What does "Libertarian" mean to you?

[Grave_n_idle]

Again, addressing last first - why are you talking about corporate cartels? I was rather more thinking of some of our libertarian posters, and people like Ron Paul who do so much for the libertarian cause by claiming the libertarian line even as they are leaning on government power to do their theological or moralistic work for them. If those same people WEREN'T being all 'hands off' about government control, perhaps I wouldn't feel they were so hipocritical when they talked about what sexual practises the law should allow, or whatever. I'd still think them wrong, maybe evil - but at least not hypocritical. Well, unless they were condemning gay sex while banging their gay lover, or whatever - but that goes without saying.

Addressing the reasons why America has such wealth? Massive amounts of easily available resources don't hurt. For example, almost exactly a quarter of ALL the world's potable fresh water is in the Great Lakes. Large surface area, abundant resources, a kick-start into existence, and the benefit of the western world as an incubator and ally - none of that hurts, certainly. America has had great wealth because it took great wealth in it's formation, occupied great wealth, and has continued to expand into great wealth, militarily where necessary. America IS the new Roman Empire, in other words.

Whether it is 'capitalist' or 'communist' is basically irrelevant to that equation.

Of course it's the resources. Which would explain Africa's economic might and why Hong Kong and Singapore are struggling. Oh wait...

Freshwater? Brazil ranks 1st on that list. Indonesia comes 3rd. China 4th. Colombia 6th. Peru 7th. India is 8th. In other words, there is little correlation between freshwater resources and economic well being.

America being the most generous because it has the most wealth to share is a logical conclusion. But why is it the wealthiest? Not a god damn thing to do with resources. Unless you count economic freedom as a resource.

Go ahead deny it. The pilgrims had your system of economic organization and starved. Then they organized their tiny economy our way and flourished. Communism has failed anywhere and everywhere. Certainly, tyrants ruling over the masses did not help. But of course, neither did communism, socialism or whatever you want to call it. The lack of private property and free markets is what hurt them.

I'm not sure if you're deliberately confusing the issue - the Great Lakes is an available water source, but not all water - even freshwater - is accessible. Brazil has less than 90% of it's population with access to freshwater (for example) and there's a massive difference between water that's available as potable drinking water, and theoretical potable drinking water in the form of groundwater or frozen supplies - both of which require a large amount of additional work, and expenditure of energy - to tap.

The US has almost 1/4 of all the available (accessible) supply in the form of the Great Lakes - and it's that kind of access to resources that makes wealth possible.

[Grave_n_idle]

Again, addressing last first - why are you talking about corporate cartels? I was rather more thinking of some of our libertarian posters, and people like Ron Paul who do so much for the libertarian cause by claiming the libertarian line even as they are leaning on government power to do their theological or moralistic work for them. If those same people WEREN'T being all 'hands off' about government control, perhaps I wouldn't feel they were so hipocritical when they talked about what sexual practises the law should allow, or whatever. I'd still think them wrong, maybe evil - but at least not hypocritical. Well, unless they were condemning gay sex while banging their gay lover, or whatever - but that goes without saying.

Addressing the reasons why America has such wealth? Massive amounts of easily available resources don't hurt. For example, almost exactly a quarter of ALL the world's potable fresh water is in the Great Lakes. Large surface area, abundant resources, a kick-start into existence, and the benefit of the western world as an incubator and ally - none of that hurts, certainly. America has had great wealth because it took great wealth in it's formation, occupied great wealth, and has continued to expand into great wealth, militarily where necessary. America IS the new Roman Empire, in other words.

Whether it is 'capitalist' or 'communist' is basically irrelevant to that equation.

Of course it's the resources. Which would explain Africa's economic might and why Hong Kong and Singapore are struggling. Oh wait...

Freshwater? Brazil ranks 1st on that list. Indonesia comes 3rd. China 4th. Colombia 6th. Peru 7th. India is 8th. In other words, there is little correlation between freshwater resources and economic well being.

America being the most generous because it has the most wealth to share is a logical conclusion. But why is it the wealthiest? Not a god damn thing to do with resources. Unless you count economic freedom as a resource.

Go ahead deny it. The pilgrims had your system of economic organization and starved. Then they organized their tiny economy our way and flourished. Communism has failed anywhere and everywhere. Certainly, tyrants ruling over the masses did not help. But of course, neither did communism, socialism or whatever you want to call it. The lack of private property and free markets is what hurt them.

I have to ask - which system is my system?

I'm not a proponent of a system. Finding fault in one theology doesn't mean you accept all others.

[Kobeanare]

If you honestly believe that HaNor is literally forced to enjoy First World conditions against his will, then I stand corrected and he's playing to an audience of himself and one.

You're not reading his posts, are you? You also appear not to have read my post upthread.

[Sibirsky]

I have to ask - which system is my system?

I'm not a proponent of a system. Finding fault in one theology doesn't mean you accept all others.

You make it seem like it's socialism in some way shape or form. You claim that markets are chaotic, and oppose them for this reason (amongst others). You also want equality, which socialism tends to do better at (except for the ruling classes).

[Crabulonia]

America did have quite a jump start from the Enlightenment, meaning that it was progressing all the time. Also I'm sure a large mostly untouched land full of natural resources would have had a marked advantage.
Russia in comparison had a reactionary royal family for much of the early modern period and for some of the later modern period, which stifled growth. While it has got impressive natural resources as well, it suffers from a harsher climate than most of America and as a result of its royalty, it didn't modernise much until Communism. (Iron production increased as high as 400% I believe between the end of the Great War and beginning of the Second).

You can't say that one ideology is crazily the best, America would have been shit if it started off Communist. Communism has to come at a later stage after industrialisation and bourgeouis capitalism (I'm not a model Marxist but he seems right here) as otherwise a backward economy has to be put through great (as in large) reforms to get anywhere near a more developed nation.

I hate to quote Stalin, so I'll paraphrase that he said Soviet Russia was a century behind all other nations and that it must close this gap in a decade else be destroyed from outside influence.

[South Lorenya]

And, again being pedantic, the Mississippi is largely irrelevant to the ability to exploit the fresh water in the Great Lakes - which drain to the sea through the St. Lawrence, and therefore through Canadian territory.

Heh. For some reason last night (I again blame the 8+ beers I drank) I thought the Mississippi had tributaries that originated in the Great Lakes.

To be fair, if you count the Chicago sanitary & ship canal as a tributary it does; asian carp are certainly trying to travel from the mississippi river to the great lakes through it, and are six miles from succeeding.

[Mike the Progressive]

Seriously though, libertarian means a lot of things to me. I don't view the Libertarian Party in the United States as being truly libertarian by nature, or as much as China is the people's republic (the same goes with Ron and Rand Paul). But I believe that in both parties exists a libertarian movement. Those who are not radical and merely believe the solution lies in destroying federal departments, but who argue that taxes should be progressive but lowered. Where people have a right to start a business and grow to fame and wealth, to succeed and fail based on their own merit, where they are neither stopped nor prevented by government regulations and restrictions. A word which means allowing people to make difficult choices, whether it be whom they want to marry, if they can support that child nine months down the road, whether they want to end their life because their illness remains incurable and their death inevitable. But to keep the government out and away from personal decisions. Who are conscience about the environment, laborers and consumers. So I suppose that is my definition of libertarian. I'm a Democrat, but I'm not afraid to vote for a Republican, if I feel he or she are aligned with my views. But I fundamentally adhere to the notion that economic freedoms go hand in hand with social ones.

[The Archregimancy]

Heh. For some reason last night (I again blame the 8+ beers I drank) I thought the Mississippi had tributaries that originated in the Great Lakes.

To be fair, if you count the Chicago sanitary & ship canal as a tributary it does; asian carp are certainly trying to travel from the mississippi river to the great lakes through it, and are six miles from succeeding.

Even then, only a minor correction to stating that there is no natural tributary would be enough to make the point - much as I specifically noted the existence of the Volga-Don canal when describing the Volga as a closed drainage basin (it empties into the Caspian).

I know of only one place where two major river systems share a natural tributary, technically turning all land between the main river systems into an island. That's the Casiquiare Canal in southeastern Venezuela, which - despite its name - is a wholly natural tributary which links both the Orinoco and Amazon drainage basins.

[Grave_n_idle]

I have to ask - which system is my system?

I'm not a proponent of a system. Finding fault in one theology doesn't mean you accept all others.

You make it seem like it's socialism in some way shape or form. You claim that markets are chaotic, and oppose them for this reason (amongst others). You also want equality, which socialism tends to do better at (except for the ruling classes).

I think that a mixture works better in reality than any extreme - so, if I had to swear allegiance to any model, it would be some form of mixed economy, I assume.

I'm not sure how you make 'equality' sound like a bad word.

[Meryuma]

@Mike, the libertarians who aren't radical and who believe in lower progressive taxes are the problem with the LP, not the solution.

@Grave, despite your appeals to moderation, your ideas are far less realistic then radical change. The current mixed-economy system is what got us into the recession, from which we are still recovering. It is what keeps our health care system bureaucratic and unavailable to the poor. It is the root cause of corporate power and privilege. To assume that more of the same will somehow change all this is not only unrealistic, but dangerous.

[Kosmanium]

Imagine a bunch of old homophobic, racist rich white guys escaping from the old folks home, putting on some snazzy clothes and some fancy aftershave, turning up at a club, putting their hips out on the dancefloor and hitting on all the most attractive women as if they belong amongst the trendy, young and radical.

That's what Libertarian means to me.

Win. DI, you are win. This will probably be sigged

[Kosmanium]

Imagine a bunch of old homophobic, racist rich white guys escaping from the old folks home, putting on some snazzy clothes and some fancy aftershave, turning up at a club, putting their hips out on the dancefloor and hitting on all the most attractive women as if they belong amongst the trendy, young and radical.

That's what Libertarian means to me.

Win. DI, you are win. This will probably be sigged

[Mike the Progressive]

@Mike, the libertarians who aren't radical and who believe in lower progressive taxes are the problem with the LP, not the solution.

I disagree, the problem with the LP is that they are borderline theocratic. Their social policies are just as conservative as the GOP, they just seem more extreme economically. I'd never vote for any of their candidates.

[Meryuma]

@Mike, the libertarians who aren't radical and who believe in lower progressive taxes are the problem with the LP, not the solution.

I disagree, the problem with the LP is that they are borderline theocratic. Their social policies are just as conservative as the GOP, they just seem more extreme economically.

Examples? Keep in mind that Ron Paul didn't even run as a Libertarian. I have a lot of problems with the LP, but that's not one of them.

[Orsbornia]

Libertarian, to me, in it's truest form, means anarchist.

I'm giggling at the socailists in this thread that bitch about market capitalism, then go on about how awesome state capitalism is.

[Grave_n_idle]

@Grave, despite your appeals to moderation, your ideas are far less realistic then radical change.

My 'ideas' are already the reality. How can reality be less realistic than some utopian promise?

The current mixed-economy system is what got us into the recession, from which we are still recovering.

Nonsense. We got into this recession because people are greedy, because incomes are riddled with inequality, because there's insufficient regulation, because we've had governments massively mis-running the books and because the value of property has become disconnected from cost.

ANY of those would be a good 'because' - blaming mixed-economies isn't.

It is what keeps our health care system bureaucratic and unavailable to the poor.

More nonsense. Profit maximisation by insurance companies and providers is what keeps products unavailable. Resistance to paying a single tax for healthcare - even if it would halve the average person's bill - is what keeps the service unavailable. The fact that half of healthcare is intrinsically clerical is what keeps it bureaucratic.

It is the root cause of corporate power and privilege.

Again, more nonsense. Corporate power and privilege is based in income inequality and lack of oversight.

To assume that more of the same will somehow change all this is not only unrealistic, but dangerous.

I don't advocate more of the same. I advocate moving the US healthcare model closer to a model like that in the UK, which provides at least as good a service (in most metrics, better in some) at half the price.

[Genivar]

Libertarian?
Free-market fool.

[Mike the Progressive]

I disagree, the problem with the LP is that they are borderline theocratic. Their social policies are just as conservative as the GOP, they just seem more extreme economically.

Examples? Keep in mind that Ron Paul didn't even run as a Libertarian. I have a lot of problems with the LP, but that's not one of them.

Their recent Presidential candidate, Bob Barr, voted in favor of the Patriot Act, voted in favor of DOMA, and voted against an amendment to allow abortions on military installations. He said he was really, really, really sorry, but it kind of gives an indicator of how he would have reacted should similar situations arise and he actually became president. From what I can tell he's an opportunist, he changed his policies to fit the build. He's as libertarian as Ben Nelson is a Democrat. Ron Paul was the LP candidate in '88.

[Mediterreania]

Examples? Keep in mind that Ron Paul didn't even run as a Libertarian. I have a lot of problems with the LP, but that's not one of them.

Their recent Presidential candidate, Bob Barr, voted in favor of the Patriot Act, voted in favor of DOMA, and voted against an amendment to allow abortions on military installations. He said he was really, really, really sorry, but it kind of gives an indicator of how he would have reacted should similar situations arise and he actually became president. From what I can tell he's an opportunist, he changed his policies to fit the build. He's as libertarian as Ben Nelson is a Democrat. Ron Paul was the LP candidate in '88.

The problem is that the LP is being taken over by, in the words of a former member, "a neocon clusterfuck."

[Glorious Freedonia]

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 is the same thing as conservatism. Neoconservatism is the wedding of the love of liberty with the recognition that totalitarianism must be opposed with force if necessary. Moral majority conservatism is not really conservative at all it is just a different sort of progressivism that seeks a big government but in a different flavor than the big government sought by progressives.

[Meryuma]

Libertarian is the same thing as conservatism.

No. That's false. Libertarianism has a different philosophical founding entirely, based more on classical liberalism then anythng.

Neoconservatism is the wedding of the love of liberty with the recognition that totalitarianism must be opposed with force if necessary.

Hell no. That's so false that it becomes true, then plows right through back to false again. Neoconservatism necessarily erodes liberty, being based around militarism.

[Hornopolis]

To me, Libertarian mean Bert is Hitler.

[Mike the Progressive]

Their recent Presidential candidate, Bob Barr, voted in favor of the Patriot Act, voted in favor of DOMA, and voted against an amendment to allow abortions on military installations. He said he was really, really, really sorry, but it kind of gives an indicator of how he would have reacted should similar situations arise and he actually became president. From what I can tell he's an opportunist, he changed his policies to fit the build. He's as libertarian as Ben Nelson is a Democrat. Ron Paul was the LP candidate in '88.

The problem is that the LP is being taken over by, in the words of a former member, "a neocon clusterfuck."

Exactly. LP isn't libertarian. Except in foreign policy (I tend to favor realism in foreign policy), I'm a libertarian.

[Meryuma]

-snip-

1. A mixed-economy is unrealistic because we already have it, and it fails time and time again. As for anarchy being unrealistic, it doesn't involve the completely unrealistic assumption that an organization with a monopoly on the use of force will somehow not be corrupted by its power.
2. You talk a lot about income inequality. However, you don't realize that such inequality is a result of state intervention in the market, instead of a result of the market. In a free market, there would be no corporate subsidies, corporate personhood, taxes, tariffs, patents, filesharing bans, censorship, IMF, or Federal Reserve. Where would all the income inequality come from?

Except in foreign policy (I tend to favor realism in foreign policy), I'm a libertarian.

You heard it here first, folks. Realism = killing brown people.

[Crabulonia]

2. You talk a lot about income inequality. However, you don't realize that such inequality is a result of state intervention in the market, instead of a result of the market. In a free market, there would be no corporate subsidies, corporate personhood, taxes, tariffs, patents, filesharing bans, censorship, IMF, or Federal Reserve. Where would all the income inequality come from?

I've always had difficulty with these sorts of statement. There exist powerful companies today, I can't say for certain how much they owe to the government because I'm not an economist, and these companies often go to third world countries to exploit the local populace since this is the best way to acquire cheap materials. Why would they not do the same in a developed nation if they got the chance? Because some people have guns to fight back? What if the company has more guns? Next thing you know union activity will be cut down entirely by mercenary companies, there's a reason they say being a trade union boss in South America is like having a tombstone on your back.

Also, who makes the money, or do we return to a bartering system?

I ask these things because I don't fully understand, it may seem dense but if this idea is so well thought through then hopefully you can explain it.