Any Libertarians Out There?

[TheScotsman]

Registered republican, but probably identify most with libertarian.

I'm kind of an Apathetic Anarchist.

I would have to agree... but be sure you don't say it too loud, or the libs will take the piss.

[An1m]

Capitalism itself is inherently anti-libertarian so most people who advocate capitalism and call themselves libertarians are confused and taking a colloquialism as the true meaning of a word.

You yourself said that political and economic theory should be separate, yet you blur the line.

Social anarchy is more plausible, but the anarchist school of thought fails when the social representatives inherent in a social capitalist society's government begin to wield authority; which happens almost instantly.

Your limited view of government does not work in a social system. I'd be happy to entertain the debate.

on topic: I adhere to no party in particular. If I feel compelled to vote, I do cost/benefit analysis of the candidates and vote for which better represents my ideals, which are largely conservative.

Nope, I never said that, nor do I believe it. My issue was largely a semantic once, as is Noam Chomsky's in the linked video where he also refers to himself as a Libertarian socialist. Social anarchy is more plausible than what? I presume you mean than Libertarian socialism. But libertarian Socialims isn't social-capitalism and I don't see why Social anarchy would be either so I'm a bit confused by that.

I don't know why you believe my view of government to be limited but I didn't talk very much about it, not even about my ideal forms of government.
I have a great deal of respect for anarchist theory and socialist theory. I also have a reverence for liberty above all, which is why my ideal government would be a minarchist one. I feel that it stands the greatest chance of protecting the masses and their liberties, while trading the least possible amount of those liberties in return. I feel that it could withstand corruption even if the economic system was capitalist, would obviously work well with socialism.

[moses_moselle]

maybe i should change this title to

"anyone who wants the government to not control our lives"

[inino]

well. in the true definitions, yes. I agree with you.

In that case consider me liberal, liberal as in the original liberals.

Before a liberal became a republicna..and so much confusion resulting in our two major parties being the exact same thing

however, my Todays standards i am a libertarian.

Nope, you're a liberal and you shouldn't allow the pervasive ignorance that grips our society to continue. Educate people, reclaim our language. Someone has to do it, because the media, and the politicians just fuck up everything so much more. We can do it together!

Just ask yourself: What would Adam Smith say? Thomas Jefferson? I find capitalism in it's true form, in Von Mises form, in Smith's much more tolerable but I find that capitalism by nature is far too prone to corruption and impossible to make incorruptible, hence our world today. I would prefer socialism over capitalism even if it was incorruptable though for so many reasons, but /hijack of thread.

capitalism promotes greed, communism or even socialism promote laziness. both in pure theoretical forms are perfectly functional. I do admire how you steer away from social norms even though you know the criticism you will receive. Informed youth are a powerful weapon, we just need to harness it. also if Marx is right, there should be a revolution happening soon, the spark is lit, we just need to blow on the flame.

[Dr. B]

An1m my presumptions about your government ideology were based on you using the word Libertarian. If it's something else, my bad; but if you meant Libertarian I feel I have a pretty good understanding of what that means. The word "libertarian" has come to mean something different in colloquial use and I am paying homage to its original meaning. See, you must understand the REAL Leonard Peikoff in order to understand how TRUE Libertarianism functions - how it sets man free from the binds of a collectivist government. It's truly disheartening to see how the protege of Ayn Rand has come to be so misunderstood.

If a government were to emerge out of a social-capitalist economy and communistic society without becoming totalitarian, it would most definitely be a collectivist government. Different facets of the labor world would be represented in government and actions would subsequently be taken to correct economic arbitrage and externalities so that every worker was accurately compensated with regard to the importance of their labor - all by their own volition. Adam Smith, the REAL Adam Smith, makes it a point to say that a government-created contracts established to pursue the correction of such externalities are enforceable, notwithstanding an outrageous overstepping of boundaries. Smith was somewhat of a naturalist. Though he did advocate limited government, it was with great regard to the prudence required in order to function at all.

If you want to say you have a similar ideology to Adam Smith, be my guest. Functional libertarianism and social-capitalism may work in naturalist environment; but the ideals of pure Libertarianism and Socialism contradict each other to such a degree that the dilution of theory necessary to have them coexist breeds a significantly different ideology. Call it something else. Social Democratic has a nice ring to it, assuming the government is efficient.

All the TRUE and REAL crap was a shot at Chomsky

[Bye bye now have fun]

how is being a punk with a mohawk staying away from social norms? thats like a yuppy with a iphone. id consider myself a punk and when i had one up here everything was the same except i got a few looks form old people. its not like hes walking around in a man thong constantly to protest something. i assume that he does 99% of the stuff "normal" people do. he wears clothing, waits in lines, doesnt shoot people randomly, eats and has manners.

[An1m]

well. in the true definitions, yes. I agree with you.

In that case consider me liberal, liberal as in the original liberals.

Before a liberal became a republicna..and so much confusion resulting in our two major parties being the exact same thing

however, my Todays standards i am a libertarian.

Nope, you're a liberal and you shouldn't allow the pervasive ignorance that grips our society to continue. Educate people, reclaim our language. Someone has to do it, because the media, and the politicians just fuck up everything so much more. We can do it together!

Just ask yourself: What would Adam Smith say? Thomas Jefferson? I find capitalism in it's true form, in Von Mises form, in Smith's much more tolerable but I find that capitalism by nature is far too prone to corruption and impossible to make incorruptible, hence our world today. I would prefer socialism over capitalism even if it was incorruptable though for so many reasons, but /hijack of thread.

capitalism promotes greed, communism or even socialism promote laziness. both in pure theoretical forms are perfectly functional. I do admire how you steer away from social norms even though you know the criticism you will receive. Informed youth are a powerful weapon, we just need to harness it. also if Marx is right, there should be a revolution happening soon, the spark is lit, we just need to blow on the flame.

Yes, and I wouldn't have as much of a problem with capitalism except that I find it is too easily corruptible. Which is why I advocate for socialism, but then again as we've seen with certain unions it too is corruptible. I guess that in the end all that matters is that your government has the proper safeguards necessary to prevent the government from becoming a tool for one class's interests.

An1m my presumptions about your government ideology were based on you using the word Libertarian. If it's something else, my bad; but if you meant Libertarian I feel I have a pretty good understanding of what that means. The word "libertarian" has come to mean something different in colloquial use and I am paying homage to its original meaning. See, you must understand the REAL Leonard Peikoff in order to understand how TRUE Libertarianism functions - how it sets man free from the binds of a collectivist government. It's truly disheartening to see how the protege of Ayn Rand has come to be so misunderstood.

If a government were to emerge out of a social-capitalist economy and communistic society without becoming totalitarian, it would most definitely be a collectivist government. Different facets of the labor world would be represented in government and actions would subsequently be taken to correct economic arbitrage and externalities so that every worker was accurately compensated with regard to the importance of their labor - all by their own volition. Adam Smith, the REAL Adam Smith, makes it a point to say that a government-created contracts established to pursue the correction of such externalities are enforceable, notwithstanding an outrageous overstepping of boundaries. Smith was somewhat of a naturalist. Though he did advocate limited government, it was with great regard to the prudence required in order to function at all.

If you want to say you have a similar ideology to Adam Smith, be my guest. Functional libertarianism and social-capitalism may work in naturalist environment; but the ideals of pure Libertarianism and Socialism contradict each other to such a degree that the dilution of theory necessary to have them coexist breeds a significantly different ideology. Call it something else. Social Democratic has a nice ring to it, assuming the government is efficient.

All the TRUE and REAL crap was a shot at Chomsky

I'm a Libertarian socialist, which isn't to say I'm a market socialist, just a Libertarian in the old since of the word. As far as capitlaist economics go I prefer the Austrian school so in that since too I am a Libertarian, however I am not a fan of capitalism in the end and thus prefer socialism.

I am a Libertarian Socialist because I prefer a Laissez Faire approach to governance, minimal intrusion into individual rights and private lives and choices and a socialized economy.

how is being a punk with a mohawk staying away from social norms? thats like a yuppy with a iphone. id consider myself a punk and when i had one up here everything was the same except i got a few looks form old people. its not like hes walking around in a man thong constantly to protest something. i assume that he does 99% of the stuff "normal" people do. he wears clothing, waits in lines, doesnt shoot people randomly, eats and has manners.

GNU: Though being a punk with a mohawk is staying away from social norms, being a punk with ideas is what really matters. GNU, you don't actually have substantive ideas, generally, and don't contribute much to discussions, also you are not a punk, never have been and never will be. See, you think that wearing a mohawk, getting beaten down by cops while being drunk and going to World Inferno shows makes you punk, it doesn't. You seem to be a confused, consumer of punk culture. You are as punk as Avril Lavigne. Voting republican, calling people faggots, being racist, trying to find nice fitted hats, getting wasted, and being anti-intellectual isn't punk-- it's the social norm.

Punk is about being yourself, being yourself in a hat, with a mohawk, on the internet, or wherever. It's not about painted on girl jeans, hair spray or about the music we listen to. Obviously anybody can listen to punk, you're proof of that, but it takes much, much, much more to be a punk.

[Dr. B]

I am a Libertarian Socialist because I prefer a Laissez Faire approach to governance, minimal intrusion into individual rights and private lives and choices and a socialized economy.

How can a social economy exist without a coercive body to enact regulations and correct externalities? Even the collective authority of the people manifests itself as a government because of its power to sanction. It may not have a constitution or formalized duties, but it is a governing body nonetheless. The presence of a collectivist authority with the ability to infringe upon personal liberties in any manner, necessary for a social economy to exist, contradicts your endorsement of a libertarian government. It's one or the other: You in principle cannot adhere to both ideologies. That is with regard to "libertarian" in the "old sense of the word"

Libertarians do not believe in prudence to the point where the authority to infringe upon individual freedom is granted. That prudence must exist in a social economy and you therefore cannot be a Social Libertarian. Edited March 31, 2009 by Dr. B

[An1m]

I am a Libertarian Socialist because I prefer a Laissez Faire approach to governance, minimal intrusion into individual rights and private lives and choices and a socialized economy.

How can a social economy exist without a coercive body to enact regulations and correct externalities? Even the collective authority of the people manifests itself as a government because of its power to sanction. It may not have a constitution or formalized duties, but it is a governing body nonetheless. The presence of a collectivist authority with the ability to infringe upon personal liberties in any manner, necessary for a social economy to exist, contradicts your endorsement of a libertarian government. It's one or the other: You in principle cannot adhere to both ideologies. That is with regard to "libertarian" in the "old sense of the word"

Libertarians do not believe in prudence to the point where the authority to infringe upon individual freedom is granted. That prudence must exist in a social economy and you therefore cannot be a Social Libertarian.

No, you're talking about practicalities, I'm talking about ideals. Like I said I feel that a minarchist government, if I had to choose one , would be the best. This does involve coercion and intrusion into liberties, but less than all others, while still providing for the common security and other trappings of modernity that we've become accustomed to.

I am a social Libertarian because I feel that it is superior to just about every other form of governance possible, but for the reasons that you suggested and others it could be difficult to implement and perpetuate. The same goes for Laissez Faire Capitalism. So until I figure out how to craft the perfect Libertarian Socialist / Anarchist society I would advocate Minarchy, but in my heart I would desire other things. See what I mean?

[Bye bye now have fun]

GNU: Though being a punk with a mohawk is staying away from social norms, being a punk with ideas is what really matters. GNU, you don't actually have substantive ideas, generally, and don't contribute much to discussions, also you are not a punk, never have been and never will be. See, you think that wearing a mohawk, getting beaten down by cops while being drunk and going to World Inferno shows makes you punk, it doesn't. You seem to be a confused, consumer of punk culture. You are as punk as Avril Lavigne. Voting republican, calling people faggots, being racist, trying to find nice fitted hats, getting wasted, and being anti-intellectual isn't punk-- it's the social norm.

Punk is about being yourself, being yourself in a hat, with a mohawk, on the internet, or wherever. It's not about painted on girl jeans, hair spray or about the music we listen to. Obviously anybody can listen to punk, you're proof of that, but it takes much, much, much more to be a punk.

excuse me sir i challenge you to pistols at dawn. why dont you get your che shirt, and go sit outside a starbucks. i fail to see how not caring what people do as long as it doesnt effect me isnt an idea. i aslo forgot that since i didnt vote for obama im now racist. btw i voted nader/gonzales in november. you are just as intolerant as me. whats the big deal about hats? my hat i wear at work is all stained up with grease and sauce and i want a hat because my hair looks like the sideburns of othadox jews. yes buying plain shirts is totally consumer punk. along with the spiked belt i dont have the torn leather jacket i dont have, and the mohawk i dont have. spending 30$ on a shirt with some logo on it is insane. why should i pay out the ass then be a walking logo for them. and how the fuck am i anti intelectual? i fail to see how beliveing that there is a god and science have to interfere with eachother. just because i think a god exists doesnt mean i belive the bible is 100% true.

last time i checked acting oppressed, haveing mohawk, being socialist and athiest and calling everyone not punk wasnt a requirement for being punk.its about not judging people on shit they cant change and had no choice in. i dont see the reason for you to act like a jerk all of a sudden. im sure we belive in 90% the same thinks, and i use to think that you were cool now i think you are a jackass and its probably not going to change

[An1m]

GNU: Though being a punk with a mohawk is staying away from social norms, being a punk with ideas is what really matters. GNU, you don't actually have substantive ideas, generally, and don't contribute much to discussions, also you are not a punk, never have been and never will be. See, you think that wearing a mohawk, getting beaten down by cops while being drunk and going to World Inferno shows makes you punk, it doesn't. You seem to be a confused, consumer of punk culture. You are as punk as Avril Lavigne. Voting republican, calling people faggots, being racist, trying to find nice fitted hats, getting wasted, and being anti-intellectual isn't punk-- it's the social norm.

Punk is about being yourself, being yourself in a hat, with a mohawk, on the internet, or wherever. It's not about painted on girl jeans, hair spray or about the music we listen to. Obviously anybody can listen to punk, you're proof of that, but it takes much, much, much more to be a punk.

excuse me sir i challenge you to pistols at dawn. why dont you get your che shirt, and go sit outside a starbucks. i fail to see how not caring what people do as long as it doesnt effect me isnt an idea. i aslo forgot that since i didnt vote for obama im now racist. btw i voted nader/gonzales in november. you are just as intolerant as me. whats the big deal about hats? my hat i wear at work is all stained up with grease and sauce and i want a hat because my hair looks like the sideburns of othadox jews. yes buying plain shirts is totally consumer punk. along with the spiked belt i dont have the torn leather jacket i dont have, and the mohawk i dont have. spending 30$ on a shirt with some logo on it is insane. why should i pay out the ass then be a walking logo for them. and how the fuck am i anti intelectual? i fail to see how beliveing that there is a god and science have to interfere with eachother. just because i think a god exists doesnt mean i belive the bible is 100% true.

last time i checked acting oppressed, haveing mohawk, being socialist and athiest and calling everyone not punk wasnt a requirement for being punk.its about not judging people on shit they cant change and had no choice in. i dont see the reason for you to act like a jerk all of a sudden. im sure we belive in 90% the same thinks, and i use to think that you were cool now i think you are a jackass and its probably not going to change

This is why I'm a "jerk" because you constantly post ignorant things. You're not a racist because you didn't vote for Obama, lmfao, you behave like a person who has some racial issues and says ignorant things about racism. I didn't vote for Obama, and I'm not a racist. Actually, you keep saying that I'm "acting opressed" and all of this BS because I posted something about slavery, segregation and their continued effects on society. You had a lot of trouble dealing with that and in typical fashion, rambled about houw your ancestors were Irish and everybody hated them, which was completely irrelevant.

You are anti-intellectual because you shy away from intellectual discourse. Whatever the subject is, you tend to be very uninformed but, paradoxically, super opinionated. The requirements for being Punk are not being a closedminded, bigoted, anti-intellectual. Oh and perhaps knowing the reasons why you attend a protest would be one too. I don't judge anybody on things they can't change. If you can't change the fact that you like to call people nigger, faggot, are in love with modern day "conservative" ideals, and can't wrap your head around any ideas other than your own that's fine. My issue is with you calling yourself a punk, just because you like punk music. Hell, I like some country music but I wouldn't call myself a cowboy.

If I am intolerant for my dislike of bigotry, hatred, and ignorance then I will gladly accept the mantle.

[LJ04]

maybe i should change this title to

"anyone who wants the government to not control our lives"

yes, i'm one of these. what are people calling this? i can't keep track of what parties/groups are what.

i don't think capitalism breeds greed or corruption... capitalism allows one to do what they want with their life. like chillin' more than money? chill. like money more than chillin'? work. you developed a talent? get something back for your efforts. while desire - often termed "greed" to conjure a negative connotation - is behind wanting to make more money and have nicer things and provide the same for one's family, it cannot take advantage of people. if i have a product that is worth $10, and i'm greedy and i decide to charge $100 for it, i might get a few suckers, but pretty soon i'm gonna be out of business. people are not victims of companies. for the most part we are free to choose where to spend our money, and also how we get our money. a lot of people think employers take advantage of their employees. this isn't slavery... you're free to leave and do something else to make your money. the place we CANNOT choose where to spend our money is where the REAL greed comes in - government.

a very real, less discussed, and more dangerous form of greed that touches everyone like it or not - and true greed, not desire - is coming from government. politicians' greed is for power (and money, too), and they have an insatiable appetite for spending the public's money, and it's scary. the spin they put on situations sounds great, but if you take a close look at them, their backgrounds, their rise to power... they don't practice what they preach. they do the exact opposite and lie to everyone's face. and if you further study these policies that sounded so good, you will see the crippling effects they often have upon their subjects. which just lets the politicians spin it even harder that the subjects need even more legislation because they're failing. it's a nasty nasty cycle we're getting ourselves into.

[mushrat]

this thread is now locked while i figure out who's going on vacation for being uncivil.