What does "Libertarian" mean to you?

[Glorious Homeland]

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

We had Social Democracy, not Socialism.

Socialism under old labour was the closest you'll get. Any state system without accountability, or in other words democracy, will get out of control sooner or later. Labour knew they had to compete with the conservatives come election time, and did what they could to keep popular and the state working. But ultimately the system couldn't be sustained because ironically British socialism was supported by American marshal plan money.

A socialism experiment on a global scale would need a colony on a new world to be tested in conditions that wouldn't lead to its ruin. It can't compete with capitalism. That or the advent of nano technology or something equivalent that would allow everyone to agree that the state can take ownership of all industry, and let people do as they like. The older premises of marxist socialism are extremely obsolete, beyond some vague notions of struggle and economic inequality being bad, 1850s ideology is just not integratable into the early 21st century. It's why old labour failed. If you think something more extreme would work, I'd say the evidence suggests that it'd fail harder before long.

The only possibility where I see it working long term is on a colony on a planet lightyears from earth where there's no alternatives to compete with. Even then, utopian socieities begin to unravel when they realise what happens in the outside world; the Spartans are one example of that. "They have that there!" may be enough to slowly erode the very fabric of a society which on face value seems pleasant and balanced enough. For socialism to work effectively it needs a genius planner, and I mean a genius. Not marx, not Lenin, not Atlee, no one like that. Someone really, REALLY clever. And right now, no one has stepped forwards given the challenge. I wonder if someone ever will? Otherwise it will just lead to the boom and bust of socialist planning, just like the boom and bust of capitalism. The problem however, is that when socialism has a bust, it cripples the system.

[Sibirsky]

Unable to counter you resort to trolling. Noted.

No, I am just in a leg cast and it really fucking itches.

I'm sorry to hear that.

[SaintB]

to me it means delusional people who think that a country of 300million+ people can have a small government.

No such things as a small government. There is either a government that systemically strips you of liberties in the name of security, a government that builds a massive military and parades it around the world to look cool, or a government that taxes you more in an attempt to help everyone with everything.

All governments fall into one of those categories or is an amalgamation of two or more.

[Lincoln Sydney]

to me it means delusional people who think that a country of 300million+ people can have a small government.

No such things as a small government. There is either a government that systemically strips you of liberties in the name of security, a government that builds a massive military and parades it around the world to look cool, or a government that taxes you more in an attempt to help everyone with everything.

All governments fall into one of those categories or is an amalgamation of two or more.

Hong Kong, Singapore, Switzerland?

[Conservative Alliances]

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?

It was obviously a clear moral act to them, but not a clearly moral act. Just because they are the only ones alive, it does not mean they are correct, it only means they are the only ones left and they believe they are correct. How about this? Someone tells you to kill one innocent person or they will kill the entire world population. a Universal moral code would say killing is bad, and would not permit you to save the entire world population at the expense of one person.

[Coccygia]

To me "Libertarian" means: Gay Republican.

I am not Republican, or gay.

I never said you were. I just said that's what Libertarianism means to me. It seems like that's the only significant difference between Republicans and Libertarians: Libertarians are in favor of letting people do what they want sexually, in other words, to be gay. (Somebody needs to tell Rand Paul, though. )

[Meryuma]

Warning: This is an absolutely huge post in which I respond to everything.

economic freedom vs economic equality

What a false dichotomy. Economic inequalities are unsustainable without large-scale compromise of liberty. The free market is a great equalizer of wealth, in which the fortunes of the wealthy are subject to the shifting economic tides of supply and demand.

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

A simple question: what do you know of economics? This is not rhetorical nor an insult, but rather an actual question.

Near-unlimited personal freedom, but, putting a firm leash of regulations on buisness practices whilst enforcing them with a firm hand.

This isn't part of libertarianism, left or right.

To me a Libertarian is someone who values his own freedom more than the freedom of those below him, and will bully, cheat and lie to any extent to put and keep other people below him.

Ever heard of the Non-Aggression Principle?

Libertarian means small government with no interference in the economy and people life except for enforcing laws, foreign relation and having military.

I don't believe in minimizing the injustices of the State, I believe in eliminating them.

A libertarian in an anarchist in a cheap suit. They want to destroy government, but because they want to do it in the name of "freedom" and "liberty" instead of chaos and anarchy they're given a hearing. Don't ever listen to a libertarian.

You know nothing about anarchism. At all. No anarchist wants to destroy government in the name of chaos.

Freer market =/= freer people

Less civil laws = freer people

Though I agree with the latter proposition, I disagree with the former. Although government should regulate to preclude monopoly and thereby maintain a free, competitive market, economic liberty is as important as civil or political in freeing citizens from reliance upon the state.

1. Monopolies cannot be maintained on a large scale without government intervention.
2. Government is a monopoly.

No such things as a small government. There is either a government that systemically strips you of liberties in the name of security, a government that builds a massive military and parades it around the world to look cool, or a government that taxes you more in an attempt to help everyone with everything.

All governments fall into one of those categories or is an amalgamation of two or more.

Hong Kong, Singapore, Switzerland?

Hong Kong and Switzerland might be rare exceptions, but Singapore is a police state in which homosexuality is illegal, public caning is still used as a punishment, and you can be jailed for spitting gum on the sidewalk.

[Retired WerePenguins]

I missed this thread; was there anything interesting in it? Oh nevermind, I forgot I was in general for a moment.

It appears that there are some who argue passionately for big government and who think small government is FAIL. Having studied the laws of the universe, I firmly disagree. I think that KISS is as fundamental a concept as conservation of momentum or the laws of enthropy. Big, isn't always better than small, in fact it is often worse than small. (As opposed to tall, which may be necessary if the only food is above your head.)

This is not to say that there are not economies of scale; but rather that all large corporations that are successful are so because of bottom up (dare I say "federalism") structures where the people at the division level can quickly adapt to changes in the environment. For most capitalists, central top-down micro-management equals FAIL. What is true for business is true for government. Only a heirarchical structure with a very slim top can effectively function and adapt in a constantly changing environment, government or business.

Most people just don't understand this; perhaps because in Europe, what they call a "nation" we in the United States call a "state." The EU is one of the biggest pieces of fail that has ever existed. The USSR (CCCP) was also a fail because the Moscow centric Kremlin didn't allow the controlled states enough ability to adapt to changing conditions.

Government comes from the people; without the people the government isn't going very far. People naturally have limited areas of "give a damn" thus limiting the fundamental size of the most effective unit of government. A heirarchy can connect these fundamental units and make them all more or less sing under the same hymnal (as long as the ability to adapt to changing conditions is not impared) but that's all it can do. The more the upper levels do, the less involved the lowest level (the people) are and thus the whole structure starts to sink into the mud.

History just doesn't prove it; it bashes you on the countertop several times while insisting to the proprietor that you are, in fact, a DEAD PARROT.

[The Congregationists]

No such things as a small government. There is either a government that systemically strips you of liberties in the name of security, a government that builds a massive military and parades it around the world to look cool, or a government that taxes you more in an attempt to help everyone with everything.

All governments fall into one of those categories or is an amalgamation of two or more.

Hong Kong, Singapore, Switzerland?

Small countries though. "Small Government" wouldn't be feasable in a geographically large, culturally diverse, economically advanced global superpower like the U.S.

[Conservative Alliances]

Hong Kong, Singapore, Switzerland?

Small countries though. "Small Government" wouldn't be feasable in a geographically large, culturally diverse, economically advanced global superpower like the U.S.

Its actually more feasible to have a small federal government in a large, diverse nation. That way, smaller forms of government (state, city) can appeal to the needs of their people which are often defined by geographical location, culture, and economic status.

[Sibirsky]

Hong Kong, Singapore, Switzerland?

Small countries though. "Small Government" wouldn't be feasable in a geographically large, culturally diverse, economically advanced global superpower like the U.S.

It would be far more feasible than the shit we have now.

[Neo Shinmin]

I still associate it with the original left-anarchist connotations. I'm aware of the conventional, American usage of the term, but I will describe my political views as "libertarian socialist" sometimes just to confuse people. (it is an accurate description of my politics, but for most people in the US "libertarian" and "socialist" are contradictions).

I have actually met relatively few real Libertarians (notably, my grandfather is a hardcore real Libertarian). Many of the self-described "Libertarians" in this country are just conservatives trying to appear edgy. They are against abortion, against gay marriage, against the legalization of drugs (and in support of a costly and ineffective "drug war"), and in favor of highly expansionist, militarist US policies. All of these are entirely against the spirit of Libertarianism, since they all represent unjustifiable intrusion of the state into the lives of individuals. On that much I am in complete agreement with free market Libs.

[The Merchant Republics]

Hong Kong, Singapore, Switzerland?

Small countries though. "Small Government" wouldn't be feasable in a geographically large, culturally diverse, economically advanced global superpower like the U.S.

The Roman Empire for it's own purposes was a relatively small government, or at least it stayed with the standard Libertarian realms of Military/Justice. With a very low tax rate. Despite controlling a massive empire with many not just diverse but hostile cultures that was highly advanced for it's time. For an example of a nation that could do so. The British Empire did similar in it's time. The only real difference is the economically advanced point.

[Trotskylvania]

Small countries though. "Small Government" wouldn't be feasable in a geographically large, culturally diverse, economically advanced global superpower like the U.S.

The Roman Empire for it's own purposes was a relatively small government, or at least it stayed with the standard Libertarian realms of Military/Justice. With a very low tax rate. Despite controlling a massive empire with many not just diverse but hostile cultures that was highly advanced for it's time. For an example of a nation that could do so. The British Empire did similar in it's time. The only real difference is the economically advanced point.

Eh. There are better examples by far than the Roman Republic/Empire. Rome, especially after the Populares like Marius and the Gracchi were put put down, was essentially a plunder economy. Rome maintained opulence for the Latinate upper classes and low taxes by plundering wealth from other countries, particularly in the form of slave labor. After the conquests stopped, it began bleeding the provinces white to sustain the beating heart of the slave empire. It's decline was inevitable, because, in purely Marxist terms, it could not or would not resolve the basic contradictions of the economic epoch. The universal class of industrious traders and small landowners were put down by the slaveholding upper classes, but the upper classes were unable to resolve the failing economic mode of production without a revolutionary change in the economic mode of production that would result in the loss of their class' political power, and so the technology, industry and economy continued to stagnate, being pulled further down by plague, foreign invasion and Christian monasticism until the whole thing collapsed into what we now know as serfdom and feudalism.

[The Merchant Republics]

The Roman Empire for it's own purposes was a relatively small government, or at least it stayed with the standard Libertarian realms of Military/Justice. With a very low tax rate. Despite controlling a massive empire with many not just diverse but hostile cultures that was highly advanced for it's time. For an example of a nation that could do so. The British Empire did similar in it's time. The only real difference is the economically advanced point.

Eh. There are better examples by far than the Roman Republic/Empire. Rome, especially after the Populares like Marius and the Gracchi were put put down, was essentially a plunder economy. Rome maintained opulence for the Latinate upper classes and low taxes by plundering wealth from other countries, particularly in the form of slave labor. After the conquests stopped, it began bleeding the provinces white to sustain the beating heart of the slave empire. It's decline was inevitable, because, in purely Marxist terms, it could not or would not resolve the basic contradictions of the economic epoch. The universal class of industrious traders and small landowners were put down by the slaveholding upper classes, but the upper classes were unable to resolve the failing economic mode of production without a revolutionary change in the economic mode of production that would result in the loss of their class' political power, and so the technology, industry and economy continued to stagnate, being pulled further down by plague, foreign invasion and Christian monasticism until the whole thing collapsed into what we now know as serfdom and feudalism.

I would say you are neglecting the Pax Roman period, very little warfare to maintain a plunder economy, most of the wars with barbarians who had little to plunder yet the State taxed very little throughout.

It was however a slave-based economy, so does not directly fit and certainly isn't a libertarian ideal. I don't agree with your interpretation of the economic problems.

[Grave_n_idle]

Over in the "what does progressive mean to you " thread, I suggested that "libertarian" is turning into a rebranding of "conservative" so that center-right political views can have a chance at appealing to people it would not otherwise - the internet generation. That is by no means the only applicable definition nor is it (in my opinion) the correct one, but that seems to be what's happening with the word 'libertarian.' It prompted the following reply:

1. Libertarianism isn't innately right-wing. Is the Center for a Stateless Society right-wing? Is the Alliance of the Libertarian Left right-wing?
2. Modern libertarianism started in the 60s with Murray Rothbard. It emerged from a mixture of classical liberalism, Austrian economics, and individualist anarchism. It is completely separate from conservatism, with different values, goals, inspirations, and origins.
3. Libertarians are against fundie moralism and war, period. It's not in the terminology, but inherent in libertarian principles, which I must remind you are very different then conservative ones. No libertarians want to impose "family values" through legislation. No libertarians want to
4. Some libertarians ally with conservatives, or hold socially conservative views. Other libertarians ally with traditional leftists and have progressive social views. Modern conservatives (who often bear little resemblance to the classical conservative tradition) usually do.
All in all, I think you deserve the world's biggest facepalm:
http://pic.phyrefile.com/n/na/narf/2010 ... cepalm.jpg

So how would you define "libertarian" then? I'll weigh in momentarily, but first let's hear from you NSG.

"Libertarian": the movement designed to turn modern democracies into feudal dictatorships.

[GeneralHaNor]

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.

Well that certainly tends to be on ongoing problem
Which is why the Revolution needs to be global, so that the statist entities necessary to crush the system, won't exist.

I'm the kind of person who looks for solutions, instead of abandoning my ideals.

[Grave_n_idle]

Anarchy does lead to dis-unification and weakness.

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

Well that certainly tends to be on ongoing problem
Which is why the Revolution needs to be global, so that the statist entities necessary to crush the system, won't exist.

I'm the kind of person who looks for solutions, instead of abandoning my ideals.

Nonsense. You're the kind of person who relies on ungrounded assumptions.

For example - even if there were some kind of global anarchistic revolution, that doesn't mean no entities would exist that could crush the system. Indeed, history seems to suggest (rather strongly) that whenever there is a power vacuum, where no external force seizes control, localised and direct application of force fills the gap.

[GeneralHaNor]

Well that certainly tends to be on ongoing problem
Which is why the Revolution needs to be global, so that the statist entities necessary to crush the system, won't exist.

I'm the kind of person who looks for solutions, instead of abandoning my ideals.

Nonsense. You're the kind of person who relies on ungrounded assumptions.

For example - even if there were some kind of global anarchistic revolution, that doesn't mean no entities would exist that could crush the system. Indeed, history seems to suggest (rather strongly) that whenever there is a power vacuum, where no external force seizes control, localised and direct application of force fills the gap.

Such a scenario is still preferable then perpetual ownership by the state
I can fight a local power if need be
I can't fight a federal superpower.

[Grave_n_idle]

Nonsense. You're the kind of person who relies on ungrounded assumptions.

For example - even if there were some kind of global anarchistic revolution, that doesn't mean no entities would exist that could crush the system. Indeed, history seems to suggest (rather strongly) that whenever there is a power vacuum, where no external force seizes control, localised and direct application of force fills the gap.

Such a scenario is still preferable then perpetual ownership by the state
I can fight a local power if need be
I can't fight a federal superpower.

Feudal dictatorship is preferable to an elected democratic government?

You're a very curious character. I'm beginning to suspect you're toying with me.

[GeneralHaNor]

Such a scenario is still preferable then perpetual ownership by the state
I can fight a local power if need be
I can't fight a federal superpower.

Feudal dictatorship is preferable to an elected democratic government?

You're a very curious character. I'm beginning to suspect you're toying with me.

What's to stop a local democratic government from forming?, why do you assume a feudal dictatorship is what will happen?
Who's the one relying on ungrounded assumptions?

And yes, Tyrants bleed, this is universally true.

[Grave_n_idle]

Feudal dictatorship is preferable to an elected democratic government?

You're a very curious character. I'm beginning to suspect you're toying with me.

What's to stop a local democratic government from forming?, why do you assume a feudal dictatorship is what will happen?

I'm not entirely ignorant of history?

[GeneralHaNor]

What's to stop a local democratic government from forming?, why do you assume a feudal dictatorship is what will happen?

I'm not entirely ignorant of history?

If the only thing you are capable of doing is making an appeal to history, then this conversation is rather pointless
we aren't discussing history, we are making history

[Norstal]

I'm not entirely ignorant of history?

If the only thing you are capable of doing is making an appeal to history, then this conversation is rather pointless
we aren't discussing history, we are making history

Why can't he appeal to history? Its been proven time and time again that what Grave_n_idle has been saying its true. Its in the Wild West (the criminals can be considered to be dictators and so can the sheriffs), its in colonial times (the Virginia colony under John Smith when they didn't have much governance), French revolution, English civil war. Hell, even Somalia is a perfect example of power vacuum.

[GeneralHaNor]

If the only thing you are capable of doing is making an appeal to history, then this conversation is rather pointless
we aren't discussing history, we are making history

Why can't he appeal to history? Its been proven time and time again that what Grave_n_idle has been saying its true. Its in the Wild West (the criminals can be considered to be dictators and so can the sheriffs), its in colonial times (the Virginia colony under John Smith when they didn't have much governance), French revolution, English civil war. Hell, even Somalia is a perfect example of power vacuum.

It's not gonna happen, because I won't let it happen. I refuse to live as a slave, whether it be a slave of the state, or a slave of another man.
If I died in defense of my ideals, well, then I will have truly lived for them. At the end of the day, that is all a man should ever need.