NationStates Jolt Archive

So I'd like to have a semi-coherent discussion on the differences [if they exist] between these two philsophies...yes, they are almost one in the same, but out of curiosity I want to look for those differences, no matter how subtle they are.

And by libertarian, I DON'T mean the imposters who call themselves 'libertarian left'

Libertarianism believes in a capitalist philosophy of economic freedom (low taxes, corporations, etc.) and a smaller government. Liberalism has the opposite.

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

Libertarianism believes in a capitalist philosophy of economic freedom (low taxes, corporations, etc.) and a smaller government. Liberalism has the opposite.

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe
No, I talk about *classical* liberalism - it doesn't really resemble modern liberalism.

No, I talk about *classical* liberalism - it doesn't really resemble modern liberalism.Ah.

*wanders off so no one will notice that he doesn't have the faintest idea what "classical" liberalism is* :D

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

The LP is a bit too extreme for my Likings, but I Definatly agree with the Ideals of Free Market and Free Minds. One thing I do not agree with is the Legalization of Child Pornography (definatly to extreme), but I agree with most Ideals. Also, personally I am agaisnt Privitasation of the Police and Army.

Ah.

*wanders off so no one will notice that he doesn't have the faintest idea what "classical" liberalism is* :D

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

The principles of classic liberalism are pretty well summed up in a popular little book, written by a scottish lecturer of moral philosophy named Adam Smith. The book of course being known nowadays by its shortened title of "The Wealth of Nations"

Does that help?

There are no differences that I can recall, but perhaps I have not read enough to know of any. The "libertarian left" is often a pseudonym for "anarcho-...", or so I've heard.

The LP is a bit too extreme for my Likings, but I Definatly agree with the Ideals of Free Market and Free Minds. One thing I do not agree with is the Legalization of Child Pornography (definatly to extreme), but I agree with most Ideals. Also, personally I am agaisnt Privitasation of the Police and Army.
Yeah, you stand just about where I am.

And by libertarian, I DON'T mean the imposters who call themselves 'libertarian left'
I don't want to derail your thread, but the libertarian socialists were the original users. Sorry, dude, you're the imposter. Just the classic liberals stole the word "libertarian".

The principles of classic liberalism are pretty well summed up in a popular little book, written by a scottish lecturer of moral philosophy named Adam Smith. The book of course being known nowadays by its shortened title of "The Wealth of Nations"

Does that help?Thank you. I'll go off and read it.

...


...

No, I can't be bothered. Can you sum it up for me, please?

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

I would assume that "classic liberalism" is referring to the economic system, and does not include social libertarianism. I may be wrong.

I don't want to derail your thread, but the libertarian socialists were the original users. Sorry, dude, you're the imposter. Just the classic liberals stole the word "libertarian".

Can I turn that on its head and say that a group, that decided to call itself libertarians, adopted the already existing classical liberal ideas of autonomy and individual responsibility. They could not call themselves liberals as some left wing ers had corrupted the term in the USA. In Europe, liberal still means classic liberal, not socialist. Maybe this is because socialist means socialist not communist etc. The whole terminology of politics got messed up in the 1950s in the USA somehow. (But that is a view from abroad.)

TO GO OFF TOPIC:

Liberals, in the modern sense, can be on the left or right. The popular mythology that liberals are leftwing comes largely from America, where socialists trying to make their beliefs more marketable, started calling themselves 'liberal'. Hence in America formed the term 'modern liberal.'

In Australia the Liberal Party, is in fact the right wing party, and still talks about the principles of individual freedom.

In Britain, the moderate Liberals merged with the far left Social Democrats, leading to a left wing Liberal Democratic Party. British liberals weren't inherently left.

Thank you. I'll go off and read it.

...


...

No, I can't be bothered. Can you sum it up for me, please?

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

Free market, Individual autonomy and responsibility for the self. Government is limited to minimal social necessities, security and dispute arbitration. There is discussion room over what are minimum social necessities.

In Britain, the moderate Liberals merged with the far left Social Democrats, leading to a left wing Liberal Democratic Party. British liberals weren't inherently left.

Just a correction, the Social Democrats were actually centrists. They were between the left wing of Labour and the Right wing of the Conservatives at the time of their formation.

The British Liberals were, until the 20th century, the opposition to the Conservatives. The Liberals wanted deregulation and individual freedom of choice. The conservatives wanted the maintenance of the staus quo. A completely different politics to todays. Go look up Whigs and Tories.

Do you mean classic liberalism in the sense of Adam Smith, or more John Stuart Mill?

So I'd like to have a semi-coherent discussion on the differences [if they exist] between these two philsophies...yes, they are almost one in the same, but out of curiosity I want to look for those differences, no matter how subtle they are.

And by libertarian, I DON'T mean the imposters who call themselves 'libertarian left'

Libertarians are basicly more economic based in principles. The EXTREME form of libertarians would want things almost similar to the situation this country had with the Articles of the Confederation with their policy of less government. Its fine. This country needs a libertarian shift. To much however would be destructive.

Classical liberalism is more towards freedoms of the individual that should be ensured by the government. The American forefathers were classical liberals. The modern liberalism really has nothing to do with the old philosophy.

Free market, Individual autonomy and responsibility for the self. Government is limited to minimal social necessities, security and dispute arbitration. There is discussion room over what are minimum social necessities.
Didn't he include defence, a law making body, and roads? Thats from what i can remember.

Free market, Individual autonomy and responsibility for the self. Government is limited to minimal social necessities, security and dispute arbitration. There is discussion room over what are minimum social necessities.Wow, it sounds a lot like Libertarian Expansionism.

*feels like an idiot and leaves*

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

The whole terminology of politics got messed up in the 1950s in the USA somehow. (But that is a view from abroad.)
I know that. But Super-power thinks that the classic liberals somehow have always owned the term "libertarian" despite the fact that only Americans call themselves that, and that they only started doing so in 1971.

Just a correction, the Social Democrats were actually centrists. They were between the left wing of Labour and the Right wing of the Conservatives at the time of their formation.

The British Liberals were, until the 20th century, the opposition to the Conservatives. The Liberals wanted deregulation and individual freedom of choice. The conservatives wanted the maintenance of the staus quo. A completely different politics to todays. Go look up Whigs and Tories.

The Whigs (liberals) may have campaigned on individual freedoms, but they were by modern standards moderates. In many regards the Tories adopted a lot of liberal ground, after the fall of the liberals after WW1.

I concede on the point of the Social Democrats, but historically British Liberals were also moderate. That is why they picked up a large vote in 1983, when Tories went to the far right and Labour wrote the longest suicide note in history.

And by libertarian, I DON'T mean the imposters who call themselves 'libertarian left'

Ah, I guess I can't participate then.....oh well, since you think we of the libertarian leftist persuasion are in some respect, less valid than the authoritarian right, I guess I'll just have to use our true name:

"Purveryors of personal freedoms and champions of the working man who believe that manual labor is just as important if not moreso than your lame ass sitting at your desk playing with other people's money all day, and who endeavor to take on all of the responsibilities of their own personal well being in accordance with their ability to pay for them, and who demand that whatever taxation may occur, be directed to the benefit of those who find themselves behooved to provide such monetary support in the form of taxes, and in general, are more lenient, forgiving, and kind than all of you over on the authoritarian right."

But, I guess we're just not good enough for you lot of neo-facists. Oh well, no big loss there.

I know that. But Super-power thinks that the classic liberals somehow have always owned the term "libertarian" despite the fact that only Americans call themselves that, and that they only started doing so in 1971.I suppose by "libertarian" most people refer to a Civil Rights Lovefest-type state.

Ah, I guess I can't participate then.....oh well, since you think we of the libertarian leftist persuasion are in some respect, less valid than the authoritarian right, I guess I'll just have to use our true name:

"Purveryors of personal freedoms and champions of the working man who believe that manual labor is just as important if not moreso than your lame ass sitting at your desk playing with other people's money all day, and who endeavor to take on all of the responsibilities of their own personal well being in accordance with their ability to pay for them, and who demand that whatever taxation may occur, be directed to the benefit of those who find themselves behooved to provide such monetary support in the form of taxes, and in general, are more lenient, forgiving, and kind than all of you over on the authoritarian right."

But, I guess we're just not good enough for you lot of neo-facists. Oh well, no big loss there.
Erm, you DO know that their classic liberalism is rather far from the authoritarian right? They aren't anywhere near 'neo-fascists'...

Erm, you DO know that their classic liberalism is rather far from the authoritarian right? They aren't anywhere near 'neo-fascists'...

Classic liberalism is almost the antithesis of the authoritarian right.

Didn't he include defence, a law making body, and roads? Thats from what i can remember.

Yes he did, and also made some implied recommendations for a foundation level education system, as well as public health statutes. However, these details are just that, details.

And by libertarian, I DON'T mean the imposters who call themselves 'libertarian left'

Libertarian socialists have been using the term libertarian before the Libertarian party even existed.

So I'd like to have a semi-coherent discussion on the differences [if they exist] between these two philsophies...yes, they are almost one in the same, but out of curiosity I want to look for those differences, no matter how subtle they are.


Classical Liberalism and American Libertarianism are two very different political ideologies. Although American Libertarianism is rooted in classical liberal ideas (individual freedom, laissez-faire capitalism), American Libertarianism takes it to the farthest extremes. For instance, one of the most famous of the classical liberal philosophers, Adam Smith, actually defended taxation by the soverign/government, though he also argued that taxes ought to be as low and convienient as possible:

"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state. ...Every tax ought to be so contrived as both to take out and to keep out of the pockets of the people as little as possible, over and above what it brings into the publick treasury of the state."
-- Adam Smith, Chapter II, The Wealth of Nations

Whereas the Libertarian Party Platform (May 2004) denies the right of the government to extract any kind of taxation at all (the bold is mine):

"Government activity should not include the forcible collection of money or goods from individuals in violation of their individual rights. No tax can ever be fair, simple or neutral to the free market. Specifically, we: a.) support the right of any individual to challenge the payment of taxes on moral, religious, legal or constitutional grounds; b.) oppose all personal and corporate income taxation, including capital gains taxes; c.) support the repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment, and oppose any increase in existing tax rates and the imposition of any new taxes; d.) support the repeal of all taxation; and e.) support a declaration of unconditional amnesty for all those individuals who have been convicted of, or who now stand accused of, tax resistance."
-- http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml#taxation


And by libertarian, I DON'T mean the imposters who call themselves 'libertarian left'

Anyone who believes in the following can technically call himself a "libertarian:"

"1. that free will is incompatible with determinism
2. that determinism is false, and
3. that human beings do possess free will."
-- Libertarianism (metaphysics) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_%28philosophy%29

If some people want to join/form a commune or something, so long as they do so according to their own free will, and they do not violate the free will of those who don't want to join, I don't see how they are doing anything particularly "unlibertarian."

I agree with Smith on his view. If you shrink the government as well as the taxes you may be able to have all the funds for programs by a complete reliance on a sales tax of some sort.

I agree with Smith on his view. If you shrink the government as well as the taxes you may be able to have all the funds for programs by a complete reliance on a sales tax of some sort.

That's essentially what Smith was getting at. Lower taxes in order to encourage economic growth. A stronger economy produces more wealth, and thus produces more tax revenue even if the overall tax rate is lower.

Yeah, the taxation issue differs between the two.

Libertarianist (As in US Libertarian) extreme wants to end all forms of taxation. This is a part of the LP I do not buy... I would rather it be restored to the more "traditional" forms of taxation as placed in our foundation, funding the government through tariffs and excize, rather than through income taxes placed on the populous.

To be honest, LP.org tax ideologies cannot, and have never worked. You still need to fund the government, even if you limit, and remove most of its bulk, there are still employees who need to be paid, working for the governing body.

So the major difference seems to be that Libertarian is against income taxes?

Anyone who believes in the following can technically call himself a "libertarian:"

"1. that free will is incompatible with determinism
2. that determinism is false, and
3. that human beings do possess free will."
-- Libertarianism (metaphysics) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_%28philosophy%29

If some people want to join/form a commune or something, so long as they do so according to their own free will, and they do not violate the free will of those who don't want to join, I don't see how they are doing anything particularly "unlibertarian."

There is a mixing here of a philosophical definition and a political subject or use. The philosophical definition has to do with views on what freedom means (Fredom to act other than you did compared to Freedom from external restraint arguments.) The definition simply does not apply to the political field as it is a metaphysical matter and not one that depends upon any aspect of social life. (Just an aside to the discussion)