What does "Libertarian" mean to you?

[Meryuma]

-snip-

1. Corporations wouldn't be able to do whatever they wanted. Law would still exist.
2. Corporations wouldn't be nearly as big. Without government privilege of any sort, businesses would be a lot smaller.
3. Money would be issued privately and backed by precious metals.

-snip-

1. I meant that it's unrealistic to advocate them. I never said that it's unrealistic to realize they exist.
2. In that case, where does income inequality come from? Also, how isn't what I'm saying true? The state creates artificial scarcity and artificial barriers to entry across the board.
3. That's a tautology. "Where does income inequality come from?" "Income inequality."

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

You say that as if big-business fetishism is universal amongst libertarians.

-snip-

1. Vast income disparities exist because of government-granted privilege. The free market is a great equalizer of wealth.
2. Most libertarians aren't sexist or racist. I don't know where you get this from.

[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.

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.

You want to try reading before you start with the name-calling? OMG, someone doesn't like tea-bagger morons! She must be a troll!

[Galt Worshippers]

No one likes tea-bagger morons! Nobody really agrees that the bank bailouts are a good idea but going about shouting your head off and kicking a bunch of homeless people isn't really going to help the libertarian cause.

[Sibirsky]

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.

You want to try reading before you start with the name-calling? OMG, someone doesn't like tea-bagger morons! She must be a troll!

I read your paragraph of baseless lies. What does the Tea Party have to do with libertarians?

[GeneralHaNor]

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?

except Glenn Beck never identifies as Libertarian and often mocks them as Quazi Anarchists
And Ron Paul....well people recoginize a GOP Wolf in Sheeps Clothing

[Nazi Flower Power]

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?

It's pretty easy to separate them unless you're an extremist. I have enough libertarian views that I consider myself a libertarian, but that doesn't mean I have to take a libertarian view on every last issue in the whole damn world.

The few authoritarian positions that I have are almost all related to economics. For example, I support having a minimum wage. If I was very economically libertarian, I'd want to abolish minimum wage and let companies pay whatever they can get workers to settle for.

On the other hand, when it comes to free speech, the right to privacy, etc. I want the government to get the hell out of everyone's business. Hence, I consider myself socially libertarian.

[Nazi Flower Power]

2. Most libertarians aren't sexist or racist. I don't know where you get this from.

Most people who claim to be "libertarian" these days are misusing the word. Or at least the ones who misuse it are making the most noise. Haven't you ever listened to any tea-bagger propaganda?

[Nazi Flower Power]

You want to try reading before you start with the name-calling? OMG, someone doesn't like tea-bagger morons! She must be a troll!

I read your paragraph of baseless lies. What does the Tea Party have to do with libertarians?

They call themselves libertarians. And apparently you didn't read too carefully...

[GeneralHaNor]

I read your paragraph of baseless lies. What does the Tea Party have to do with libertarians?

They call themselves libertarians. And apparently you didn't read too carefully...

You haven't been paying attention to American Politics, the American Libertarian Party, recently Decried the Taxed Enough Already Party, as being grossly misguided in everything except their economic views, and made an appeal, to the "Rational" members of the TEA party to abandon the unacceptable noise they are a part of, and embrace a more rational worldview (IE The Libertarian Party)

So no, any Tea Bagger claiming to be a Libertarian, or a Member of the The Libertarian Party, is either grossly misinformed about their own ideology, Incredibly Stupid, Or Outright Lying.

Or Perhaps they are Liberal Democrat Sabotage agents

[Nazi Flower Power]

They call themselves libertarians. And apparently you didn't read too carefully...

You haven't been paying attention to American Politics, the American Libertarian Party, recently Decried the Taxed Enough Already Party, as being grossly misguided in everything except their economic views, and made an appeal, to the "Rational" members of the TEA party to abandon the unacceptable noise they are a part of, and embrace a more rational worldview (IE The Libertarian Party)

So no, any Tea Bagger claiming to be a Libertarian, or a Member of the The Libertarian Party, is either grossly misinformed about their own ideology, Incredibly Stupid, Or Outright Lying.

Or Perhaps they are Liberal Democrat Sabotage agents

OP wasn't that clear if they were talking about libertarianism, the ideology, or the Libertarian Party. I was talking about libertarianism, the ideology, which the Tea Party claims to subscribe to, even though they are doing it wrong.

[GeneralHaNor]

You haven't been paying attention to American Politics, the American Libertarian Party, recently Decried the Taxed Enough Already Party, as being grossly misguided in everything except their economic views, and made an appeal, to the "Rational" members of the TEA party to abandon the unacceptable noise they are a part of, and embrace a more rational worldview (IE The Libertarian Party)

So no, any Tea Bagger claiming to be a Libertarian, or a Member of the The Libertarian Party, is either grossly misinformed about their own ideology, Incredibly Stupid, Or Outright Lying.

Or Perhaps they are Liberal Democrat Sabotage agents

OP wasn't that clear if they were talking about libertarianism, the ideology, or the Libertarian Party. I was talking about libertarianism, the ideology, which the Tea Party claims to subscribe to, even though they are doing it wrong.

If they clearly aren't libertarians, and no recognizable libertarian organization grants them legitimacy, then it's safe to say the despite any illusory claims some of them may have to that ideology, well they aren't, and to paint libertarians with tea bagger brush, is doing both a massive disservice to the libertarian ideology, as well as those that actually hold it

This is especially true, considering one of the groups with whom the supposedly claimed a relationship to, wants nothing at all to do with them.

The only people who want anything to do with them, is the GOP, and thats because they used to be a large voting base for them till they started splintering off and doing their own thing.....The GOP is just trying to win back the voters it alienated by the Bush Policies.

[Nazi Flower Power]

If they clearly aren't libertarians, and no recognizable libertarian organization grants them legitimacy, then it's safe to say the despite any illusory claims some of them may have to that ideology, well they aren't, and to paint libertarians with tea bagger brush, is doing both a massive disservice to the libertarian ideology, as well as those that actually hold it

Umm... Did we miss the part about how I consider myself libertarian?

My first post in this thread was complaining that I don't like people using "libertarian" as a euphemism for "right-wing nutjob."

[GeneralHaNor]

If they clearly aren't libertarians, and no recognizable libertarian organization grants them legitimacy, then it's safe to say the despite any illusory claims some of them may have to that ideology, well they aren't, and to paint libertarians with tea bagger brush, is doing both a massive disservice to the libertarian ideology, as well as those that actually hold it

Umm... Did we miss the part about how I consider myself libertarian?

My first post in this thread was complaining that I don't like people using "libertarian" as a euphemism for "right-wing nutjob."

it's best to not highlight the people you think are giving you a bad name
I've rarely if ever associated libertarianism with right wing nutjobs, or tea baggers. so long as nobody mentions that unfortunate association, it will die eventually.

[Sociobiology]

libertarianism is the full embrace of freedom and personal responsibility, which is a nice though but fails miserably in practice, became people are rarely willing to take personal responsibility for anything which brings the whole idea crashing down. full embrace of libertarianism is difficult to distinguish from anarchy.

[Grave_n_idle]

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.

No.

[Galt Worshippers]

It's pretty easy to separate them unless you're an extremist. I have enough libertarian views that I consider myself a libertarian, but that doesn't mean I have to take a libertarian view on every last issue in the whole damn world.

The few authoritarian positions that I have are almost all related to economics. For example, I support having a minimum wage. If I was very economically libertarian, I'd want to abolish minimum wage and let companies pay whatever they can get workers to settle for.

On the other hand, when it comes to free speech, the right to privacy, etc. I want the government to get the hell out of everyone's business. Hence, I consider myself socially libertarian.

I've moved between several different countries in the last 5 years, worked lots of minimum wage jobs and I've seen that minimum wage does not solve the problems it is meant to.

Minimum wage laws are based off arbitary figures. No matter how high that wage is - it is never enough to meet the cost of living. In fact it often makes problems worse. Businesses pass the cost of higher wage bills onto their customers - which in turn rises the cost of living. It's a negative cycle.

And what about people on minimum wage who work really hard? Wouldn't it be better to have a progressive wage based on productivity, like those commission and bonus rates paid to sales personnel.

Is that an extremist view?

[Grave_n_idle]

It's pretty easy to separate them unless you're an extremist. I have enough libertarian views that I consider myself a libertarian, but that doesn't mean I have to take a libertarian view on every last issue in the whole damn world.

The few authoritarian positions that I have are almost all related to economics. For example, I support having a minimum wage. If I was very economically libertarian, I'd want to abolish minimum wage and let companies pay whatever they can get workers to settle for.

On the other hand, when it comes to free speech, the right to privacy, etc. I want the government to get the hell out of everyone's business. Hence, I consider myself socially libertarian.

I've moved between several different countries in the last 5 years, worked lots of minimum wage jobs and I've seen that minimum wage does not solve the problems it is meant to.

Minimum wage laws are based off arbitary figures. No matter how high that wage is - it is never enough to meet the cost of living. In fact it often makes problems worse. Businesses pass the cost of higher wage bills onto their customers - which in turn rises the cost of living. It's a negative cycle.

And what about people on minimum wage who work really hard? Wouldn't it be better to have a progressive wage based on productivity, like those commission and bonus rates paid to sales personnel.

Is that an extremist view?

Not 'extremist', per se - just nonsensical. A lot of people are working their asses off in low paying jobs - it's not like 'low paying jobs' equates to 'don't really have to work'. The problem is, even if you're killing yourself stacking shelves at Wal-Mart, you're not going to make $100,000 a year - no matter how productive. And that's the problem - wages do not correspond in ANY way to the amount of effort or productivity. And that's why a minimum wage is useful.

But you know what would have a whole lot MORE of an effect on cost of living, the constant increase in prices, and the continued financial shortfall of low paid workers? A maximum wage - but good luck getting that kind of legislation passed anywhere where those who do the politics are either incredibly wealthy, or OWNED by the incredibly wealthy.

[Conservative Alliances]

But you know what would have a whole lot MORE of an effect on cost of living, the constant increase in prices, and the continued financial shortfall of low paid workers? A maximum wage - but good luck getting that kind of legislation passed anywhere where those who do the politics are either incredibly wealthy, or OWNED by the incredibly wealthy.

It's also counter-intuitive to economic growth.

[Meryuma]

full embrace of libertarianism is difficult to distinguish from anarchy.

Full embrace of libertarianism is anarchy, and that's not a bad thing.

[Grave_n_idle]

But you know what would have a whole lot MORE of an effect on cost of living, the constant increase in prices, and the continued financial shortfall of low paid workers? A maximum wage - but good luck getting that kind of legislation passed anywhere where those who do the politics are either incredibly wealthy, or OWNED by the incredibly wealthy.

It's also counter-intuitive to economic growth.

Actually, no, it's not - it is just counter to one philosophy.

Economic growth does not have an intrinsic intuitive link to individual ability to become disproportionately wealthy.

[Conservative Alliances]

It's also counter-intuitive to economic growth.

Actually, no, it's not - it is just counter to one philosophy.

Economic growth does not have an intrinsic intuitive link to individual ability to become disproportionately wealthy.

Okay, but logically, the economy will stagnate when major earners have nothing more to gain by expanding business. If they have no particular reason to expand business, why should they?

[Grave_n_idle]

Actually, no, it's not - it is just counter to one philosophy.

Economic growth does not have an intrinsic intuitive link to individual ability to become disproportionately wealthy.

Okay, but logically, the economy will stagnate when major earners have nothing more to gain by expanding business. If they have no particular reason to expand business, why should they?

Just because one individual doesn't stand to gain personal wealth beyond a certain threshold, does not logically imply that you wouldn't want your business to gain market share, expand into new markets, or produce a better product. I find your (apparent) assumption flawed.

[GeneralHaNor]

full embrace of libertarianism is difficult to distinguish from anarchy.

Full embrace of libertarianism is anarchy, and that's not a bad thing.

I actually agree with this one, except with the caveat, that once you fully embrace your Libertarian Ideals, you really become an Anarchist, and aren't really Libertarian anymore

basically I believe Libertarianism is a compromise ideology that is not true to itself, they accept the oppression of statism as a "necessary" evil.

[The Floridian Coast]

Well, Libertarian by its universal definition use means supportive of maximum liberty, an antithesis to authoritarianism. "Socialist libertarian" would be akin to saying "Anarcho-communist". Or they could be anarcho-capitalists, or minarchists. Libertarians support liberty, easy to define.

By the American definition, it means to be to the economic right and the social issues "left". Or more specifically, America's word "libertarian" means "Negative liberty absolutism."

In other words, Christian conservative, anti-abortion, homophobic, warmongering, suspension-of-constitutional-rights-for-alleged-terrorists embracing, screaming to Obama to assassinate Julian Assange, AKA, the Tea Party, are NOT libertarians no matter how capitalist their economics are.

[Conservative Alliances]

Okay, but logically, the economy will stagnate when major earners have nothing more to gain by expanding business. If they have no particular reason to expand business, why should they?

Just because one individual doesn't stand to gain personal wealth beyond a certain threshold, does not logically imply that you wouldn't want your business to gain market share, expand into new markets, or produce a better product. I find your (apparent) assumption flawed.

It quite possibly could be, I can't say I have thought extensively about it. I happen to be of the belief that, in general, people are naturally selfish with momentary bouts of mutually beneficial behavior and seldom acts of altruism. I f one does not stand to gain from further business ventures, I see no reason why they should rationally risk expansion in the interest of self-interest. Of course this assumes that people would act rationally. For the most part, I think there would be an upper limit to which companies would grow that would be lower than what they would grow without a maximum wage. I do have one question, though. Would gains from stocks be counted towards maximum income?