What does "Libertarian" mean to you?

[The Black Forrest]

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.

Actually the ones claiming to be liberts tend to be right wing nutjobs or tea baggers out here.

It makes it sound better when you can say "They aren't really......" Religion does that all the time

[GeneralHaNor]

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.

Actually the ones claiming to be liberts tend to be right wing nutjobs or tea baggers out here.

It makes it sound better when you can say "They aren't really......" Religion does that all the time

Claiming to be something, and actually being something, are two wholly distinct things
I can claim to be Napeloen Bonaparte, does that make it true?

Words have meaning, and when a Rightwing NeoCon, or a Tea Bagger claim to be Libertarian, well they are either lying or using a vastly incorrect definition.

Most people who's opinion actually matters, know the difference between them.

[Alexadia]

I associate the 'Libertarian' tag to a person who values their personal freedoms to an unacceptable level when viewed with societies' needs. I will be the first to admit my view isn't whole, as I have not read Libertarian literature, or have knowledge of the generic Libertarian's policy goals beyond what is mentioned by statesmen such as Rep. Ron Paul; that is, more freedom for the citizen monetarily, less government 'intervention' into a citizen's livelihood, and the like.

I don't have any ill feelings towards Libertarians as, despite pressures from reading blogs, comment sections, etc. I refuse to associate Libertarians with the Tea Party appearing on news shows and the radio. I recognize an earnest political ideology is not composed mainly of hateful, gullible, reactionary voters, whether that be left wing, right wing, or any direction you prefer on the political chart.

[Servantium]

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

Three words: "User-Fee Minarchy"

[GeneralHaNor]

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

Three words: "User-Fee Minarchy"

Which on the North-South Axis of the political compass, places around -9, which is the most southern end of Libertarian Philosophy.

I view classical Libertarianism, as center, Center-South philosophy, with the fringe elements delving further south as the become more reactionary

I used to be in that range, but at some point I realized an inherit hypocrisy in my own position, and thus to remain morally consistent, I must be An Anarchist. I can do nothing else.

I tolerate, and to an extent appreciate Minarchists, but at the end of the day, it's just statism lite
S=S, and less of S is still s. and I find S, and even s, to be untenable, undesirable, and even unacceptable.

[Servantium]

-snip-

However, said state eliminates the coercion factor by making participation voluntary.

[GeneralHaNor]

-snip-

However, said state eliminates the coercion factor by making participation voluntary.

Perhaps
I would need to see a functional model to know how that would actually play out. I am not convinced any state can truly eliminate coercion in it's functioning...hell I'm pessimistic about Anarchy being able to eliminate coercion...(leftist anarchists give me great pause, and make me fear for the future of the ideology)

[Meryuma]

...in which case it's not a state. It's a government, sure, but it's not a state. A state, by definition, is monopolistic. Besides, if you're going to make governments voluntary, why not go all the way and have panarchy?

-snip-

However, said state eliminates the coercion factor by making participation voluntary.

[Mosasauria]

Libertarian means nothing in the same sense liberal means nothing. It's just a label.

[Galt Worshippers]

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.

I didn't say anything about a "maximum wage" - where did you get that from? Or that you could earn $100,000 a year stacking shelves at WalMart. If you want a better paying job you'll go for it (fyi: I used to work for Walmart during college).

We both agree that minimum wage doesn't match productivity. So shouldn't we try to replace it with something better? Something that does recognise how hard people on "low-wage" people actually work. Set a minimum standard for work to earn minimum wage then give staff extra if they exceed their targets. Factories, sales people already are paid like this. It's a good system and it works.

[Grave_n_idle]

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?

I would assume so, since the 'point' of a maximum wage would be to unify the range of expenditure for goods and services. If there's no limit to upper income, prices will always trend higher, because the range of prices will always be open-ended at the top.

[Grave_n_idle]

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.

I didn't say anything about a "maximum wage" - where did you get that from? Or that you could earn $100,000 a year stacking shelves at WalMart. If you want a better paying job you'll go for it (fyi: I used to work for Walmart during college).

We both agree that minimum wage doesn't match productivity. So shouldn't we try to replace it with something better? Something that does recognise how hard people on "low-wage" people actually work. Set a minimum standard for work to earn minimum wage then give staff extra if they exceed their targets. Factories, sales people already are paid like this. It's a good system and it works.

You didn't say anything about a maximum wage, I agree. And I never suggested you did.

I suggest you go back and actually read what you seem to think you're replying to.

[Crabulonia]

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.

I didn't say anything about a "maximum wage" - where did you get that from? Or that you could earn $100,000 a year stacking shelves at WalMart. If you want a better paying job you'll go for it (fyi: I used to work for Walmart during college).

We both agree that minimum wage doesn't match productivity. So shouldn't we try to replace it with something better? Something that does recognise how hard people on "low-wage" people actually work. Set a minimum standard for work to earn minimum wage then give staff extra if they exceed their targets. Factories, sales people already are paid like this. It's a good system and it works.

How are you to monitor everybody though? For sales it's easy enough, they have people sign a contract or they have so many receipts attributed to their machine or such, and in factories you can check how much product has been made per person.

Shelf stackers though... do you count how much they have placed on the shelf? Surely this would create a supervisor position who merely counts already stacked shelves to see if they measure up and the person gets a bonus.

[Grave_n_idle]

I didn't say anything about a "maximum wage" - where did you get that from? Or that you could earn $100,000 a year stacking shelves at WalMart. If you want a better paying job you'll go for it (fyi: I used to work for Walmart during college).

We both agree that minimum wage doesn't match productivity. So shouldn't we try to replace it with something better? Something that does recognise how hard people on "low-wage" people actually work. Set a minimum standard for work to earn minimum wage then give staff extra if they exceed their targets. Factories, sales people already are paid like this. It's a good system and it works.

How are you to monitor everybody though? For sales it's easy enough, they have people sign a contract or they have so many receipts attributed to their machine or such, and in factories you can check how much product has been made per person.

Shelf stackers though... do you count how much they have placed on the shelf? Surely this would create a supervisor position who merely counts already stacked shelves to see if they measure up and the person gets a bonus.

The name should have been enough of a clue. Some people are more concerned with ideology than reality or what works.

[Occupied Deutschland]

How are you to monitor everybody though? For sales it's easy enough, they have people sign a contract or they have so many receipts attributed to their machine or such, and in factories you can check how much product has been made per person.

Shelf stackers though... do you count how much they have placed on the shelf? Surely this would create a supervisor position who merely counts already stacked shelves to see if they measure up and the person gets a bonus.

The name should have been enough of a clue. Some people are more concerned with ideology than reality or what works.

How to track a person's work via "stacking shelves":
Give the shelf-stacker a laser scanner that reads the items barcode
Have them scan each item they put up.
Pay based on amount put up
Easy! (Okay, a little more difficult for small businesses, but that just means they attract workers and can pick the best, so...everybody wins.)

[The chrisman union]

I think libertarianism (the actual meaning, not the conservative American one) basically means "do whatever you want" in terms of economy and civil rights, and have as little government intervention in anything as possible.

[Grave_n_idle]

The name should have been enough of a clue. Some people are more concerned with ideology than reality or what works.

How to track a person's work via "stacking shelves":
Give the shelf-stacker a laser scanner that reads the items barcode
Have them scan each item they put up.
Pay based on amount put up
Easy! (Okay, a little more difficult for small businesses, but that just means they attract workers and can pick the best, so...everybody wins.)

Easy, but ridiculously slow. Also, not reliable. How do you know the person isn't just scanning a hundred items and not putting them up?

[Sibirsky]

How to track a person's work via "stacking shelves":
Give the shelf-stacker a laser scanner that reads the items barcode
Have them scan each item they put up.
Pay based on amount put up
Easy! (Okay, a little more difficult for small businesses, but that just means they attract workers and can pick the best, so...everybody wins.)

Easy, but ridiculously slow. Also, not reliable. How do you know the person isn't just scanning a hundred items and not putting them up?

RFID

[The Black Forrest]

Easy, but ridiculously slow. Also, not reliable. How do you know the person isn't just scanning a hundred items and not putting them up?

RFID

How does that prevent what he asked?

[GeneralHaNor]

Easy, but ridiculously slow. Also, not reliable. How do you know the person isn't just scanning a hundred items and not putting them up?

RFID

I work as a "Stock Clerk"

A RFID system would be quite expensive, but would certainly do the job (and improve alot of other jobs as well)
However the implementation costs, would drive up the cost of product significantly, therefore no business will voluntarily adopt such a system

I however don't mind "hourly" wages, I find them to be corrarly not to effort persay, but to significance of work.

The less replaceable you are, the more your labor is worth...I don't have a problem with that system.

[Sibirsky]

RFID

I work as a "Stock Clerk"

A RFID system would be quite expensive, but would certainly do the job (and improve alot of other jobs as well)
However the implementation costs, would drive up the cost of product significantly, therefore no business will voluntarily adopt such a system

I however don't mind "hourly" wages, I find them to be corrarly not to effort persay, but to significance of work.

The less replaceable you are, the more your labor is worth...I don't have a problem with that system.

Eventually RFID will become cheap and commonplace. Assuming the government doesn't start regulating the technology.

[Galt Worshippers]

Yeh, we all know what the government's like.

Anyway what's this about libertarianism being a quasi-anarchy? Even anarchists have some structure and rules - don't they? Unless you're going to live in a vacuum.

[Abdju]

Libertarianism - Objectivism for people who can't be arsed to read Atlas Shrugged.

[The Merchant Republics]

Libertarianism - Objectivism for people who can't be arsed to read Atlas Shrugged.

It is a very long book.

Can't say I didn't enjoy it though.

[Conservative Alliances]

Yeh, we all know what the government's like.

Anyway what's this about libertarianism being a quasi-anarchy? Even anarchists have some structure and rules - don't they? Unless you're going to live in a vacuum.

Structure and rules decided by the people, yes. Just like libertarianism, but libertarianism can have a bit more structure and rules.

Libertarianism - Objectivism for people who can't be arsed to read Atlas Shrugged.

Just so you know, Libertarianism predates Ayn Rand.