NationStates

Arkolon wrote:

Pandeeria wrote:No it doesn't. Real Libertarianism stresses extreme small government, and even stresses more rights to the states then federal government.

Anarchy abolishes the government.

You capitalised Libertarian (big-L libertarianism), which is actually quite different to small-l libertarianism. I'm not even kidding: you're both right, but that's because you're both saying different things.

I'm not sure about that. Explain.

Pandeeria wrote:

Arkolon wrote:You capitalised Libertarian (big-L libertarianism), which is actually quite different to small-l libertarianism. I'm not even kidding: you're both right, but that's because you're both saying different things.

I'm not sure about that. Explain.

Big-L Libertarians: Libertarian Partyists, mostly minarchists, all right-wing, sometimes part of the GOP under a smaller faction, Ron Pauls, etc
Small-l libertarians: liberty as the highest political end, encompasses either sphere of the left-right spectrum, often anarchistic, less specific and more of a general term, etc

The Liberated Territories wrote:Dejanic,

As a "moderate" Libertarian, I am willing to work with social liberals, conservatives, and occasionally socdems. I am willing to pardon with things like a NIT based welfare system, support for healthcare vouchers, charter schools as an alternative to full privatization, even stuff like humanitarian aid. I don't see any of the more radical forms of my ideology working as long as the world is in the chaotic state we are in, with terrorists and etc. That's just stupid to oppose things that could save lives or uplift millions out of principle.

That's fine, I was actually more or less defending your ideology from people like An-Caps who say it's not true "Libertarianism" or whatever, the line that New Sea was expressing, basically.

Arkolon wrote:

Dejanic wrote:I'm going to be honest, I have no time for philosophical arguments that argue for the abolishment of Capitalism or the State or whatever, this is why I I'll listen to Libertarian arguments, which typically make strong economic and financial arguments as to why free-market capitalism is the system of choice, as opposed to An-Caps, who simply preach free-market Capitalism as it's morally the "correct" system, I try to work in logic, not pure emotion.

If killing a large number of innocent children one by one on your own with a rusty spoon gave everyone access to basic healthcare, would the deaths of the innocent children be justified (assuming we end up with a net positive utility of +1)?

A sound ideology needs a philosophical and practical basis behind it. Politics is largely a philosophical offshoot.

Yeah true, Philosophy needs to be part of the grander picture, I just tend to disregard ideologues who purely use Philosophical arguments, Stefan Molyneux, for example. You can philosophically or morally "prove" any idea to be correct, but that doesn't mean it's economically or practically feasible, I'd much rather listen to an economist than a philosopher.

Though your right in that there needs to be a philosophical or moral background behind any economic idea, I just personally would rather this background stay in the background where it belongs.

...Nazis ring a bell..??..

National socialism is nationalism and socialism.

Also, USSR.

Left-Wing Nationalism is basically that... again and again and again. Most famously, Fidel Castro. Ghandi sort of not really. Nasser sort of not really.

I don't think they work in Germany...National Socialist German Workers' Party. It didn't work too well for the world either...

Dejanic wrote:

Arkolon wrote:If killing a large number of innocent children one by one on your own with a rusty spoon gave everyone access to basic healthcare, would the deaths of the innocent children be justified (assuming we end up with a net positive utility of +1)?

A sound ideology needs a philosophical and practical basis behind it. Politics is largely a philosophical offshoot.

Yeah true, Philosophy needs to be part of the grander picture, I just tend to disregard ideologues who purely use Philosophical arguments, Stefan Molyneux, for example. You can philosophically or morally "prove" any idea to be correct, but that doesn't mean it's economically or practically feasible, I'd much rather listen to an economist than a philosopher.

Though your right in that there needs to be a philosophical or moral background behind any economic idea, I just personally would rather this background stay in the background where it belongs.

This is my point: you can't really justify anything else. Libertarianism supposes an ethical base, or presents natural law as an axiom, and all societal conclusions have to fall in compliance with these axioms. Philosophy and practicality complement each other very heavily in libertarianism. These two axioms are indeed the harm principle (do whatever you want as long as it doesn't harm another, or impedes their very same liberty) and voluntary cooperation (coercion is bad; if it's voluntary, it's legitimate). If killing human beings to reach another end, rejecting the Kantian argument Rawls (and, like, contemporary philosophers in general) put forward-- Rawls being the founder of modern liberalism-- was a way to achieve something, no matter how big or small, it would be illegitimate. Killing is, surprisingly, bad. Same goes for rape and the like.

For some reason, NSG hates absolutes. Objectivity is to be taken very, very sceptically. Apparently, there is no universal truth. But I can continue as long as you want to prove to you the existence and development of a natural law in human society. The natural law that protects humans from other humans' violence. All libertarianism is is an extrapolation of the logic liberals and progressives always use when it comes to civil liberties, but when it doesn't suit them or their special-interests they make a very special clause in their philosophy.

Arkolon wrote:

Dejanic wrote:Yeah true, Philosophy needs to be part of the grander picture, I just tend to disregard ideologues who purely use Philosophical arguments, Stefan Molyneux, for example. You can philosophically or morally "prove" any idea to be correct, but that doesn't mean it's economically or practically feasible, I'd much rather listen to an economist than a philosopher.

Though your right in that there needs to be a philosophical or moral background behind any economic idea, I just personally would rather this background stay in the background where it belongs.

This is my point: you can't really justify anything else. Libertarianism supposes an ethical base, or presents natural law as an axiom, and all societal conclusions have to fall in compliance with these axioms. Philosophy and practicality complement each other very heavily in libertarianism. These two axioms are indeed the harm principle (do whatever you want as long as it doesn't harm another, or impedes their very same liberty) and voluntary cooperation (coercion is bad; if it's voluntary, it's legitimate). If killing human beings to reach another end, rejecting the Kantian argument Rawls (and, like, contemporary philosophers in general) put forward-- Rawls being the founder of modern liberalism-- was a way to achieve something, no matter how big or small, it would be illegitimate. Killing is, surprisingly, bad. Same goes for rape and the like.

For some reason, NSG hates absolutes. Objectivity is to be taken very, very sceptically. Apparently, there is no universal truth. But I can continue as long as you want to prove to you the existence and development of a natural law in human society. The natural law that protects humans from other humans' violence. All libertarianism is is an extrapolation of the logic liberals and progressives always use when it comes to civil liberties, but when it doesn't suit them or their special-interests they make a very special clause in their philosophy.

That was nice, really nice. But, this probably isn't the right thread to be attempting to justify Libertarianism.

But still, thank you, it's interesting to hear a detailed argument for Libertarianism, from a different perspective other than "free markets free people".

I'm left wing nationalist and i'm very good friend with national-christians and fascist people,so i guess yes

Dejanic wrote:

Arkolon wrote:If killing a large number of innocent children one by one on your own with a rusty spoon gave everyone access to basic healthcare, would the deaths of the innocent children be justified (assuming we end up with a net positive utility of +1)?

A sound ideology needs a philosophical and practical basis behind it. Politics is largely a philosophical offshoot.

Yeah true, Philosophy needs to be part of the grander picture, I just tend to disregard ideologues who purely use Philosophical arguments, Stefan Molyneux, for example. You can philosophically or morally "prove" any idea to be correct, but that doesn't mean it's economically or practically feasible, I'd much rather listen to an economist than a philosopher.

Though your right in that there needs to be a philosophical or moral background behind any economic idea, I just personally would rather this background stay in the background where it belongs.

Stefan Molyneux isn't even a philosopher (this goes for most libertarian figures, who are in reality usually just cranky economists). He's a cultist.

Liberaxia wrote:

Dejanic wrote:Yeah true, Philosophy needs to be part of the grander picture, I just tend to disregard ideologues who purely use Philosophical arguments, Stefan Molyneux, for example. You can philosophically or morally "prove" any idea to be correct, but that doesn't mean it's economically or practically feasible, I'd much rather listen to an economist than a philosopher.

Though your right in that there needs to be a philosophical or moral background behind any economic idea, I just personally would rather this background stay in the background where it belongs.

Stefan Molyneux isn't even a philosopher (this goes for most libertarian figures, who are in reality usually just cranky economists). He's a cultist.

Funnyyy.

Dejanic wrote:

Arkolon wrote:This is my point: you can't really justify anything else. Libertarianism supposes an ethical base, or presents natural law as an axiom, and all societal conclusions have to fall in compliance with these axioms. Philosophy and practicality complement each other very heavily in libertarianism. These two axioms are indeed the harm principle (do whatever you want as long as it doesn't harm another, or impedes their very same liberty) and voluntary cooperation (coercion is bad; if it's voluntary, it's legitimate). If killing human beings to reach another end, rejecting the Kantian argument Rawls (and, like, contemporary philosophers in general) put forward-- Rawls being the founder of modern liberalism-- was a way to achieve something, no matter how big or small, it would be illegitimate. Killing is, surprisingly, bad. Same goes for rape and the like.

For some reason, NSG hates absolutes. Objectivity is to be taken very, very sceptically. Apparently, there is no universal truth. But I can continue as long as you want to prove to you the existence and development of a natural law in human society. The natural law that protects humans from other humans' violence. All libertarianism is is an extrapolation of the logic liberals and progressives always use when it comes to civil liberties, but when it doesn't suit them or their special-interests they make a very special clause in their philosophy.

That was nice, really nice. But, this probably isn't the right thread to be attempting to justify Libertarianism.

But still, thank you, it's interesting to hear a detailed argument for Libertarianism, from a different perspective other than "free markets free people".

I have more, if you want. Lots more, in fact.

I'm also very lonely. But hey, whatever, philosophy.

Aurea wrote:...Nazis ring a bell..??..

National socialism is nationalism and socialism.

Also, USSR.

No.

Well, they can coexist. But when they do, millions of people usually die.

Herrebrugh wrote:

Aurea wrote:...Nazis ring a bell..??..

National socialism is nationalism and socialism.

Also, USSR.

No.

Master of debate over here.

Rob Halfordia wrote:

Herrebrugh wrote:
No.

Master of debate over here.

Thanks

Yes, an example of this would be Algeria.

Alystan wrote:Yes, an example of this would be Algeria.

... The means of production of Algeria are socially owned?

Libervida wrote:I was having an argument with a friend who is a leftist. She argues that socialism and nationalism cannot exist together. However I feel that they can. She is going from a marxist perspective and definition of socialism which is explicitly against the bourguoise idea of nationalism, however I would simply define socialism in more pragmatic real terms: state ownership of production. (I realise the term is rather void of meaning over the last century) Our crux of difference was that she defined national socialism for example as corporatism rather than socialsm.)

I argued that ideologies using both have existed: IRA, Ba'thism, Mugabe, Ideologies of national liberation, some leftist palestinian organisations, pan-arabism etc. (It could be argued that one should not accept the self definition of such ideologies, but rather take a pragmatic analysis)

What say ye? Can nationalism and socialism exist side by side.

(pardon my English, it is not my first language.)

Nationalism and socialism can`t coexist. Nationalism favors people who are from there country like Poland-Polish, France-French, China-Chinese. Socialism will benefit everyone by public programs and efforts to close the gap between the rich and poor.

Libervida wrote:I was having an argument with a friend who is a leftist. She argues that socialism and nationalism cannot exist together. However I feel that they can. She is going from a marxist perspective and definition of socialism which is explicitly against the bourguoise idea of nationalism, however I would simply define socialism in more pragmatic real terms: state ownership of production. (I realise the term is rather void of meaning over the last century) Our crux of difference was that she defined national socialism for example as corporatism rather than socialsm.)

I argued that ideologies using both have existed: IRA, Ba'thism, Mugabe, Ideologies of national liberation, some leftist palestinian organisations, pan-arabism etc. (It could be argued that one should not accept the self definition of such ideologies, but rather take a pragmatic analysis)

What say ye? Can nationalism and socialism exist side by side.

(pardon my English, it is not my first language.)

Yes, their are some patriotic organisations that are left wing or have some left wing ideas. Social Nationalism however, is very rare, most Nationalist organisations do have some left wing ideas when it comes to protectionism, healthcare, education, transport, environment ect. although most nationalists have several right wing ideas in these areas and may support free trade agreements, private health insurance, private schools ect.

Soviet SSR wrote:

Libervida wrote:I was having an argument with a friend who is a leftist. She argues that socialism and nationalism cannot exist together. However I feel that they can. She is going from a marxist perspective and definition of socialism which is explicitly against the bourguoise idea of nationalism, however I would simply define socialism in more pragmatic real terms: state ownership of production. (I realise the term is rather void of meaning over the last century) Our crux of difference was that she defined national socialism for example as corporatism rather than socialsm.)

I argued that ideologies using both have existed: IRA, Ba'thism, Mugabe, Ideologies of national liberation, some leftist palestinian organisations, pan-arabism etc. (It could be argued that one should not accept the self definition of such ideologies, but rather take a pragmatic analysis)

What say ye? Can nationalism and socialism exist side by side.

(pardon my English, it is not my first language.)

Nationalism and socialism can`t coexist. Nationalism favors people who are from there country like Poland-Polish, France-French, China-Chinese. Socialism will benefit everyone by public programs and efforts to close the gap between the rich and poor.

Socialism never benefits anyone. It has never worked.

Soviet SSR wrote:

Libervida wrote:I was having an argument with a friend who is a leftist. She argues that socialism and nationalism cannot exist together. However I feel that they can. She is going from a marxist perspective and definition of socialism which is explicitly against the bourguoise idea of nationalism, however I would simply define socialism in more pragmatic real terms: state ownership of production. (I realise the term is rather void of meaning over the last century) Our crux of difference was that she defined national socialism for example as corporatism rather than socialsm.)

I argued that ideologies using both have existed: IRA, Ba'thism, Mugabe, Ideologies of national liberation, some leftist palestinian organisations, pan-arabism etc. (It could be argued that one should not accept the self definition of such ideologies, but rather take a pragmatic analysis)

What say ye? Can nationalism and socialism exist side by side.

(pardon my English, it is not my first language.)

Nationalism and socialism can`t coexist. Nationalism favors people who are from there country like Poland-Polish, France-French, China-Chinese. Socialism will benefit everyone by public programs and efforts to close the gap between the rich and poor.

That's... Not what socialism is...

Rob Halfordia wrote:

Soviet SSR wrote:Nationalism and socialism can`t coexist. Nationalism favors people who are from there country like Poland-Polish, France-French, China-Chinese. Socialism will benefit everyone by public programs and efforts to close the gap between the rich and poor.

Socialism never benefits anyone. It has never worked.

Incoming horde of sourced arguments from ancoms and ansocs in three, two...

Socialism and nationalism can coexist, but "National Socialism" means something else.