libertarianism (small L)

Text of the declaration of independence:

Bolded section in a nutshell is the libertarian philosophy.

 

Good question Ken, and exactly the kind of question I was hoping would come from a libertarian.
There are certain laws that are necessary in any society and if certain laws are not enforced then there will be anarchy. For example, if a mentally ill person gets a gun and shoots a child in a school, there is a law whcich enables the police to arrest the offender. Very basic so far isn't it! And so then there is a justice system set up to decide on whether and what punishment is due. If the offender is found guilty of the crime then he is locked up in a cage. I don't think any libertarian would disagree with that but I have been surprised at the lengths some will go to push their agenda. Let me know if you disagree.

And now we get to your question: In a democratic system the people elect representatives to make laws. Depending on who is elected will lead to certain laws being enacted. If a libertarian is elected then that person could choose to legalize marijuana, or he could choose to not. If enough libertarians are elected they may have enough influence to be able to legalize marijuana. But if very few libertarians are elected and others are elected who oppose marijuana use, then they will enact laws which punish marijuana use or possession. And along with that, they may decide that locking a person up in a cage is due punishment.

This is all very basic stuff of course and I think everyone understands it adequately well. All it's really saying is that if you don't like the law then elect your representatives who will change that particular law. Or move to a country where marijuana use is legal.

But my main point is that invariably a libertarian will ask this sort of question without thinking through the process and when they do that they are just wasting their time as well as the time of others.

Your comments? And then, next question?

 

????? Heres who first brought Libertarian philosophy to America
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Déjacque
Its just reformulated communism.

 

Nah, thats American Philosophy while libertarians bicker about what are the "just powers" of government.

 

In most cases they paid lip service to opposition and then voted for it anyway.

And thoroughly despised by the leaders of the GOP.

Are you suggesting that because I don't support Democrats, I must support Republicans, or vice versa? When it comes to the imposition of government upon peaceful people, I find them to be two sides of the same coin. Supporting one is tacit support of the system which cannot operate without the other "side."

 

Were you aware that Guantanamo is still open?

 

The use of the word "libertarian" to describe a set of political positions can be tracked to the French cognate, libertaire, which was coined in 1857 by French anarchist Joseph Déjacque who used the term to distinguish his libertarian communist approach from the mutualism advocated by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

 

Your argument rests on a few key assumptions. One, that society is government, which it most clearly is not. Two, you assume that laws cannot exist without the state, which is also not provable. Three, you assume that the police must be under the authority of the state, which history does not bear out. State monopolization of security is a fairly new concept and does far more harm than good I'd say.

I think that I was very clear about specifying the initiation of aggression. In your example, aggression has been initiated and it is within the rights of anyone, not just police, to protect others from harm by going to whatever lengths are necessary from preventing the aggressor from doing it again. On the other hand, your state is now allowing police to aggress against countless peaceful people by putting them into cages when they have done nothing to harm anyone else, and who is there to arrest the police for committing those crimes?

You haven't really answered my question. Why does 50%+1 of the people enfranchised to vote, and who actually turn out to vote when a narrow ranges of choices is presented make the choice legitimate? You claim that they are and describe the process by which they go about it. However, that does not make it legitimate. Yours is a circular argument. A majority votes to punish, so it's punishable. It's punishable because a majority votes against it. Nowhere does either argument legitimize the punishment

How does that make the rules that government makes legitimate?

What makes you think that I haven't thought through the process? By my reckoning, you have no principle on which to base your reasons why the "law" as you see it is right or wrong other than that a bunch of people want it. I can quite clearly articulate an ethic by which right and wrong within a political context can be determined in any situation through objective analysis and logic. Your thought process is "we vote for it, that's the way it is, love it or leave it."

 

Libertarianism is as hard to define as liberalism or conservatism. Some people lump all non-authoritarian philosophies in with libertarianism (anarchism with Kyfho, which are extremely different), but I would define libertarianism as a philosophy that believes in minimal government, voluntary associations and truly free markets.

 

Wow. I would be better equipped to respond if your response focused on aliens.

 

Dejacque is more relevant to libertarianism outside of America. In most other countries, libertarianism is somewhat synonymous with libertarian socialism. In America, libertarianism is typically closer to the Murray Rothbard or Mises variety.

Granted, Noam Chomsky is representative of libertarian socialism in America.

 

Without even a basic understanding of the word, you are not equipped to respond.

 

Communism, socialism, a distinction without a difference. He referred to his philosophy as Libertarian Communism, but if you read any of his writings its really just what many today would label socialism.

 

Were you following the conversation?

 

If I said that your post filled me with awe, would it be appropriate to call it awful? Not really. The meaning of "awful" has changed over time. Words sometimes change in meaning. I don't call myself a liberal, though the word would have applied to my philosophy a few hundred years ago and not what it generally is taken to mean today.

 

That's why I go with 'classical Liberal' or 'traditional Conservative'. As it applies today, I'd say it would be 'modern Liberal/Conservative'. However, I just say I'm 'Libertarian', explain my position on a given topic, and proceed forward. Even though I align myself more as a 'minarchist', I give my position on various topics and allow others to make that decision upon me accordingly.

As such, goes into my logic of everyone has their right to freely express ones opinion. When it comes to coercion to push that opinion onto others, that's where I begin to draw the line.

 

Libertarian is still used today to refer some brands of libertarianisms
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism#Contemporary_libertarian_socialism

 

Have they solved the economic calculation problem yet?

 

This is a pretentious socially conditioned attitude that rejects human nature. Using death in justice is purely natural. In fact, in other cultures which held higher moral standards, death was seen as the ultimate atonement for one's wrongdoings. In some places in history, people have voluntarily chosen to die honorably than live shamefully. We have no such code of honor in the modern west because of socially conditioned reasons like the one you use to avoid capital punishment. Because as a culture, we are too weak to be honorable. And thus shameful by default.

Forgiveness should be a two part process where both sides meet in the middle. The guilty party pays his dues, and the victim learns to forgive. But the victim cannot and should not be expected to forgive if he or she is denied justice. And justice cannot happen when there is so much sympathy for the guilty that he is not even expected to pay his dues. This is the very definition of injustice. It essentially punishes the victim twice. Ergo, one actually makes out better being the guilty than the victim. Because the guilty gets a second chance. The victim only gets (*)(*)(*)(*)ed over. No system that punishes the victim is just. No matter what logic is used to rationalize it.

 

In yet, there are many brands we can label Democrats & Republicans. The difference is, we're talking about American libertarianism's versus global libertarianism. Moreover, as BleedingHeadKen has eluded to, the meaning of 'liberal' and 'conservative' has changed since the Democrat & Republican parties were established. One thing that still unites all 'Libertarian's' is liberty. In of itself, liberty still means the same thing.

Where I see the Libertarian party, in America, is aligning itself more on getting away from total government totalitarian rule to having government in a limited capacity. I know the thought process behind it is most libertarians are evil because of the previous ideologies. However, of today's standards, we've begun to move more towards an Austrian economic perspective. Not saying that all ideals can directly relate to it, but from a fiscal/monetary policy, you can see how one's ideals can relate to it (Hayek, Rothbard, Mises, Bastiat, & Rockwell, to name a few).

As it correlates to government intervention, the government should only be there to protect rights and contracts between parties. Never should the government come in between it and dictate what the outcome should be. What we've all begun to see is where government intervention mixes with big corporations, the small businesses and consumers (All of us) will lose. My view, in which I will admit that some people do believe in total anarchy, is that government should only play a role in protecting a binding contract among parties. If a company is selling a good for a certain amount of money and you, as the consumer, agree to trade for it, the government should only help protect that contract and make sure it's binding. The government shouldn't pick sides, as that's not what it's meant to do. As such, that's why my views align more with 'minarachist', as I do believe government plays a vital role in some public services.

Where I think it becomes an issue, my own personal opinion as I'm sure the other folks have their own views as well, is there is no one said starting point for libertarian's. The idea's among ourselves are so vast, it's hard to determine which is the way we should go. So when folks call majority of the libertarian's 'Paulbots', I firmly believe it's not helping our cause. I believe people want to have that defining leader, that can pull the common ground thoughts into one individual. Yes, we may not agree with all of their ideals. At least if we can find the one individual that best reflects most of our ideals, we shouldn't be belittled because of it. I would imagine some, if not most, liberals & conservatives didn't care too much for their respective candidates this go around. However, you voted for them because they best took on your ideals.

Again, my opinion/theory, I figured I would add my input to the conversation.

 

There's a pretty big difference between socialism and communism. There are also multiple schools of thought within and related to libertarianism.

The primary difference between socialists and communists is that communists (in the true Marxist sense) want to abolish government. Socialists seek to empower it via seizing control of industry.

Libertarian socialism is an odd combination of philosophies. It respects things like private property and civil liberties, but it has a different view on what constitutes public goods. They have very different economic leanings from the Libertarian Party.

The Libertarian Party is more akin to anarcho-capitalism, which also bears some similarities to mainstream conservative economics.

So, as you can see, there are multiple ideologies that are connected to libertarianism.

 

libertarianism=communism. Yeah, no need to expound upon that, dixon.

Oh, and while you're citing wikipedia, you should check what it says about libertarianism. If it lists communism as a synonym, then I'll let the bs rest.

 

Who is "they"? The libertarians from 100 years ago?

 

You are making my point. What Dejacque calls communism, you call socialism. A distinction without a difference

 

The "libertarian socialists".