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

That is not just a blog but one with serious errors in the facts starting with trying to equate libertarianism with the French because of liberté, liberty, which is really a derivative of the Latin word libertatem (nominative libertas) "freedom, condition of a free man; absence of restraint; permission," from liber "free" (14C). But the concept of libertarianism is atributed to John Locke from his second treatise in 1690, some two centuries before the French doofus.

Seems one has a trouble with discerning fact from fiction but blogs are normally all fiction unless source data can be confirmed.

But to try and quote Wikipedia as an authoritative source on anything leads one to understand the confusion of the lack of facts of the OP. It is almost as bad as trying to use a blog.

 

Same quoted blog, same error in facts.

 

Really, from the posts you have entered within this thread and then trying to claim knowledge superior to Ron Paul, Cato Institute and especially Murray Rothbard is just plain false.

I would suggest you read a book, anything other than fiction.

But what I really want to know is how spewing any sort of garbage on this or any public forum is somehow dangerous. Are you based in reality?

 

In case you aren't familiar with WikiPedia....It is credible content and information.

If somebody tries to post changes to a definition, Wikipedia asks for sources, if you can't provide credible sources, they delete your submission, simple as that.

Also, I have read both Treatises of Government from Locke......Neither one of them use the term "Libertarian" or "Libertarianism".

You right-wing libertarians are just in denial that Far-Right Academics stole the term, switched up the definition to suit their agenda and pushing it to the herd.

The idea of "Right-Wing Libertarianism" was not even conceptualized until the late 1950's with Ayn Rand's book titled Atlas Shrugged.

After that, people like Rand Paul, Murray Rothbard and Ludwig von Mises started calling themselves Libertarians and the rest is history.

Here's another article, a non-wiki website that explains how and why Left-Libertarian Communists (such as myself) and Right-Wing Libertarian Capitalists (such as yourself) are pretty much in agreement on 80% of the issues.

Sure there is still that 20% that we are in disagreement, but we agree on a lot more issues than we disagree on, and that's because the Political Spectrum is not a linear straight line....It is a non-linear spheare.


http://www.la-articles.org.uk/pc.htm

 

more made up foolishness.

 

If you want to live in fantasy land, that's fine with me.

It's no surprise that the average right-winger has an IQ sub 70.

It's dangerous because you are spreading lies and BS on the forums and trying to sway opinions, which is dangerous for progress.

If you want to live back in the 1800's where there was no minimum wage, poor working environment, horrible standard of living, then be my guest.

 

What would you do to the people who tried to create their own money in order to satisfy the natural human behavior of calculating economic value?

 

You are still thinking with that close-minded mentality, still thinking old.

Try something fresh for a change, the only reason for money is capitalism.

Without capitalism, there would be no human want or need for useless money.

Think outside the box for a change and be part of the revolution.

 

Except, of course, to engage in economic calculation. Money would be banned, right?

Whereas the socialist is "free" to give up all that he produces to strangers and prevented from assigning any economic value to anything. I guess if anyone who doesn't exhibit the socialist hive mind is killed off, then everyone left is truly free to think and act in conformity with the demands of the central planning authority.

This is true. But since anarchy and socialism are completely incompatible, some thought the word could be put to better use. Especially since "liberal" has been swiped by the progressives in this country.

It gets described that way, though it embodies a set of principles that are neither left nor right. Left nor right are used by authoritarians (including the ones calling themselves "anarchist" until they get power) as a foundation for divisive rhetoric.

I don't think that your movement will take back the word. Free market libertarians are well known for a lot of infighting, but it is nothing on the scale of socialist/communist/pseudo-anarchist infighting.

 

I'm not talking about killing anybody off.

If people want to do their own trading and bartering, there's nothing wrong with that.

There just won't be any need for trading and bartering when the basic necessities are given freely to people.....Food, Water, Shelter and Clothing.

You provide these basic necessities and people will have the freedom to pursue a passion that they have.

Capitalism actually hinders innovation and entrepreneurship and this is why.

When somebody is forced to work 40-50 hours a week a little over 50 years, then they have to sleep, eat, drive.

That gives them very little time to spend with their family.

They have no time to be creative and be problem-solvers, so whatever innovation they could have came up with, had they the time, never comes to fruition.

 

How can anyone be far left and libertarian? Far left means growing government and its control over our lives (Obama, Pelosi, Reid). Libertarian means shrinking government as small as possible (Rand Paul).

Those positions are diametrically opposite of each other.

 

You are wrong when you say Libertarian Socialists want big government.....They actually want no government.

 

There is no such thing as "no government". The closest thing to "no government" would be libertarian or right wing political thought in the U.S., where the goal is minimalist government ... just enough government to maintain order and avoid anarchy, with a heavy emphasis on personal freedom (think Barry Goldwater).

 

Welcome. You'll find the right wingers who occupy the board for the most part don't know the difference between libertarian, communist, socialist, facist. Keep things simple when dealing with them.

 

Yea, these right-wingers really believe they are right and that nobody else can be right.

They feel that they are the only people who advocate smaller government or no government.

When no government, a Stateless society, was conceptualized by communists and anarchist for as long as they have been around.

Just funny how these right-wing extremists view themselves, the world and their ideas.

 

In this society without any system of governance, how would you make sure there would be no money?

 

I'd call myself a liberal libertarian as well, 100% social libertarian but only moderately liberal fiscally... but I definitely put zero faith in democratic processes.

Well, they're wrong. The social side of libertarianism can be summed up as you can do whatever you want so long as you don't harm anybody else. From the perspective of marrying who you want, being allowed to responsibly use recreational drugs like alcohol and cocaine, or having the right to bear arms, the economy is just context. It's not like pure socialism can really exist anyway, I think prisons prove that - if they weren't allowed to use the official currency on drugs, for example, they would simply barter for goods and services they have the time and resources to supply under the table.

Generally social and economic policy can be separated. While pure libertarians more closely resemble liberals in social policy and conservatives in economic, their approach to each is distinct.

I think you have a point, but I don't think abolishing capitalism is quite the way to go. More like separating money and political influence so that corporations can't infiltrate government like a cancer. To stretch the analogy further, they need to be kept as separate organs of society doing distinct jobs... sort of like the government being the brain/neurons, and the corporations being the blood. If a blood cancer invades your brain, you're gonna have a bad time.

That is not what the right wing pursues. With the exception of gun control, they are against social libertarianism (e.g. legalizing drugs, legalizing prostitution, gay adoption, abortion, not limiting immigration, not invading other countries)

Yes I understand that communism was originally meant to mean a stateless society by Marx. However, this just doesn't work with human nature. Some people want to lead, others want to follow, and those that lead would always find a way to oppress those less powerful than them for their own benefit without socially accepted constraints upon power in general. This requires a government to exist.

 

You might enjoy Ron Paul's new anti-war book or at least taking a look at the reviews at Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/Swords-into-P...=8-1&keywords=swords+into+plowshares+ron+paul

- - - Updated - - -

 

Wikipedia has never been nor ever will be credible nor a source of authority. Those that use it as such are mainly lazy souls not desiring to do actual research on their own. Content on any subject can be posted by any bozo that comes along. If that is your main source of data, then your views as express to date are understandably in error. No, it's not as simple as that, errors abound even with sources accepted as creditable.

Now, even thought I doubt the claim of having read Locke, let's for a moment accept that as a possible fact. Then it could be said that comprehension of that which has been read is a real weakness. To illustrate the point, please explain Chapter 9 of Locke's Second Treatise of Civil Government.

Your next statement really does much to verify the fact comprehension is an issue. If you could comprehend my signature you would understand I am a political atheist, even though the libertarian principle of government is closer to my belief of anarchy, it still is a statist point of view and I am not a statist.

Ayn Rand, ah, another valid indication of lack of comprehension. To try and say that "Atlas Shrugged" had to do with anything Right or Left wing is a total lack of comprehension of anything to do with Ms Rand.

And why do you keep trying to place labels on things you seem to little understand?

 

The left (communists) may dream of no government, but in reality leftist government is always totalitarian.