Liberal v. Libertarian

[epicor]

OK, so i know a lot of you subscribe to the liberatarian movement. Problem is im not 100% clear on the difference between a liberal and a libertarian. Can you guys point me in the right direction. I would hate to check wikipedia and get false info on something that is clearly important to a lot of you guys.

Is this something that is a grass roots effort or is there going to be a libertarian section on the 2012 ballet?

I'm polical newbsauce so help me get my feet wet.

[stalwart]

there's a libertarian in most national elections.

while i don't necessarily like using broad terms like "liberal" or "libertarian" because of the connotations attached, meh.

a liberal is someone that prefers social reform and typically claims to have a more open view of options. they typically like things like welfare and nanny governments.

a libertarian is someone who only wants liberty. "give me my fucking freedoms" would be a good motto. they typically hate liberals because they don't want the government in their lives at all. lower taxes, less laws, more rights, smaller government in general. a libertarian would say that the government exists only to protect our rights.

[Dwhap]

The only difference between them are the last six letters.

[Arkh]

Start your search with wikipedia.

[grateful_dead]

libertarians social policy is liberal and economic policy is conservative.

[Aragoni]

Are you North American or European or..?

This is important since Americans has somehow twisted Liberal(ism) to some kind of Frankenstein's monster.

[epicor]

Start your search with wikipedia.

l2rplzktybai :sly:
im american

[Elemancer]

OK, so i know a lot of you subscribe to the liberatarian movement. Problem is im not 100% clear on the difference between a liberal and a libertarian. Can you guys point me in the right direction. I would hate to check wikipedia and get false info on something that is clearly important to a lot of you guys.

Is this something that is a grass roots effort or is there going to be a libertarian section on the 2012 ballet?

I'm polical newbsauce so help me get my feet wet.

American liberalism is a perversion of classical liberalism. Classical liberalism is synonymous with libertarianism. I would google friedman, hospers, and Brown to get a good idea in the foundation of libertarians and classical liberalism.

[stalwart]

libertarians social policy is liberal and economic policy is conservative.

a liberal social policy? no fucking way. that's way off base.

any self-respecting libertarian should have no "social policy." instead, they should tell you to mind your own fucking business.

[Elemancer]

The only difference between them are the last six letters.

WARNING: BUSHBOBOT ARMED!

[Arkh]

Libertarian :
http://bastiat.org/en/government.html
http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html
http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html

[Elemancer]

a liberal social policy? no fucking way. that's way off base.

any self-respecting libertarian should have no "social policy." instead, they should tell you to mind your own fucking business.

I'm glad I'm not the only one that hates the simpleton response given by most people. The problem with a libertarian ideology is it is complex and long forgotten.

[stalwart]

I'm glad I'm not the only one that hates the simpleton response given by most people. The problem with a libertarian ideology is it is complex and long forgotten.


bah. bollucks. a libertarian's ideology is pretty simple for me. you do whatever you want, and you accept 100% of the consequences, be them good or bad.

accept the social contract you make with a government and perform your side. at best, however, the government exists only to protect your freedoms. life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are the main concerns of the government. not my child's education, what immunizations my dog has, if my grandmother gets her meds, any of that. that's all my business. and i will accept the consequences of my dog getting rabies and biting the neighbor (whatever the court decides those are).

[grateful_dead]

a liberal social policy? no fucking way. that's way off base.

any self-respecting libertarian should have no "social policy." instead, they should tell you to mind your own fucking business.

no i mean't in terms of freedom. except gun rights, smoking and the harmful stuff, and a few other fuck ups liberalism use to promote individual rights. sorry if the wording was bad.

[-Havoc-]

The United States was founded on libertarian ideals. It didn't last forever, new people get into office with their own interests, others are manipulated and corrupted. Nothing lasts forever, it's a cycle.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson

no i mean't in terms of freedom. except gun rights, smoking and the harmful stuff, and a few other fuck ups liberalism use to promote individual rights. sorry if the wording was bad.

The best thing to do is to educate them, the rest is up to them. Saying otherwise is to imply that you have a higher claim to their life than they do.

[Elemancer]

bah. bollucks. a libertarian's ideology is pretty simple for me. you do whatever you want, and you accept 100% of the consequences, be them good or bad.

You have to think of it in terms of someone who's solely been educated under a system through which they are ruled. People tend not to make the distinction between their own government and personal philosophies...which is exactly why neocons are rarely friends with liberals...and neocons have this uncanny ability to only see libertarians as liberals even though libertarians agree with neocons more than liberals.

Same is true vice versa.

[wowsa0]

there's a libertarian in most national elections.

while i don't necessarily like using broad terms like "liberal" or "libertarian" because of the connotations attached, meh.

a liberal is someone that prefers social reform and typically claims to have a more open view of options. they typically like things like welfare and nanny governments.

a libertarian is someone who only wants liberty. "give me my fucking freedoms" would be a good motto. they typically hate liberals because they don't want the government in their lives at all. lower taxes, less laws, more rights, smaller government in general. a libertarian would say that the government exists only to protect our rights.

This is from a libertarian btw in case you couldn't tell. This is pretty biased. I would call myself a liberal but I wouldn't associate myself with the so called "nanny state". I am opposed to internet censorship and censorship in general (as most liberals are), I am against compulsory ID cards and excessive use of big brother style CCTV cameras intruding on privacy. People who call themselves liberals and people who call themselves libertarian typically both believe in the value of social freedoms, but liberals tend to be quite left wing while libertarians are very right wing. Liberals want high taxes and libertarians want low taxes. Although both believe in the value of social freedom Libertarians are in favour of economic freedom. Labels describing political views tend to be very vague and wrongly used, but that is my sum up of the differences.

[epicor]

bah. bollucks. a libertarian's ideology is pretty simple for me. you do whatever you want, and you accept 100% of the consequences, be them good or bad.

But if the libertarian idealogy presses as small a government footprint as possible (as it seems is the case) who is deciding the consequences? :confused:

[-Havoc-]

But if the libertarian idealogy presses as small a government footprint as possible (as it seems is the case) who is deciding the consequences? :confused:

The state.

[grateful_dead]

But if the libertarian idealogy presses as small a government footprint as possible (as it seems is the case) who is deciding the consequences? :confused:

society would, would it not? since killing and stealing is looked down upon in society, wouldn't society punish them?

[Jangang]

But if the libertarian idealogy presses as small a government footprint as possible (as it seems is the case) who is deciding the consequences? :confused:

Unless what your doing hurts someone else, or impacts their rights the only consequences should be social, not legal.

[wowsa0]

I live in the UK and what I think of as a liberal (based on our liberal party) seems to be very different to the conceptions of the american users. For just one example, our government tried to introduce compulsory ID cards and the main parties were in favour whereas the liberal party leader claimed that if they were made compulsory he would refuse to own one.

[Surly]

As with any political terms, these are very subjective. I'll tell you what they are in American nomenclature, though:

Libertarianism is generally the idea of self-government as opposed to a government that is separate from the people, and is the ideal that one is free to do whatever he wishes unless his wishes interfere with the ability of another to do whatever he wishes. This is also known as "Classic Liberalism", which is what "Liberalism" was prior to circa 1950 in the US. During the late 40s and through the 50s the "liberal" movement, and consequently the Democrat party, changed dramatically from a then-liberal movement to "Classic Conservatism" movement supporting state and federal affairs. Democrats, almost entirely "Southern Democrats" (as the Democrat party was, almost exclusively, since the Civil War), themselves began to shift away from the Democratic Party as its policies drifted away from liberalism and into conservatism... with the mass exodus of liberals from the Democrat party into the Republican party, the reverse happened in the Republican party where then-conservatives repopulated the Democrat party in elections, and the voter bases almost uniformly flipped over the course of a decade.

In modern times, governmental support and expansion of federalism (into socialism/collectivism/whatever you want to call it) are "liberal" views, while modern conservatism is purportedly the opposition of this. However, with the new conservatives (the literal meaning of "Neo-Con") the Republican party, and a great deal of conservatism, has leaned very heavily on governmental expansion, supporting most of the same agendas of modern liberalism. The key difference between a "neo-con" and a "liberal" contemporarily is kind of hard to pinpoint since there isn't any major difference.

The word "liberal", itself, means some one who supports progress and reform in government, while "conservative" means preservation of the current or past states of affairs. There is no inherent ideology attributed with the words, themselves. For instance... a communist in America is a liberal, while a communist in Russia would be a conservative.

Economic and Social issues also frequently have "liberal" and "conservative" counterparts. Social liberalism refers to the preservation of liberty, while social conservatism refers to the control of society and behavior. Economic liberalism refers to laissez-faire capitalism, while economic conservatism refers to state-controlled markets (important note: the use of the word "liberal" and "conservative" when referring to economic issues is reversed in the US).

So while "Classic Liberalism" refers to individual social liberalism, as well as laissez-faire economics, "Neo-Liberalism" refers to individual social conservatism, and state-controlled economics, while "Neo-Conservatism" also refers to individual social conservatism, and state-controlled economics. The use of the words liberal and conservative in US politics and media have truly been bastardized... as you can see, it's convoluted, ambiguous, and entirely outdated.

If you really don't give a fuck about all of that you can summarize it in American politics as follows:
Liberals = Democrats, Conservatives = Republicans.

But these are very much misnomers. American libertarianism, however, refers to the classic sense of economic and social liberalism.

Edit: To summarize, libertarianism == classic liberalism.

[epicor]

I live in the UK and what I think of as a liberal (based on our liberal party) seems to be very different to the conceptions of the american users. For just one example, our government tried to introduce compulsory ID cards and the main parties were in favour whereas the liberal party leader claimed that if they were made compulsory he would refuse to own one.

So would I. America is a place where you shouldnt have to have papers readily available. Excpet in the case of driving where its there for good reason. So that just kinda got piggy backed with ID stuff. But that doesnt really bother me. In UK you guys dont carry drivers licences?

[Tharkon Fargor]

Liberalism is a term used for many political systems.
Most current day liberals and the founders of the liberal movement (such as those in France during the first revolution) belived in liberty, equality and fraternity.
Liberalism seeks to establish a rule in where government follows the simple principle of "the maximal good for the maximal amount of people".

There are also other liberal movements that concentrate primarily on the "liberty" part.
Neoliberalism and "classic liberalism" are among these. These systems envision a world in where government exists to protect its citizens and where private business should do everything ellse. The difference from classic liberalism and libertarianism is that libertarianism is more extreme. In a classic liberal society the government may impose restrictions on business. For example not permitting fraud.

Libertarians on the other hand belive that as long as no force was used fraud is not illegal.

[wowsa0]

As with any political terms, these are very subjective. I'll tell you what they are in American nomenclature, though:

Libertarianism is generally the idea of self-government as opposed to a government that is separate from the people, and is the ideal that one is free to do whatever he wishes unless his wishes interfere with the ability of another to do whatever he wishes. This is also known as "Classic Liberalism", which is what "Liberalism" was prior to circa 1950 in the US. During the late 40s and through the 50s the "liberal" movement, and consequently the Democrat party, changed dramatically from a then-liberal movement to "Classic Conservatism" movement supporting state and federal affairs. Democrats, almost entirely "Southern Democrats" (as the Democrat party was, almost exclusively, since the Civil War), themselves began to shift away from the Democratic Party as its policies drifted away from liberalism and into conservatism... with the mass exodus of liberals from the Democrat party into the Republican party, the reverse happened in the Republican party where then-conservatives repopulated the Democrat party in elections, and the voter bases almost uniformly flipped over the course of a decade.

In modern times, governmental support and expansion of federalism (into socialism/collectivism/whatever you want to call it) are "liberal" views, while modern conservatism is purportedly the opposition of this. However, with the new conservatives (the literal meaning of "Neo-Con") the Republican party, and a great deal of conservatism, has leaned very heavily on governmental expansion, supporting most of the same agendas of modern liberalism. The key difference between a "neo-con" and a "liberal" contemporarily is kind of hard to pinpoint since there isn't any major difference.

The word "liberal", itself, means some one who supports progress and reform in government, while "conservative" means preservation of the current or past states of affairs. There is no inherent ideology attributed with the words, themselves. For instance... a communist in America is a liberal, while a communist in Russia would be a conservative.

Economic and Social issues also frequently have "liberal" and "conservative" counterparts. Social liberalism refers to the preservation of liberty, while social conservatism refers to the control of society and behavior. Economic liberalism refers to laissez-faire capitalism, while economic conservatism refers to state-controlled markets (important note: the use of the word "liberal" and "conservative" when referring to economic issues is reversed in the US).

So while "Classic Liberalism" refers to individual social liberalism, as well as laissez-faire economics, "Neo-Liberalism" refers to individual social conservatism, and state-controlled economics, while "Neo-Conservatism" also refers to individual social conservatism, and state-controlled economics. The use of the words liberal and conservative in US politics and media have truly been bastardized... as you can see, it's convoluted, ambiguous, and entirely outdated.

If you really don't give a fuck about all of that you can summarize it in American politics as follows:
Liberals = Democrats, Conservatives = Republicans.

But these are very much misnomers. American libertarianism, however, refers to the classic sense of economic and social liberalism.

Edit: To summarize, libertarianism == classic liberalism.

:eek:

[Surly]

Libertarians on the other hand belive that as long as no force was used fraud is not illegal.
lol wut?

[Tharkon Fargor]

lol wut?

ya, read up on it.
That's why even the far most "free-market" people in Europe are classic liberals. Nobody is dumb enough to be a pure libertarian

[epicor]

Ok, let me get a bit more specific on some hot-button issues and you guys can tell me what your views on it are, but ill start.

Taxes: IMO i dont mind paying slightly higher taxes if i see a return on it. I hate that it is being used to 'reform' on a county that , in general, doesnt want us there.

Domestic Security: Protect our borders but GTFO my internetz. Gov has ZERO rights to listen in on anything we do. PERIOD.

Censorship: GTFO my TV too. If i dont wanna watch something, or my kids to watch something ill change the damned channel or block it. You have no right to tell me that i cant listen to swear words on tv if i want to.

Education: Give more than the prescripted elements. Allow the teachers to inject themselves into the job weather it be christians, artists, liberals, whatever. They will enjoy the job more, the kids will get more out of it and we will have a wider variety of adult minds.

Welfare: I dont mind giving somone a helping hand. But if you cant get a job after 6mo, gtfo imo. ANYONE can get a job in 6mo. Unless there is a special circumstance (ie disabled etc).

Abortion: I believe in life at conception, but there are circumstances where i see the need for abortion. Noone wants to raise a crackhead rape baby. But leaving it completely open to the public means 0 consequences to teenage promescuity.

[Daccus]

Libertarians on the other hand belive that as long as no force was used fraud is not illegal.

lol, I call bullshit.

[Spineless_DoO]

The real debate is Constitutionalist vs globalist. Fancy labels on ideals dont change anything. Its best to get to the bottom line and start from that point.

[Tharkon Fargor]

The real debate is Constitutionalist vs globalist. Fancy labels on ideals dont change anything. Its best to get to the bottom line and start from that point.

That's also true to a degree. The liberal world view has been corrupted in the way that it belives in a society governed by the few in a global government than instead of the many in local community governments that libertarians often ask for.

But this is only due to the massive corporate influence that has been attracted to the more mainstream ideology of classic liberalism than to the more extreme libertarian. If Libertarianism would ever become mainstream rest assure that corporate influence would bribe the libertarian parties leaders to. One way or the other.

[Oiparn]

The classical use of the terms "Liberal" and "Conservative" apply to the governmental capabilites that an individual espouses. A "Liberal" wants the government to control more aspects of its citizen's lives (i.e.: A big government with liberal government abilities), while a "Conservative" wants a government with more limited abilities (i.e.: A small government with conservative government capabilities).

These terms have been hijacked here in America. A "Liberal" now means someone with broad moralistic views (usually a democrat) and a "Conservative" means someone with more strict moralistic views (usually a republican). Currently in America both of these sides are pushing for more governmental control and for growing the government larger.

Enter the "Libertarian". An American "Libertarian" is a true "conservative" in the classical sense of the word (wanting a limited and small government). However, Libertarians are also "liberal" in the moralistic sense of the term as we believe that individual freedom is paramount over any perceived group moralities. To steal a new age slogan "If it harms none, do what you will".

In short: Liberals want big government to ensure their freedom. Libertarians want to ensure their freedom from big government.

[Tharkon Fargor]

You're incorrect about the very least conservatism from an ideological point of view.
Conservatism is at least here in Europe (and has always been) a quite large government protectinv values, family life and the poor while at the same time distancing itself from socialism, fascism and to a certain degree even free market liberalism.

Thus the term later "Liberal Conservative". People who are liberal conservatives are people who belive in a free market system but also want morals and values to take alot of place in society and be encouraged by government.

This is not only what has always been in Europe but also what is true according to the history books and the development of ideologies.





EDIT:
On an other not I belive (definetly do not know) that conservatism has become a sort of lighter version of Libertarianism because it is associated with "conservative measures, conservative spendings" in the sense that less is spent/done. Not from a strict ideological pont of view.

[Barbarossa]

Start your search with wikipedia.

Yes and check youtube as well.

Both are veritable cornucopias of true and factual information. :bang:

[Aragoni]

Surly is writing... Expect to get your asses handed to you.

[kordoyn]

Yes and check youtube as well.

Both are veritable cornucopias of true and factual information. :bang:

I thought this was the be all, end all of facts and truth.

http://encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/Main_Page

[Barbarossa]

Surly is writing... Expect to get your asses handed to you.


Not worried. My extremely sarcastic post was directed to the mildly retarded frenchoid, not to the OP.

[kordoyn]

Surly is writing... Expect to get your asses handed to you.

Surly doesn't write, he thinks his words onto the screen. Much like Matriel shoots his keyboard one letter at a time.

[Daccus]

Not worried. My extremely sarcastic post was directed to the mildly retarded frenchoid, not to the OP.

Fro?

[Incanam]

The way I learned it in the (so claimed) twisted American Education system is that liberal wants change while conservative wants preservation. I realize liberal has the same base as liberty and conservative the same as conserve (which in can mean more controlled in a way) so I gues the other definitons given here fit as well, but when I call someone a liberal or conservative, I generally mean it in the sense I learned. Then theres reactionar (extreme conservative, wants to revert to a previous time) and radical (extreme liberal, wants change immediately). Meh, it's generally better to stay away from labels like these, because as someone else said, they have connotations to them.

[Surly]

Ok, let me get a bit more specific on some hot-button issues and you guys can tell me what your views on it are, but ill start.

Taxes: IMO i dont mind paying slightly higher taxes if i see a return on it. I hate that it is being used to 'reform' on a county that , in general, doesnt want us there.That's a libertarian platform. It is fiscally "conservative" (classic liberal, laissez-faire). USA-specific libertarianism is supportive of the constitutional republic that we are supposed to have, and would argue that the federal government should not collect taxes beyond excises, tariffs and the like. The more localized the taxation, the more guarantee that it is spent on the people who paid the money, and for things that they themselves want and voluntarily pay the taxes to get.

Domestic Security: Protect our borders but GTFO my internetz. Gov has ZERO rights to listen in on anything we do. PERIOD.Well, Ron Paul is probably the most popular embodiment of libertarianism in modern politics and he says exactly that. Protect the sovereignty of the nation by securing its borders and respecting those borders, but leave the internet the bloody fucking hell alone... hands off.

Libertarianism in America is split on the border security issue though, they swing both way. The Libertarian Party is even split, but generally tend towards more open policies. Police and secure the border, don't ignore the laws we have, but drastically loosen immigration policy so people can get here legally.

Censorship: GTFO my TV too. If i dont wanna watch something, or my kids to watch something ill change the damned channel or block it. You have no right to tell me that i cant listen to swear words on tv if i want to.lol, libertarianism is uniformly against any and all censorship. This is social "liberalism".

Education: Give more than the prescripted elements. Allow the teachers to inject themselves into the job weather it be christians, artists, liberals, whatever. They will enjoy the job more, the kids will get more out of it and we will have a wider variety of adult minds.Libertarianism is in favor of privatizing schools, so you can take your pick from that. Some libertarians, I'm sure, don't mind state or locally funded schools, but I don't think many libertarians are in favor of the Department of the Education, if any at all.

I'm not sure what you're advocating. If you're wanting the government to force schools to adhere to government-sanctioned curriculum (like they have now), but you just want it to be opened up a little more, then that's probably still socially conservative - the government deciding what you can and can't learn in school.

Welfare: I dont mind giving somone a helping hand. But if you cant get a job after 6mo, gtfo imo. ANYONE can get a job in 6mo. Unless there is a special circumstance (ie disabled etc).Any and all welfare is socially conservative and economically conservative (classic terms - in US politics it's described both ways but usually economically liberal (loose) and socially liberal). Libertarianism would generally be in favor of the disestablishment of federal welfare in favor of state and local welfare, so that the local populations are in control of it rather than a bureaucracy.

Abortion: I believe in life at conception, but there are circumstances where i see the need for abortion. Noone wants to raise a crackhead rape baby. But leaving it completely open to the public means 0 consequences to teenage promescuity.That political philosophy is not really liberal or conservative since it's not a definite stance. Roe v. Wade concluded that a child's life is federally protected as soon as it exists, and that there is no definition of when life begins federally. It also ruled that a government cannot prohibit abortion if the abortion will save the mother's life. Defining life, congressionally, at conception would return us exactly to the situation we had prior to the decision: the States decide.

Libertarians are pretty split on this issue in my experience, but all generally favor localized solutions. Some may be pro-choice, or pro-life, but the majority consensus of libertarianism is to localize the decision making. The more complicated the problem, the more close to home the decision should be made.

[Barbarossa]

Fro?
No, Arkh.

He actually admits to being a frenchoid.

[Surly]

Much like Matriel shoots his keyboard one letter at a time.
lol, that gave me quite the amusing mental image.

[Arkh]

Yes and check youtube as well.

Both are veritable cornucopias of true and factual information. :bang:
The key word is "start".
The wikipedia articles have a lot of links at the page footer when dealing with political ones. And these links get you to pages where there are other links to other info sources. That's the web, if you have more than 2s attention span you can learn a lot of thing.

[Barbarossa]

The key word is "start".
The wikipedia articles have a lot of links at the page footer when dealing with political ones. And these links get you to pages where there are other links to other info sources. That's the web, if you have more than 2s attention span you can learn a lot of thing.

wiki is about as useful as tits on a bull, an elevator on a ranch style house or a screen door on a submarine.

Lay off the wine, Pierre, it's dulling your sensibilities.

[Arkh]

wiki is about as useful as tits on a bull, an elevator on a ranch style house or a screen door on a submarine.

Lay off the wine, Pierre, it's dulling your sensibilities.
Besides your sig, you didn't had anything useful regarding how to get info about the difference between liberals and libertarians.
Could you enlighten us with some good links ?

[stalwart]

libertarian philosophy made simple: I can spend my money much more effectively than the government can.

explanation: when i pay taxes, it goes through several agencies. each of which has an overhead that they take. it's like sitting at a baseball game and everyone takes a "toll sip" off my beer as they hand it down until i get nothing. i'd rather bring my own cooler full of beer.

also, i'd rather not pay for hobos in kansas. i'm a big fan (as are most libertarians) of the idea that "the more difficult the problem, the more localized the solution." states actually have the constitutional right to become as communistic as they so desire. if you want welfare, do it on the state level, not the federal government. dear lord, please not the federal government. it'll just be like how they are fucking up education.

[Someone]

A libertarian is someone who only wants liberty. "give me my fucking freedoms" would be a good motto. they typically hate liberals because they don't want the government in their lives at all. lower taxes, less laws, more rights, smaller government in general. a libertarian would say that the government exists only to protect our rights.

That's funny, your description of a Libertarian is what's considered a liberal over here, crazy world. The impression I got of Libertarian opinions from here are more along the lines of the government is oppressing all our rights by their mere existance and as soon as the governments are good all will be well and nobody will be ill, aside from those who deserve it since they failed being awesome successes.

[Barbarossa]

Besides your sig, you didn't had anything useful regarding how to get info about the difference between liberals and libertarians.
Could you enlighten us with some good links ?

I provided something useful, I let you know what a steaming turd wiki is.

Most of us know wiki is shit and now, so do you.

If that ain't useful I don't know what is...

[stalwart]

That's funny, your description of a Libertarian is what's considered a liberal over here, crazy world. The impression I got of Libertarian opinions from here are more along the lines of the government is oppressing all our rights by their mere existance and as soon as the governments are good all will be well and nobody will be ill, aside from those who deserve it since they failed being awesome successes.

no. everyone has the same rights. and everyone assumes the responsibility for themselves.

it amazes me how people try to dodge that. you are ultimately responsible for yourself anyway, no matter what the government tries to do or what laws are in place. i don't see why we don't just quit beating around the bush and put it into law like that.

[Malhavok]

From what I can tell the official libertarian party is actually not at all libertarian. It seems to be composed entirely of those disenfranchised with the GOP because it isn't fascist enough. Bob Barr, ultra-right wing GOP lap dog turned ultra-right wing flip flopper, will be heading up the party for 2008. About the only common ground I can find with the libertarian party is that they have a track record for advocating for fiscal responsibility, limited government, and free-trade including open borders. Bob Barr's record happens to be completely opposite of that which is confusing.

Liberal has two definitions
1) GOP definition = leftist-democrat and destroyer of the moral fundamentalist Christian fabric of society.
2) Someone who believes in limited government and personal freedoms.

Libertarian can mean many things. Chief among them is being a strong liberal. In the limited government and personal freedom sense of the word.

[Someone]

no. everyone has the same rights. and everyone assumes the responsibility for themselves.

it amazes me how people try to dodge that. you are ultimately responsible for yourself anyway, no matter what the government tries to do or what laws are in place. i don't see why we don't just quit beating around the bush and put it into law like that.

Because people like believing in pretty lies, I sometimes wonder how it came to be that I'm a liberal (in the old ways, similar to the thoughts behind the French revolution) and at the same time an extreme cynic who thinks mankind should just exterminate itself. Still the same rights are no rights, well except for the right to eventually die but not many people like that one.

[reece]

this is an interesting thread. really!

if only the thread about anarchy wouldve been 1/10 that good. sigh

[Gabo]

I am sure that many people have different ideas about what Libertarianism is.
I'll give you my view on it, which I hope helps define what Libertarians believe.


The underlying principle of Libertarianism is that everybody has self-ownership.
We exist in the past, present, and future.
These time periods manifest themselves as property, liberty, and life.

To take one's life is to take their future.
To take one's liberty is to take their present.
To take one's property is to take the part of the past they used to earn that property.


In a libertarian society, there really only need be two laws.
1) Do not take another person's life, liberty, or property.
2) Do what you say.


The second law revolves primarily around property and the transfer of it.
When someone makes a promise, agreement, or contract, they trade property.
All parties must agree, in order to be sure that nobody's property is being taken.
When any party falls back on their agreement, they are essentially interfering with other people's property.


One previous post mentioned that libertarians do not oppose fraud.
I would point out that fraud arises when someone selling a product or service promises something and then fails to deliver. This is a breach of contract, and the 2nd rule.

[Entreri]

The difference between them is where you are born, who your parents are and who your peers are. That is pretty much the difference between all political ideologies, with the occasional free thinker.

Every other reason someone comes up with is just post justification of their irrational bias.

[Lindorn]

Someone who believes in limited government and personal freedoms.

No one in the United States takes liberal to mean anything related to limited government. You are on crack if you think otherwise.

[Incanam]

The difference between them is where you are born, who your parents are and who your peers are. That is pretty much the difference between all political ideologies, with the occasional free thinker.

Every other reason someone comes up with is just post justification of their irrational bias.

Are you saying the only people who are free thinkers are those who go against where they are born, who their parents are, and who their peers are? What's your definition of a free thinker anyway?

[Lethn]

No one in the United States takes liberal to mean anything related to limited government. You are on crack if you think otherwise.

*coughs* Neo-con!

Seriously though for fucks sake, look up what liberal means, I mean it, you ever think that the word 'liberty' and 'liberal' might be a bit similar to each other? If you don't then I seriously worry for some of you lot oh and I'm not pointing at you by the way Lindorn you seem to undersand what liberal actually means.

[Jangang]

*coughs* Neo-con!

Seriously though for fucks sake, look up what liberal means, I mean it, you ever think that the word 'liberty' and 'liberal' might be a bit similar to each other? If you don't then I seriously worry for some of you lot oh and I'm not pointing at you by the way Lindorn you seem to undersand what liberal actually means.

One could do that... If one then decided to use that definition they'd be voting for people who don't do the term justice...

So if you want to actually go off what it means, not what it should mean you won't bother...

[Titus Ultor]

The difference between them is where you are born, who your parents are and who your peers are. That is pretty much the difference between all political ideologies, with the occasional free thinker.

Every other reason someone comes up with is just post justification of their irrational bias.

There's some truth to this, but in the United States, at least, political and religious opinions do tend to changed from generation to generation and aren't particularly fixed.

[fCo_Pancho]

Libertarians are Republicans who smoke pot.

[Gaal]

I guess now I know why people don't like liberals. I always thought liberalism was the "classical" Liberalism in the U.S. but apparently I was wrong.

Furthermore I now know what politcal party I'm "in", the libertarian party.
Thanks Forumfall!

[Jangang]

Libertarians are Republicans who smoke pot.

Hehe, often times yeah. Though there are actual political differences as well.

[alfaroverall]

Though stalwart's description isn't bad (I've only read about 5 of this thread's posts), here's the general idea that I have:
Liberals are those that, while not socialist, favor a bigger government, higher taxes, and sometimes more invasion of privacy and stricter laws (gun laws are a major example of this). They also are socially liberal, i.e. advocate social and personal freedoms (supposedly anyway) such as abortion rights. They're generally somewhat moderate but are on the left side of the spectrum.

How exactly liberal got to be what it means now after formerly meaning pretty much just "favoring a strong legislative branch and opposing monarchy" is beyond me.

Libertarians are entirely different, albeit not exactly opposite. They favor a very small government (in some ways you might say that libertarianism is like the intermediate period to utopian anarchy, like socialism is to utopian communism). They very strongly favor a small government with small spending, although (in the US anyway) they might not decrease taxes, because they generally seek to end the annual deficit and run a balanced national budget. They are not really on the 1-dimensional political spectrum because they are socially liberal (more so than "liberals" usually) but fiscally conservative, but they are generally considered to be on the "right."

[Malhavok]

No one in the United States takes liberal to mean anything related to limited government. You are on crack if you think otherwise.

Depends on the circles you move in. Anyone with an even close to decent education in liberal arts knows what the word means as well as its more modern connotations. What is commonly referred to as liberal in American society is actually social, neo-, or modern liberalism. Modern liberalism stems mostly from the collectivist movements of the late 19th and early 20th centuries and is a desire to use government as an instrument of social change. The neoconservative movement was born as a reaction. It's difficult not to get a chuckle out of the whole situation... The social liberists usurped the meaning of the word and then the neoconservatives and their anti-liberal campaign was born... only problem is the neoconservatives are every bit as collectivist as the social liberals.

Oh well, I've got good company in the long since dead classical liberals like Hayek who refused to reclassify themselves as conservatives simply because a bunch of socialists stole the word.

[Lindorn]

Modern liberalism stems mostly from the collectivist movements of the late 19th and early 20th centuries and is a desire to use government as an instrument of social change.

Precisely. And well I totally agree with you on your definition of classical liberalism, I disagree that anyone associated the word "liberal" with limited government today. The irony being that you could be a supporter of limited government and call yourself a liberal in the technical sense, seeing as how that obviously deviates from the current structure in this country.

My point was just that most liberals in this country are anything but limited government. To support the government in endeavoring to institute social change, especially in terms of social welfare, does just the opposite.