I am a Far-Left Libertarian new to the forum.

As painful and ridiculous as it is, I've read the thread. All your parsing of political ideologies and fine tuning of definitions is pointless as all your approaches require a very powerful government to administer your agenda. History and human nature show that any organization (government or private) that powerful is corrupt and tyrannical. Despite the way you play with definitions, your agenda is the antithesis of libertarianism.

 

This is a welcome thread. Please keep it light.
You are welcome to start a discussion thread elsewhere if you like.

Thanks
Shangrila
Moderator

 

People might believe yours......big deal if there were some strikes its this period that dragged people out of poverty. We'd be like every other 3rd world (*)(*)(*)(*)hole on the planet without it.

Research you say - not that you or any other oppressive leftist will watch. Leonard Liggio is currently the Executive Vice President of Academics at the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, a Distinguished Senior Scholar at the Institute for Humane Studies, and a Research Professor at George Mason University's School of Law.

[video=youtube;ox6k_38_O-E]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ox6k_38_O-E&index=12&list=PLYcuLAArq58QTc1kMK1gqiMO dl7VeISA0[/video]

 

Same thing for me. I was a Libertarian until I realized I believed in a more left leaning society.

 

So the public ownership of the means but the privitization of the production? Sounds a bit like Anarchism. Individual liberty guranteed for the people at the expense of freedom for the few.

 

Sorry, I have financed my own education and got into school on my own merits- no,point system for me. I worked hard and long hours as a nurse in a taxing environment and at times under difficult amd dangerously circumstances. I accepted no state or federal funding. I am a libertarian thru amd thru and as far as I am concerned no one would force me on a collective. I don't see how libertarianism and socialism have any common ground.

 

The political spectrum is now linear.

The way I view the American Political Spectrum, I see it as more of a sphere. A three dimensional sphere.

You see where I'm going with this?

In the center you have your moderates and centrists.

On the right you have your conservatives and far-right tea party

On the left you have your liberals and far-left progressives.

And then on the farthest right, you have your libertarian capitalists and anarcho-capitalists.

Then on the furthest left, you have libertarian socialists and anarcho-communists.

So, when you put it into the perspective of The Sphere, the Extreme far-right libertarians and Extreme far-left libertarians (such as myself) are actually in agreement for most issues.

The main difference between a Libertarian Socialist and a Libertarian Capitalist is their economic view point, everything else, they are in agreement on.

Libertarian Socialists are against the idea of capitalism as a concept, because capitalism is actually the ultimate form of slavery. I am talking about wage slavery, of course. It's crazy how the establishment can enslave entire populations without the population even knowing they are enslaved.

Libertarian Capitalists are against the idea of socialism and government regulation, they feel that laissez-fair capitalism is fair and balanced and that if you work hard and are persistent, you can get rich and wealthy too.

 

This is an impossibility as opposing premises cannot exist as they lead to conflict and there can be no conflicts. It really seems that the entire statement lends itself to a far left leaning, desiring a communistic tyranny rather than a fascist tyranny, view of existence. They is in direct conflict with either a libertarian or a anarchic point of view.

As for Bernie Sanders, a hanging at high noon on the White House lawn should be as close as he gets to that iconic little building dedicated to tyranny.

 

No, there's no conflicts with my ideology.

I made it very clear that I am against tyranny, whether it is government tyranny or corporate tyranny.

Communism and Socialism is very far from either of those things.

In fact, real communism seeks to abolish the state. (The State being The Government)

Social Anarchism, Marxism and Anarcho-Communism is not really a bad thing, when you actually study up on the different ideologies and viewpoints.

It's very different from what we have not, but a lot better than anything we have ever had.

 

you are kidding about the libertarian thing. Right?

 

Not at all.

Why can a far-right winger be a libertarian and believe in freedom, but when a left-wing socialist says he a libertarian, people are confused and can't comprehend the ideology.

Look here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

and here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_anarchism


These are my political philosophies, so please, get up to speed on these two philosophies before you automatically assume and judge what you think they should it should mean.

 

libertarian has nothing at all to do with either the right or the left.

 

The whole ideology you espouse is a total conflict. Let's start with the core principle that seems to remain somewhat constant, being Libertarian. The core principle of Libertarianism is the concept of limited government which is in itself a misnomer as they still believe in that someone should rule, a statist opinion. To counter this concept would be a declaration of Anarchy, the complete opposite of statism, any form of government outside of the self rule of Anarchism.

Then there is tyranny, first leaning far right with fascism then far left with communism, both the extremes of tyranny. The only difference being the supreme beings, the haves (fascism) or the have nots (communism).

No, communism and socialism is the very essence of tyranny. Socialism is but the stepping stone from democracy, mob rule, to the total tyranny of communism. Isn't it amazing what "New Age" ideology can instill in the unthinking mind.

However, to study up on different ideologies and come to the conclusion that slavery is an acceptable solution is truly sad but then many wonder on just how this world came to be in the state it is in.

Sorry, but don't see to where you are even minutely qualified to make that last statement in light of a total misunderstanding of the pronouncements you have made to this point. I would suggest you start with a good dictionary, one that has the etymology of a word and go from there.

 

You're wrong and I'm going to tell you why you're wrong.

You're wrong because you are starting off with the idea that Libertarianism means only one thing.

So, by definition, you are saying that Libertarianism is the concept of limited government, and I say you're wrong.

That's one definition of Libertarianism.

One definition of Libertarianism believes in economic freedom for everybody as well as social freedom, so by definition, they believe in the concept of community and sharing, but also hold the idea of what Libertarianism actually is.

You should be able to do whatever you want to do, as long as you're not hurting anybody else.

That is my definition of Libertarianism.

So, you see, you can't just say that I'm wrong and you're right because you are starting off with the idea that Libertarianism is only one thing, when it takes many forms.

 

your make it up as go stuff might be fun but is really dishonest.

 

However this framework for "Libertarianism" is like most things in today's world, a derivative of it's true meaning as espoused by John Lock (1690) from the same source.

But in today's world, the Libertarian party is but another political entity that believes in the statist principle with some limits on the monstrosity that is the current government. But still a statist movement. But your ideology of liberty coupled with socialism to the extreme of communism is a stark contradiction of either.

Therefore not only are you wrong but are trying to espouse that which can never be.

 

We can go back and forth like this until the end of time, however, I'm going to retire this thread with one last bit of history and opinion.

First, I can say the same thing about your ideology and if it's not your ideology......Then your definition of Libertarianism.

That is, Libertarianism comes from the word "Liberty", and to me, Liberty means more than just freedom from government rule.

Liberty is much more complex than saying "no government", liberty to me, means the liberty to have the authority and the means to do whatever I want to do, without being bogged down by rich corporations who horde all of the wealth in this country, making "Liberty for All" an impossibility.

The right-wing faction in this country has a slave mentality, it just seems they love being slaves to the status quo of working a 9-5 job.

Don't you get it, Right-wing libertarianism is a slave culture, where we are not really free at all.

The entire capitalist model is a slave model.

Now for some facts.....

The word Libertarianism actually comes from Anarchist writers, which we can all agree Anarchy is about as far-left as we can get. Anarchy is further-left than Socialism and Communism.

In fact, it is a derivative of Socialism and Communism.

http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/150-years-of-libertarian


Then there is this quote from Wikipedia, which pretty much sums it all all.

"Although the word libertarian continues to be widely used to refer to socialists internationally, its meaning in the United States has deviated from its political origins.

Libertarianism in the United States has been described as conservative on economic issues and liberal on personal freedom (for common meanings of conservative and liberal in the United States); it is also often associated with a foreign policy of non-interventionism.

Since the resurgence of neoliberalism in the 1970s, free-market capitalist libertarianism has spread beyond North America via think tanks and political parties."

 

I can't recall any election in my long life where one of the major parties was running on a platform of limiting the franchise, repealing most of the social services programs of the 20th century, and gutting our Constitution with Dominionist religious fanaticism. In every election I've ever voted I was voting AGAINST someone who was far worse than the one I was voting for. Which of the Republicans is, for a Democrat, better than Hillary?

 

Etymology of the term "Libertarian"

"The use of the word libertarian to describe a new set of political positions has been traced to the French cognate, libertaire, coined in a scathing letter French libertarian communist Joseph Déjacque wrote to mutualist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in 1857, castigating him for his sexist political views.

Déjacque also used the term for his anarchist publication Le Libertaire: Journal du Mouvement Social, which was printed from 9 June 1858 to 4 February 1861 in New York City.

In the mid-1890s, Sébastien Faure began publishing a new Le Libertaire while France's Third Republic enacted the lois scélérates ("villainous laws"), which banned anarchist publications in France. Libertarianism has frequently been used as a synonym for anarchism since this time."

 

This is all about definitions. Its really nearly the same claims Dems made about Nixon, Reagan and George Bush #2 with different and slightly more strident language -and we are just talking about the winners!. We always claim that the GOP candidate will stack the court to gut some part of the constitutional protection our women's groups or ACLU friends support. We always claim that the social safety net is threatened, and we always call out their close association with Christian conservatives. I happen to agree with that these are possible consequences seeing a GOP victory, but lets not pretend they are new.

I don't need to argue that Hillary is worse than these GOP candidates to support a different primary candidate, or even a third party candidate. I need to argue that the democratic party is weakened by the kind of coronation you inevitably suggest when you throw out all the baby birds in the nest, so that only the strongest baby after a few weeks gets any worms , or that the nation itself is weakened by the strangulation of third party candidates and ideas because of the same case every four years. These risks to the party and the country get magnified the longer these arguments make the result ever more inevitable as they succeed.

Geez, you want to shut down the process before a single vote has been cast in a primary, with boogieman stories around the campfire. That is more dangerous to the country than a GOP victory. I am tired of it. 'electability' arguments ought not be the only standard by which Dems pick a nominee ( thus the earned respect= earned vote post)and I really am not about to conclude squat about electability, until I see how the respective campaigns and candidates actually function on the trail. I'D think you would have learned something from Obama's victory over both Clinton and McCain.

 

So, by virtue of the printing press, government can create more resources?

Who decides what is money? It's not the corporations. They are just fictions created and regulated by the same organization that maintains a monopoly on what you are allowed to use as money.

 

Again, I am going to quote straight from Wikipedia....

"Left-libertarianism encompasses those libertarian beliefs that claim the Earth's natural resources belong to everyone in some egalitarian manner, either unowned or owned collectively.

Contemporary left-libertarians such as Hillel Steiner, Peter Vallentyne, Philippe Van Parijs, Michael Otsuka, and David Ellerman believe the appropriation of land must leave "enough and as good" for others or be taxed by society to compensate for the exclusionary effects of private property.

Libertarian socialists (social and individualist anarchists, libertarian Marxists, council communists, Luxemburgists, and DeLeonists) promote usufruct and socialist economic theories, including communism, collectivism, syndicalism, and mutualism. They criticize the state for being the defender of private property and believe capitalism entails wage slavery."

 

That didn't answer my question. You have simply declared money to be a natural resource. What would you do when people decide that using your money isn't beneficial and decide to use their own money instead? Will you rely on anti-libertarian violence to force them to use what you call money, or will you accept that people have norms that you do not prefer? Think carefully on that one. Many different things can be used as money. Bitcoin, for example, can hardly be called a "natural resource" and it has the benefit of being extremely hard to take from people by force.

 

so you go edit wikipedia and then quote it here? clever but no cigar

 

Get educated before you come on these forums.

I come here for honest and intelligent discourse.

I didn't choose where the term "Libertarian" originated from of what the definition of "Left-Libertarianism" is.

Not my fault people like Ron Paul, Cato Institute and Murray Rothbard stole the term Libertarian from socialists, communists and anarchists. Altering and revising the definition to fit their own ideology.

Please, please, for God's sake, read a book, get enlightened before you come on these forums before spewing out garbage that is false, it's dangerous.

- - - Updated - - -

You must not have read my post where I said that in the society, in the collective, THERE WOULD BE NO MONEY!