What does "Libertarian" mean to you?

[Bendira]

Conservatism is not classical liberalism.

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

Conservatism isn't small government.

[Tezopanc]

Libertarian to me is a political ideolgial (sorry for spelling error) which seeks to minimize the role of the government in people's lifes and also adopts a lassize faire policy when it comes to the economy, it is often muddled up with 'Liberal' but the two terms are different from one another and if anything are totally different.

[Crabulonia]

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

Conservatism isn't small government.

Small governmenters tend to tie themselves to conservative brands though because they aren't very popular by themselves.

[The Parkus Empire]

*snip

Looks like your own article cites monopolies that weren't created by the government. Are you just saying that self-created monopolies would naturally break up because of things like lightbulbs? What about something like Standard Oil? Do you really think the lightbulb significantly diminished its revenue to the point where it would have eventually broken-up on its own without interference?

[Glorious Freedonia]

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

Conservatism isn't small government.

Umm yes it is. That is why it is called conservatism. It is the conservative use of governmental power because liberty is only as big as government power is small. It is a zero sum game baby. *lookin for a high five here, folks*

[Glorious Freedonia]

Conservatism isn't small government.

Small governmenters tend to tie themselves to conservative brands though because they aren't very popular by themselves.

ehh what?

[Glorious Freedonia]

Libertarian to me is a political ideolgial (sorry for spelling error) which seeks to minimize the role of the government in people's lifes and also adopts a lassize faire policy when it comes to the economy, it is often muddled up with 'Liberal' but the two terms are different from one another and if anything are totally different.

I agree

[Norstal]

Small governmenters tend to tie themselves to conservative brands though because they aren't very popular by themselves.

ehh what?

Its a brand. Like Burger King's "Have it Your Way". It doesn't mean you can order up a burger with shark meat.

[Trotskylvania]

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.

Conservatism's deference to tradition generally comes from an anti-liberal, collectivist ethos. "It's disruptive", "it's bad for social order," etc.

[Glorious Freedonia]

ehh what?

Its a brand. Like Burger King's "Have it Your Way". It doesn't mean you can order up a burger with shark meat.

I still do not get it.

[Glorious Freedonia]

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.

Conservatism's deference to tradition generally comes from an anti-liberal, collectivist ethos. "It's disruptive", "it's bad for social order," etc.

Not really. It is the rejection of progressivism which really has nothing to do with traditionalism. It is perhaps about upholding our traditional (ie preprogressive era) values and ideals but if you mean something else I really do not get your point.

[Trotskylvania]

Conservatism's deference to tradition generally comes from an anti-liberal, collectivist ethos. "It's disruptive", "it's bad for social order," etc.

Not really. It is the rejection of progressivism which really has nothing to do with traditionalism. It is perhaps about upholding our traditional (ie preprogressive era) values and ideals but if you mean something else I really do not get your point.

So I ask you this: what preprogressive traditions? The continuity between the Progressive era and the previous eras as a matter of philosophies is very much different than what the conventional narrative suggests.

More often than not, the Progressives were conservatives in their ethos. Their opposition to economic liberalism was couched in the language of Madison and Jefferson. And further, they considered the American tradition to essentially be that of Progress and nationalism. They were more akin to British One Nation Conservatives or Canadian Red Tories than modern liberals.

Political philosophy is a lot more complicated than simple narratives make it out to be. But that's really neither here nor there, because the term "progressive" is an anti-concept that has even less philosophical substance in casual conversation than the world "liberal" does. There's no contradiction in being a progressive and a conservative; it depends on your conception of progress and your conception of its importance for the stability and order of the body politic.

Conservatives are traditionalists; they also tend to be inegalitarian and collectivist. Liberalism, in contrast, has no real regard for tradition, and is both egalitarian and individualist. There's a direct contradiction between the conservative ethos and liberal ethos, and it cannot be reconciled.

[Glorious Freedonia]

Not really. It is the rejection of progressivism which really has nothing to do with traditionalism. It is perhaps about upholding our traditional (ie preprogressive era) values and ideals but if you mean something else I really do not get your point.

So I ask you this: what preprogressive traditions? The continuity between the Progressive era and the previous eras as a matter of philosophies is very much different than what the conventional narrative suggests.

More often than not, the Progressives were conservatives in their ethos. Their opposition to economic liberalism was couched in the language of Madison and Jefferson. And further, they considered the American tradition to essentially be that of Progress and nationalism. They were more akin to British One Nation Conservatives or Canadian Red Tories than modern liberals.

Political philosophy is a lot more complicated than simple narratives make it out to be. But that's really neither here nor there, because the term "progressive" is an anti-concept that has even less philosophical substance in casual conversation than the world "liberal" does. There's no contradiction in being a progressive and a conservative; it depends on your conception of progress and your conception of its importance for the stability and order of the body politic.

Conservatives are traditionalists; they also tend to be inegalitarian and collectivist. Liberalism, in contrast, has no real regard for tradition, and is both egalitarian and individualist. There's a direct contradiction between the conservative ethos and liberal ethos, and it cannot be reconciled.

I did not understand what collectivism is (I always perhaps ignorantly thought that pinko and fascist ideologies are collectivist) I also did not get the references to British history that you cited. I think I agree with you that the names given to political ideologies do not entirely do a great job at expressing the fine points of the philosophy.

I also recall that the concepts mean different things in Europe than they do in the USA. In America conservatism and progressivism want stability and order. Neither group really wants riots or anything like that. Progressives seem to think that there are "victims" that need to be helped by governmental action. They also seem to be somewhat utopian in their belief that good laws can create a good society and that government can be the primary engine for positive change. I do not think that a progressive would tend to agree that the government that governs least governs best.

Progressivism seems to have had its origin either in scary utopian ivy league discussions by radical intellectuals or in the idea that as technology and society becomes more complex we need increasingly sophisticated government regulators and regulations to regulate the ever increasing complexity of modern life. I tend to think that both sources influenced progressivism. Progressivism seems to have gotten out of hand over the past couple of decades. There is of course a wide chasm that separates the hopes of utopian radicals and the reality a moderately regulated economy.

The wars on drugs and poverty are examples of progressivism that has caused huge problems at the national and international levels. The pursuit of these utopian ideals of eliminating poverty and lotus eaters through governmental actions have caused a lot of harm for society.

This is not to say that we should throw away the baby with the bathwater though. After all, there will always be a need for sophisticated regulators and regulators of subjects that are heavily reliant upon an ever increasing understanding of science. We will always need some pretty sophisticated decision making and regulation of pharmaceuticals for example.

[The Merchant Republics]

*snip

Looks like your own article cites monopolies that weren't created by the government. Are you just saying that self-created monopolies would naturally break up because of things like lightbulbs? What about something like Standard Oil? Do you really think the lightbulb significantly diminished its revenue to the point where it would have eventually broken-up on its own without interference?

Standard Oil was not a monopoly, this is simply untrue its a maximum share of the market was 88%, which while nonetheless considerable is not a monopoly, is a monopoly only and that the state has called such is not a monopoly by the definition of monopoly, furthermore quite ironically by the time it was called a monopoly it had slipped down to 60% of market control.
source

[Galt Worshippers]

Have there ever been any pure libertarian societies?

[Galt Worshippers]

That's democracy for you!

But here's a new question: has there ever been an attempt at running a libertarian society?

[Conservative Alliances]

Have there ever been any pure libertarian societies?

Compared to other nations at the time, I would say the US was libertarian at its founding. Especially under the Democratic-Republicans. A better example would be the Icelandic Commonwealth. Also, in the period of about 1830-1900, the federal government was pretty much absent as a legitimate authority in the old west.

[Colonia Americae]

If you have to pigeon hole everyone who calls themselves libertarians, then it would most likely be that they believe in limited government. What that means is that the government cannot intervene in affairs that are not constitutionally prescribed. Generally, in the United States at least, this means that the government has no right to legislate morality, be it enforcing traditional values or foisting political correctness on other individuals, and should not get involved in the economy. It also means that on the federal level the government shouldn't do anything that isn't explicitly illustrated in the constitution as part of their domain. This would mean that a lot of the programs that exist today would be unconstitutional at least on the federal level. I have met libertarians that have differing opinions about how large local and state governments should be, but there is large agreement on the proper role of federal government.

And as an aside, liberals in America aren't really liberals. The US has a wonky way of describing political ideologies. American Liberals are actually progressives. And when you get right down to it, in my opinion, both progressivism and conservatism are left leaning ideologies. Left leaning meaning that the farther left you you go the more power governments possess. So far left regimes would be fascists, communists, any totalitarian regime. The farther right you go the less power governments have, i.e anarchy at the far right. I have never understood the idea of economic and social freedoms being separate, in my mind you cannot separate one from the other.

[Glorious Homeland]

Conservatism isn't small government.

Umm yes it is. That is why it is called conservatism. It is the conservative use of governmental power because liberty is only as big as government power is small. It is a zero sum game baby. *lookin for a high five here, folks*

"Conservative" is a relative term, dependant on the time and nation in question, like all political tags from capitalist to communist. Do you mean to say "conservatives" in 1990s Russia are universally equatable to "conservatives" in the 1980s America? The term is often diluted anyway, as conservatives often try and break rather than continue the work of their predecessor governments, like Reagan. It all relates to them trying to get votes on the basis of nostalgia, but nostalgia according to whom?

[Mediterreania]

If you have to pigeon hole everyone who calls themselves libertarians, then it would most likely be that they believe in limited government. What that means is that the government cannot intervene in affairs that are not constitutionally prescribed. Generally, in the United States at least, this means that the government has no right to legislate morality, be it enforcing traditional values or foisting political correctness on other individuals, and should not get involved in the economy. It also means that on the federal level the government shouldn't do anything that isn't explicitly illustrated in the constitution as part of their domain. This would mean that a lot of the programs that exist today would be unconstitutional at least on the federal level. I have met libertarians that have differing opinions about how large local and state governments should be, but there is large agreement on the proper role of federal government.

And as an aside, liberals in America aren't really liberals. The US has a wonky way of describing political ideologies. American Liberals are actually progressives. And when you get right down to it, in my opinion, both progressivism and conservatism are left leaning ideologies. Left leaning meaning that the farther left you you go the more power governments possess. So far left regimes would be fascists, communists, any totalitarian regime. The farther right you go the less power governments have, i.e anarchy at the far right. I have never understood the idea of economic and social freedoms being separate, in my mind you cannot separate one from the other.

Anarchy is left-wing. Fascism is right-wing. Economic and social freedoms are part of the libertarian-authoritarian scale, while the left-right scale is a measure of egalitarianism vs. tradition.

[Natapoc]

Libertarian was initially (and still is/should be) a term used by the left and anti authoritarians. Many self professed libertarians today have no idea of the historical use of the term before undereducated individuals took control of it and popularized a totally different meaning of the word. http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/libcom.html

Unfortunately now even those who more closely identify with the anti authoritarian left ridicule "Libertarians" not realizing what the term actually means.

[Mediterreania]

Libertarian was initially (and still is/should be) a term used by the left and anti authoritarians. Many self professed libertarians today have no idea of the historical use of the term before undereducated individuals took control of it and popularized a totally different meaning of the word. http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/libcom.html

Unfortunately now even those who more closely identify with the anti authoritarian left ridicule "Libertarians" not realizing what the term actually means.

Libertarian can swing to either side...it can mean a left-libertarian ("libcom") or a right-libertarian ("ancap").

[Conservative Alliances]

Libertarian was initially (and still is/should be) a term used by the left and anti authoritarians. Many self professed libertarians today have no idea of the historical use of the term before undereducated individuals took control of it and popularized a totally different meaning of the word. http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/libcom.html

Unfortunately now even those who more closely identify with the anti authoritarian left ridicule "Libertarians" not realizing what the term actually means.

The term was first coined in 1789 by William Belsham, a Whig, to describe free will. To say libertarianism refers specifically to anarcho-communism because of a 19th century communist that wanted to distinguish himself from mutualists is not very accurate. Libertarianism refers to any type of freedom-based ideology. And remember that the only reason the right uses the term libertarian now is because the left took the term liberal.

[Natapoc]

Libertarian was initially (and still is/should be) a term used by the left and anti authoritarians. Many self professed libertarians today have no idea of the historical use of the term before undereducated individuals took control of it and popularized a totally different meaning of the word. http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/libcom.html

Unfortunately now even those who more closely identify with the anti authoritarian left ridicule "Libertarians" not realizing what the term actually means.

The term was first coined in 1789 by William Belsham, a Whig, to describe free will. To say libertarianism refers specifically to anarcho-communism because of a 19th century communist that wanted to distinguish himself from mutualists is not very accurate. Libertarianism refers to any type of freedom-based ideology. And remember that the only reason the right uses the term libertarian now is because the left took the term liberal.

Did I ever say that libertarianism refers specifically to anarcho-communism? Nope I did not.

You can have liberal back. Actually you have always had it and still do (for certain definitions of you)

[Conservative Alliances]

The term was first coined in 1789 by William Belsham, a Whig, to describe free will. To say libertarianism refers specifically to anarcho-communism because of a 19th century communist that wanted to distinguish himself from mutualists is not very accurate. Libertarianism refers to any type of freedom-based ideology. And remember that the only reason the right uses the term libertarian now is because the left took the term liberal.

Did I ever say that libertarianism refers specifically to anarcho-communism? Nope I did not.

You can have liberal back. Actually you have always had it and still do (for certain definitions of you)

No, not specifically. It was insinuated by this, though:

Libertarian was initially (and still is/should be) a term used by the left and anti authoritarians.

Which describes anarcho-communism, but is not necessarily limited to it.

However, my point still stands. The word libertarian was not initially used by left wing anti-authoritarians. It was used by a Whig to describe free will.

I don't really care for the terms liberal or libertarian. I prefer individualist. I'd like to think there would be less confusion about it.