I think it is important not to confuse libertarians with anarcho-capitalists.

Today, several different groups claim the title, and opponents of capitalism offer definitions to suit them. For me, the best definition is libertarianism equals classical liberalism.

And I would say that by the time of the depression, they had little power, power then being in the hands of conservatives and progressives. FDR was able to steal the term 'liberal' to describe his coalition of progressives and especially southern conservatives, but it has come to mean only the progressive elements.

Classical liberals (=libertarians) never envisioned an unregulated economy. They follow the maxim of classical liberal Thomas Jefferson that the government that governs berst is the government that governs least. 'Least,' not 'not at all.' they ceretainly recognize that government is necessary, and that practical circumstance call for government regulation. In fact, our country has always had extensive regulation at the state level.

Adam Smith, oft alluded to but seldom read, thought the market economy was the best basis for the creation of wealth, and the proper platform for the imposition of "moral sensitivities," the subject of the book which was much more famous in his time. In other words, Smith was a classical liberal, NOT an anarcho-capitalist, as he is mistakenly portrayed most of the time today.

In most of the world outside North America, the word 'liberal' still means "classical liberal" or what we now call "libertarian." In most of the rest of the world, our "liberals" would be called "social democrats." In France (I read) the term in French meaning "radical liberal" refers to those who espouse something close to anarcho-capitalism."

Good articles for starting the discussion follow. Note that I am not maintaining that these articles are the last word or entirely correct, but they do offer good discussions. The "Liberalism" is particularly strong, and maps out the difference between modern liberalism and classical liberalism. Be forewarned that it begins the discussion properly with a discussion of liberalsim which you might find disorienting, since it emphasizes the founding values.

The article on Libertarianism is less fleshed out, but does nicely elucidate such libertarian values as "self-ownership."

Again, I recommend these as starting points for a discussion, not as the last word on the subject.

Liberalism

Libertarianism

People who fear the power of government to remove their freedoms are aligned with the founding fatherws and other classical liberals.

A woman on another board, in response to me, succinctly stated another view: "I don't think that people will have a voice or freedom with out a strong central [federal] government."

You can see that these views are opposed, and roughly represent the right and the left, although it is sometimes hard to see that in actual practice.

My view is a bit different. I think we should examine each case on its merits, without ideology, on the question of benefit and cost, with cost sometimes being a loss of some freedom.

Altruism is the sacrificing of oneself for the good of another. It is a fine moral stance. I suppose one could say that Mayor Bloomberg is an altruistic leader, since he draws a salary of $1.00 from the people of New York, uses public transportation rather than city supplied limousines, and does not live in Gracie Mansion, so that the city's taxpayers do not have to pay for that. (He can afford all this.)

IN my thinking, something like the moon program should be considered, as it was, on a cost-benefit basis. It has nothing to do with any altruism on the part of Kennedy. So far as I know, it didn't cost him anything.

Was it looking after our individual interests to have our government say we will put a man on the moon?

As I remember it, Kennedy clearly thought that it was important that we get to the moon before the Russians, for reasons that impacted each individual in the country. He may also have known that this challenge would invigorate America, and create a climate of hope, also a good thing for individuals.

On balance, he definitely thought it was better for all of us if we were not later than the Russians in getting to the moon.

that if you work hard enough, you can misunderstand that simple sentence. Why do you think it is worth the effort?

If someone didn't have the "sky is falling attitude" then no one would say a damn thing, abuses would continue, and continue to get worse.

Really? So, you wouldn't fix that hole in the roof until the roof was on the verge of falling in? Remember: "The best warrior is never angry." From what I've seen, emotion often gets in the way of effective action. I'll repeat: when I went looking here locally for an anti-war movement before the Iraq war, what i found was an anti-Bush movement, not the same thing. The latter made the former ineffective. From what I saw in the media and on the internet, it was true nationwide, and is still true.

Here's the thing: our present experience has a thickness that is denied our remembered experience. For this reason, I imagine that people today react with much more emotion to to, say, Guantanamo, than they do to, say, Andersonville. My point is that i keep hearing that things are worse than they ever were.

Or do you feel you have conquered some innate flaw that the rest of humanity is too unenlightened to overcome?

No. I think it is easily seen by anyone oif they step back and take a look. But it is easily lost when in the passion of the moment.

Let me quote one of my heroes, an effective anti-Vietnam war activist, about approaching things like conflict:

Take the situation of a country suffering war or another situation of injustice. Try to see that every person involved in the conflict is a victim. See that no person, including all those in warring parties or in what appear to be opposing sides, desires the suffering to continue. See that it is not one or a few persons who are to blame for the situation....See that two sides in a conflict are not really opposing, but two aspects of the same reality.

..........

Meditate until every reproach and hatred disappears, and compassion and love rise like a well of fresh water within you. Vow to work for awareness and reconciliation by the most silent and unpretentious means possible.

-----Thich Nhat Hanh

We are instructed to see everyone through the eyes of compassion. It is not easy. Our emotions and ideologies prod us into incivility and hatred. But the Master tells us to try, and directs us to see.

One does not oppose war successfully by making war.

How's that, Spiritual Lefty?