What does "Libertarian" mean to you?

[Sibirsky]

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).

He's a fucking troll.

[Sibirsky]

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.

Smoking a cigarette in the privacy of your own home, or better yet, smoking a joint, having a drink, then calling a hooker for some action affects you how exactly?

[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).

He's a fucking troll.

Ahh

[Sibirsky]

He's a fucking troll.

Ahh

Pardon my language. It was obvious that Hassett did not advocate for freedom to murder however.

[Conservative Alliances]

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.

And even if it does, that's what private law or simple negotiation is for.

[Trotskylvania]

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).

He's a fucking troll.

It's good to know that I get under your skin so much that all you can resort to doing is calling me a "fucking troll".

I guess that's why more often than not, you just flat out ignore my critiques rather than addressing them.

[Norstal]

He's a fucking troll.

It's good to know that I get under your skin so much that all you can resort to doing is calling me a "fucking troll".

I guess that's why more often than not, you just flat out ignore my critiques rather than addressing them.

I have to admit though, these discussions have nothing to do with the definition of Libertarian.

Or at least, you haven't connected it to the term.

[Sibirsky]

He's a fucking troll.

It's good to know that I get under your skin so much that all you can resort to doing is calling me a "fucking troll".

I guess that's why more often than not, you just flat out ignore my critiques rather than addressing them.

You mean deliberately claiming that someone is advocating freedom to murder when it is obvious that is not the case is not trolling?

And you deliberately attempt to get under my skin? That one is sometimes obvious.

Most of your critiques don't have any merit.

[Meryuma]

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....

Free markets, polycentric law and no state ≠ lawlessness and corporate feudalism.

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.

That's a false dichotomy. Market anarchists don't want no law, they want polycentric (i.e. non-monopolistic) law. Huge difference.

[Sibirsky]

It's good to know that I get under your skin so much that all you can resort to doing is calling me a "fucking troll".

I guess that's why more often than not, you just flat out ignore my critiques rather than addressing them.

I have to admit though, these discussions have nothing to do with the definition of Libertarian.

Or at least, you haven't connected it to the term.

They do actually. Libertarians favor freedom. This discussion between Trotsky and I came about from how much freedom are we talking about.

[Trotskylvania]

It's good to know that I get under your skin so much that all you can resort to doing is calling me a "fucking troll".

I guess that's why more often than not, you just flat out ignore my critiques rather than addressing them.

I have to admit though, these discussions have nothing to do with the definition of Libertarian.

Or at least, you haven't connected it to the term.

I've already made my understanding of libertarianism plain in this. I consider myself to be one, but I take issue with the narrow, licentious view of liberty that so many libertarians present as "freedom". His axiom was just another example of that. The social dimension of freedom, of mutual duties, the requirements of collective action to preserve those freedoms, were entirely absent. His vision of libertarianism is narrowly confined to doing as he pleases without understanding the social dimension that any action incurs.

Of course he doesn't advocate murder. I pointed out an extreme example of why that axiom is rubbish, but it applies equally to littering in the commons or any minor potential offense.

It's good to know that I get under your skin so much that all you can resort to doing is calling me a "fucking troll".

I guess that's why more often than not, you just flat out ignore my critiques rather than addressing them.

You mean deliberately claiming that someone is advocating freedom to murder when it is obvious that is not the case is not trolling?

And you deliberately attempt to get under my skin? That one is sometimes obvious.

Most of your critiques don't have any merit.

If someone is going to provide a definition of libertarianism, it should be true in all instances. I just picked the most extreme I could think of, because as I noted above, as a libertarian I take issue with a narrow, hedonistic conceptualization of freedom.

If you can't deal with that, that is quite frankly not my problem. If my criticism really has no merit, than by all means, feel free to demonstrate it to me. I am a reasonable person, and am more than capable of admitting when I am wrong. And I have constantly tried to help you come to a fuller understanding of your own political philosophy, because I believe you are not the best exemplar of a market libertarian that you could be.

Yeah, I'm a Socratic gadfly who gets under your nerves. Deal with it, and figure out what you're doing wrong, and then I won't be getting under your skin anymore.

[Sungai Pusat]

Yeah, I'm a Socratic gadfly who gets under your nerves. Deal with it, and figure out what you're doing wrong, and then I won't be getting under your skin anymore.

I'm really sorry, so wht you'e saying is that in order for you not to get under anyone's nerves, they have to figure what they get wrong, right? As in how?

[Norstal]

I have to admit though, these discussions have nothing to do with the definition of Libertarian.

Or at least, you haven't connected it to the term.

They do actually. Libertarians favor freedom. This discussion between Trotsky and I came about from how much freedom are we talking about.

I've already made my understanding of libertarianism plain in this. I consider myself to be one, but I take issue with the narrow, licentious view of liberty that so many libertarians present as "freedom". His axiom was just another example of that. The social dimension of freedom, of mutual duties, the requirements of collective action to preserve those freedoms, were entirely absent. His vision of libertarianism is narrowly confined to doing as he pleases without understanding the social dimension that any action incurs.

Of course he doesn't advocate murder. I pointed out an extreme example of why that axiom is rubbish, but it applies equally to littering in the commons or any minor potential offense.

As a third person arbiter, I really don't see that as trolling then. Carry on.

[Meryuma]

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.

Villifying classical liberalism is stupid.

[Sibirsky]

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.

Villifying classical liberalism is stupid.

I consider myself a classical liberal.

I also have a very high degree of respect for you, Meryuma.

[The Nuclear Fist]

What does "Libertarian" mean to you?

Stupid. It means stupid to me.

[Conservative Alliances]

Villifying classical liberalism is stupid.

I consider myself a classical liberal.

I also have a very high degree of respect for you, Meryuma.

The only problem I have with classical liberalism is its focus on natural law.

[Servantium]

What does "Libertarian" mean to you?

Stupid. It means stupid to me.

What an insightful addition to the discussion at hand. I wish we had more people like you who gave reasoning and insight.

[The Nuclear Fist]

Stupid. It means stupid to me.

What an insightful addition to the discussion at hand. I wish we had more people like you who gave reasoning and insight.

Meh. I answered the question. That was all that was required to me to fulfill the requirements to have my post not to be able to be considered spam. But hey, its more or less a way to tag this thread so I can read over it later.

[Meryuma]

Villifying classical liberalism is stupid.

I consider myself a classical liberal.

I also have a very high degree of respect for you, Meryuma.

It's nice to know I'm appreciated.

What does "Libertarian" mean to you?

Stupid. It means stupid to me.

Why is it stupid?

I consider myself a classical liberal.

I also have a very high degree of respect for you, Meryuma.

The only problem I have with classical liberalism is its focus on natural law.

Yeah, I don't really consider myself a natural law type either.

[Sungai Pusat]

I consider myself a classical liberal.

I also have a very high degree of respect for you, Meryuma.

The only problem I have with classical liberalism is its focus on natural law.

Of course. The theory of evolution is on the same thing: Natural law.

[Meryuma]

Does evolution proscribe morality?

[Trotskylvania]

Does evolution proscribe morality?

I think you're looking for "prescribe". "Proscribe" means to prohibit; it's an antonym of prescribe.

[Norstal]

The only problem I have with classical liberalism is its focus on natural law.

Of course. The theory of evolution is on the same thing: Natural law.

Theory != law. If its a theory, it can't be a law.

Besides, what Meryuma said. I don't know how the ethics/morale part has anything to do with evolution.

[Rokartian States]

Of course. The theory of evolution is on the same thing: Natural law.

Theory != law. If its a theory, it can't be a law.

Is a theory not just a law that hasn't been proven?