NationStates Jolt Archive

Ladies and gentlemen:

I come before you to ask a simple question. It would really make my day - no, my week, if you the posters of the NationStates general forums could answer this politely and calmly without resorting to shouting at each other. I can't enforce this, of course, but basically, no discussion is of any use when both sides just snipe at each other.

So I'm asking, nicely, and without bias, as someone who genuinely does not understand: What's the difference between "Liberal" and "Libertarian" in terms of American politics?

I ask this because I see both words bandied around a lot here, but the picture isn't clear enough. I understand "liberal" has been subverted somehow, but I'm not even sure what Americans understood it to mean in the first place.

So I'm asking, please, whether you're right or left or centrist, could someone please explain? And if someone else disagrees, could they try to do so politely, at least?

This is an honest, unbiased, genuine question from someone who really does not understand the subject, who considers himself mostly centrist, by British standards.

Nice try, but there's going to be a shouty match by page 3.

Although I myself am curious as to what the answer is, being British as well.

I think (speaking as a fellow Brit),

Liberal is socially liberal and economically centrist. Though it seems to usually be used to mean "not conservative enough for me."

Libertarian (in the American sense), is socially and economically liberal. Favouring near unrestricted capitalism and a federal government limited to enforcing contracts.


This is the best I can do, and is possibly wrong :)

So am I- if there are any sensible posts of course. Get ready for some long posts and a lot of caps lock...

Thank you, but I'm not too sure I'm going to trust your conceptions. They're a bit, well... anarchic ;)

Noble Men: I know, but maybe I can get a good definition out before then. The word "polite" may drive trolls away, but I know there are intelligent and decent people on this board who are experts on American politics. Some of them aren't even biased. I just hope some of them are online, before this turns into a war.

Ladies and gentlemen: I come before you to ask a simple question. It would really make my day - no, my week, if you the posters of the NationStates general forums could answer this politely and calmly without resorting to shouting at each other. I can't enforce this, of course, but basically, no discussion is of any use when both sides just snipe at each other. So I'm asking, nicely, and without bias, as someone who genuinely does not understand: What's the difference between "Liberal" and "Libertarian" in terms of American politics?
In the simplest abstraction:

US Liberals favor Big Government, European-like welfare-state/semi-socialist economic policies, rejection of personal responsibility in favor of "social" issues, and are conflicted on the idea of Personal Freedoms.

US Conservatives favor Big Government, Uber-Capitalisim, rejection of "social" issues in favor of Personal Responsibility, are conflicted on the idea of Personal Freedoms.

US "Libertarians" favor as little Government as is humanly possible, Uber Capitalisim, and hold as Absolutes the Ideal of Personal Freedom and Responsibility.

US Liberals favor Big Government, European-like welfare-state/semi-socialist economic policies, rejection of personal responsibility in favor of "social" issues, and are conflicted on the idea of Personal Freedoms.

"Big Government" means government regulation of safety issues, welfare and such?

And what is "Uber-Capitalism"?

Edit: Thank you, Syniks.

US Liberals favor Big Government, European-like welfare-state/semi-socialist economic policies, rejection of personal responsibility in favor of "social" issues, and are conflicted on the idea of Personal Freedoms.
:eek:

Liberals are socialists? (kinda)

How... completely and utterly bizarre. You know, from a European perspective.

In the simplest abstraction:

US Liberals favor Big Government, European-like welfare-state/semi-socialist economic policies, rejection of personal responsibility in favor of "social" issues, and are conflicted on the idea of Personal Freedoms.

US Conservatives favor Big Government, Uber-Capitalisim, rejection of "social" issues in favor of Personal Responsibility, are conflicted on the idea of Personal Freedoms.

US "Libertarians" favor as little Government as is humanly possible, Uber Capitalisim, and hold as Absolutes the Ideal of Personal Freedom and Responsibility.

You can add that in the days of the Founding Fathers, "liberal" would have the same definition as the "libertarian" of today.

The current "liberal" in American politics is actually a socialist.

And what is "Uber-Capitalism"?

No regulations and no welfare.

Noble Men: I know, but maybe I can get a good definition out before then. The word "polite" may drive trolls away, but I know there are intelligent and decent people on this board who are experts on American politics. Some of them aren't even biased. I just hope some of them are online, before this turns into a war.

I'm hoping this doesn't start a war as well. We can but hope...

No regulations and no welfare.

Right. The ideal of "Making your own way, and if you fail we're not going to help, it's your responsibility to work your way back up"?

Whispering Legs: Seriously? The word has been changed quite like that?

Perhaps this will help:

US liberals think George Galloway is cool.

US "Libertarians" favor as little Government as is humanly possible, Uber Capitalisim, and hold as Absolutes the Ideal of Personal Freedom and Responsibility.

So a Libertarian Government would be like in Jennifer Government?

Scary.

Perhaps this will help:

US liberals think George Galloway is cool.

Thank you, Lacadaemon, that does help, actually. Wow. This explains a lot. Every time I've said I was "a bit liberal" American posters have actually read "a bit socialist". No wonder there's such vitriol.

Perhaps this will help:

US liberals think George Galloway is cool.
It won't help if you don't tell everyone who George Galloway is.

Right. The ideal of "Making your own way, and if you fail we're not going to help, it's your responsibility to work your way back up"?

Yeah.

Don't look at me, I think it's a silly idea too.

Ilura: He was using a British-type comparison, to help us Brits.

This is George Galloway:

http://www.respectcoalition.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Galloway

Yeah.

Don't look at me, I think it's a silly idea too.

Please do try not to be potentially inflammatory. Politeness is all that keeps away the trolls. However, thanks for the explanation. This lil' sesh is really helping :)

It won't help if you don't tell everyone who George Galloway is.

He was one of the few Labour Poloticians (sp?) who opposed the War in Iraq from the outset. He was accused of being in cahoots with Saddam Hussein, although nothing has been proven.

He recently formed his own party to contest Labour.

You can add that in the days of the Founding Fathers, "liberal" would have the same definition as the "libertarian" of today.

Yes. Libertarians are sometimes self-described as "classical liberals", which is to say. "libertarian" tends to mean what "liberal" used to mean.

Unfortunately, because socialism has always had a bad connotation in USA politics, in the middle of the 20th Century, American socialists (and those further left) began identifying themselves as "liberals", and, by the 1970's, had completely co-opted the term.

Of course, political labels are always tricky. Witness how the Left tags anything they disagree with as "Fascist", and gets away with with it. (Yes, I know that the Right tends, to a lesser extent, to inappropriately use "Communist" as a slur, but they don't tend to get away with it to the same extent)

I think this thread has been needed for a very long time.

Ladies and gentlemen:

I come before you to ask a simple question. It would really make my day - no, my week, if you the posters of the NationStates general forums could answer this politely and calmly without resorting to shouting at each other. I can't enforce this, of course, but basically, no discussion is of any use when both sides just snipe at each other.

So I'm asking, nicely, and without bias, as someone who genuinely does not understand: What's the difference between "Liberal" and "Libertarian" in terms of American politics?

I ask this because I see both words bandied around a lot here, but the picture isn't clear enough. I understand "liberal" has been subverted somehow, but I'm not even sure what Americans understood it to mean in the first place.

So I'm asking, please, whether you're right or left or centrist, could someone please explain? And if someone else disagrees, could they try to do so politely, at least?

This is an honest, unbiased, genuine question from someone who really does not understand the subject, who considers himself mostly centrist, by British standards.
To give you a different perspective, try this quiz (http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html). This delinates between the three views pretty well. Most strong libertarians will find themselves to be economically conservative and socially liberal by modern standards.

Yes. Libertarians are sometimes self-described as "classical liberals", which is to say. "libertarian" tends to mean what "liberal" used to mean.

Unfortunately, because socialism has always had a bad connotation in USA politics, in the middle of the 20th Century, American socialists (and those further left) began identifying themselves as "liberals", and, by the 1970's, had completely co-opted the term.

Of course, political labels are always tricky. Witness how the Left tags anything they disagree with as "Fascist", and gets away with with it. (Yes, I know that the Right tends, to a lesser extent, to inappropriately use "Communist" as a slur, but they don't tend to get away with it to the same extent)

Right, I get it now. This is where this word "libertarian" comes in.

I guess the Cold War and, well, the fact that capitalism seems to feature so very intrinsically in what one would describe as the "American Dream" are the reasons "socialism" is such a dirty word in the States?

And yes, the Fascist/Communist tags are immediately obvious - the name-calling is one of the first things one notices about any polarised political system like America's. I tend to disregard these entirely unless ideological or historical evidence is provided that such a policy as is under discussion has been used for the same or comparable reasons by an actual fascist or communist government in the past.

The difference between liberals and libertarians:

Liberals tend to support personal freedom but not economic freedom
Libertarians support both personal and economic freedom.

Libertarians are against taxes on labor (or income taxes) and capital gains taxes, support ending the *federal* war on drugs and letting each state decide its own drug policy and support a non-interventionist (not isolationist) foreign policy -- Libertarians are often perceived as being isolationist...but we're for keeping the lines of communication open through trade.

Please...libertarianism is a legitimate philosophy. Please do not let the radical libertarians scare you with their talk of 'privatizing the sidewalk' and ending taxation and *all* regulations. Not all libertarians are hardcore anarcho-capitalist radicals. Majority of us are constitutionalists.

To give you a different perspective, try this quiz (http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html). This delinates between the three views pretty well. Most strong libertarians will find themselves to be economically conservative and socially liberal by modern standards.
Whereas economists and Europeans will say that they are economically liberal. Is it any wonder we struggle in debates sometimes?

At school I started saying my views were liberal , but then people thought I was a regular Michael Moore. I guess I have to keep using libertarian. :(

Libertarians usually call for a non-interventionist foreign policy.

The difference between liberals and libertarians:

Liberals tend to support personal freedom but not economic freedom
Libertarians support both personal and economic freedom.

Libertarians are against taxes on labor (or income taxes) and capital gains taxes, support ending the *federal* war on drugs and letting each state decide its own drug policy and support a non-interventionist (not isolationist) foreign policy -- Libertarians are often perceived as being isolationist...but we're for keeping the lines of communication open through trade.

Please...libertarianism is a legitimate philosophy. Please do not let the radical libertarians scare you with their talk of 'privatizing the sidewalk' and ending taxation and *all* regulations. Not all libertarians are hardcore anarcho-capitalist radicals. Majority of us are constitutionalists.

This fits. Libertarianism is the philosophy of as little government control as possible whilst maintaining order, of making one's own way, and of increased State power?

You say non-interventionist but not isolationist. I understand that the supporters of interventionism tend to rhetorically blur this distinction for their own purposes. Is the supporting principle behind it that the country should be concerned with its own affairs, not those of others? That would seem to fit with the rest of the ideal, including the lack of emphasis on welfare, social security and so on.

Right. The ideal of "Making your own way, and if you fail we're not going to help, it's your responsibility to work your way back up"?

Whispering Legs: Seriously? The word has been changed quite like that?

Yes, it most certainly has changed that way.

It became out of fashion to call people "socialists" or "Communists" after the McCarthy hearings - you couldn't call them that without incurring the wrath of the media. So they started calling them "liberals".

Note, for instance, that Nancy Pelosi, and her parents, are all members of not only the Democratic Party, but have been life long members of the Communist Party. It's ok to say it now - here in the US, Marx's little book is used as decoration on trendy coffee tables.

Yes, it most certainly has changed that way.

It became out of fashion to call people "socialists" or "Communists" after the McCarthy hearings - you couldn't call them that without incurring the wrath of the media. So they started calling them "liberals".

Note, for instance, that Nancy Pelosi, and her parents, are all members of not only the Democratic Party, but have been life long members of the Communist Party. It's ok to say it now - here in the US, Marx's little book is used as decoration on trendy coffee tables.

Thank you too, Whispering Legs (That feels like a very odd sentence). See, in Britain we still have meanings of these words much closer to the originals, and we don't really use the word "Libertarian" at all in this context. I have a feeling this might have something to do with why many Americans think Europe is some kind of socialist state - yes, we're liberal, but we're using an entirely different meaning of the word to you guys.

...and, okay, yes, we have some socialists too. Shh.

Thank you too, Whispering Legs (That feels like a very odd sentence). See, in Britain we still have meanings of these words much closer to the originals, and we don't really use the word "Libertarian" at all in this context. I have a feeling this might have something to do with why many Americans think Europe is some kind of socialist state - yes, we're liberal, but we're using an entirely different meaning of the word to you guys.

...and, okay, yes, we have some socialists too. Shh.
Many Americans see Europe as Ueber-Socialist.

Good questions. Good answers. Kudos for civility.

The difference between liberals and libertarians:

Liberals tend to support personal freedom but not economic freedom
Libertarians support both personal and economic freedom.

Libertarians are against taxes on labor (or income taxes) and capital gains taxes, support ending the *federal* war on drugs and letting each state decide its own drug policy and support a non-interventionist (not isolationist) foreign policy -- Libertarians are often perceived as being isolationist...but we're for keeping the lines of communication open through trade.

Please...libertarianism is a legitimate philosophy. Please do not let the radical libertarians scare you with their talk of 'privatizing the sidewalk' and ending taxation and *all* regulations. Not all libertarians are hardcore anarcho-capitalist radicals. Majority of us are constitutionalists.
's why I said as little government as possible, not NO government.... :D

Good questions. Good answers. Kudos for civility.
It was a rare occurrence.

Good questions. Good answers. Kudos for civility.

I must say I'm very happy with this thread. It's cleared up an awful lot in my mind. A little politeness goes a long way. Now, if only we could get people referencing BBC News instead of Fox or the New Internationalist when they want to make a point ;)

Edit: Brits! Take notes! I shall be posting a test later.

I don't see Europe as some monolithic place that's all socialist.

I've been rather surprised by the transformation of UK Labour from an essentially socialist party to "something else". And although some European governments aspire to be model socialist governments, most seem to vacillate - which no doubt puts everyone in a bad mood.

I do think businesses are sending you all a signal. The general employment malaise is caused by high labor and overhead costs.

While a business can survive in a socialist country with fairly socialist neighbors (who all have similar labor and overhead costs), they cannot compete for long against countries that are not burdening their businesses with the same labor and overhead costs.

Unless you plan on building a big wall around the EU, and sealing out international trade, the developing world is going to take a lot of jobs.

Yes, it's great that the euro is worth more than the dollar. That means that a BMW built in South Carolina will cost the BMW company less to produce than one built in Germany. And look - they don't pay as much tax, or subsidize more than two weeks vacation per worker per year.

Thank you for recognizing that both American "liberals" and "conservatives" are in favor of so-called "big government" - basically, any type of regulation. I live in one of the most conservative regions of the US (67% voted for Bush in the last election, swinging it to Bush - I live in Ohio) and it is all too common here to have "conservatives" viewed as libertarians, against any increase in government size, while liberals are yelled at as being "wimpy," "tax-and-spend," and "immoral."

The truth, in America, is that both sides have issues they believe the government should regulate, and each side believes the opposite of the other:

"Liberals": economic issues (trustbusting, corporate fraud, environmental issues) should be regulated; personal rights and equal opportunity (welfare, public education, civil rights, affirmative action) are paramount. Still ondemned as lazy socialists and communists (remnant of 1950's Red Scare).

"Conservatives": economics should be deregulated (Carnegie's philosophy that the "best people" will rise to power in a completely capitalist system and those that don't rise are inherently lazy and thus should not receive government benefits and welfare) and "personal" rights must be enforced as traditions (whose, no one's quite sure) declare (ie, little civil rights for gays).

"Libertarians": anything goes. Complete capitalism, Complete civil rights: Rockefeller smoking marijuana, if taken to its extreme. (This is the concept, not the actualization. Check this out:http://www.lp.org/)

Maybe I have a skewed perspective; I don't know. All I know is that a local newspaper once (more than once) ran a "conservative" letters to the editor that said we should execute any people who condone abortions and that we should only bother to educate "leaders" and "healers", leaving the rest to work in factories.

Thank you for recognizing that both American "liberals" and "conservatives" are in favor of so-called "big government" - basically, any type of regulation... The truth, in America, is that both sides have issues they believe the government should regulate, and each side believes the opposite of the other:

"Liberals": economic issues (trustbusting, corporate fraud, environmental issues) should be regulated; personal rights and equal opportunity (welfare, public education, civil rights, affirmative action) are paramount.

"Conservatives": economics should be deregulated (Carnegie's philosophy that the "best people" will rise to power in a completely capitalist system...) and "personal" rights must be enforced as traditions (whose, no one's quite sure).

Okay, question: What's "trustbusting"?

Also: Is this a case of liberals believing in negative freedom and conservatives in positive freedom (J.S. Mill)?

Maybe I have a skewed perspective; I don't know. All I know is that a local newspaper once (more than once) ran a "conservative" letters to the editor that said we should execute any people who condone abortions and that we should only bother to educate "leaders" and "healers", leaving the rest to work in factories.

Thanks, but extremists have no place in such a discussion (in a place with no influence, such as here), and as such the best way tends to be to ignore them. I do :) Well, or bait them. That's always fun. But only sometimes.

Good questions. Good answers. Kudos for civility. Libertarians tend to be Civil... it's 'cause we also tend to carry guns...
Thank you for recognizing that both American "liberals" and "conservatives" are in favor of so-called "big government" - basically, any type of regulation. <snip> The truth, in America, is that both sides have issues they believe the government should regulate, and each side believes the opposite of the other:

"Liberals": economic issues (trustbusting, corporate fraud, environmental issues) should be regulated; personal rights and equal opportunity (welfare, public education, civil rights, affirmative action) are paramount. Still ondemned as lazy socialists and communists (remnant of 1950's Red Scare). One point of contention, you cannot create "equal opportunity" or increase the public "welfare" (as US Liberals are wont to try); to do so violates the other personal Rights - not the least of which is the Right to Property (what is mine is mine).
"Conservatives": economics should be deregulated (Carnegie's philosophy that the "best people" will rise to power in a completely capitalist system and those that don't rise are inherently lazy and thus should not receive government benefits and welfare) and "personal" rights must be enforced as traditions (whose, no one's quite sure) declare (ie, little civil rights for gays). No real quibbles here.
[quote]"Libertarians": anything goes. Complete capitalism, Complete civil rights: Rockefeller smoking marijuana, if taken to its extreme.
Most libertarians are not that "extreme". "Anything Goes" extends only as far as not actively injuring another person or their property. We're death on that. But a Rockefeller certanly could Smoke if s/he wanted to. We also believe that there should be a good "safety net" for the least fortunate/truly disabled - we just insist that it NOT be handled by the Government where 80+% of the dollars extorted from the Taxpayers goes to, well, paper pushers pushing paper at paper pushers. A properly run charity is MUCH more efficient.

Maybe I have a skewed perspective; I don't know. All I know is that a local newspaper once (more than once) ran a "conservative" letters to the editor that said we should execute any people who condone abortions and that we should only bother to educate "leaders" and "healers", leaving the rest to work in factories. :rolleyes: Maybe you should add "Reactionary Nutburger" to your local political letter writer lexicon...

"Trustbusting" is the government forcing the break up of monopolies. Notable examples of this are Carnegie's US Steel, Rockfeller's Standard Oil, the Northwest Securities Company (railroads), and Microsoft. Notable trustbuster presidents include Teddy Roosevelt and especially William Howard Taft, the only good Ohio president out of eight :rolleyes: , both part of the early 1900's Progressivist movement that saw alcohol prohibited and women voting. Does that answer the question?

Okay, question: What's "trustbusting"?

A "Trust" is essentially a Monopoly created by the collusive actions of multiple companies.

OPEC is a "Trust" in the legal sense of the word. They collude to arbitrairly set prices rather than competing in the open market.

"Trust Busting" is the action of Government to force fair and open competition between players in a marketplace.

Occasionally this is applied to Monopolies or percieved Monopolies (see the Micro$oft trials).

Ah yes, thank you :) That's very useful. So, in one sense, the conservative who says that it's one's own responsibility to make one's own way, in the sense of capitalism, will tend towards non-trustbusting, believing that if a corporation gains a monopoly or quasi-monopoly then it's earned it and that's its right to have, kinda thing?

OPEC isn't a trust, per se; it's a cartel, since the participants are countries and not companies. If Exxon-Mobil, BP, and Texaco merged, then it could be a trust; trusts normally involve one company or holding company having, in its market, nearly complete vertical integration (owning bits of all levels in the industry to eliminate middlemen, from mine to refinery to railroad like US Steel) or horizontal integration (owning all of one level of production, like Standard Oil owning 95% of the refineries in the US [and thus the world] in the late 1800's, including one right down the street from me).

Ah yes, thank you :) That's very useful. So, in one sense, the conservative who says that it's one's own responsibility to make one's own way, in the sense of capitalism, will tend towards non-trustbusting, believing that if a corporation gains a monopoly or quasi-monopoly then it's earned it and that's its right to have, kinda thing?

Exactly. Check out Andrew Carnegie's The Gospel of Wealth (http://xroads.virginia.edu/~DRBR/wealth.html) for the philosophy.

Thank you all very much. You've been most useful. I have to leave the computer now, and when I come back, I imagine trolls on both (or, indeed, all three) sides will have torn this thread to shreds. But it was nice learning from you all for a few hours.

Also: This is the 44th reply, meaning that the thread has gone three pages with no battles. I'm glad to say I feel a little proud at that, to be honest :)

You may all have e-soup. I'd distribute e-cookies, but I'm out of them at the moment. If anyone wishes for e-minestrone, they may have it.

OPEC isn't a trust, per se; it's a cartel, since the participants are countries and not companies. If Exxon-Mobil, BP, and Texaco merged, then it could be a trust; trusts normally involve one company or holding company having, in its market, nearly complete vertical integration (owning bits of all levels in the industry to eliminate middlemen, from mine to refinery to railroad like US Steel) or horizontal integration (owning all of one level of production, like Standard Oil owning 95% of the refineries in the US [and thus the world] in the late 1800's, including one right down the street from me).
Well, yes, but aside from being a cartel of countries (which one could argue in this case are actually corporations) in what real way does OPEC not meet your/the criteria?

To give you a different perspective, try this quiz (http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html). This delinates between the three views pretty well. Most strong libertarians will find themselves to be economically conservative and socially liberal by modern standards.
I've never heard of a "Statist". What is that?

Well, yes, but aside from being a cartel of countries (which one could argue in this case are actually corporations) in what real way does OPEC not meet your/the criteria?

I suppose it's simply definition. I've often thought myself of countries as corporations wih citizens instead of stockholders.

Thank you too, Whispering Legs (That feels like a very odd sentence). See, in Britain we still have meanings of these words much closer to the originals, and we don't really use the word "Libertarian" at all in this context. I have a feeling this might have something to do with why many Americans think Europe is some kind of socialist state - yes, we're liberal, but we're using an entirely different meaning of the word to you guys.

...and, okay, yes, we have some socialists too. Shh.
Many Americans refer to Canada as a socialist country, also.

I've never heard of a "Statist". What is that?

A statist is a person who believes in government as the solution to all problems. Socialists, Communists, and Fascists are examples of statists. Statism views the individual as weak and dependent on the group.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statism

Please do try not to be potentially inflammatory. Politeness is all that keeps away the trolls. However, thanks for the explanation. This lil' sesh is really helping :)

My apologies. It wasn't my intention, but I felt the need to clarify that I didn't believe in that.

Wow, I never knew all these definitions either (Libertarian and statist) and I'm a US citizen :)
Turns out I'm not conservative (politically at least) but right in the middle under statist. wierd. I think I'll get a second and third oppinion though.

That was quite the useful little site though :)

liberal is a "mind set" or attitude that government can (and should) make things better for its people

libertarian is a tiny pretty much insignificant 3rd party advocating that government get out of everything but... defense and.... border patrol?

A statist is a person who believes in government as the solution to all problems. Socialists, Communists, and Fascists are examples of statists. Statism views the individual as weak and dependent on the group.

Fascists are, but no, Socialist and Communists aren't.

Stalinists and Social Democrats are, yes, but Marxism and all other forms of communism are anti-statist, in that they believe in the eventual abolition of the state. The same might be argued for some forms of socialism.

A statist is a person who believes in government as the solution to all problems. Socialists, Communists, and Fascists are examples of statists. Statism views the individual as weak and dependent on the group.

Fascists are, but no, Socialists and Communists aren't.

Stalinists and Social Democrats are, yes, but Marxism and all other forms of communism are anti-statist, in that they believe in the eventual abolition of the state. The same might be argued for some forms of socialism.

A statist is a person who believes in government as the solution to all problems. Socialists, Communists, and Fascists are examples of statists. Statism views the individual as weak and dependent on the group.

Fascists are, but no, Socialists and Communists aren't.

Stalinists and Social Democrats are, yes, but Marxism and all other forms of communism are anti-statist, in that they believe in the eventual abolition of the state. The same might be argued for some forms of socialism.

It all kind of breaks down like this:

Liberals tend to be socially liberal, but economically conservative
Conservatives tend to be socially conservative, but economically liberal
Libertarians tend to be socially and economically liberal
Statists (which, to be honest, I've never actually encountered) tend to be socially and economically conservative

socially liberal means that someone follows a "whatever you like" idea, sort of live and let live. People can make their own lifestyle decisions, as long as they take responsibility for those choices.

socially conservative means that people value "traditional" lifestyles: ie 1 man 1 woman, 2.3 kids...the "typical" "perfect" american family, where it is all about mom, god and apple pie (Just kidding about that last part)

Economically liberal means a true capitalist system: no welfare, no control over business, government functions like social security would be privitized. Essentially, everyone is responsible for their own success.

Economically conservative is essentailly socialist. Everyone must succede together in order for society to benefit.

please note that these abstractions describe, in general, extreme versions of each group. Someone can be economically conservative and not be socialist...They could support a good level of welfare, but not think that it should be a truly socialist state.

I'm sure someone's answered the same way I'm about to by now, but I'll answer anyway.

I think this is a case of extremity. A liberal, in modern terms, is someone believing in an excess of civil freedoms and a limited amount of economic freedoms. A libertarian, on the other hand, is someone that believes in nigh limitless civil freedoms, and equally limitless economic freedoms. In contrast, a conservative is generally someone who believes in slightly more limited civil freedoms, and an excess of economic freedoms.

Modern American liberals believe in social freedom but are restrictive of economic freedom.

Contrasting to libertarians, who believe in *both* social *and* economic freedom. However, it seems that liberals are trying to hide behind the guise of being 'libertarian,' citing that in Europe it means something different.

Modern American liberals believe in social freedom but are restrictive of economic freedom.

Contrasting to libertarians, who believe in *both* social *and* economic freedom. However, it seems that liberals are trying to hide behind the guise of being 'libertarian,' citing that in Europe it means something different.

Liberals are just as likely to curb social freedoms as conservatives. The push to restrict smoking in private places is a prime example. Because an individual has a choice to go into private places like bars, why is this the business of the government? This is statist. Libertarians are against this based on individual choice. You own your body.

Conservatives restrict economic freedoms also. Paleo-conservative Pat Buchanan pushes for trade restrictions, tarrifs, and subsidies. A libertarian would not push for this. Libertarians believe in free trade.

Statist believe in state control. They believe in the collective. Libertarians believe in individualism.

Thank you too, Whispering Legs (That feels like a very odd sentence). See, in Britain we still have meanings of these words much closer to the originals, and we don't really use the word "Libertarian" at all in this context. I have a feeling this might have something to do with why many Americans think Europe is some kind of socialist state - yes, we're liberal, but we're using an entirely different meaning of the word to you guys.

...and, okay, yes, we have some socialists too. Shh.

Actually the best definition for libetarian is their own...

Libertarians believe that you have the right to live your life as you wish, without the government interfering -- as long as you don’t violate the rights of others. Politically, this means Libertarians favor rolling back the size and cost of government, and eliminating laws that stifle the economy and control people’s personal choices.

Unfortunately, in the United States the communist and socialist parties were all but wiped out in the 1930's through the 1950's. Not being ones go just go away, they changed tatics and infilterated the Democratic Party which consisted of pretty much the lower middle class average working stiff. Once found out, they commonly change their name to something that sounds very nice and "thoughtful". Examples are : Liberal, Progressive, Centrist, Moderate etc. If a factions identity is already taken (Liberal) all the better, they infect that too. True liberals in this country have not actually changed, but socialists and Marxists have stolen their identity. One thing is for certain though, an american liberal is an entirely different creature than a European one.

Contrasting to libertarians, who believe in *both* social *and* economic freedom.

except for the ones that don't. like those pro-imperialism 'neolibertarians' that think the military isn't big or expensive enough yet and doesn't kill nearly enough dirty foreigners. or those 'paleolibertarians' that want all sorts of reactionary social policies enacted, but by the states or local governments, not the federal government. and then there are all those people and organizations that kevin carson dubs 'vulgar libertarians', whose main position seems to be that the rich need all the help they can get. and it is a rare libertarian indeed who isn't all in favor of the private fascism of the internal hierarchy of the modern corporation.

However, it seems that liberals are trying to hide behind the guise of being 'libertarian,' citing that in Europe it means something different.

those on the left that use the term 'libertarian' are not the same as those identified by the term 'liberal' in america. and we really do have the prior claim to the term, and a history of continuous use of it too. plus, our usage makes sense, whereas the pro-authority, pro-hierarchy use is just silly.

didn't this get explained elsewhere?

except for the ones that don't. like those pro-imperialism 'neolibertarians' that think the military isn't big or expensive enough yet and doesn't kill nearly enough dirty foreigners. or those 'paleolibertarians' that want all sorts of reactionary social policies enacted, but by the states or local governments, not the federal government. and then there are all those people and organizations that kevin carson dubs 'vulgar libertarians', whose main position seems to be that the rich need all the help they can get. and it is a rare libertarian indeed who isn't all in favor of the private fascism of the internal hierarchy of the modern corporation.<snip>
I've never met (or heard of) any of the above and certainly wouldn't consider any of those positions to be "Libertarian". They sound like attempts to forcibly weld certain Left & Right radicals/concepts into the the Libertarian movement in order to marginalize it.

All of those positions require intrusive government and confiscatory taxtion to work - even if it's under the guize of "local" governments.

I am not "in favor of" corporate hierarchies... though I do believe in Contract Law. Any large "organized" structure, by its nature, stifles individual creativity and productivity in favor of "corporate productivity". That's why so many good inventors cant run their newly created companies.

You can add that in the days of the Founding Fathers, "liberal" would have the same definition as the "libertarian" of today.

you mean like tom paine's calls for a guaranteed basic income and an old age pension for everyone? or rousseau's proto-socialist attacks on private property?

The current "liberal" in American politics is actually a socialist.

so we'll be socializing the means of production and handing ownership and control of them over to the workers directly or the people in general soon then, will we?

didn't this get explained elsewhere?

I belive so yes. Infact, iirc, Super-power himself started two threads on that topic.

Though I am willing to admit that it is a product of my fevered imagination. :)