What does "Libertarian" mean to you?

[JJ Place]

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.

That's not true at all; Universal Maxims being completely true do not discredit freedom in any means. Even if it's a Universal truth that all life needs air and water to survive , this is not flying the face of freedom, it's just reality. The existence of absolutism does not oppose Libertarianism , it strengthen Libertarianism. Freedom is one of these Absolutes through - out , not just the Universe , Freedom is intrinsically good in all the reaches of the Cosmos. Another Maxim is that of crime; many believe crime is not Universal, and a justification of crime in one area is not the justification of a crime in another part of the Universe , let alone an alternative parts of the Cosmos outside of this Universe.

Although, enough with the Cosmos discussion; let's center on this Universe : Many people find that without a Universal Moral Code that is correct , or , better yet that is, if the Universe is lacking a Universal Criminal Code, they believe crime is not determined by Universal truths, they believe crime is determined by the most anti - Libertarian organization in existence : The Government.

The existence of a Universal Code of Crimes strengthens Libertarianism a great deal; after successfully explaining the existence a Universal Legal Code counter anti - Libertarian arguments, a Universal Legal Code is one of if not the greatest assets to any explanation of crime from Libertarian stance, such as my own political ideological view points . The belief that knowledge of everything or knowledge of anything cannot be known is not the reason freedom exists ; freedom is the intrinsic goodness of the Universe, this I know for a fact. I also know that belief , of anything in existence , is both the opposite , and opposition to freedom; belief opposes liberty.

[Norstal]

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

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

By that definition, anything pertaining to theories in physics and computer science is a law. I'm pretty sure my professor don't consider A.Is as alive, even if it has been theorized as such.

A theory is a hypothesis that has been rigorously tested and a law is something unexplainable, yet occurring. Evolution is therefore a theory. At least, that's my definition.

[Conservative Alliances]

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.

No, evolution actually has nothing to do with natural law. I just so happen to believe that there are no natural rights. For the record, I have nothing against evolution by itself. I have issue with things that are sometimes presented with it, like abiogenesis.

[Sungai Pusat]

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.

It's science, it actually means differently in science.

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

No, evolution actually has nothing to do with natural law. I just so happen to believe that there are no natural rights. For the record, I have nothing against evolution by itself. I have issue with things that are sometimes presented with it, like abiogenesis.

Fine.....

[Notodonta ziczac]

to me it means 'mostly decent people who are honestly trying to change the world in a positive way'. now i dont always agree with them, but theyre usually not bad people.

[Conservative Alliances]

That's not true at all; Universal Maxims being completely true do not discredit freedom in any means. Even if it's a Universal truth that all life needs air and water to survive , this is not flying the face of freedom, it's just reality. The existence of absolutism does not oppose Libertarianism , it strengthen Libertarianism. Freedom is one of these Absolutes through - out , not just the Universe , Freedom is intrinsically good in all the reaches of the Cosmos. Another Maxim is that of crime; many believe crime is not Universal, and a justification of crime in one area is not the justification of a crime in another part of the Universe , let alone an alternative parts of the Cosmos outside of this Universe.

For one thing, you cannot say all life needing water and air is universal truth until you have actually observed all life. Which, would be near impossible. Absolutes oppose freedom. The existence of absolutes suggests that when one approaches a situation logically and rationally, they will always come to the same decision, since it is absolute and not relative. If this is true, then there is no freedom. The outcome will be the same regardless of the individual if reason is used. So, either reason or individualism must be sacrificed, both of which are cornerstones of libertarianism.

Although, enough with the Cosmos discussion; let's center on this Universe : Many people find that without a Universal Moral Code that is correct , or , better yet that is, if the Universe is lacking a Universal Criminal Code, they believe crime is not determined by Universal truths, they believe crime is determined by the most anti - Libertarian organization in existence : The Government.

I do not believe there is a universal moral code. I believe that the morality of a decision depends completely upon the circumstances of the choice. The individual must also always be considered in a moral decision. The government is also not needed to provide any law or moral code in the absence of a universal one. Individuals can decide their own moral codes and communities can agree upon a code of laws. Both of which would likely be based on life experiences and cultural principles. Naturally, it would vary from area to area.

The existence of a Universal Code of Crimes strengthens Libertarianism a great deal; after successfully explaining the existence a Universal Legal Code counter anti - Libertarian arguments, a Universal Legal Code is one of if not the greatest assets to any explanation of crime from Libertarian stance, such as my own political ideological view points . The belief that knowledge of everything or knowledge of anything cannot be known is not the reason freedom exists ; freedom is the intrinsic goodness of the Universe, this I know for a fact. I also know that belief , of anything in existence , is both the opposite , and opposition to freedom; belief opposes liberty.

Universal codes weaken libertarianism more than anything else. After all, if it applies universally, why not centralize it? Belief is certainly not opposed to freedom. Beliefs define the individual, and many principles of freedom are designed to protect beliefs. Governments are designed to protect "facts." As far as a legal code from a libertarian perspective, I believe spontaneous order appropriately fulfills the requirements. People would either consciously or subconsciously decide on certain values to uphold within a community for the common good in order to maintain order. They would not need to be universal, however. They would reflect the beliefs of the people and the needs of the community as required. Which also brings in voluntary association, another libertarian principle. People would move where their beliefs are reflected. Knowledge is not needed and nothing is universal, it all centers around the beliefs of the individual.

[Riffasia]

I do not believe there is a universal moral code. I believe that the morality of a decision depends completely upon the circumstances of the choice. The individual must also always be considered in a moral decision. The government is also not needed to provide any law or moral code in the absence of a universal one. Individuals can decide their own moral codes and communities can agree upon a code of laws. Both of which would likely be based on life experiences and cultural principles. Naturally, it would vary from area to area.

So lets say for example, a group of 100,000 individuals decide for themselves that it would be morally good to eradicate the rest of humanity. In their unanimous decision they carry it out, and in the absence of any other humanity, it was clearly a moral act because no one can be found (alive) who would call it immoral?

[GeneralHaNor]

To Me, a Libertarian is an Anarchist who can't make the final step to abandoning preconceptions about the "necessity" of state

Both hold the position "Statism is coercion/slavery"
However libertarians nominally hold that as a necessary evil, best when limited to it's smallest possible form
Anarchist refuse that compromise, on the grounds that A=A, and less of A is still A, and therefore not acceptable.

Libertarianism is a compromise ideology, it's the middle ground between Statism and Anarchism.

[Riffasia]

You cannot be free in a system that forces people to choose wage labor or starvation.

You are not free in a system where you will be beaten, imprisoned, or killed unless you provide goods and services to others without fair compensation.

I find it so ironic that Marxists (and to some extent "progressives") care so much about workers receiving fair compensation, then turn right around and propose to make slaves of people. They do this by denying rights to segments of the working class, declaring some set arbitrarily "too rich" and dehumanizing them as worthy of being forced to labor without reward for as much as 60% or more of their time in some cases.

Every being (ok, maybe some polyps not included) must expend energy and exert themselves to eat. The fact that with humans it involves cooperation and contracting and competing with other humans does not justify the fractional slavery that is wealth redistribution.

Either way, when the contracting or the redistributing is not done out of free will, it's not a free system.

[Servantium]

To Me, a Libertarian is an Anarchist who can't make the final step to abandoning preconceptions about the "necessity" of state

Both hold the position "Statism is coercion/slavery"
However libertarians nominally hold that as a necessary evil, best when limited to it's smallest possible form
Anarchist refuse that compromise, on the grounds that A=A, and less of A is still A, and therefore not acceptable.

Libertarianism is a compromise ideology, it's the middle ground between Statism and Anarchism.

Or we realize that the "government" that would form once anarchism reverts back to statism would be worse than any minarchy would be.

[GeneralHaNor]

To Me, a Libertarian is an Anarchist who can't make the final step to abandoning preconceptions about the "necessity" of state

Both hold the position "Statism is coercion/slavery"
However libertarians nominally hold that as a necessary evil, best when limited to it's smallest possible form
Anarchist refuse that compromise, on the grounds that A=A, and less of A is still A, and therefore not acceptable.

Libertarianism is a compromise ideology, it's the middle ground between Statism and Anarchism.

Or we realize that the "government" that would form once anarchism reverts back to statism would be worse than any minarchy would be.

Stable Anarchist systems, exist and have existed

This false logic that 'Anarchy=chaos' is just that, false
Believe what you will
I will never consent to be ruled by a system that does not require my consent.

[Servantium]

Or we realize that the "government" that would form once anarchism reverts back to statism would be worse than any minarchy would be.

Stable Anarchist systems, exist and have existed

On extremely small scales. If I'm wrong provide me with an example of any anarchist system that has functioned with a large active participation.

This false logic that 'Anarchy=chaos' is just that, false

I don't believe I ever said this. *re-reads pervious posts* Nope. I have that anarchy will eventually revert back to a system of government because, generally, people like to be controlled by a higher authority in some fashion or another.

[Innsmothe]

Or we realize that the "government" that would form once anarchism reverts back to statism would be worse than any minarchy would be.

Stable Anarchist systems, exist and have existed

This false logic that 'Anarchy=chaos' is just that, false
Believe what you will
I will never consent to be ruled by a system that does not require my consent.

Anarchy does lead to dis-unification and weakness.

With no unified defense force, you will be taken advantage of.

[Riffasia]

Anarchy does lead to dis-unification and weakness.

With no unified defense force, you will be taken advantage of.

This.

[Wikipedia and Universe]

Freedom, liberty, basically individual rights; that idea of dealing with other people in a matter that is not initiating force against them.

-Jimbo Wales

I pretty much agree with this.

[Trotskylvania]

You cannot be free in a system that forces people to choose wage labor or starvation.

You are not free in a system where you will be beaten, imprisoned, or killed unless you provide goods and services to others without fair compensation.

I find it so ironic that Marxists (and to some extent "progressives") care so much about workers receiving fair compensation, then turn right around and propose to make slaves of people. They do this by denying rights to segments of the working class, declaring some set arbitrarily "too rich" and dehumanizing them as worthy of being forced to labor without reward for as much as 60% or more of their time in some cases.

Every being (ok, maybe some polyps not included) must expend energy and exert themselves to eat. The fact that with humans it involves cooperation and contracting and competing with other humans does not justify the fractional slavery that is wealth redistribution.

Either way, when the contracting or the redistributing is not done out of free will, it's not a free system.

It'd be irony if that was in fact what Marxists believe. But it's not.

Marxist analysis of class has nothing to do with how much money someone makes. And Marxism has nothing to do with the reformist "wealth redistribution" you decry as "fractional slavery."

All economic systems involve the redistribution of wealth. It's an unavoidable fact. The accumulation of capital itself is based on an upward redistribution of wealth via the labor process. Why is it more acceptable than its antithesis?

Marxists advocate that the means of production be owned in common and managed democratically by the workers. They do not support the narrow wealth redistribution of social democratic welfare programs as an end in itself.

[Abarth]

if you see the political compass division there are two distinct dimensions in order to categorize a political ideology

economic issues like capitalism vs socialism, economic freedom vs economic equality
personal issues like euthanasia, gay rights...

libertarianism is the belief and support of personal liberty and suspicion of authority and libertarians are generally anti-statists
libertarianism versus authoritarianism, liberty vs authority

there is libertarian left(ex.anarcho-communism) and libertarian right (ex. anarchocapitalism)

>check out the political compass

this is libertarianism with the small l
if we are talking about the american Libertarian party they are basically LIBERALS(centrists) if we use the international standard
similarly the american conservatives are ''internationally'' conservatives(centre-right) as well but the american liberals are basically social liberals or social democrats belonging to the centre-left

[The Archregimancy]

He's a fucking troll.

What does "Libertarian" mean to you?

Stupid. It means stupid to me.

Let's try and keep it civil people. The Nuclear Fist, perhaps consider that avoidance of spam is not necessarily the same as avoidance of flamebaiting.

[Sungai Pusat]

All economic systems involve the redistribution of wealth. It's an unavoidable fact. The accumulation of capital itself is based on an upward redistribution of wealth via the labor process. Why is it more acceptable than its antithesis?

*checks his post*

No, he did not say no redistribution of wealth, he said none that is without consent.

[Rambhutan]

Not a lot, ideas of what is a freedom and what isn't are very indidual. Personally I don't want companies to have so much regulation removed that they can use strychnine to make my beer bitter and to save on the cost of hops. That was a trick people used before food adulteration regulations were put in place, and I cannot see any reason why it wouldn't happen again if regulations were removed. Let's face it regulations are put in place for a reason. I do think there should be as few as possible, so they should be constantly scrutinised to see that they still have a purpose. But I am pretty certain my views on what and what are needed would be different to the next person's.

[Cameroi]

a pretentious fantaisy that worships the entirely mythical magic of market forces, to protect both the freedom of the individual and the well being of their interests

[South Lorenya]

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?

How do you propose to keep the cigarette smoke away from the smoker's family?

[Servantium]

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?

How do you propose to keep the cigarette smoke away from the smoker's family?

I presume they have feet that properly function.

[Notodonta ziczac]

I presume they have feet that properly function.

they were in nam. you wouldnt understand man, you werent there

[Servantium]

I presume they have feet that properly function.

they were in nam. you wouldnt understand man, you werent there

I lol'd. Seriously though, personal responsibility, property rights, and all that jazz.

EDIT: I'd prefer that we not bring children into the discussion, because that tends to convolute things.