NationStates

I guess it depends whether you're talking about the Libertarian Party or libertarians.

If you mean the party, a nutty group who thinks that oppression by the states is cool, but by the Fed is evil. I don't get that.

If you mean libertarianism as a philosophy, it means thinking that, aside from bare essential services, the government should be small, efficient, and stay out of your way as much as possible.

I lean libertarian myself, but I use the term "practical and still be equitable" instead of "possible".

Crazy and obsolete. On a BBC documentary into the tea party, the reporter was asked by an American libertarian "Tell me, what can some beurocrat in Washington tell me about bringing my kids up?" I was immediately reminded of how good government designed and sponsored sex education programmes are effective at reducing teenage pregnancies, over absitence only sex education or none. So, basically, it's all lie. The idea that somehow joe blogs is more intelligent than a well designed government programme, which makes use of well paid specialists is bollocks.

Glorious Homeland wrote:Crazy and obsolete. On a BBC documentary into the tea party, the reporter was asked by an American libertarian "Tell me, what can some beurocrat in Washington tell me about bringing my kids up?" I was immediately reminded of how good government designed and sponsored sex education programmes are effective at reducing teenage pregnancies, over absitence only sex education or none. So, basically, it's all lie. The idea that somehow joe blogs is more intelligent than a well designed government programme, which makes use of well paid specialists is bollocks.

Bendira wrote:

Glorious Homeland wrote:Crazy and obsolete. On a BBC documentary into the tea party, the reporter was asked by an American libertarian "Tell me, what can some beurocrat in Washington tell me about bringing my kids up?" I was immediately reminded of how good government designed and sponsored sex education programmes are effective at reducing teenage pregnancies, over absitence only sex education or none. So, basically, it's all lie. The idea that somehow joe blogs is more intelligent than a well designed government programme, which makes use of well paid specialists is bollocks.

Why is that bad? Because it's right? Because without comprehensive sex education, thus, government intervention, teenage pregnancies are more? Because that's a fact? Because you're wrong and like projecting madly with infuriating smilies because you can't explain how you're wrong and I'm right? Is that it? It is. Good.

A libertarian is anyone who believes in the political necessity of substantive liberty. I try not to discriminate between right and left-wing libertarians, but unfortunately a lot of right-wing libertarians have what I feel is a very narrow conception of liberty, which encompasses only the liberty from state intervention, and not any substantive freedom to act.

I try to be a comrade with them, but most of them really don't want me as a comrade. So meh.

Trotskylvania wrote:A libertarian is anyone who believes in the political necessity of substantive liberty. I try not to discriminate between right and left-wing libertarians, but unfortunately a lot of right-wing libertarians have what I feel is a very narrow conception of liberty, which encompasses only the liberty from state intervention, and not any substantive freedom to act.

I try to be a comrade with them, but most of them really don't want me as a comrade. So meh.

You want to be their Russian friend?

South Lorenya wrote:

Meryuma wrote:
Apparently lack of state intervention is what allows the state to take over businesses. What are you smoking in what universe?

Keep in mind that the state didn't take them over until AFTER their catastrophic failures; before them, all we had was bush playing the fiddle while the banking sector burned.

Do you really think the Bush administration was a free market?

Glorious Homeland wrote:Crazy and obsolete. On a BBC documentary into the tea party, the reporter was asked by an American libertarian "Tell me, what can some beurocrat in Washington tell me about bringing my kids up?" I was immediately reminded of how good government designed and sponsored sex education programmes are effective at reducing teenage pregnancies, over absitence only sex education or none. So, basically, it's all lie. The idea that somehow joe blogs is more intelligent than a well designed government programme, which makes use of well paid specialists is bollocks.

The Tea Party movement isn't libertarian, much less representative of libertarianism as a whole.

Meryuma wrote:

South Lorenya wrote:
Keep in mind that the state didn't take them over until AFTER their catastrophic failures; before them, all we had was bush playing the fiddle while the banking sector burned.

Do you really think the Bush administration was a free market?

Glorious Homeland wrote:Crazy and obsolete. On a BBC documentary into the tea party, the reporter was asked by an American libertarian "Tell me, what can some beurocrat in Washington tell me about bringing my kids up?" I was immediately reminded of how good government designed and sponsored sex education programmes are effective at reducing teenage pregnancies, over absitence only sex education or none. So, basically, it's all lie. The idea that somehow joe blogs is more intelligent than a well designed government programme, which makes use of well paid specialists is bollocks.

The Tea Party movement isn't libertarian, much less representative of libertarianism as a whole.

The fella they spoke to was a Libertarian, he was just part of their investigation into anti-stateisms, it's links to the tea party and what have have you, in the USA.

Also, please stop doing that smily. Your statement without it was fine, as it is asking a question; with it, you just come across as a dick trying to demean rather than have dialogue with your opponent. People are not psychic, you ought to explain your position carefully so that others can understand the difference between your definition and theirs, rather than try and mock them because YOU can't explain things properly? It doesn't win you any favours and certainly doesn't progress the conversation or debate. Let's play nicely, maturely, respectfully.

Pope Joan wrote:

The Black Forrest wrote:

Libertarianism is incompatible with basic human nature of the desire of power.

Instead of the state telling you what to do, you have a guy with a large amount of thugs telling you what to do.....

So you recruit your own thugs.

I do think we need to think outside the political box.

We need freedom on more arenas than the merely political.

And if you don't have the resources?

Point is that libertarianism looks good on paper. People tend to mess things up. For example; we can scream about the state and do away with it but then all we end up with is another form of oppression like a warlord.........

I consider libertarianism to essentially incorporate social liberalism and advocacy for minimal state intervention. Therefore, left libertarianism (libertarian socialism) and right libertarianism (Libertarianism in the NA sense) obviously constitute it due to this interpretation.

Glorious Homeland wrote:

Meryuma wrote:
Do you really think the Bush administration was a free market?



The Tea Party movement isn't libertarian, much less representative of libertarianism as a whole.

The fella they spoke to was a Libertarian, he was just part of their investigation into anti-stateisms, it's links to the tea party and what have have you, in the USA.

Also, please stop doing that smily. Your statement without it was fine, as it is asking a question; with it, you just come across as a dick trying to demean rather than have dialogue with your opponent. People are not psychic, you ought to explain your position carefully so that others can understand the difference between your definition and theirs, rather than try and mock them because YOU can't explain things properly? It doesn't win you any favours and certainly doesn't progress the conversation or debate. Let's play nicely, maturely, respectfully.

I think you surrendered the right to a respectful debate when you started your post out with

Crazy and obsolete

Basically says "no matter what you say, im going to ignore it". And also there wasn't anything I could really qrite, other than to facepalm the fact that you think Tea Partiers are libertarians.

The Congregationists wrote:

Jakaragua wrote:The problem with capital L Libertarianism is that they don't understand that "fiscal liberty" is a contradiction in philosophy. Laissez-faire capitalism liberates the wealthy and enslaves the poor. You cannot be free in a system that forces people to choose wage labor or starvation.

When people talk about being "socially liberal" and "fiscally conservative" remember that while it's important to support gay rights, and we shouldn't put people in jail for smoking reefer, most social repression comes from economics anyway. Folks who don't understand that, just don't understand society period.

Hmmm ... interesting. And very true.

I think you'll find that this statement will not register on either side of the political spectrum these days. The right does not agree with the notion that "laissez faire capitalism liberates the wealthy and enslaves the poor" while the left would object to the notion that "most social repression comes from the economics anyway." You are a rare and enlightened, though unfortunately also a dying breed Jakaragua. Good analysis.

Actually I think Leftists (Specifically Marxists) do understand it's the economic system that determines the layout of classes which in turn determines the overall order of society.

It means, "I am a Republican and I am fed up with my party" or "I'm basically a liberal that likes guns too much to identify as one." With interesting exceptions.

Bendira wrote:

Glorious Homeland wrote:The fella they spoke to was a Libertarian, he was just part of their investigation into anti-stateisms, it's links to the tea party and what have have you, in the USA.

Also, please stop doing that smily. Your statement without it was fine, as it is asking a question; with it, you just come across as a dick trying to demean rather than have dialogue with your opponent. People are not psychic, you ought to explain your position carefully so that others can understand the difference between your definition and theirs, rather than try and mock them because YOU can't explain things properly? It doesn't win you any favours and certainly doesn't progress the conversation or debate. Let's play nicely, maturely, respectfully.

I think you surrendered the right to a respectful debate when you started your post out with

Crazy and obsolete

Basically says "no matter what you say, im going to ignore it". And also there wasn't anything I could really qrite, other than to facepalm the fact that you think Tea Partiers are libertarians.

No, I'm open to you blowing me away with such a logical, well sourced and seductive argument about whatever it is that I up sticks and follow your ideology. Presently to me, given all I know, it seems like a crazy and obsolete ideology that didn't quite get killed off come the turn of the 20th century.

There also was a better alternative, you could have EXPLAINED your position rather than expressing that you think I'm an idiot without even a word of why, which is to say the least a little undiplomatic. Do you see two scientists often facepalming each other when one makes a mistake or does not have something properly explained? No, you see them correcting their peers or explaining, like normal adults. I have been plenty respectful, and honest and verbose. I also think communism is crazy and obsolete. But would you get so uppity about that? Or nazism, or juche or khmer rouge or whatever. Or any other belief you don't personally have some sort of pact with? Of course not, if you didn't like the ideology you'd agree that it would be crazy and obsolete, in which case you're being a hypocrite.

So stop dancing around how you somehow are a moral authority on respectfulness, which you are not, are please instead focus and explain what you would have done instead of using " " because apparently we're all fucking psychic... I'd be interested to hear your opinions, if you are capable of explaining them. I would love to be convinced by a rather good argument, or to learn something about something, so go on. Blow my socks off. I'm all ears.

Glorious Homeland wrote:-snip-

1. I misinterpreted you. Sorry.
2. You are right that libertarians oppose state-run education... if you didn't bring in tea partiers, I probably would've been less knee-jerk in my responses. If you want to debate about it, I'd be happy to.
3. I just used that smiley because it expressed frustration. I was very frustrated. I don't see what I did wrong.

Desperate Measures wrote:It means, "I am a Republican and I am fed up with my party" or "I'm basically a liberal that likes guns too much to identify as one." With interesting exceptions.

I'm glad you included that, seeing as I'm one of those interesting exceptions myself.

Glorious Homeland wrote:-snip-

How is libertarianism crazy and obsolete when it hasn't been tried? Also, what's this about the turn of the 20th century? Libertarianism as a philosophy, though inspired by classical liberalism, didn't occur in its current form until the 60s with Murray Rothbard.

Meryuma wrote:

Glorious Homeland wrote:-snip-

1. I misinterpreted you. Sorry.
2. You are right that libertarians oppose state-run education... if you didn't bring in tea partiers, I probably would've been less knee-jerk in my responses. If you want to debate about it, I'd be happy to.
3. I just used that smiley because it expressed frustration. I was very frustrated. I don't see what I did wrong.

*manhug* I appreciate your apology, and also apologise if my form offended you in any way.

I personally find the " " incensing. Maybe I'm just psychotic, but I'm sure it annoys others if it's aimed at them, as it's usually associated with someone doing something stupid, in which case the implication is that the person you are using it at is being stupid, thus stupid.

My argument was simply that although they say "the state can't do anything for me that I can't do well for myself", in reality many public services that are well designed and operated by competent staff, will produce great benefits for society. The prime example is comprehensive sex education and its role in reducing teenage pregnancies, as opposed to none and letting parents teach their children about it... which many don't and this leads to problems.

EDIT: It has been tried already. The reason I say it's obsolete, is that many politicians supported libertarianism, in the sense of much smaller government in the 1800s and such. Welfare systems and all the modern hoo-haa did not exist back then, so state services were quite small, like courts, police, (in their infancy), army, central bank and a few public services for fancy things. Crazy because effectively gutting government to make it as small as is wanted by many libertarians would be turning back the clock over a hundred years.

Jakaragua wrote:The problem with capital L Libertarianism is that they don't understand that "fiscal liberty" is a contradiction in philosophy. Laissez-faire capitalism liberates the wealthy and enslaves the poor. You cannot be free in a system that forces people to choose wage labor or starvation.

When people talk about being "socially liberal" and "fiscally conservative" remember that while it's important to support gay rights, and we shouldn't put people in jail for smoking reefer, most social repression comes from economics anyway. Folks who don't understand that, just don't understand society period.

You're right. Capitalism has worked out so horribly for North America, Western Europe, Australia, Singapore and South Korea, while socialism has been such an incredible engine of economic and wage growth in North Korea, the Soviet Union, Zimbabwe and Vietnam.

Sibirsky wrote:

Jakaragua wrote:The problem with capital L Libertarianism is that they don't understand that "fiscal liberty" is a contradiction in philosophy. Laissez-faire capitalism liberates the wealthy and enslaves the poor. You cannot be free in a system that forces people to choose wage labor or starvation.

When people talk about being "socially liberal" and "fiscally conservative" remember that while it's important to support gay rights, and we shouldn't put people in jail for smoking reefer, most social repression comes from economics anyway. Folks who don't understand that, just don't understand society period.

You're right. Capitalism has worked out so horribly for North America, Western Europe, Australia, Singapore and South Korea, while socialism has been such an incredible engine of economic and wage growth in North Korea, the Soviet Union, Zimbabwe and Vietnam.

Let's no move the goalposts shall we? I never even mentioned the word socialism in there.

Also remember that socialism had either been crushed or had a knife at it's throat throughout history.

Jakaragua wrote:

Sibirsky wrote:You're right. Capitalism has worked out so horribly for North America, Western Europe, Australia, Singapore and South Korea, while socialism has been such an incredible engine of economic and wage growth in North Korea, the Soviet Union, Zimbabwe and Vietnam.

Let's no move the goalposts shall we? I never even mentioned the word capitalism in there.

Also remember that socialism had either been crushed or had a knife at it's throat throughout history.

Not really, worked in Britain for a while. Then people didn't like it and voted it out.

Dumb Ideologies wrote:Imagine a bunch of old homophobic, racist rich white guys escaping from the old folks home, putting on some snazzy clothes and some fancy aftershave, turning up at a club, putting their hips out on the dancefloor and hitting on all the most attractive women as if they belong amongst the trendy, young and radical.

That's what Libertarian means to me.

Libertarians support gay marriage and legalization of drugs. Something most old white guys oppose. They're also not racist.

Glorious Homeland wrote:

Jakaragua wrote:Let's no move the goalposts shall we? I never even mentioned the word capitalism in there.

Also remember that socialism had either been crushed or had a knife at it's throat throughout history.

Not really, worked in Britain for a while. Then people didn't like it and voted it out.

We had Social Democracy, not Socialism.

Jakaragua wrote:The problem with capital L Libertarianism is that they don't understand that "fiscal liberty" is a contradiction in philosophy. Laissez-faire capitalism liberates the wealthy and enslaves the poor. You cannot be free in a system that forces people to choose wage labor or starvation.

When people talk about being "socially liberal" and "fiscally conservative" remember that while it's important to support gay rights, and we shouldn't put people in jail for smoking reefer, most social repression comes from economics anyway. Folks who don't understand that, just don't understand society period.

Andrew Carnagie never got rich.

The Congregationists wrote:More or less dumb ideologies, but the main issue is one of emphasis. Like I said, a rebranding to appeal to a different socio-cultural cohort. Thus they play down the social conservatism and emphasise the 'small government' angle. They cannot attract youth otherwise. The 'conservative' label lacks credibility because: A) the social side of conservatism has less appeal to the young and B) the term 'conservative' has too many connotations with the Bush years and its association with warmongering and authoritarianism. So the kinds of policies that Reagan ran under, for instance, are rebranded as libertarian.

This happened on the left 20 years ago. Socialism fell out of favor, so that label was dropped in favor of 'progressive' which connoted social and cultural liberalism and downplayed the mixed economy, even though most progressives still sympathised with it.

The "progressive" label is a century old. Libertarians have nothing to do with conservatives.

1. I have no problems with the services themselves, just how they are funded.
2. Government land grants, Jim Crow laws, a ban on strikes, tariffs, subsidies, taxes and patents all existed during the 19th century. It wasn't a free market.

Sibirsky wrote:

The Congregationists wrote:More or less dumb ideologies, but the main issue is one of emphasis. Like I said, a rebranding to appeal to a different socio-cultural cohort. Thus they play down the social conservatism and emphasise the 'small government' angle. They cannot attract youth otherwise. The 'conservative' label lacks credibility because: A) the social side of conservatism has less appeal to the young and B) the term 'conservative' has too many connotations with the Bush years and its association with warmongering and authoritarianism. So the kinds of policies that Reagan ran under, for instance, are rebranded as libertarian.

This happened on the left 20 years ago. Socialism fell out of favor, so that label was dropped in favor of 'progressive' which connoted social and cultural liberalism and downplayed the mixed economy, even though most progressives still sympathised with it.

The "progressive" label is a century old. Libertarians have nothing to do with conservatives.

Except for the fact Ron Paul is a Republican.