What does "Libertarian" mean to you?

[Servantium]

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.

Yeah, but if you're really a libertarian you shouldn't really be an advocate of telling people what they should do, just what they shouldn't. Namely, they shouldn't infringe upon the rights of others.

EDIT: Rebublical changed to libertarian. I have no fucking idea how I got that typo.

[Trotskylvania]

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

Murder is wrong and irresponsible. But we should still have the right to commit murder if we chose to, or else we aren't free.

[JJ Place]

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

It's not dead yet.

Hooray, we have revived a thread which I previously killed!

I like your definition, but it may be a tad to specific.

Libertarianism cannot be definded more specifically; it can be expanded upon in definition, though, the definition will always revolve around an ideology of liberty, I . E . , the reasoning behind the use of the word Libertarianism for the definition.

For example, I don't think a libertarian necessarily needs to believe in rational logic.

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.

A Libertarian need not believe in rational logic; a Libertarian need know in rational logic. In Addition , One should also hope for a knowledge of rational logic of all individuals; which would make everyone a Libertarian.

[The Black Forrest]

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.

Indeed. Laws are good thing.

If the corps were calling the shots, death counts would increase....

[Alexlantis]

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

Murder is wrong and irresponsible. But we should still have the right to commit murder if we chose to, or else we aren't free.

But that limits the rights of others. By a lot. Hence, we need someone to prevent people from killing each other. Hence, the police. So, the state is necessary. Not all that good at times, but government is preferable to the alternative.

[Sibirsky]

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

Murder is wrong and irresponsible. But we should still have the right to commit murder if we chose to, or else we aren't free.

Only if we kill commies.

[Sibirsky]

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

Indeed. Laws are good thing.

If the corps were calling the shots, death counts would increase....

Of course. Everyone knows you increase profits by killing your customers.

[Lackadaisical2]

I didnt know that the FDA goes out and kills people.

They kill capitalists dreams of murdering millions for profit. Goddamn Communists.

But... Uncle Lacky's baby back ribs would be a huge hit.

Also, its not murder if its legal.

[Alexlantis]

Murder is wrong and irresponsible. But we should still have the right to commit murder if we chose to, or else we aren't free.

Only if we kill commies.

And... how would that solve anything? Just let the commies be commies. Otherwise, you're limiting rights. I hate Tea Party members, but I don't go around killing them. They have a right to live. Also, ever hear of "I disagree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it"? They have a right to live and a right to give their views.

[The Black Forrest]

Indeed. Laws are good thing.

If the corps were calling the shots, death counts would increase....

Of course. Everyone knows you increase profits by killing your customers.

Indeed. A few deaths to recover investment costs in a drug rather then simply taking the losses? Never would happen right?

[Umbra Ac Silentium]

Well, as a personal centrist to libertarian, it personally means to me minimal government control over one's life, and work, irregardless of anything.

[Sibirsky]

Only if we kill commies.

And... how would that solve anything? Just let the commies be commies. Otherwise, you're limiting rights. I hate Tea Party members, but I don't go around killing them. They have a right to live. Also, ever hear of "I disagree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it"? They have a right to live and a right to give their views.

It was a sarcastic statement in response to an idiotic statement.

Anyone with half a brain could tell that Hassett meant we should be free to be irresponsible as long as we don't harm others. Most would classify murder as harm.

[Sibirsky]

Of course. Everyone knows you increase profits by killing your customers.

Indeed. A few deaths to recover investment costs in a drug rather then simply taking the losses? Never would happen right?

Explain.

[Sagatagan]

To me, libertarian means a social philosophy that rejects hierarchy- it is the same as anarchism. Classical Liberalism that calls itself libertarian is NOT libertarian- it support hierarchy. Classical liberals believe a person can be free as an individual when under both de facto and de jure hierarchies that control their lives. This is ridiculous, as is the rest of the 'right-libertarian' classical liberal ideology, which is to its core anti-social to the point of being psychopathic. They spend their time exalting liberty only in the abstract while ignoring the systems of oppression that effect our everyday lives.

[Trotskylvania]

And... how would that solve anything? Just let the commies be commies. Otherwise, you're limiting rights. I hate Tea Party members, but I don't go around killing them. They have a right to live. Also, ever hear of "I disagree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it"? They have a right to live and a right to give their views.

It was a sarcastic statement in response to an idiotic statement.

Anyone with half a brain could tell that Hassett meant we should be free to be irresponsible as long as we don't harm others. Most would classify murder as harm.

But he didn't say that. If he wants to not have his axioms skewered, he should take more care in formulating them.

[Conservative Alliances]

A Libertarian need not believe in rational logic; a Libertarian need know in rational logic. In Addition , One should also hope for a knowledge of rational logic of all individuals; which would make everyone a Libertarian.

I don't agree with that. Knowledge suggests the existence of universal truth, which suggest the existence of absolutism, which is contrary to libertarianism. The belief that we don't ever truly know everything about anything is the whole reason freedom exists.

[Conservative Alliances]

To me, libertarian means a social philosophy that rejects hierarchy- it is the same as anarchism. Classical Liberalism that calls itself libertarian is NOT libertarian- it support hierarchy. Classical liberals believe a person can be free as an individual when under both de facto and de jure hierarchies that control their lives. This is ridiculous, as is the rest of the 'right-libertarian' classical liberal ideology, which is to its core anti-social to the point of being psychopathic. They spend their time exalting liberty only in the abstract while ignoring the systems of oppression that effect our everyday lives.

Hierarchies are inevitable. Some people have more charisma, are more intimidating, more intelligent, etc. This allows them to influence others and thus have authority over them, just in a less official manner. Thus hierarchies form. That's why equality is likely unobtainable. Unless everyone is a clone with the same exact life experiences.

[Sungai Pusat]

To me, libertarian means a social philosophy that rejects hierarchy- it is the same as anarchism. Classical Liberalism that calls itself libertarian is NOT libertarian- it support hierarchy. Classical liberals believe a person can be free as an individual when under both de facto and de jure hierarchies that control their lives. This is ridiculous, as is the rest of the 'right-libertarian' classical liberal ideology, which is to its core anti-social to the point of being psychopathic. They spend their time exalting liberty only in the abstract while ignoring the systems of oppression that effect our everyday lives.

Hierarchies are inevitable. Some people have more charisma, are more intimidating, more intelligent, etc. This allows them to influence others and thus have authority over them, just in a less official manner. Thus hierarchies form. That's why equality is likely unobtainable. Unless everyone is a clone with the same exact life experiences.

No, libertarianism does not exactly mean equality, it just means a greater acceleration of growth, allowing even the poorest in the libertarian society to advance quicker than anyone in the statist society.

[United German Citizens]

Libertarian means that you still think of yourself as an individual. It means you are not afraid to denounce and stand up to a government that has trampled on your rights. It means that you believe that all human beings have unalienable rights, rights that can and will not be taken away by any man or government. To me, being a Libertarian means that you recognize that Freedom and Liberty are not just words to be used but that they are an idea. An idea that states that every man, no matter their social stature or station, has the same rights and freedoms as everyone else.

[Sagatagan]

To me, libertarian means a social philosophy that rejects hierarchy- it is the same as anarchism. Classical Liberalism that calls itself libertarian is NOT libertarian- it support hierarchy. Classical liberals believe a person can be free as an individual when under both de facto and de jure hierarchies that control their lives. This is ridiculous, as is the rest of the 'right-libertarian' classical liberal ideology, which is to its core anti-social to the point of being psychopathic. They spend their time exalting liberty only in the abstract while ignoring the systems of oppression that effect our everyday lives.

Hierarchies are inevitable. Some people have more charisma, are more intimidating, more intelligent, etc. This allows them to influence others and thus have authority over them, just in a less official manner. Thus hierarchies form. That's why equality is likely unobtainable. Unless everyone is a clone with the same exact life experiences.

There's a difference between one person having more than another, and one person exploiting another, controlling the means by which they live, and establishing a hierarchy.

[Conservative Alliances]

Hierarchies are inevitable. Some people have more charisma, are more intimidating, more intelligent, etc. This allows them to influence others and thus have authority over them, just in a less official manner. Thus hierarchies form. That's why equality is likely unobtainable. Unless everyone is a clone with the same exact life experiences.

No, libertarianism does not exactly mean equality, it just means a greater acceleration of growth, allowing even the poorest in the libertarian society to advance quicker than anyone in the statist society.

Yes, I know, I just mentioned equality in my argument against libertarianism being defined with a belief in the rejection of hierarchy.

[Servantium]

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

Murder is wrong and irresponsible. But we should still have the right to commit murder if we chose to, or else we aren't free.

Why do people do this outside of formal debate? The poster obviously did not mean complete freedom to do whatever you want. They meant the freedom to do whatever you want as long as you don't infringe upon the rights of others (which is how many define the word freedom).

[Grave_n_idle]

Murder is wrong and irresponsible. But we should still have the right to commit murder if we chose to, or else we aren't free.

Why do people do this outside of formal debate? The poster obviously did not mean complete freedom to do whatever you want. They meant the freedom to do whatever you want as long as you don't infringe upon the rights of others (which is how many define the word freedom).

Probably because that's basically a meaningless definition, since there's almost nothing you do that doesn't affect other people in some way.

[Servantium]

Why do people do this outside of formal debate? The poster obviously did not mean complete freedom to do whatever you want. They meant the freedom to do whatever you want as long as you don't infringe upon the rights of others (which is how many define the word freedom).

Probably because that's basically a meaningless definition, since there's almost nothing you do that doesn't affect other people in some way.

Affecting people =/= Infringing upon their rights.

[Sibirsky]

Hierarchies are inevitable. Some people have more charisma, are more intimidating, more intelligent, etc. This allows them to influence others and thus have authority over them, just in a less official manner. Thus hierarchies form. That's why equality is likely unobtainable. Unless everyone is a clone with the same exact life experiences.

No, libertarianism does not exactly mean equality, it just means a greater acceleration of growth, allowing even the poorest in the libertarian society to advance quicker than anyone in the statist society.

Conservative Alliances did not claim libertarianism was equality. Only that equality is unattainable. I agree, to a point. Equality can be attained by force. At a loss of freedom obviously. And also requires a ruling class to carry out this force, which wouldn't be equal to the public.