What does "Libertarian" mean to you?

[Sungai Pusat]

On topic:
My idea of a libertarian is just, well, someone upholding liberty. After all, that's the dictionary definition. xp

In all seriousness, though, libertarian means anything froms someone advocating a 10% GDP government size to a no government advocate. 20% is the number, in GDP size term, the number the federal government's advocating. And alot of it's probably gone into bureacracy. And to answer someone talking about how it is ridiculous to have a small government for 300 million people, I'm sure they feel that a super-massive government of 75% of GDP for the whole world should be better, no?

[Sibirsky]

I'm not claiming collateral damage is malicious, not at all. I'm claiming the entire purpose of going into Iraq was unfounded. The military, run by the Department of Defense, is responsible for defense. Iraq wasn't a threat.

Yet you implied that the military was purposely targeting Iraqi children.

I implied that innocent people die at the hands of the state.

[Meryuma]

Who decides who is "dangerous" and deserves to die?

The State.

Exactly. I think that's wrong.

Yeah those Iraqi children where such a danger.

Actually, it's your celebrated individuals that perform such actions, as the US military abides by the Geneva conventions.

Really? Gitmo & Abu Ghraib follow the Geneva Conventions? Bombing innocent villagers in Afghanistan because they might be terrorists follows the Geneva Conventions?
About the whole "products that kill people" thing, such products wouldn't be very profitable...

[Kaputer]

How does Gitmo violate the Geneva Convention?

[Bendira]

How does Gitmo violate the Geneva Convention?

Probably the torture part.

[Kaputer]

How does Gitmo violate the Geneva Convention?

Probably the torture part.

Fine could I see a source?

[Conservative Alliances]

Yet you implied that the military was purposely targeting Iraqi children.

I implied that innocent people die at the hands of the state.

Okay, I'll agree to that. But, if the state ceases to exist, wars are still going to be fought, and people are still going to die. In the context of war, I don't think what the state does really matters.

[Sibirsky]

I implied that innocent people die at the hands of the state.

Okay, I'll agree to that. But, if the state ceases to exist, wars are still going to be fought, and people are still going to die. In the context of war, I don't think what the state does really matters.

More innocent people die at the hands of the state than at the hands of corporations or individuals.

[Conservative Alliances]

Okay, I'll agree to that. But, if the state ceases to exist, wars are still going to be fought, and people are still going to die. In the context of war, I don't think what the state does really matters.

More innocent people die at the hands of the state than at the hands of corporations or individuals.

Agreed. But without the state, someone is still going to have to fight the wars. We should focus on things that can be changed, like regulations and restrictions on personal freedoms, not the existence of warfare.

[The Merchant Republics]

Libertarianism is the advocation of the philosophy of Individual Liberty through respect for Private Property, Civil and Social Freedoms. It is highly associated with Minarchism and Ultra-Capitalism, though it is probably the least extreme of the three in terms of scope.

[Sungai Pusat]

More innocent people die at the hands of the state than at the hands of corporations or individuals.

Agreed. But without the state, someone is still going to have to fight the wars. We should focus on things that can be changed, like regulations and restrictions on personal freedoms, not the existence of warfare.

Probably, but how would you fund the wars? Not by taxes, which is guranteed, always, but by business, which is not guranteed. You know how you can fund the wars on and on? By taxes. And with taxes, you still get the money even if the people don't want to. WIth no states, the business has to fight for the business to get the customers in order to fund a war. Which also means thanks to the wars, both sides of the war will be badly affected, so for the sake of business, they won't fight as much.

[Conservative Alliances]

Agreed. But without the state, someone is still going to have to fight the wars. We should focus on things that can be changed, like regulations and restrictions on personal freedoms, not the existence of warfare.

Probably, but how would you fund the wars? Not by taxes, which is guranteed, always, but by business, which is not guranteed. You know how you can fund the wars on and on? By taxes. And with taxes, you still get the money even if the people don't want to. WIth no states, the business has to fight for the business to get the customers in order to fund a war. Which also means thanks to the wars, both sides of the war will be badly affected, so for the sake of business, they won't fight as much.

Or, militias could form for the common defense of the area and eventually wage war with each other. Particularly wealthy individuals could also protect their interests with PMCs. wars certainly would not be as large as they would with state involvement, but they would likely be more numerous. I doubt the death tolls would be much different. I wouldn't consider warfare to be a strong point for supporting the abolition of the state.

[Alexlantis]

Basically, libertarians are the old man versions of anarchists.

[Servantium]

So long as they blindly sign a waiver, they can kill themselves off?

Why not? Why should someone be prevented from making stupid decisions that don't infringe on the rights of others?

Anyways, libertarianism was described best, I think, by an acquaintance of mine:

"...Both [libertarianism and capitalism] are concerned only with the freedom of the individual to do whatever he wants in [pursuit] of happiness and profits-- as long as he is not trampling the rights of others. ...It is not our job to save society. - HandsOff"

[The Merchant Republics]

Probably, but how would you fund the wars? Not by taxes, which is guranteed, always, but by business, which is not guranteed. You know how you can fund the wars on and on? By taxes. And with taxes, you still get the money even if the people don't want to. WIth no states, the business has to fight for the business to get the customers in order to fund a war. Which also means thanks to the wars, both sides of the war will be badly affected, so for the sake of business, they won't fight as much.

Or, militias could form for the common defense of the area and eventually wage war with each other. Particularly wealthy individuals could also protect their interests with PMCs. wars certainly would not be as large as they would with state involvement, but they would likely be more numerous. I doubt the death tolls would be much different. I wouldn't consider warfare to be a strong point for supporting the abolition of the state.

Yes, look at the Northern Italian city-states, which were quite free economically and had very weak governments, still they warred infrequently with each other over all sorts of issues.

[Meryuma]

Probably, but how would you fund the wars? Not by taxes, which is guranteed, always, but by business, which is not guranteed. You know how you can fund the wars on and on? By taxes. And with taxes, you still get the money even if the people don't want to. WIth no states, the business has to fight for the business to get the customers in order to fund a war. Which also means thanks to the wars, both sides of the war will be badly affected, so for the sake of business, they won't fight as much.

Or, militias could form for the common defense of the area and eventually wage war with each other. Particularly wealthy individuals could also protect their interests with PMCs. wars certainly would not be as large as they would with state involvement, but they would likely be more numerous. I doubt the death tolls would be much different. I wouldn't consider warfare to be a strong point for supporting the abolition of the state.

That would be illegal, as well as a just plain foolish thing to do.

[Conservative Alliances]

So long as they blindly sign a waiver, they can kill themselves off?

Why not? Why should someone be prevented from making stupid decisions that don't infringe on the rights of others?

Anyways, libertarianism was described best, I think, by an acquaintance of mine:

"...Both [libertarianism and capitalism] are concerned only with the freedom of the individual to do whatever he wants in [pursuit] of happiness and profits-- as long as he is not trampling the rights of others. ...It is not our job to save society. - HandsOff"

I like that definition.

[Hassett]

Libertarianism- If you are not free to choose wrongly and irresponsibly, you are not free at all.

[Conservative Alliances]

Libertarianism- If you are not free to choose wrongly and irresponsibly, you are not free at all.

I like that one also.

[Servantium]

Libertarianism- If you are not free to choose wrongly and irresponsibly, you are not free at all.

I like that one also.

So do I.

[Rokartian States]

Libertarianism- If you are not free to choose wrongly and irresponsibly, you are not free at all.

This is my favorite.

[JJ Place]

Libertarianism is a political ideology advocating a maximum degree of freedom. A Libertarian is an individual whom believes in, or knows , based on rational logic, efficacious proof , reliable statistics , and cogent evidence , in Libertarianism , and supports , or actively pursues , gaining all individuals and parties in society a maximum degree of freedom.

[JJ Place]

Hey look , I managed to kill another thread. Anyone want to help me revive this thread?

[Conservative Alliances]

Hey look , I managed to kill another thread. Anyone want to help me revive this thread?

It's not dead yet. I like your definition, but it may be a tad to specific. For example, I don't think a libertarian necessarily needs to believe in rational logic.

[The Merchant Republics]

Hey look , I managed to kill another thread. Anyone want to help me revive this thread?

It's not dead yet. I like your definition, but it may be a tad to specific. For example, I don't think a libertarian necessarily needs to believe in rational logic.

One should hope it does however.