a question on libertarianism

[MaC]

sorry, but poor-lovers option is not included since it's not an ideology (even if you did want to choose it really badly).

vote and discuss

[Citizen James]

It's its own philosophy.  Actually, I figure there's 3-4 different groups of people who call themselves libertarians.

There's the purist libertarians, who I have yet to decipher, but are pretty much dedicated to the concept of personal liberty first and formost.  To quote the movie demolition man:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then there's the Reform libertarians who are more moderate and actually have some ideas which might not be so bad.  They tend to be pragmatic, along with a relatively positive view of human nature.  (yes, adults are responsible enough to be trusted to run their own lives).

Thirdly there are the anarchocapitalists.  They don't really care that much about personal freedom, but are adamite about corporations having rights and being as above the law as possible.  In reallity they are closer to Feregi than Libertarian, but they try and label themselves libertarian anyway.

Then there's the folks who pretty much lack a political philosophy beyond being irrationally opinionated, though the only freedom they tend to advocate is their right to make a public fool of themselves.

[Ban my account ffs!]

It's its own philosophy.  Actually, I figure there's 3-4 different groups of people who call themselves libertarians.

There's the purist libertarians, who I have yet to decipher, but are pretty much dedicated to the concept of personal liberty first and formost.  To quote the movie demolition man:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then there's the Reform libertarians who are more moderate and actually have some ideas which might not be so bad.  They tend to be pragmatic, along with a relatively positive view of human nature.  (yes, adults are responsible enough to be trusted to run their own lives).

Thirdly there are the anarchocapitalists.  They don't really care that much about personal freedom, but are adamite about corporations having rights and being as above the law as possible.  In reallity they are closer to Feregi than Libertarian, but they try and label themselves libertarian anyway.

Then there's the folks who pretty much lack a political philosophy beyond being irrationally opinionated, though the only freedom they tend to advocate is their right to make a public fool of themselves.

Anarcho-Capitalists are by no means libertarians.  They are called authoritarian-right wingers... aka The Republican Party/Neo-Conservative movement.  They seek to have stronger control over your personal life while dimantling social programs and handing out breaks to corporations.

I see it as a mix of liberalism and conservatism, but in the American sense.  In the world-wide sense they are neo-liberal/liberals.  They believe in little or no government involvement in personal affairs which includes social and economic issues.  They are "liberal" because they believe in having liberal laws allowing businesses to conduct themselves without government involvement.

Others are more moderate and are closer to liberals.  I have a friend, for example, who believes in total personal liberty but believes the government should be there to protect those liberties on the behalf of individuals rather than business.  That's why there needs to be a regulatory part of government.. for example, with environmental protection and consumer rights.  For example, you can go and smoke marijuana with your hired prostitute, but she may not con you out of money.

[Dr. Cynic]

Well, there are many different types of Libertarian... There are the moderate Clark Libertarians who follow what he called "Low Tax Liberalisim". There are some that are completely anarchistic, there are the civil libertarians, much like Clarence Darrow, and there are the more conservative brand, which is in charge of the party today.

The philosophy on a whole isn't bad, just misguided sometimes.

[Bono]

Thirdly there are the anarchocapitalists.  They don't really care that much about personal freedom, but are adamite about corporations having rights and being as above the law as possible.  In reallity they are closer to Feregi than Libertarian, but they try and label themselves libertarian anyway.

No we aren't. You are possibly the most intellectually dishonest person in this forum, if not whom I have ever met. I'm yet to find an anarcho-capitalist who believes corporations should even exist. So take your strawmen elsewhere.

[adam]

I always considered it a more basic form of conservatism in which the theroy of "small government" extended to all kinds of issues rather than just fiscal ones.

[© tweed]

exteme conservatism

[Beet]

a separate philosophy of its own which in left-right terms is just about in the middle in theory, but often a little closer to the right in practice (depending on the context of course).

But I have never met anyone who wants to maximize freedom for all of humanity (i.e., a single world government which does nothing but provide police/security). At most, even the most ardent liberatarians' love of freedom is subservient to their nationalism.

[bullmoose88]

I think it's its own philosphy, clearly different than conservatism and liberalism.

Based more on a distrust/hate of government than anything else...

which is why I don't really consider myself to be a libertarian in the ideological sense (I use the term because people have an idea what outcome I'd likely support)...I'm just not sure if I'm a conservative liberal...liberal conservative...progressive conservative etc.

[Colin]

I certainly believe it is its own philosophy many just equate it with conservatism because of their same roots in the backlash against New Deal programs and the "Dime Store New Deal" of Eisenhower. However they are different ideologies with different ideals and ideas as well as different political philosophers that they owe their allegiance.

There are many types of libertarians and its hard ot classify the group since it is a catch-all that goes from people who are moderates and have a pragmatic agenda to people who fall also into the anarchist model of political philosophy. But then broad terms like these also apply to words like liberal, conservative and populist. Hitler can be described as a Populist and so can Sherrod Brown and Trent Lott. Just as Socialism and Anarcho-Syndicalism is leftism, which in America is improperly called liberalism, taken to the extreme the same is true with anarcho-capitalism and libertarianism.

[Bono]

It's its own philosophy.  Actually, I figure there's 3-4 different groups of people who call themselves libertarians.

There's the purist libertarians, who I have yet to decipher, but are pretty much dedicated to the concept of personal liberty first and formost.  To quote the movie demolition man:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then there's the Reform libertarians who are more moderate and actually have some ideas which might not be so bad.  They tend to be pragmatic, along with a relatively positive view of human nature.  (yes, adults are responsible enough to be trusted to run their own lives).

Thirdly there are the anarchocapitalists.  They don't really care that much about personal freedom, but are adamite about corporations having rights and being as above the law as possible.  In reallity they are closer to Feregi than Libertarian, but they try and label themselves libertarian anyway.

Then there's the folks who pretty much lack a political philosophy beyond being irrationally opinionated, though the only freedom they tend to advocate is their right to make a public fool of themselves.

Anarcho-Capitalists are by no means libertarians.  They are called authoritarian-right wingers... aka The Republican Party/Neo-Conservative movement.  They seek to have stronger control over your personal life while dimantling social programs and handing out breaks to corporations.

I didn't think it was possible to be this retarded.

What part of "ANARCHO" don't you understand?

[MaC]

don't worry, these are people who make assumptions based on what they think they know, not by what's real.
Anarcho-capitalism is in no way authoritarian as it is against force.  Force is what makes something authoritarian.
It also isn't pro-corporation above individual rights.  When the red avatars learn that individual rights and business rights are aligned together against government.  Not government and individual against business, they could then undertand that it is government that elevates business to the level where they could become monopolies.  The only way a monopoly can exist is by means of government.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

don't worry, these are people who make assumptions based on what they think they know, not by what's real.
Anarcho-capitalism is in no way authoritarian as it is against force.  Force is what makes something authoritarian.
It also isn't pro-corporation above individual rights.  When the red avatars learn that individual rights and business rights are aligned together against government.  Not government and individual against business, they could then undertand that it is government that elevates business to the level where they could become monopolies.  The only way a monopoly can exist is by means of government.

Great Post.

Too bad alot of libertarians seem to be "I don't want to pay my upkeep to society" types. That, and they seem to think that Africa is an inspiring economic model for us all.

Own Philosophy, btw.

[Ban my account ffs!]

It's its own philosophy.  Actually, I figure there's 3-4 different groups of people who call themselves libertarians.

There's the purist libertarians, who I have yet to decipher, but are pretty much dedicated to the concept of personal liberty first and formost.  To quote the movie demolition man:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then there's the Reform libertarians who are more moderate and actually have some ideas which might not be so bad.  They tend to be pragmatic, along with a relatively positive view of human nature.  (yes, adults are responsible enough to be trusted to run their own lives).

Thirdly there are the anarchocapitalists.  They don't really care that much about personal freedom, but are adamite about corporations having rights and being as above the law as possible.  In reallity they are closer to Feregi than Libertarian, but they try and label themselves libertarian anyway.

Then there's the folks who pretty much lack a political philosophy beyond being irrationally opinionated, though the only freedom they tend to advocate is their right to make a public fool of themselves.

Anarcho-Capitalists are by no means libertarians.  They are called authoritarian-right wingers... aka The Republican Party/Neo-Conservative movement.  They seek to have stronger control over your personal life while dimantling social programs and handing out breaks to corporations.

I didn't think it was possible to be this retarded.

What part of "ANARCHO" don't you understand?

Anarcho-capitalists are people who seek to put control over other people but seek to live free of government control.  Since they can get the vote of the social conservatives by pandering to them and making laws that reflect those values, they win elections.  They are the rich ones that benefit from their ultra-capitalist policies and thus have the money and power to ignore all those stupid laws that the lower downs so reverently demand/follow.

How old are you Bono?  13?  Because you're acting like a middle-schooler.  I haven't seen you contribute one notable thing to this thread other than to attack others and call people names. 

I guess it would be you that doesn't understand anarcho-capitalist ways in the real world.  Sure, the dictionary definition might be slightly different.. but name one person who wields political power that seeks to get rid of government and push pro-capitalist powers and has any real effect.

[afleitch]

Just my two cents worth here.

Anarcho-capitalism is neo-feudal bull from my own libertarian stand point.

There isn't a cat in hells chance I would ever support the free market regulating and controling systems of justice, governance and law. Those are the core duties of the state. And yes the state has a place in society. It should be slim and accountable but it should not be replaced by unnacountable profit seeking conglomerations.

What also annoys me is the concept of property. Not all property and landrights are or should be owned by individuals. They can be as wasteful and as greedy as the state. You simply cannot portion all lands and divvy them up for private ownership. The state should own and manage for the people protected lands and water sources which can be ran by private organisations yes, but should never be owned by them as private individuals and companies operate out of pure self interest.

A smaller and more accountable state that adheres to it's core functions can be empowered by the people through the democratic process to manage certain estates that are too valuable to the well being of society and the individual.

And I agree with snowguy; Bono you have contributed little to this conversation but childish insults.

[bullmoose88]

Just my two cents worth here.

Anarcho-capitalism is neo-feudal bull from my own libertarian stand point.

There isn't a cat in hells chance I would ever support the free market regulating and controling systems of justice, governance and law. Those are the core duties of the state. And yes the state has a place in society. It should be slim and accountable but it should not be replaced by unnacountable profit seeking conglomerations.

What also annoys me is the concept of property. Not all property and landrights are or should be owned by individuals. They can be as wasteful and as greedy as the state. You simply cannot portion all lands and divvy them up for private ownership. The state should own and manage for the people protected lands and water sources which can be ran by private organisations yes, but should never be owned by them as private individuals and companies operate out of pure self interest.

A smaller and more accountable state that adheres to it's core functions can be empowered by the people through the democratic process to manage certain estates that are too valuable to the well being of society and the individual.

And I agree with snowguy; Bono you have contributed little to this conversation but childish insults.

bada bing

[Bono]

It's its own philosophy.  Actually, I figure there's 3-4 different groups of people who call themselves libertarians.

There's the purist libertarians, who I have yet to decipher, but are pretty much dedicated to the concept of personal liberty first and formost.  To quote the movie demolition man:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then there's the Reform libertarians who are more moderate and actually have some ideas which might not be so bad.  They tend to be pragmatic, along with a relatively positive view of human nature.  (yes, adults are responsible enough to be trusted to run their own lives).

Thirdly there are the anarchocapitalists.  They don't really care that much about personal freedom, but are adamite about corporations having rights and being as above the law as possible.  In reallity they are closer to Feregi than Libertarian, but they try and label themselves libertarian anyway.

Then there's the folks who pretty much lack a political philosophy beyond being irrationally opinionated, though the only freedom they tend to advocate is their right to make a public fool of themselves.

Anarcho-Capitalists are by no means libertarians.  They are called authoritarian-right wingers... aka The Republican Party/Neo-Conservative movement.  They seek to have stronger control over your personal life while dimantling social programs and handing out breaks to corporations.

I didn't think it was possible to be this retarded.

What part of "ANARCHO" don't you understand?

Anarcho-capitalists are people who seek to put control over other people but seek to live free of government control.  Since they can get the vote of the social conservatives by pandering to them and making laws that reflect those values, they win elections.  They are the rich ones that benefit from their ultra-capitalist policies and thus have the money and power to ignore all those stupid laws that the lower downs so reverently demand/follow.

How old are you Bono?  13?  Because you're acting like a middle-schooler.  I haven't seen you contribute one notable thing to this thread other than to attack others and call people names. 

I guess it would be you that doesn't understand anarcho-capitalist ways in the real world.  Sure, the dictionary definition might be slightly different.. but name one person who wields political power that seeks to get rid of government and push pro-capitalist powers and has any real effect.

Anarcho-capitalists win elections?
Well, this certainly fills me with joy, because I hadn't even heard of any anarcho-capitalists running for office, much less winning anything.
Do you even know what anarcho-capitalism is?
Here's a brief introduction from wikipedia:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho_capitalism

[Bono]

Just my two cents worth here.

Anarcho-capitalism is neo-feudal bull from my own libertarian stand point.

There isn't a cat in hells chance I would ever support the free market regulating and controling systems of justice, governance and law. Those are the core duties of the state. And yes the state has a place in society. It should be slim and accountable but it should not be replaced by unnacountable profit seeking conglomerations.

That is of course, offered absolutely proof-free.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The well being of "society" can never be determined becuase interpresonal comparisons of utility are not possible. Anyways, if someone really wants to set up an ecological sanctuary, they are free to do so. In most cases,t hose lands are dirt cheap anyways.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, regarding James, he is compltelly intellectually disonhest and was making a deliberate misrepresentation, because there is no way in hell he is that dumb.
As for snowguy, have you even read what he posted? I think it speaks for itself.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I guess I would call the likes of Dick Cheney and the military-industrial complex "Authoritative-Capitalists".. they seek to use government policies and power to benefit corporations and certain individuals.

I guess I was thinking of it on a purely individual level of those wielding the power.  They do not follow the law like we do.  They conduct their transactions in ways that most of the public has no look into.

That being said, I still think anarcho-capitalists are a scary bunch.  Humans are greedy and power-hungry.  If it's not the government doing the rich/powerful people's bidding, it's corporations... that's why, I believe, in a democratic system, voters have at least some ability to hold this power grab in check.

[ilikeverin]

Just my two cents worth here.

Anarcho-capitalism is neo-feudal bull from my own libertarian stand point.

There isn't a cat in hells chance I would ever support the free market regulating and controling systems of justice, governance and law. Those are the core duties of the state. And yes the state has a place in society. It should be slim and accountable but it should not be replaced by unnacountable profit seeking conglomerations.

That is of course, offered absolutely proof-free.

...as if anarcho-capitalism has any more proof.  Look, there's never been an anarcho-capitalist society, so no matter how many metaphors and generalizations you give, you won't be able to prove that anarcho-capitalism works unless you go out and create an anarcho-capitalist society.

[Bono]

Just my two cents worth here.

Anarcho-capitalism is neo-feudal bull from my own libertarian stand point.

There isn't a cat in hells chance I would ever support the free market regulating and controling systems of justice, governance and law. Those are the core duties of the state. And yes the state has a place in society. It should be slim and accountable but it should not be replaced by unnacountable profit seeking conglomerations.

That is of course, offered absolutely proof-free.

...as if anarcho-capitalism has any more proof.  Look, there's never been an anarcho-capitalist society, so no matter how many metaphors and generalizations you give, you won't be able to prove that anarcho-capitalism works unless you go out and create an anarcho-capitalist society.

Celtic Ireland 650-1650

Anyways, you're operating under empiricism ad extremis.

[afleitch]

Celtic Ireland 650-1650

And that was such a soaraway success....

[Colin]

the military-industrial complex

I really really hate that phrase. It's just annoying and it grates against my ears. If it was up to be I'd go back in time and beat the sh**t out of Eisenhower for using that goddamn awful ass phrase.

Just my two cents worth here.

Anarcho-capitalism is neo-feudal bull from my own libertarian stand point.

There isn't a cat in hells chance I would ever support the free market regulating and controling systems of justice, governance and law. Those are the core duties of the state. And yes the state has a place in society. It should be slim and accountable but it should not be replaced by unnacountable profit seeking conglomerations.

That is of course, offered absolutely proof-free.

Well he said it was his own opinion. You don't need proof for an opinion. If I am of the opinion that jfern beats his girlfriend than that's just my opinion and needs no actual proof to back it up.

[Colin]

Celtic Ireland 650-1650

And that was such a soaraway success....

Yeah and don't give me the other examples either.

Somalia: We've seen how that's turned out about to become another Taliban state and before that was a land of warlords and constant warfare.

Iceland (900-1250): This was during the time of when the Althing ruled Iceland. If you want to know why this isn't a wonderful place to live I suggest you read the Icelandic sagas, blood fueds, clan warfare, constant retribution, it all became so bad that the people begged to be placed under the absolutist rule of the Norwegians in order to keep the peace.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Pre-Plantation Celtic Ireland was far, far from anything that could be Anarcho-capitalist.

More like a decentralized system of feuding tribes, ever heard of Brian Boru? And the Viking warlords were hardly "Anarchistic".

(And I wouldn't call such a society a great success, though it was more prosperous and educated - presuming one was with the church - then anyway else in Western Europe at that time. But that's like comparing Iraq - minus oil - in the 80s with Iraq today.)