reason the economic side gets discussed more on this forum, I think, is that there are a lot of non-libertarians who are so incensed at the idea of a free-market economy that they are much more inclined to attack libertarians for their advocacy of it, rather than acknowledging that they share some areas of agreement with libertarians on social issues.
Does the ‘libertarian movement’ (such as it is) recognize and/or place value on those people who may not toe the line on every economic edict but buy in fully to the social side?
No they don’t, because they are entirely intertwined. You can’t take an individuals money by force and then claim that you are a “Social Libertarian”, because you have just violated the personal rights of that individual.
“I respect your right to smoke pot…but not your property rights.” Doesn’t make much sense does it?
~Matt
“I respect your right to smoke pot…but not your property rights.” Doesn’t make much sense does it?
I think you mean “it doesn’t make sense to me.”
Don’t you?
Because I think there are a LOT of people who do agree with that sort of thinking.
It sounds as if you and I interpreted the OP’s question differently. If someone only recognizes the so-called “social” side of libertarianism, we wouldn’t recognize them as true libertarians, but we still regard the social issues as being important. (For that matter, if someone only recognizes the so-called “economic” side to the exclusion of social issues, that person isn’t a true libertarian either.)
I think you mean “it doesn’t make sense to me.”
Don’t you?
I can’t speak for Matt, but I don’t think it makes sense, period. If your body is your property and if the pot is rightfully acquired property, then if one believes in property rights, then one also is logically bound to accept that the owner can do as he/she chooses with both of them.
Because I think there are a LOT of people who do agree with that sort of thinking.
A lot of people might think the world is still flat…that doesn’t make much sense does it 
~Matt
troll much?
It sounds as if you and I interpreted the OP’s question differently.
I think so because I took this.
Does the ‘libertarian movement’ (such as it is) recognize and/or place value on those people who may not toe the line on every economic edict but buy in fully to the social side?
To mean “Can we allow people to do whatever they want to do, gay marriage, smoke pot, abortion, have guns but still control everything economically”
Since “Money” and “Property” is the tool that allows people to “Do those things they want”, you can’t take away their ability to “Do those things” and the come back and say “We respect your rights to do what you want”
~Matt
Doesn’t make much sense does it?
It makes sense to me. Keep in mind that most of us are not smart enough to have a perfect understanding human*** behavior to call upon when evaluating scenarios. So we have to make due with competing theories which apply to different situations, and sometimes conflict.
***Hell, I can’t even come up with an adequate definition of human.
I agree with what you say; you can’t ultimately have the one without the other. I guess the meaning of the OP’s phrase “recognize and/or place value on those people” was unclear to me. Personally, I would respect the fact that they came to the right conclusions about some issues at least, and I would try to work from there.
Well, I agree that people who just accept the social side of libertarianism (‘I can do what I want with my body and my mind and the government shouldn’t interfere’) aren’t ‘libertarians’ in the commonly understood form.
But this isn’t a ‘no true scotsman’ debate. I don’t think ‘social libertarians’ are trying to infiltrate your movement or anything (at least I’m not). But I wonder if ‘true’ libertarians are willing to accept that the social side has value even on its own, and work with those who are singly focused on social issues. Gay rights activists, pot legalization activists, etc.
A lot of these people might actually be ‘true’ libertarians, but not all are - likely their political views outside of the specific issue in question aren’t always totally the same. But I believe a lot of these issues are valid on their own, and I wonder why libertarians seem a bit standoffish when it comes to supporting them and the already established activism around them.
Do you support pot legalization because of the specific problems caused by prohibition? Or do you support it because that’s the libertarian thing to do?
I can understand how a person could grant others the freedom to smoke pot -
but not grant property rights to the extent of polluting water, air, etc.
Libertarianism means to be a classical liberal. The main precipice of liberalism is individual liberty. Libertarians/Liberals can be economically left or right or anarchists.
The American Libertarian party is a right-liberal party - free markets, free trade, and individual liberty.
I can understand how a person could grant others the freedom to smoke pot -
but not grant property rights to the extent of polluting water, air, etc.
Oooh, you’re a bad statist, leftist incensed anti-free-marketeer.
I can understand how a person could grant others the freedom to smoke pot -
but not grant property rights to the extent of polluting water, air, etc.
That statement is unintelligible. If property rights are granted, then that excludes any invasion of property rights through air or water pollution.
I can understand how a person could grant others the freedom to smoke pot -
but not grant property rights to the extent of polluting water, air, etc.
You can pollute your own water and air as much as you want. But when you start polluting your neighbor’s water, then us libertarians have problems. See how that works?
But I wonder if ‘true’ libertarians are willing to accept that the social side has value even on its own, and work with those who are singly focused on social issues.
I think Rob C said it about as well as you can right here.
I would respect the fact that they came to the right conclusions about some issues at least, and I would try to work from there
Someone who comes to a proper conclusion has done so for some reason. You can start by having them realize those reasons and try to get them to understand why those same reason apply to other areas and how you can’t actually have the desired results they want without applying that reasoning to both the social and fiscal aspects because in the end they are inextricably connected.
~Matt
See how that works?
No, they don’t see how that works. When one does not believe in property rights then one believe that polluting your own land is polluting theirs as well.
In short this argument is pretty simple. Do you believe in property rights, or not? If you do, then you can’t pollute other peoples property, you can’t take peoples money to give to others for the “Greater good” and on an on. If you don’t believe in property rights then you believe some group of people, likely the same “Greater good”, can make “The best” decisions on what to do with individuals properties.
Those that don’t really believe in property rights like to say they do, but only in “Certain circumstances”, which of course means nothing more than “Anyone can have the property they want, do with it as they please…as long as the “Greater good” doesn’t want it or agrees with what they are doing”.
~Matt
If by “social side” you are referring to our right to make personal decisions about our private lifestyles and bodies, so long as we don’t violate the rights of others, then the answer is: yes, absolutely.
To me this is the kicker. I think that a huge majority of the US feels they are social Libertarians, but then they disagree on what is a violation of the others rights. Abortion violates the rights of the unborn. Gay marriage somehow violates the rights of marriage. Smoking pot causes costs to society and thus violates someone somehow.