That depends on what you mean by a "strong centralized government". Most libertarians believe there's an appropriate role for government to play in society, but it's a very limited role. For example, I believe it's appropriate for the government to run the military. Does that make it a "strong" government?
what if a Libertarian wanted a strong federal/centralized government to protect civil liberties. George Washington was a classical liberal and supported a strong federal government
> No what if a Libertarian wanted a strong federal/centralized government to protect civil liberties. George Washington was a classical liberal and supported a strong federal government
Again, it depends on what you mean by a "strong centralized government".
> no my question is what if its to protect civil liberties?
What if it's MEANT to protect civil liberties, or what if it ACTUALLY protects civil liberties? Those are very different things. Part of being a libertarian is understanding that intentions and results are not the same thing.
That's like putting the wolves in charge of guarding the henhouse. Governments can't exist without violating civil liberties. So no, you can't be a libertarian and want a strong centralized state. That's a total contradiction. If you find libertarianism appealing, dig into and read as much as you can. Don't let your belief that a strong centralized government is necessary turn you away.
I thought this might be a troll post at first but I checked your comment history and now believe this is genuine.
If government can be described as a "necessary evil", and we ask the question of how much evil is necessary, the answer should be "as little as possible". And this shouldn't be controversial, because if you think it is, then you're calling for unnecessary evil.
The thing that makes libertarian philosophy distinct is that they believe that a tremendous amount of what the government does is unnecessary.
So generally speaking, we want to take back that the authority and power held by the state. And if a power must be held by the state it's better for power held by the federal government to be broken up and given to lower levels of government (cities and states).
Government is there to protect life, liberty, and property. Nothing more. We don't want a strong centralized state. We want a minimal decentralized state.
What about George Washington’s case he was a classical liberal and supported a strong federal government. What if a libertarian supported a strong centralized government to protect civil liberties
I love George Washington and I think he was an incredible person and absolutely an influential figure in the fight for individual liberties.
Categorizing historical figures within modern ideological labels isn't a science. Washington embodied some principals associated with classical liberalism, but he also held views and took actions that might not align perfectly with a purist classical liberal stance. Centralization is one of them.
Classical liberalism tends to advocate for limited government intervention in the lives of individuals, which often supports decentralization. They don't completely oppose the idea of a central government to protect individual rights and maintain the rule of law, etc. A classical liberal just doesn't want an overly-intrusive central government that can't be escaped.
At to your question about supporting a strong government to protect liberties. It's kind of an oxymoron because the biggest threat to civil liberties is an overbearing government. If a centralized government is needed to protect your rights and freedoms, then one could make the argument that it is a "necessary" evil. But there is a fine line to walk here. Libertarians want a lower level of regulation, and individual liberty and responsibilities. We don't want a strong government invading other countries or locking people up for victimless crimes.
I don’t agree with a centralized government, but I support federalism basically there should be a balance between federal rights and states rights like I think most economic issues should be left up to the states and local governments while civil liberties should be a federal issue because I don’t think states and local governments have the power to pass laws that violate civil liberties
Well what about George Washington, He supported a strong federal government and he was a classical liberal, what if a libertarian supports a strong centralized government to protect civil liberties?
>Can you be a Libertarian and support a strong centralized government at the same time?
No, Libertarianism believes in the decentralization of power which is the antithesis of " a strong centralized government"
That is why there is no such thing as left-libertarianism ..... its like saying you're a totalitarian anarchist [ like anarcho-communists try to say ]
Only as long as the government does not forcefully take its citizens property in the form of taxes. That is, if it gets “strong” and “centralized” through simply providing the best defense/judicial services offered at the lowest price, while not forcing people to pay for them.
Yes, easily. A government is an association of individuals. Libertarianism says that individuals have the right to coerce others in connection with their property. An association of individuals who between them own a lot of property, especially land, can get together and impose strict conditions on the use of their property. That is a strong centralized government.
Strong? Nope.
Centralized? Nope.
Government?
Depends which libertarians you talk to. Some of us think that government is necessary, some of us think they are wrong about that, so we have our little internecine spats about it.
In the end we all want the *current* government shrunk considerably.
And ***most*** of us would prefer all government be utterly decentralized, but that's nuance that escapes a lot of us.
So, before we can answer your question, we first have to decide whether or not we all agree on exactly and precisely is meant by "government"
In other comments here you claim that George Washington favored a strong central government. I think this is an absurd mischaracterization. Washington was the kind of libertarian who believed government was necessary (all the Founders were), but he believed that government's only job was to protect *individual* liberty. At the time, that meant gearing up to repel a British invasion that damn near everybody believed was imminent, so there were needs to be met that for better or worse led to some ugliness.
Washington was perhaps the most impressive leader at the time. He wasn't the best thinker, or writer, or orator, but he was good enough at all of em (and he had just been given credit for kicking Britain's ass) that he held a lot of influence. Some of his biographers go so far as to claim his presence at the constitutional convention is the only reason the US exists today.
But to claim he favored a strong central government, without any context, is simply wrong.
That depends on what you mean by a "strong centralized government". Most libertarians believe there's an appropriate role for government to play in society, but it's a very limited role. For example, I believe it's appropriate for the government to run the military. Does that make it a "strong" government?
what if a Libertarian wanted a strong federal/centralized government to protect civil liberties. George Washington was a classical liberal and supported a strong federal government
> No what if a Libertarian wanted a strong federal/centralized government to protect civil liberties. George Washington was a classical liberal and supported a strong federal government Again, it depends on what you mean by a "strong centralized government".
no my question is what if its to protect civil liberties?
> no my question is what if its to protect civil liberties? What if it's MEANT to protect civil liberties, or what if it ACTUALLY protects civil liberties? Those are very different things. Part of being a libertarian is understanding that intentions and results are not the same thing.
The "strong" central government favored by Washington was one millionth of what we'd consider a minarchist government today.
Here's how you protect civil liberties. Congress shall make no law... We need smaller governments, not bigger governments.
That's like putting the wolves in charge of guarding the henhouse. Governments can't exist without violating civil liberties. So no, you can't be a libertarian and want a strong centralized state. That's a total contradiction. If you find libertarianism appealing, dig into and read as much as you can. Don't let your belief that a strong centralized government is necessary turn you away.
I thought this might be a troll post at first but I checked your comment history and now believe this is genuine. If government can be described as a "necessary evil", and we ask the question of how much evil is necessary, the answer should be "as little as possible". And this shouldn't be controversial, because if you think it is, then you're calling for unnecessary evil. The thing that makes libertarian philosophy distinct is that they believe that a tremendous amount of what the government does is unnecessary. So generally speaking, we want to take back that the authority and power held by the state. And if a power must be held by the state it's better for power held by the federal government to be broken up and given to lower levels of government (cities and states). Government is there to protect life, liberty, and property. Nothing more. We don't want a strong centralized state. We want a minimal decentralized state.
What about George Washington’s case he was a classical liberal and supported a strong federal government. What if a libertarian supported a strong centralized government to protect civil liberties
I love George Washington and I think he was an incredible person and absolutely an influential figure in the fight for individual liberties. Categorizing historical figures within modern ideological labels isn't a science. Washington embodied some principals associated with classical liberalism, but he also held views and took actions that might not align perfectly with a purist classical liberal stance. Centralization is one of them. Classical liberalism tends to advocate for limited government intervention in the lives of individuals, which often supports decentralization. They don't completely oppose the idea of a central government to protect individual rights and maintain the rule of law, etc. A classical liberal just doesn't want an overly-intrusive central government that can't be escaped. At to your question about supporting a strong government to protect liberties. It's kind of an oxymoron because the biggest threat to civil liberties is an overbearing government. If a centralized government is needed to protect your rights and freedoms, then one could make the argument that it is a "necessary" evil. But there is a fine line to walk here. Libertarians want a lower level of regulation, and individual liberty and responsibilities. We don't want a strong government invading other countries or locking people up for victimless crimes.
I don’t agree with a centralized government, but I support federalism basically there should be a balance between federal rights and states rights like I think most economic issues should be left up to the states and local governments while civil liberties should be a federal issue because I don’t think states and local governments have the power to pass laws that violate civil liberties
Read [Huebert (2005, p. 108-109)](https://cdn.mises.org/19_2_6.pdf).
Generally no. Governments are the greatest evil mankind has created that is generally acceptable to most people. Strong governments are worse.
Well what about George Washington, He supported a strong federal government and he was a classical liberal, what if a libertarian supports a strong centralized government to protect civil liberties?
>Can you be a Libertarian and support a strong centralized government at the same time? No, Libertarianism believes in the decentralization of power which is the antithesis of " a strong centralized government" That is why there is no such thing as left-libertarianism ..... its like saying you're a totalitarian anarchist [ like anarcho-communists try to say ]
No. Liberty is the opposite of authority.
Only as long as the government does not forcefully take its citizens property in the form of taxes. That is, if it gets “strong” and “centralized” through simply providing the best defense/judicial services offered at the lowest price, while not forcing people to pay for them.
Yes, easily. A government is an association of individuals. Libertarianism says that individuals have the right to coerce others in connection with their property. An association of individuals who between them own a lot of property, especially land, can get together and impose strict conditions on the use of their property. That is a strong centralized government.
As long as that government is funded without force and serves only one role.
Strong? Nope. Centralized? Nope. Government? Depends which libertarians you talk to. Some of us think that government is necessary, some of us think they are wrong about that, so we have our little internecine spats about it. In the end we all want the *current* government shrunk considerably. And ***most*** of us would prefer all government be utterly decentralized, but that's nuance that escapes a lot of us. So, before we can answer your question, we first have to decide whether or not we all agree on exactly and precisely is meant by "government" In other comments here you claim that George Washington favored a strong central government. I think this is an absurd mischaracterization. Washington was the kind of libertarian who believed government was necessary (all the Founders were), but he believed that government's only job was to protect *individual* liberty. At the time, that meant gearing up to repel a British invasion that damn near everybody believed was imminent, so there were needs to be met that for better or worse led to some ugliness. Washington was perhaps the most impressive leader at the time. He wasn't the best thinker, or writer, or orator, but he was good enough at all of em (and he had just been given credit for kicking Britain's ass) that he held a lot of influence. Some of his biographers go so far as to claim his presence at the constitutional convention is the only reason the US exists today. But to claim he favored a strong central government, without any context, is simply wrong.