What does "Libertarian" mean to you?

[Grave_n_idle]

1. A mixed-economy is unrealistic because we already have it, and it fails time and time again.

Again, how can what is 'real' be un-real-istic?

I'm not saying mixed economies don't fail. I don't remember saying that.

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.

I 'don't realise' that, because it's not true.

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?

The income not being equal?

[Sibirsky]

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.

So, I'm half right. Or half wrong.

I did not mean to make equality sound bad. If it did to you.

[Glorious Freedonia]

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.

In the United States, conservatism is classical liberalism. Libertarianism is pretty much the same thing. The Libertarian Party is a non neoconservative party. Neoconservatism is exactly as I described it earlier. It is the use of all available means to oppose totalitarianism. It is insane to think that the use of military force to oppose totalitarianism erodes freedom. It is like saying that turning on the light to dispel the darkness makes more darkness.

I do not know what your understanding of militarism is but it seems way off base to say that using military force to fight for freedom anywhere anytime bar none is anything but the embracing of freedom and the furtherance of its cause.

[Sibirsky]

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.

The CRA, tax incentives for buying homes, Fannie and Freddie buying debt, their debt guaranteed by the government, the Fed, keeping rates artificially low, the FHA and HUD had nothing to do with it?

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.

A third party payer is what keeps it unaffordable to some. Lack of competition, ridiculous mandates, and idiotic licensing regulation, and malpractice lawsuits are the reasons it's outrageous.

Consider what sectors have the highest inflation rates, and what sectors have the strictest regulations and most government involvement. They're the same. It's not a coincidence.

You continue to post nonsense.

[Crabulonia]

How would the US get rid of malpractice lawsuits without regulation Sibirsky? I mean the health insurance industry had no change in regulations for thirty years and the prices didn't get any cheaper.

[Sibirsky]

Libertarian?
Free-market fool.

Yeah, only fools believe in the tool that best allocated resources.

[Sibirsky]

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


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.

In the United States, conservatism is classical liberalism. Libertarianism is pretty much the same thing. The Libertarian Party is a non neoconservative party. Neoconservatism is exactly as I described it earlier. It is the use of all available means to oppose totalitarianism. It is insane to think that the use of military force to oppose totalitarianism erodes freedom. It is like saying that turning on the light to dispel the darkness makes more darkness.

I do not know what your understanding of militarism is but it seems way off base to say that using military force to fight for freedom anywhere anytime bar none is anything but the embracing of freedom and the furtherance of its cause.

Conservatism is not classical liberalism.

[Sibirsky]

How would the US get rid of malpractice lawsuits without regulation Sibirsky? I mean the health insurance industry had no change in regulations for thirty years and the prices didn't get any cheaper.

When did they have no regulations?

[Crabulonia]

How would the US get rid of malpractice lawsuits without regulation Sibirsky? I mean the health insurance industry had no change in regulations for thirty years and the prices didn't get any cheaper.

When did they have no regulations?

Nah but I just don't quite get how in a free market the lawsuits would necessarily go. I mean, if a doctor fucks up - proper fucks up - then they should be held accountable. The whole principle of malpractice seems to be a joke in America and bastard lawyers are trying to transport it to Britain. Only a true bastard or somebody whose head has been chopped off (or equally debilitating illness as a result of malpractice) sues the NHS.

If there are no laws governing what happens to patients who have been seriously damaged by genuine incompetence on the doctors part (and it does happen), then how will any fairness exist in that society for people that, say, the doctor paralyses?

[Sibirsky]

Nah but I just don't quite get how in a free market the lawsuits would necessarily go. I mean, if a doctor fucks up - proper fucks up - then they should be held accountable. The whole principle of malpractice seems to be a joke in America and bastard lawyers are trying to transport it to Britain. Only a true bastard or somebody whose head has been chopped off (or equally debilitating illness as a result of malpractice) sues the NHS.

If there are no laws governing what happens to patients who have been seriously damaged by genuine incompetence on the doctors part (and it does happen), then how will any fairness exist in that society for people that, say, the doctor paralyses?

Who says doctors should not be held accountable? I'm merely pointing out that malpractice insurance runs about $1500 per year in Japan, while it various greatly based on the doctors specialization in the States, averaging about $150,000 per year. Or where does that money come from?

[Crabulonia]

Nah but I just don't quite get how in a free market the lawsuits would necessarily go. I mean, if a doctor fucks up - proper fucks up - then they should be held accountable. The whole principle of malpractice seems to be a joke in America and bastard lawyers are trying to transport it to Britain. Only a true bastard or somebody whose head has been chopped off (or equally debilitating illness as a result of malpractice) sues the NHS.

If there are no laws governing what happens to patients who have been seriously damaged by genuine incompetence on the doctors part (and it does happen), then how will any fairness exist in that society for people that, say, the doctor paralyses?

Who says doctors should not be held accountable? I'm merely pointing out that malpractice insurance runs about $1500 per year in Japan, while it various greatly based on the doctors specialization in the States, averaging about $150,000 per year. Or where does that money come from?

I was talking mostly about libertarian beliefs, which from your flag I'd guess you support to some degree. What does libertarian philosophy say about malpractice lawsuits? If libertarian philosophy maintains the rights of the patient to sue doctors for malpractice, this issue won't necessarily dissolve with a free market libertarian state, but if the rights of the patient are non-existent then this sounds like an undesirable system to live under - for example if one irresponsible doctor chops an arm off because he can.

[Sibirsky]

Who says doctors should not be held accountable? I'm merely pointing out that malpractice insurance runs about $1500 per year in Japan, while it various greatly based on the doctors specialization in the States, averaging about $150,000 per year. Or where does that money come from?

I was talking mostly about libertarian beliefs, which from your flag I'd guess you support to some degree. What does libertarian philosophy say about malpractice lawsuits? If libertarian philosophy maintains the rights of the patient to sue doctors for malpractice, this issue won't necessarily dissolve with a free market libertarian state, but if the rights of the patient are non-existent then this sounds like an undesirable system to live under - for example if one irresponsible doctor chops an arm off because he can.

Doctors chop arms off because they can? On what planet? For what reason?

Doctors make mistakes. These mistakes require procedures to rectify. This costs money. Sometimes this also causes the patient to miss work. They may get disability, but they don't get paid their full pay. I believe any direct costs associated with the doctor's mistake should be paid for by the doctor or his insurance. I am just not so sure, I mistake should also be a lottery ticket.

[Glorious Freedonia]

In the United States, conservatism is classical liberalism. Libertarianism is pretty much the same thing. The Libertarian Party is a non neoconservative party. Neoconservatism is exactly as I described it earlier. It is the use of all available means to oppose totalitarianism. It is insane to think that the use of military force to oppose totalitarianism erodes freedom. It is like saying that turning on the light to dispel the darkness makes more darkness.

I do not know what your understanding of militarism is but it seems way off base to say that using military force to fight for freedom anywhere anytime bar none is anything but the embracing of freedom and the furtherance of its cause.

Conservatism is not classical liberalism.

Small government, maximizing liberty, and letting free markets remain free is both conservative and classical liberalism.

[Sibirsky]

Conservatism is not classical liberalism.

Small government, maximizing liberty, and letting free markets remain free is both conservative and classical liberalism.

Classical liberalism is a philosophy committed to the ideal of limited government and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.

Conservatism is a political and social philosophy that promotes the maintenance of traditional institutions and supports, at the most, minimal and gradual change in society. Some conservatives seek to preserve things as they are, emphasizing stability and continuity, while others oppose modernism and seek a return to the way things were.

[Notodonta ziczac]

Classical liberalism is a philosophy committed to the ideal of limited government and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.

Conservatism is a political and social philosophy that promotes the maintenance of traditional institutions and supports, at the most, minimal and gradual change in society. Some conservatives seek to preserve things as they are, emphasizing stability and continuity, while others oppose modernism and seek a return to the way things were.

basically yeah. todays liberals are tommorows conservatives or something like that

[GeneralHaNor]

Classical liberalism is a philosophy committed to the ideal of limited government and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.

Conservatism is a political and social philosophy that promotes the maintenance of traditional institutions and supports, at the most, minimal and gradual change in society. Some conservatives seek to preserve things as they are, emphasizing stability and continuity, while others oppose modernism and seek a return to the way things were.

basically yeah. todays liberals are tommorows conservatives or something like that

Actually this is truer then we like to believe, statistically people drift towards conservatism as they grow older.

Liberalism is the ideology of the young and idealistic, Conservatism of the old and pragmatic

[Conservative Alliances]

Small government, maximizing liberty, and letting free markets remain free is both conservative and classical liberalism.

Classical liberalism is a philosophy committed to the ideal of limited government and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.

Conservatism is a political and social philosophy that promotes the maintenance of traditional institutions and supports, at the most, minimal and gradual change in society. Some conservatives seek to preserve things as they are, emphasizing stability and continuity, while others oppose modernism and seek a return to the way things were.

Yes, but conservatives in the US do resemble classical liberals from the 18th century. It just so happens that radical ideas back then are considered traditional now. Of course, this all depends on your perception of conservative in the US. Libertarians represent the natural progression of classical liberals into an even more freedom-based ideology.

[Ferro Populi]

*waves black flag and laughs at silly authoritarians*

[North Yugoslovakia]

The problem with capital L Libertarianism is that they don't understand that "fiscal liberty" is a contradiction in philosophy. Laissez-faire capitalism liberates the wealthy and enslaves the poor. You cannot be free in a system that forces people to choose wage labor or starvation.

When people talk about being "socially liberal" and "fiscally conservative" remember that while it's important to support gay rights, and we shouldn't put people in jail for smoking reefer, most social repression comes from economics anyway. Folks who don't understand that, just don't understand society period.

Hmmm ... interesting. And very true.

I think you'll find that this statement will not register on either side of the political spectrum these days. The right does not agree with the notion that "laissez faire capitalism liberates the wealthy and enslaves the poor" while the left would object to the notion that "most social repression comes from the economics anyway." You are a rare and enlightened, though unfortunately also a dying breed Jakaragua. Good analysis.

Remove your tongue from Jakaragua's rusty bullethole at once.

You are disgracing yourself in front of all these foreign dignitaries.

[Galt Worshippers]

Well it's kind of obvious where I stand on the Libertarian issue. Except I'm not as misty-eyed about Big Business.

Consult Freud on repression - you'll find it doesn't come from economics. It's basically helped by listening to the general blah of "I'm pissed off with my situation and it's not going to change. You agree don't you. DON'T YOU!" Usually spluttered by the kind of people who say that what makes us miserable is "realistic" and what could be a positive change is either "dangerous" or "idealistic".

Socialists hate individuality and money. Conservatives seem to hate everything and act as sycophants to whoever is top dog of the time. Gentry turns to big business turns to ??? a homicidal ostrich named Steve if he had his way. Damn you, Steve!

Libertarianism makes sense: Live life as you choose it; work to your strengths; enjoy the fruits of your labour; don't allow others to make decisions for you. People are often stronger than they realise. Give yourself time to think and you'll find a solution to help yourself and it will be much better than anything the government can provide. Live long and prosper!

[Trotskylvania]

basically yeah. todays liberals are tommorows conservatives or something like that

Actually this is truer then we like to believe, statistically people drift towards conservatism as they grow older.

Liberalism is the ideology of the young and idealistic, Conservatism of the old and pragmatic

No, not really. People appear to become more conservative because the rest of society is moving around them. In fact, as a general trend, people as they get older tend to become more left-wing. Longitudinal studies done on cohorts of people that focus on the evolution of their views over time have shown this time and time again.

The conventional wisdom simply happens because society tends to move faster than the individual.

*waves black flag and laughs at silly authoritarians*

Laughing at those "silly authoritarians" won't make them go away. They rather happen to control the state and have most of the guns in their hands. I'd reckon they don't care how flamboyantly you wave your black flag or how loudly you laugh at them, because at the end of the day, they're the ones in control.

[Galt Worshippers]

Smart puppy Trotskylvania!

[Nazi Flower Power]

When I claim to be libertarian I'm obviously lying because everyone knows Nazis can't be libertarian I mean I'm socially libertarian.

I get very annoyed with people who use "libertarian" as a euphemism for "right-wing nutjob." Libertarian is supposed to mean someone who promotes liberty, not someone who takes away workers' rights, lets the poor starve in the streets, and wants to have women and minorities subjugated by white men. Economic libertarianism doesn't have to come with sexism and racism. In fact, if you really do it right, it shouldn't be sexist or racist at all, but in practice the majority of the people in the U.S. right now who call themselves "libertarians" based on their economic views ARE sexist and racist. They are very annoying, those people.

[Sibirsky]

When I claim to be libertarian I'm obviously lying because everyone knows Nazis can't be libertarian I mean I'm socially libertarian.

I get very annoyed with people who use "libertarian" as a euphemism for "right-wing nutjob." Libertarian is supposed to mean someone who promotes liberty, not someone who takes away workers' rights, lets the poor starve in the streets, and wants to have women and minorities subjugated by white men. Economic libertarianism doesn't have to come with sexism and racism. In fact, if you really do it right, it shouldn't be sexist or racist at all, but in practice the majority of the people in the U.S. right now who call themselves "libertarians" based on their economic views ARE sexist and racist. They are very annoying, those people.

Sources for libertarians wanting people to starve, women and minorities not having rights, wanting to take away workers rights and promoting sexism and racism NOW.

Or you can just admit to being a troll.

[Galt Worshippers]

Glenn Beck and Ron Paul are enough to put anyone off libertarian values.

People keep talking about social and economic libertarian values as though they are seperate issues. If you can agree that libertarianism is about the absolute freedom of the individual - how can you they be seperated?