What does "Libertarian" mean to you?

[United Dependencies]

I don't even believe true anarchism can be maintained with out a little coercion to prevent organizations from becoming governments.

I think that depends entirely on far you want to take the definition of coercion. True anarchy would be inherently opposed to government as far as its structure is concerned. I wouldn't consider that coercion.

What do you mean as far as structure is concerned? As in all the different departments and such or how we pick officials?

[The Parkus Empire]

I think that depends entirely on far you want to take the definition of coercion. True anarchy would be inherently opposed to government as far as its structure is concerned. I wouldn't consider that coercion.

Well something would have to be done to prevent organized power, and I doubt it would be offerings of lollipops and comic books

[Trotskylvania]

Not all coercion is morally equivalent

C=C, less of C is still C, and C for reason E is identical to C for reason S, no matter how much rhetoric and moral relativism you try to coat it in.

No matter where you shit, it still stinks

By your standards, self-defense from a mugger is morally equivalent to the mugging itself. Killing a Nazi soldier in wartime is morally equivalent to the gassing of a Jew.

Holding all coercion as morally equivalent is only possible if you ignore the context of actions. Aggression is qualitatively different then self defense.

[Conservative Alliances]

I think that depends entirely on far you want to take the definition of coercion. True anarchy would be inherently opposed to government as far as its structure is concerned. I wouldn't consider that coercion.

Well something would have to be done to prevent organized power, and I doubt it would be offerings of lollipops and comic books

well, assuming that true anarchy was attained in the first place I think it would be relatively easy to maintain. It would be difficult for anyone to form a government in a society that has no centralization. In this way, I think disorganization could be a good thing. An anarchic society would be practically impossible to occupy. Of course, this also assuming people do not want the government. If the people do want a government, they should be allowed to get what they want, not that anyone can stop them.

[The Parkus Empire]

well, assuming that true anarchy was attained in the first place I think it would be relatively easy to maintain. It would be difficult for anyone to form a government in a society that has no centralization. In this way, I think disorganization could be a good thing. An anarchic society would be practically impossible to occupy. Of course, this also assuming people do not want the government. If the people do want a government, they should be allowed to get what they want, not that anyone can stop them.

A gang could probably form a small government, and a corporation could easily form a large government.

[Glorious Freedonia]

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.

By your definitions alone I see no inconsistency between classical liberalism and conservatism. Your view of conservatism is not necessarily my own but I see no conflict with the way you described these two ideas.

In particular, if it seems that your conservatives are folks who seem to think that we are less free than we had been and it is a good thing to throw off our fetters or at least to be reluctant to heave more of them upon individual liberties.

[Crabulonia]

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.

By your definitions alone I see no inconsistency between classical liberalism and conservatism. Your view of conservatism is not necessarily my own but I see no conflict with the way you described these two ideas.

In particular, if it seems that your conservatives are folks who seem to think that we are less free than we had been and it is a good thing to throw off our fetters or at least to be reluctant to heave more of them upon individual liberties.

This is the problem, classical liberalism has become the dominant mindset of the right - with conservatism kind of relegated or used simply as a name. As a result, classical liberalism has become somewhat conservative, or at least, its a conservative in classical liberal clothing (sort of antiquated, French resistance style garb).

As government has gotten bigger, conservatives (to return to the 'good ol' days') have to turn classical liberal and stand for dismantling the systems somewhat.

[Galt Worshippers]

It suggests strongly that if you leave parents and children and teens without some sort of government led programme on the matter, it'll be worse than it needs to be. And if it's true for sex education, the implication is that it can be true for more things. So no, Libertarianism in the sense of "what can the government do for me that I need?" is bollocks. Because American citizens cannot be held accountable for teaching their own children about sex properly.

There's a person who needs to go see a psychoanalyst.

[Conservative Alliances]

well, assuming that true anarchy was attained in the first place I think it would be relatively easy to maintain. It would be difficult for anyone to form a government in a society that has no centralization. In this way, I think disorganization could be a good thing. An anarchic society would be practically impossible to occupy. Of course, this also assuming people do not want the government. If the people do want a government, they should be allowed to get what they want, not that anyone can stop them.

A gang could probably form a small government, and a corporation could easily form a large government.

I doubt it. Gangs would likely be considered detrimental to the health of a society and dangerous to corporations' profits. For this reason, corporations would likely keep gangs in check. Corporations would also be unlikely to form governments because other corporations would prevent the from doing so.

[FREEaquaticdancelesson]

Economic anarchy essentially.

[The Parkus Empire]

I doubt it. Gangs would likely be considered detrimental to the health of a society and dangerous to corporations' profits. For this reason, corporations would likely keep gangs in check. Corporations would also be unlikely to form governments because other corporations would prevent the from doing so.

I don't think so. Corporations, when given the chance, are just as likely to cooperate as to compete. Y'know, remember that quaint stuff we outlawed a while back? Monopolies? Trusts?

[The Merchant Republics]

Either or, specifically the movement but also the party, while they're not while they're not intrinsically the same, the libertarian party generally follows the ideals of the libertarian movement.At least that's what I've experienced. In contrast to say the tea party.

Not entirely. For instance, the Libertarian Party is for, or at least its candidates have supported, taking all languages but English off the ballot. I don't see how this is at all a libertarian ideal.

I wasn't aware of that. I suppose you would be right in that case.

That is what I assumed, still I don't quite understand how it's for the wrong reasons. I won't go into economics just socially.

A good deal of the Libertarian support of civil rights is about property freedom more than bodily freedom. As a matter of fact, I'd go so far as to say that many-a-Libertarian thinks his property should receive more legal precedent than my body, thus bodily rights are only supported where they benefit or do not hinder property rights; as I see it, this make greed the primary motivator of Libertarian ideals, and I find that a wrong reason.

The arguments for Property Freedom tend to derive from Body Freedom, in my opinion. I can't really think of any cases where I would let property precede before persons, home-invasion, I suppose. Otherwise body freedom tends to precede property freedom in my books.

[The Parkus Empire]

By the way, corporations aren't natural enemies of gangs. Remember when Sony paid kids to advertise Play Station with graffiti?

[The Parkus Empire]

I wasn't aware of that. I suppose you would be right in that case.

Take a look at the websites of major Libertarian aspirants, like Wayne Allyn Root and Bob Barr.

The arguments for Property Freedom tend to derive from Body Freedom, in my opinion. I can't really think of any cases where I would let property precede before persons, home-invasion, I suppose. Otherwise body freedom tends to precede property freedom in my books.

Home invasion could easily threaten the homeowner's life, so that isn't applicable.

Let's try this: a business owns a beach. That business's policy prohibits nudity. A fellow removes his clothes while on the beach, and that business presses charges against him. Whom do you side with?

[Conservative Alliances]

I doubt it. Gangs would likely be considered detrimental to the health of a society and dangerous to corporations' profits. For this reason, corporations would likely keep gangs in check. Corporations would also be unlikely to form governments because other corporations would prevent the from doing so.

I don't think so. Corporations, when given the chance, are just as likely to cooperate as to compete. Y'know, remember that quaint stuff we outlawed a while back? Monopolies? Trusts?

Monopolies are state creations. They were created because governments believed that if one company produced a product, they would be more efficient since they don't have to worry about competition. It would be nearly impossible for a monopoly to form in a free market.

[The Merchant Republics]

The arguments for Property Freedom tend to derive from Body Freedom, in my opinion. I can't really think of any cases where I would let property precede before persons, home-invasion, I suppose. Otherwise body freedom tends to precede property freedom in my books.

Home invasion could easily threaten the homeowner's life, so that isn't applicable.

Let's try this: a business owns a beach. That business's policy prohibits nudity. A fellow removes his clothes while on the beach, and that business presses charges against him. Whom do you side with?

Alright, I see what you mean then. I wouldn't say greed motivates it, say if a nude man walked into your house, it isn't greedy if you ask him to leave or at the very least put on pants. A business is just like someone's home, though we might treat it as public, it's privately owned.

[Conservative Alliances]

By the way, corporations aren't natural enemies of gangs. Remember when Sony paid kids to advertise Play Station with graffiti?

Gangs that try to take control are, though.

[Marlencom]

I don't think so. Corporations, when given the chance, are just as likely to cooperate as to compete. Y'know, remember that quaint stuff we outlawed a while back? Monopolies? Trusts?

Monopolies are state creations. They were created because governments believed that if one company produced a product, they would be more efficient since they don't have to worry about competition. It would be nearly impossible for a monopoly to form in a free market.

[The Parkus Empire]

Monopolies are state creations. They were created because governments believed that if one company produced a product, they would be more efficient since they don't have to worry about competition. It would be nearly impossible for a monopoly to form in a free market.

That's a negative.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_(monopoly)

[Marlencom]

Monopolies are state creations. They were created because governments believed that if one company produced a product, they would be more efficient since they don't have to worry about competition. It would be nearly impossible for a monopoly to form in a free market.

That's a negative.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_(monopoly)

"Natural monopolies" is a word used by politicians to legislate monopolies into existence.
http://mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/rae9_2_3.pdf

[The Parkus Empire]

Alright, I see what you mean then. I wouldn't say greed motivates it, say if a nude man walked into your house, it isn't greedy if you ask him to leave or at the very least put on pants. A business is just like someone's home, though we might treat it as public, it's privately owned.

But you depend on business decisions to be motivated be greed. Example, suppose I said: "What if everyone preferred nudity and businesses owned everything and denied it? Wouldn't that be a dictatorship?" Then you'd say that the business that allowed nudity would prosper do to people's tastes, and others would thus have to adapt. As a matter of fact, with a little libertarian reasoning, I can assume that the beach prohibits nudity because it's more likely to gain customers.

Thus, civil rights are determined by what makes the most money, since entrepreneurs would obviously have the most influence in a libertarian society. Those who had no money would have virtually no rights, since there's no profit in giving any to them.

[The Parkus Empire]

That's a negative.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_(monopoly)

"Natural monopolies" is a word used by politicians to legislate monopolies into existence.
http://mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/rae9_2_3.pdf

Can you please just quote the relative information? The part that proves no natural monopoly has existed? Because I'm not in the mood to read 16 pages of a heavily biased source.

[New Unsociety]

Means different things to different people,as there are different interpretations of what constitutes freedom.

For some,it is the freedom to do whatever you want with yourself,which includes to fight freely against other people for your personal profit,and if win take it all,if not die(or be killed) in the street(right-libertarianism/anarchocapitalism-see Rothbard,Stirner).

For others,it is the freedom to do whatever you want with yourself on matters that are of consequence only to you,and have an equal say on matters regarding the community,and have your needs taken care of-freedom from need,not by a daddy government but by all together-on which you too belong(left-libertarianism/anarchocommunism-see Kropotkin).

And there is also the middle ground-see Proudhon.

For me,it is the second,as the only way to stop the strong of taking away the freedom of the weak-and thus not having libertarianism anymore-is for all to stand together(not under an authoritarian figure though)for the common good.

BTW the likes of Tea Party are certainly not libertarian by any definition,as their stances against civil liberties for,say,homosexuals,and their perception of immigrants(especially muslims,as much as i disagree with religion)as inherently violent and dangerous and thus to be monitored,oppose the common ground of freedom over oneself.

[The Parkus Empire]

By the way, corporations aren't natural enemies of gangs. Remember when Sony paid kids to advertise Play Station with graffiti?

Gangs that try to take control are, though.

Not really. Gangs who try to take control might be great business for corporations who sell things like, say, weapons.

[Sibirsky]

Can you please just quote the relative information? The part that proves no natural monopoly has existed? Because I'm not in the mood to read 16 pages of a heavily biased source.

Most so-called public utilities have been granted governmental franchise monopolies because they are thought to be "natural monopolies."

It is a myth that natural monopoly theory was developed first by economists, and then used by legislators to "justify" franchise monopolies. The truth is that the monopolies were created decades before the theory was formalized by intervention-minded economists, who then used the theory as an ex post rationale for government intervention. At the time when the first government franchise monopolies were being granted, the large majority of economists understood that large-scale,
capital intensive production did not lead to monopoly, but was an absolutely desirable aspect of the competitive process.

During the late nineteenth century, when local governments were beginning to grant franchise monopolies, the general economic understanding was that "monopoly" was caused by government intervention, not the free market, through franchises, protectionism, and other means.

There is no evidence at all that at the outset of public utility regulation there existed any such phenomenon as a "natural monopoly." As Harold Demsetz has pointed out: Six electric light companies were organized in the one year of 1887 in New York City. Forty-five electric light enterprises had the legal right to operate in Chicago in 1907. Prior to 1895, Duluth, Minnesota, was served by five electric lighting companies, and Scranton, Pennsylvania, had four in 1906. . . . During the latter part of the nineteenth century, competition was the usual situation in the gas industry in this country. Before 1884, six competing companies were operating in New York City . . . competition was common and especially persistent in the telephone industry . . . Baltimore, Chicago, Cleveland, Columbus, Detroit, Kansas City, Minneapolis, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and St. Louis, among the larger cities, had at least two telephone services in 1905.

Amost instructive example of the non-existence of natural monopoly in the utility industries is provided in a 1936 book by economist George T. Brown entitled "The Gas Light Company of Baltimore," which bears the misleading subtitle, "AStudy of Natural ~ o n o ~ o l ~ . " ~ "
The book presents "the study of the evolutionary character of utilitiesn in general, with special emphasis on the Gas Light.Company of Baltimore, the problems of which "are not peculiar either to the Baltimore company or the State of Maryland, but are typical of those met everywhere in the public utility industry."'7 The history of the Gas Light Company of Baltimore figures prominently in the whole history of natural monopoly, in theory and in practice, for the influential Richard T. Ely, who was a professor of economics at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, chronicled the company's problems in a series of articles in the Baltimore Sun that were later published as a widely-sold book. Much of Ely's analysis came to be the accepted economic dogma with regard to the theory of natural monopoly. The history of the Gas Light Company of Baltimore is that, from its founding in 1816, it constantly struggled with new competitors. Its response was not only to try to compete in the marketplace, but also to lobby the state and local government authorities to refrain from granting corporate charters to its competitors. The company operated with economies of scale, but that did not prevent numerous competitors from cropping up. "Competition is the life of business," the Baltimore Sun editorialized in 1851 as it welcomed news of new competitors in the gas light business. l8 The Gas Light Company of Baltimore, however, "objected to the granting of franchise rights to the new company."'g Brown states that "gas companies in other cities were exposed to ruinous competition," and then catalogues how those same companies sought desperately to enter the Baltimore market. But if such competition was
so "ruinous," why would these companies enter new-and presumably just as "ruinousn-markets? Either Brown's theory of "ruinous competition"-which soon came to be the generally accepted one-was incorrect, or those companies were irrational gluttons for fmancial punishment.

By ignoring the dynamic nature of the competitive process, Brown made the same mistake that many other economists still make: believing that "excessive" competition can be "destructive" if low-cost producers drive their less efficient rivals from the market.20 Such competition may be "destructive" to high-cost competitors, but it is beneficial to consumers.

In 1880 there were three competing gas companies in Baltimore who fiercely competed with one another. They tried to merge and operate as a monopolist in 1888, but a new competitor foiled their plans: "Thomas Aha Edison introduced the electric light which threatened the existence of all gas companies."2' From that point on there was competition between both gas and electric companies, all of which incurred heavy fixed costs which led to economies of scale. Nevertheless, no free-market or "natural" monopoly ever materialized.

When monopoly did appear, it was solely because of government intervention. For example, in 1890 a bill was introduced into the Maryland legislature which "called for an annual payment to the city from
the Consolidated [Gas Company] of $10,000 a year and 3 percent of all dividends declared in return for the privilege of enjoying a 25-year monopoly. This is the now-familiar approach of government officials colluding with industry executives to establish a monopoly that will gouge the consumers, and then sharing the loot with the politicians in the form of franchise fees and taxes on monopoly revenues. This approach is especially pervasive today in the cable TV industry.