What "an ideal society" means to libertarians and liberals

Let's being by saying that I share quite a few ideas with libertarians (therefore by default share quite a few with liberals too, just not as much), but I'm neither. (No, I'm not a conservative FCOL), but I would still boldly sum up the ideals of both libertarians and liberals as briefly as possible, and here it comes:

Libertarians: A society with no privileges, no one shall be able to coerce anyone.

Liberals: A society where, through populist mobocratic voting system, everyone has the EQUAL opportunity to coerce everyone.

What do you think? Are they accurate? If not, your ideas to improve them?

 

Oops, misspelling at the start. Anyone? Anyone? Nobody has no thoughts on this?

 

The comparison isn't logical because there are different types of libertarians.

 

Oh yea of course there are non-propertarian libertarians, later know as socialists, but then again, let's not play the game of words: by "libertarian", most ppl understand that is in American context.

 

How would expect us to respond to your ridiculous strawmen?

 

In other words, that was spot on? You guys are speechless?

Well within my expectation.

 

Libertarians are the real liberals. Democrats are just authoritarian phonies.

 

I think she's saying for you to slap a descriptive label on one and make it your own straw man

 

the concept of liberalism and libertarianism are not similar at all...In fact quite far from from each other on a spectrum.

 

What?

From where do you obtain those definitions?

A libertarian society without privileges?

Liberals: A society where, through populist mobocratic voting system, everyone has the EQUAL opportunity to coerce everyone.?

Even excusing the rhetoric of "mobocratic " the question is too narrow to properly engage.

first of all I would strongly suggest you reverse your polarity on "libertarian" as what is being practiced by liberals is anything but. "Libertarian is founded in "liberal" legal philosophy, yes, dating back to the Magna Carta and what it represented....sharing of power. And THERE it must be remembered, that like with the ultimate libertarian document - the United States constitution [some rhetoric myself there! ta da!] was crafted by RICH PEOPLE, land owners, conservatives!

Let's begin with the ultimate premise of libertarian thinking, that all men and women are born free with "unalienable rights". So far I see no restriction on privilege whatsoever. In fact the opposite: that each person has the RIGHT to pursue the privileges of his labors unfettered by government, religion or mob rule.

What I suspect, and I shudder so deeply here, is that what constitutes a "liberal arts" education today is a drive by on such niceties and we are feeding our young the socialist "newspeak" where what was right is now left, what was war is now peace...

Libertarianism, as I have practiced it my whole life means my home is my castle, what I do inside its doors is no one's business so long as it does not interfere with anyone else's rights and privileges.

Socialism is the means by which the lazy and disenfranchised want to take that away from me, usually in the name of social equality or "liberal values" or some (*)(*)(*)(*), which is none of the above. I have never met a true socialist, and I've met more than a few living in Canada, who has even an inkling of an a hope of ever agreeing to libertarian values, they think the government knowing what prescriptions you're taking is GOOD for everyone.

No thanks on that..

 

You've never really taken a poly sci course let alone passed one have you?

 

I'm neither a liberal nor a libertarian, but I'll take a wack at it;

Libertarians: A live and let live society with just enough rules and regulations to live free, yet civilized

Liberals: A society where laws and regulations written by political elites which dictate how people live their lives, with the faceless, nameless bureaucrats enforcing those laws to control the masses.

 

You have to state in the thread title that you are referring to the same "in American context."

 

They weren't straw men. A straw man is a deliberate mischarecterization of another's argument. He was simply trying to describe the overarching views of libertarians and liberals.

 

Not accurate. Liberals only believe in the popular opinion when then popular opinion happens to support them, they don't actually believe in majority rule as a matter of principle. You're much closer with the Libertarian one. Libertarians can more accurately be understood by a fervent defense of the nonaggression principle, whereby anything that isn't inherently harmful to others should be permitted. Libertarians don't believe in laws meant to protect you from your own stupidity. Conservatives and liberals do, they just disagree on what's stupid.

 

What's my ideal society look like? A society where nobody faces discrimination based on their race, religion, sexual orientation, gender or socioeconomic background. One with no social stratification whatsoever and economic disparity is so minimal that society can work collectively toward common goals, and respond collectively to challenges as they arise; I believe a society's interests shouldn't differ internally. A society in which everybody has equal access to essential infrastructure like education, healthcare, legal support and subsistence living. A society that works towards the happiness and safety of its population above all else. In summation: an ideal society should have perfect equality and social cohesion and should work tirelessly towards progress.

Does that sound like a society where "everyone is free to coerce everyone else?" If so, you should probably tweak the lens through which you see other peoples' views because you have a grossly distorted view of what people think, and for that matter, reality itself. To be perfectly frank, this is the grown up's table, and if you have nothing but dismissive buzzwords ("mobocracy" "coercion") that you don't even understand, I don't really see what you're doing here.

 

Comparing ideologies is okay, but overall, you're going to find people that sway between multiple ideologies to form their own view of perfect. That's just the nature of the beast.

 

I don't even know where to begin with this dogmatic nonsense.

 

I think most of the coercion comes in when discussing how that essential infrastructure is to be provided. Those things all require labor. Someone has to provide that labor. Unless you are simply counting on everyone's goodwill to provide these things, the accomplishment of those goals necessitates some amount of coercion.

 

You could begin by addressing it like an intelligent person, if its within your capacity.

 

I don't even know where to begin. Perhaps with the buzz words that you don't understand? *rolls eyes*

What you're talking about is a flowery ideal society - that's not what this discussion is about. Maybe it went over your head with the flora, but we're talking about beliefs on POLICY. What you just said has jack sh-t to do with policy and is off topic. We'd all like a society where we can dance with the Satyrs and run with the Unicorns.

 

This is me to a T. I think molding your views under some type of archetype limits your ability to address situations. If you're a libertarian, you're looking for a libertarian style fix. Same with conservative, socialist, liberal, Republican, Democrats, etc.

My boss has a saying that illustrates this perfectly. When your only tool is a hammer, all your problems tend to look like nails.

I'm too pragmatic for that approach. I think each situations should be handled based on a balance between what's best for individuals and what's best for the country. I do not believe you should ever ignore the effects on either when considering a policy or action, but instead you have to weigh the effects that inaction or the wrong action can have. Sometimes soceity as a whole will win over an individual. Sometimes the reverse will be true. Each issue is unique and must be handled uniquely.

That's just my philosophy when it comes to government.

 

Well, it's a society without privilege in the sense that there are no "special classes" of citizens. What you have, you have because you earned it -- you're rich, not because you're a super-citizen, but because you started a business. You get the job, not because of your skin or your gender, but because you were qualified. You don't get things because someone else was robbed to hand it to you, but because you earned it or created it.

Not really. It's the nature of modern liberalism. Mobocracy would be the modern lobbies and voting blocs. You don't appeal to the good of the whole nation but the betterment of official "victim classes" -- poor, blacks, hispanics, gays, women, muslims, etc. and buy their votes by elevating them over and above the general population. So what happens is that people who belong to the numerical majority are told to hand over the goods to said minorities, while being told to feel bad for having the numerical advantage.

Not really, because simply allowing people to persue their own self interest does not mean that you are holding others back. If I start a business, it doesn't mean that you can't start one too. The only way I can prevent such a thing from happening is if I have a government that enacts rules that make it harder to start a business -- after I'm already established. That's how most shops maintain their elite status -- it's pretty much impossible to create a new store because of the regulations that started well after the big dogs established huge market share. Obamacare, for example, makes it very difficult for a startup to grow to a national chain -- the hurdle of affording 51 full time employees is difficult to pass, and therefore gives huge advantages to those established companies that passed that mark 20-30 years ago.

It is that. But the unfortunate thing is that the brainwashed are now making the rules, and we're living in a society where you walk on eggshells lest you accidentallly say something incorrect, or cite the wrong sort of facts. Everything you say is filtered against the list of banned thoughts, of proper terminology and of the potential for lawsuits if something were to get out. It's made everything political, where you have to act as though you're running for office if your job is in the public eye -- appear to be for the right causes and against the wrong ones.

 

A straw man or straw person, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally,[1][2] is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[3] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[3][4] This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged, emotional issues. In those cases the false victory is often loudly or conspicuously celebrated.

 

You still haven't quoted anything, not even a primer on political science. As a former teacher on the subject, I give you an A for imagination and if this were a creative writing class you'd be on the honor roll, but for Poly Sci, you get an E...none of what you posted is even close to reality, it's made up play time invention. Toddwv is wrong, there's not even any straw here

Obviously you are destined for a career as an elected official somewher