So, what the heck is libertarianism?
POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Saturday, September 7, 2024 21:57
VIEWED: 19122
PAGE 5 of 21
I would welcome it! Please - and thank you ahead of time.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"There were a few libertarians prepared to actually paint a picture of the world as they would have liked it."
I don't remember them. Maybe I was gone at the time. The one I remember is SignyM (I think) cajoling Geezer - as the sole posting representative of libertarianism at the time - into posting references to pre-industrial societies as examples of 'working libertarianism', rather than sit down and explain what EXACTLY was HE thinking when HE thought about libertarianism. In fact, I don't recall any of them posting anything substantive: at best a random quote like little rappy's above; and if really, really pressed, a link or two.
If you have an idea where these old discussions can be found and post a link to them I'd be much appreciative.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think Anthony and Serg x, as well as Frem had some lengthy explanations. They tended to be more anarchist/libertarian rather than rightie libertarian
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
'Anthony and Serg x, as well as Frem'
Those are names I've not heard for a long time ...
That sounds like it goes years back ... ??? If so, that would be some digging.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
'Anthony and Serg x, as well as Frem'
Those are names I've not heard for a long time ...
That sounds like it goes years back ... ??? If so, that would be some digging.
I miss Anthony. Miss Serg x too. Glad Frem is still around.
*---------------------------------------*
The French Revolution would have never happened if Marie Antoinette had just given every peasant an iPhone.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, I went back to the only thread that dealt at length with libertarianism, which was the one about which societies tried it in real life. I didn't find much of value in the discussion, at least from the libertarian side. Rappy took a stab at it ....
Quote:but couldn't provide any detail. And of course, he didn't (couldn't?) answer the most immediate questions which such a statement would prompt:
.... But those would be counter to what Libertarians believe, about how Rights of one only extend so far as not to impede onto another's. That includes both rights of the individuals and of govts.
Which rights are being discussed?
Which rights supersede which other rights? (Does yhour right to own money supersede my right to life?)
Who enforces such rights?
It's rather a blank.
Geezer took a stab at it
Quote:
Libertarians follow the Non-aggression Principle, generally, "It shall be legal for anyone to do anything he wants, provided only that he not initiate (or threaten) violence against the person or legitimately owned property of another.", or something similar. "Violence" is generally expanded to include physical, financial, or political coercion. Self-defense, BTW, is not considered aggression. This is probably one reason there are no Libertarian countries. The existing governments can use anything, up to and including physical violence, to make sure they stay in power. All Libertarians can do is try to persuade folks to change. ...
As noted above, most Libertarians follow the non-aggression principle, which is pretty much the antithesis of "might-makes-right". If I had to say, I'd describe Libertarianism as more of "Consensus makes right, as long as no consensus practices aggression on anyone."
Unfortunately, like rappy he couldn't or wouldn't answer any of the questions and conundrums that were posed, but referenced some books several times...
Quote:and then also referenced several examples of possible libertarian "societies", some of which clearly are not libertarian and none of which supported complex technologies, money, or capitalism, and when pressed basically left the thread.
Ever read Murray Rothbard or Bill Bradford? Or you could read Robert Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" or L. Neil Smith's "The Probability Broach.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=55266&mid=9
39533
Also, people like 6IX and PN seem to think that libertarianism revolves around gun ownership, and people like Ron/Rand Paul have an Ayn Rand take. So I'm confused, I don't think I've really learned anything from the self-described libertarians here.
So, what is the purpose of libertarianism? Usually, political/ economic philosophies have some sort of stated goal: prosperity for all. Prosperity for some now, so that there will be more in the future. The genetic improvement of the human race in a dog-eat-dog system. Equity. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
I've heard no such overarching goal for libertarianism. Now usually if people won't tell me why they're doing something and why I should too (What's in it for me and mine?) I get the strange feeling that either they don't know, or they don't WANT to tell me because... well, I probably wouldn't agree with it.
So, for anyone who has an idea of what the end goal of libertarianism is, please feel free to speak up!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
As well, I've yet to see any so-called "libertarian" who didn't support our two most recent wars (Iraq & Afghanistan), and who support major cuts to our defense budget, since in their view it should ONLY be for "self-defense", and NEVER for "aggression".
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012
Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"
Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
So, what is the purpose of libertarianism? Usually, political/ economic philosophies have some sort of stated goal: prosperity for all. Prosperity for some now, so that there will be more in the future. The genetic improvement of the human race in a dog-eat-dog system. Equity. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
I've heard no such overarching goal for libertarianism. Now usually if people won't tell me why they're doing something and why I should too (What's in it for me and mine?) I get the strange feeling that either they don't know, or they don't WANT to tell me because... well, I probably wouldn't agree with it.
So, for anyone who has an idea of what the end goal of libertarianism is, please feel free to speak up!
Boy. I can't leave you people alone for a minute.
So to start, let's use the Wikipedia definition.
Quote:
Libertarianism (Latin: liber, "free") is a set of related political philosophies that uphold liberty as the highest political end. This includes emphasis on the primacy of individual liberty, political freedom, and voluntary association. It is the antonym to authoritarianism. Libertarians advocate a society with minimized government or no government at all.
In the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, libertarianism is defined as the moral view that agents initially fully own themselves and have certain moral powers to acquire property rights in external things. Libertarian philosopher Roderick Long defines libertarianism as "any political position that advocates a radical redistribution of power from the coercive state to voluntary associations of free individuals", whether "voluntary association" takes the form of the free market or of communal co-operatives. According to the U.S. Libertarian Party, libertarianism is the advocacy of a government that is funded voluntarily and limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence.
Libertarian schools of thought differ over the degree to which the state should have a role. Anarchist schools advocate complete elimination of the state, while Minarchist schools advocate a state which is limited to protecting its citizens from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud. Some schools accept governmental assistance for the poor. Additionally, some schools are supportive of private property rights in the ownership of unappropriated land and natural resources, while others reject such private ownership and support various forms of left-libertarianism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism
Sounds reasonable to me as a starting point.
Looking further down in the Wiki article, it seems I'm probably a good bit Propertarian.
Quote:
Propertarian libertarian philosophies define liberty as non-aggression (an arrangement in which no person or group "aggresses" against any other party), where aggression is defined as the violation of private property. This philosophy implicitly recognizes private property as the sole source of legitimate authority. Propertarian libertarians hold that societies in which private property rights are enforced are the only ones that are both ethical and lead to the best possible outcomes. They generally support the free-market, and are not opposed to any concentration of power (e.g. monopolies), provided it is brought about through non-coercive means.
And I have to throw in the Non-aggression Principle at this point.
Quote:
The non-aggression principle (NAP)—also called the non-aggression axiom, the zero aggression principle (ZAP), the anti-coercion principle, or the non-initiation of force—is a moral stance which asserts that aggression is inherently illegitimate. NAP and property rights are closely linked, since what aggression is depends on what a person's rights are. Aggression, for the purposes of NAP, is defined as the initiation or threatening of violence against a person or legitiNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:
Rules should apply or not apply to all or none, anything less reeks of a caste system and is by design, a tyranny - and make no mistake, a lot of so-called libertarians are really just a false front for the NeoFeudoFascists who want exactly that
-Frem
Absolutely correct. That attitude is shallowly hidden, but clearly implied, in the comments of many libertarians I have encountered.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
For example, the assumption that workers and employers have equal power.
That's one of the problems with Adam Smith style hands off capitalism. Economic power concentrates very quickly with wealth, but not necessarily with morality, compassion, or merit. Greed and ambition ( in the power-hunger sense.) tend to attract wealth, or once acquiring it, tend to use it for tyranny.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME