Libertarianism

[Sharzak]

Are many of you familiar with the U.S.'s "3rd political party?"

Intro paragraph from Wikipedia--
Libertarianism is a term used by a broad spectrum[1] of political philosophies which seek to maximize individual liberty[2] and minimize or even abolish the state.[3][4] Libertarians embrace viewpoints across that spectrum ranging from pro-property to anti-property, from minimal government to openly anarchist.[1][5][6][7] The word libertarian is an antonym of authoritarian.[8]

When you hear historians speak of "classical liberals" such as Adam Smith (the economist who coined the phrase laissez-faireeconomics) the modern day parallel is a Libertarian.
Congressman Ron Paul, a 2008 Republican nominee in the United States Presidential Election, embodies many Libertarian values.

What do you guys think about this party? I'd love to see some discussion going on.

[Purified_Slander]

The Republican Party's founding ideals are based on Classical Liberalism, in which Ron Paul preaches.

TBH: Center-Right is Libertarianism.

[Sharzak]

It's very important to stress that the Republican Party's FOUNDING ideals are based off of Classical Liberalism. They've diverged a bit now. (understatement of the year imo)

As far as center-right being Libertarianism goes... Have you ever heard of the political compass? It's an updated version of the
L------R spectrum and looks like this:

A(uthoritarian)
|
|
|
|
L------------------R
|
|
|
|
L(ibertarianism)
I've found it's much more useful than the old left---right model.

[Sharzak]

The vertical line to the left is supposed to be in the middle. Damn formatting.

[jankren]

Im a big fan of David Boaz.

[Dr. Croccer]

Libertarianism is essentially a moderate form of anarchism or an extreme form of liberalism, depending on how you like.

[jankren]

Libertarianism is essentially a moderate form of anarchism or an extreme form of liberalism, depending on how you like.

I used to think the same until I read "Libertarianism: A Primer" by David Boaz. Go check it out maybe it is available online.

[Helm]

Easier to post that. Libertarian and left seems like a contradiction but it's really the freedom of society as a whole and not so much the freedom of the individual. Also with the left you have positive liberty and "freedom to" something while with the right it's negative liberty and "freedom from" something.

[Giuliano Taverna]

Too familiar for my taste, its a nice theory like socialism. But its totally impossible in the real world.

[jankren]

Too familiar for my taste, its a nice theory like socialism. But its totally impossible in the real world.

Libertarianism isnt Anarchism. Anarchism is impossible.

[Dr. Croccer]

Libertarianism isnt Anarchism. Anarchism is impossible.

Libertarianism is equally infeasible. It's mostly intended for economic, rather than political, freedom. It tries to achieve a bigger free market but as history dictates, a completely free market is never truly free. At first it is free for all, with many entrepeneurs climbing to the top but after a few decades, the wealthiest of these form monopolies over entire industries and deny new entrepeneurs a chance. They also start to involve themselves in politics. This happened in the United Provinces, Industrial Belgium and the US in the Gilded Age. It's predictable, unethical and has no real use.

[jankren]

Libertarianism is equally infeasible. It's mostly intended for economic, rather than political, freedom. It tries to achieve a bigger free market but as history dictates, a completely free market is never truly free. At first it is free for all, with many entrepeneurs climbing to the top but after a few decades, the wealthiest of these form monopolies over entire industries and deny new entrepeneurs a chance. They also start to involve themselves in politics. This happened in the United Provinces, Industrial Belgium and the US in the Gilded Age. It's predictable, unethical and has no real use.

Everything that is done to the xtreme is bad. Im not promoting market anarchy. There has to be BASIC rules to the game so to speak such as merger policy. Though in my personal opinion a company which cannot stand by itself and survive shouldnt exist in the first place.

By the way, the Gilded Age was a great period in American History.

[Denny Crane!]

Libertarianism isnt Anarchism. Anarchism is impossible.

Why? Because you say so?

Everything that is done to the xtreme is bad. Im not promoting market anarchy. There has to be BASIC rules to the game so to speak such as merger policy. Though in my personal opinion a company which cannot stand by itself and survive shouldnt exist in the first place.

By the way, the Gilded Age was a great period in American History.

No sensible anarchist advocates society without controls, people who usually espouse such are either idiot anarchists or idiots arguing against anarchism. There are so many different sides to anarchism in its theories it is actually more than passing ridiculous to try and argue against ''anarchism'' I mean just what the hell is that reffering to when looking at all the different ideas it encompasses.

[Giuliano Taverna]

Libertarianism isnt Anarchism. Anarchism is impossible.

I'm well aware of that, but libertarianism is also impossible. Libertarians appose central banking, economic regulations, and a number of public services. All of these things are vital parts of a modern state. If you remove them, it will be a disaster.

Without a central bank, the currency would be unstable, and there would be bank runs and panics.

Without economic regulation, consumers and workers would be forced to endure the conditions of the "gilded age" which was anything but golden despite what the revisionists will claim.

Without vital services, you would have riots in the streets, and risk a socialist revolution, which is why they were instated during the great depression.

But, anyone with an internet connection can be lead to believe libertarianism could work, when they are fed the right mix of revisionist history, propaganda, and told its the "truth."

[jankren]

I'm well aware of that, but libertarianism is also impossible. Libertarians appose central banking, economic regulations, and a number of public services. All of these things are vital parts of a modern state. If you remove them, it will be a disaster.

Without a central bank, the currency would be unstable, and there would be bank runs and panics.

Without economic regulation, consumers and workers would be forced to endure the conditions of the "gilded age" which was anything but golden despite what the revisionists will claim.

Without vital services, you would have riots in the streets, and risk a socialist revolution, which is why they were instated during the great depression.

But, anyone with an internet connection can be lead to believe libertarianism could work, when they are fed the right mix of revisionist history, propaganda, and told its the "truth."

What you are saying are true. However, no ideology will ever work in reality in its pure form.

All Im saying is that a country which is inclined toward libertarianism progresses way faster than the one that is inclined toward socialism. Even no matter how horrendous the Gilded Age was socially but economically and technologically it was a great period of American History. Maybe the problem during that time was that it was 'too free'. Thats why Im saying the government needs to have some power to provide basic rules to the game as opposed to 'purist' libertarians who want the government to have near zero power whatsoever.

[Phier]

What you are saying are true. However, no ideology will ever work in reality in its pure form.

Exactly

I don't think many libertarians are looking for the dot to be on the (10, -10) coordinates on the XY plane, most of us would be quite happy with something in the (7 to 8, -5) range.

[2-D Ron]

I'm well aware of that, but libertarianism is also impossible. Libertarians appose central banking, economic regulations, and a number of public services. All of these things are vital parts of a modern state. If you remove them, it will be a disaster.

Without a central bank, the currency would be unstable, and there would be bank runs and panics.

Without economic regulation, consumers and workers would be forced to endure the conditions of the "gilded age" which was anything but golden despite what the revisionists will claim.

Without vital services, you would have riots in the streets, and risk a socialist revolution, which is why they were instated during the great depression.

But, anyone with an internet connection can be lead to believe libertarianism could work, when they are fed the right mix of revisionist history, propaganda, and told its the "truth."

Truth is what makes a person feel warm and fuzzy inside, isn't always the truth for another.

But Capitalism being the only system we have that works, that can cope with the needs of the Human Mind in terms of making people work for what they need rather than giving things to people for free we have to see the bugs in the system it creates.
Every Political system has it's strengths in a particular demand to Human Society and weaknesses in another.
For example, you could get things done more quickly in a Dictatorship but the cons are power corrupts and in most examples in our History it has. Socialism is a noble concept but a World without Currency, Humans would lose the use to work and I can't see something like that happening without Chaos.. Yet regulating Businesses brings greater protection to people, that's the only Part of Socialism I like.
Libertarianism when it comes to the Economy would be horrible, giving companies free reign to do what they like with no regulation in place to protect the consumer from those with the money and influence to abuse the system and Society.
Money is the main source of our Prosperity but it can also be what causes our downfall as a prosperous Country/Society.
Libertarianism is another noble idea that just doesn't take into account the flaws we have as a species.

[Phier]

As I've said before the concept of a libertarian left is flawed.

There is no libertarian left. Economic freedom is a cornerstone of libertarianism, saying you can smoke pot and bugger your neighbor but we are going to tax you up the wazzu and regulate your business to the point of frustration is a social democrat.

This is why libertarians tend to vote with the republicans. Despite the rhetoric there is very little social difference between the republicans and the democrats, but a good deal of economic freedom lost with the democrats.

[Justice and Mercy]

As I've said before the concept of a libertarian left is flawed.

There is no libertarian left. Economic freedom is a cornerstone of libertarianism, saying you can smoke pot and bugger your neighbor but we are going to tax you up the wazzu and regulate your business to the point of frustration is a social democrat.

This is why libertarians tend to vote with the republicans. Despite the rhetoric there is very little social difference between the republicans and the democrats, but a good deal of economic freedom lost with the democrats.

The "libertarian" left can't be libertarian because they don't recognize people's ownership of anything. If you produce something, it's everyone's. That's not freedom, it's complete control.

[Bovril]

The "libertarian" left can't be libertarian because they don't recognize people's ownership of anything. If you produce something, it's everyone's. That's not freedom, it's complete control.

Read Kropotkin on the matrix of production. Seriously, it may just disabuse you of the idea that an individual creates anything independently. The theme runs throughout his work, but 'The Conquest Of Bread' is a good starting point.

Besides, ownership is commonly espoused by the libertarian left. Proudhon distinguished property and possesions for this very purpose. Chomsky espouses 'as much private property as possible without reducing economic democracy' (I paraphrase). In the poetic vein, Goldman campaigned for "everyone's right to beautifull things" to own. What libertarian socialists do not recognise is the institutional control of the means of production by anyone other than producers, including governments. It is control rather than ownership that libertarian socialists have a problem with. The distinction is vital because it takes into account the expropriation of the fruits of labour by the brutal and the privilaged.