NationStates Jolt Archive

Thats libertarian/Minarchist, most people on General support it.

So do you? I think its a good idea.

Social libertarianism good, economic libertarianism bad.

It's bad.

Libertarian4ever!! :cool:

So do you? I think its a good idea.

I think you are taking that quote out of context, as I think he was referring to the social aspect of government, not the economic particularly.

I think you are taking that quote out of context, as I think he was referring to the social aspect of government, not the economic particularly.

i dont think so, it was in reply to a post that basically describes classic libertarinsim.

It's bad.
Yes, so very evil.

:rolleyes:

Anyways, I am libertarian. Only ideology that makes sense to me.

It´s not exactly my cup of tea.

And most of them are just closet conservatives.

Libertarianism is just Classical Liberalism, I do wish people would use the correct terms.

Yes, so very evil.

:rolleyes:

Anyways, I am libertarian. Only ideology that makes sense to me.

Giving people too much freedom can be a bad thing.

I think.

Giving people too much freedom can be a bad thing.

I think.
Yes, vee must crush zee little man. :D Keine mercy!

Sounds cool.

Yes, vee must crush zee little man. :D Keine mercy!

:eek:

I demand to see your sources!

Libertarians favor an ethic of self-responsibility and strongly oppose the welfare state, because they believe forcing someone to provide aid to others is ethically wrong, ultimately counter-productive, or both.

Strike whatever I said, I like it!

:eek:

I demand to see your sources!
Heh, vat are zis sources you speak of? Sounds like more propaganda from die Juden! :eek:


Strike whatever I said, I like it!
Lol. What brought about the change in mind?

Libertarianism is a political philosophy advocating that individuals should be free to do whatever they wish with their person or property, as long as they do not infringe on the same liberty of others.

I see no issue with this as people should be free to do as they wish with their own property, hence the term ownership.

Heh, vat are zis sources you speak of? Sounds like more propaganda from die Juden! :eek:
ORLY?! :mp5:
Lol. What brought about the change in mind?
strongly oppose the welfare state
:cool:

Social is okay, but economic is a must!

ORLY?! :mp5:
http://img378.imageshack.us/img378/5417/yarly2aj.jpg

:cool:
You mean you didn't know this before, or you were just pulling one's leg for fun? :D

Yes, so very evil.

:rolleyes:

Anyways, I am libertarian. Only ideology that makes sense to me.

Same here.


And most of them are just closet conservatives.

Not true. Libs disagree with con in quite a few areas. Especially in the areas of abortion, gay marriage, drug legalization and others I cannot think of off the top of my head.

I think the easiest desription of a Libertarian would be someone who believes that people have the right to live their lives as they see fit. And no one has the right to tell them how to do so.

Does that sound about right to you Europa? or do you see it differently.

Oh, i voted yes on the poll.:D

http://img378.imageshack.us/img378/5417/yarly2aj.jpg

*attacks*
You mean you didn't know this before, or you were just pulling one's leg for fun? :D
Nooo.. not me!

Does that sound about right to you Europa? or do you see it differently.
The ideology is essentially "An it harm none, do what ye will" to paraphrase from Wicca. One may personally be conservative, but believe this should not impact upon the lives of others, and therefore still be libertarian. Like-minded people would simply band together. This closet "conservative" thing is usually slander.

It´s not exactly my cup of tea.

And most of them are just closet conservatives.

Ah the fate of the libertarian. To be called greedy capitalists by the left wing, and to be called pot-smoking hippies by the right-wing; As both sides pretend we are simply a radical branch of the other.

i dont think so, it was in reply to a post that basically describes classic libertarinsim.

Pyotr split up the post he was addressing.

The sentence you quoted was only addressed to social policies. He made no comment on the economic policies.

Nooo.. not me!
Funny how all the NS "evil clowns" (as Leonstein once put it), like Fiddles, The South Islands etc. are libertarian. Now you included. :eek:

Ah the fate of the libertarian. To be called greedy capitalists by the left wing, and to be called pot-smoking hippies by the right-wing; As both sides pretend we are simply a radical branch of the other.

Its much easier to hide behind strawmen when reason isn't really your game.

Its much easier to hide behind strawmen when reason isn't really your game.

Say what you will, I speak from experience. The "reason" there is backlash from both sides in the american system is tied to history. Third parties have been hard-pressed to find acceptance in a system ruled almost exclusively by two parties. Both parties then, do not like to comprehend how they can ally with a third-party because any party that is not specifically allied to one of the two parties represents a threat to both of them.

No I do not like libertarianism. I think that its adherents like to ignore history. When libertarianism was tried in the 19th century, we received nothing but poverty, which is why socialism became so popular in the 20th.

Libertarianism offers no true freedom, because it consigned those who couldn't afford education to remain in their social place for life.

I also disagree with their positions on gambling, heroin and abortion (I consider them to be destructive), and some other issues.

I'm a supporter of the welfare state and a bigger supporter of free education.

Heh, vat are zis sources you speak of? Sounds like more propaganda from die Juden! :eek:

This is hilarious!

Same here.



Not true. Libs disagree with con in quite a few areas. Especially in the areas of abortion, gay marriage, drug legalization and others I cannot think of off the top of my head.

I think the easiest desription of a Libertarian would be someone who believes that people have the right to live their lives as they see fit. And no one has the right to tell them how to do so.

Does that sound about right to you Europa? or do you see it differently.

Oh, i voted yes on the poll.:D

I know what it stands for.
Let me correct myself then. Most of the self-professed ´libertarians´ I´ve come across don´t really represent a picture like that.

Say what you will, I speak from experience. The "reason" there is backlash from both sides in the american system is tied to history. Third parties have been hard-pressed to find acceptance in a system ruled almost exclusively by two parties. Both parties then, do not like to comprehend how they can ally with a third-party because any party that is not specifically allied to one of the two parties represents a threat to both of them.

I was agreeing with you. Both sides purposefully misrepresent libertarian agenda.

I was agreeing with you. Both sides purposefully misrepresent libertarian agenda.

Ah, well- good to know.

No I do not like libertarianism. I think that its adherents like to ignore history. When libertarianism was tried in the 19th century, we received nothing but poverty, which is why socialism became so popular in the 20th.

It was? When and where? Last I understood, libertarianism as it is known, became popular in the 20th century. Ayn Rand has been, I believe, one of th epeople credited with the idea.

It has never been tried in the US that I am aware of.

It was? When and where? Last I understood, libertarianism as it is known, became popular in the 20th century. Ayn Rand has been, I believe, one of th epeople credited with the idea.
To be fair, it all began with Carl Menger, and it was proliferated by von Mises. Rand is one of the more trendy advocates though.

It was? When and where? Last I understood, libertarianism as it is known, became popular in the 20th century. Ayn Rand has been, I believe, one of th epeople credited with the idea.

It has never been tried in the US that I am aware of.


Probably referring to the "Gilded Age", which, while a popular example, was no definition of libertarianism at all. However, it was a fine lesson that free market and big government do not mix well. If you will have a free market, the government must be small enough to ensure that it cannot be used to infringe upon the people no matter how rich a singular person is.

To be fair, it all began with Carl Menger, and it was proliferated by von Mises. Rand is one of the more trendy advocates though.

Hmm. Guess I need to catch up on my reading.:p

Hmm. Guess I need to catch up on my reading.:p
As they say, It usually begins with the Austrians - this is particularly true of libertarianism. Read up on the Austrian School of Economics.

It was? When and where? Last I understood, libertarianism as it is known, became popular in the 20th century. Nope. From Wikipedia:

"Déjacque was the first to use the term "libertarian" in print in 1857 in a letter criticising Pierre Joseph Proudhon for an attack by the latter on feminism and his support for individual ownership of the product of labor and a market economy, saying: "it is not the product of his or her labor that the worker has a right to, but to the satisfaction of his or her needs, whatever may be their nature."

Oh, wait, you mean right-libertarianism. Nevermind, then. :)

So do you? I think its a good idea.

since there are any number of "minarchist" ideologies that fall under the categoy of "libertarian," please further define the term. What kind of "libertarianism?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agorism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualist_anarchism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Socialism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Socialism#Anarchist_communism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Socialism#Anarcho-syndicalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Socialism#Mutualism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Socialism#Council_communism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Socialism#Social_Ecology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolibertarianism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolibertarianism
...and many more variations under each larger category.

I realize that some people (especially my fellow Americans) like to pretend that their "libertarianism" is the only to have existed in the history of forever, but, alas, they are simply wrong. So, please clarify the question.

I realize that some people (especially my fellow Americans) like to pretend that their "libertarianism" is the only to have existed in the history of forever, but, alas, they are simply wrong. So, please clarify the question.

American libertarians also tend to focus the basis for their rights upon the constitution, and define their rights thus. Libertarians in other countries are typically more universal.

I realize that some people (especially my fellow Americans) like to pretend that their "libertarianism" is the only to have existed in the history of forever, but, alas, they are simply wrong. So, please clarify the question.
You forgot one of the most interesting. Anarcho-primitivism. ;)

Personally, I adhere to paleolibertarianism in the form of minarchism, despite having anarchocapitalist sympathies.

One only needs to see my sig to understand whether or not I am an advocate of Classical Liberalism.

However, I’m only libertarian in the economic sense really… when it comes to social policy I believe that some level of equality of opportunity should be instigated to prevent poverty cycles and that drugs should remain illegal.

Specifically, if an individual can’t help something which is natural (e.g. homosexuality) or if it is something which undermines their life plans greatly then they should be able to do as they wish providing it doesn’t cause harm to another.

I suppose I can be considered a flexible Thatcherite, a neo-lib.:)

Libertarianism seems to be the best of both worlds to me. With the current 2 party system you can either have lower economic freedom and higher personal freedom (Democrat) or lower personal freedom and higher economic freedom (Republican). If freedom is what you like then libertarianism seems like the best choice and I like my liberty.

I don't think people don't need government running their day-to-day lives. They can usually get along just fine doing that themselves.

I do recognize the need for a government in some situations though, which is what seperates me from an anarchist. A military is one of those things I think we need. No amount of talk would have stopped some nut like Hitler. And a lot of technologies developed by military research eventually winds up in the civilian market or is modified for exploration purposes. I also think we need a space agency. One less restricted and better funded. Back during the space race NASA was gearing up for a manned Mars mission after the moon. It never happened because people lost interest and NASA lost funding. Earth is the cradle of life as we know it, but one cannot live in the cradle forever.

I don't like that whole "No gun control" bit.

Social libertarianism good, economic libertarianism bad.

meaning you are against Libertarianism.

Libertarianism seems to be the best of both worlds to me. With the current 2 party system you can either have lower economic freedom and higher personal freedom (Democrat) or lower personal freedom and higher economic freedom (Republican). If freedom is what you like then libertarianism seems like the best choice and I like my liberty.

I don't think people don't need government running their day-to-day lives. They can usually get along just fine doing that themselves.

I do recognize the need for a government in some situations though, which is what seperates me from an anarchist. A military is one of those things I think we need. No amount of talk would have stopped some nut like Hitler. And a lot of technologies developed by military research eventually winds up in the civilian market or is modified for exploration purposes. I also think we need a space agency. One less restricted and better funded. Back during the space race NASA was gearing up for a manned Mars mission after the moon. It never happened because people lost interest and NASA lost funding. Earth is the cradle of life as we know it, but one cannot live in the cradle forever.


Libertarianism would be great if it was a viable alternative party with even the slightest bit of clout. they would always be there to try and keep the government under control.

It’s impractical, like communism.

It’s impractical, like communism.
Anarchocapitalism, perhaps. Minarchism, why?

meaning you are against Libertarianism.Libertarianism with a capital 'L', yes, as in the Libertarian Party. Libertarianism with a lowercase 'l' is fine.

meaning you are against Libertarianism.

To be fair, many libertarians in the US are basically republicans who don't want to admit it. (Meaning they emphasize free market way over social liberties.) So by your call they aren't particularly supporters of libertarianism either.

Anarchocapitalism, perhaps. Minarchism, why?

Several reasons. Monopolies, healthcare, education, etc.

Several reasons. Monopolies, healthcare, education, etc.
Yes, and again, I ask why?

To clarify:
-For those monopolies which continue to exist after significant de-regulation and cannot be brought down by market forces, there are anti-trust laws and the like.
-Minarchist governments can provide basic goods such as the ones you mentioned.

For those monopolies which continue to exist after significant de-regulation and cannot be brought down by market forces, there are anti-trust laws and the like.
How could those laws possibly be effective without a strong government to enforce them?
-Minarchist governments can provide basic goods such as the ones you mentioned.
How?

How could those laws possibly be effective without a strong government to enforce them?
Why do you conflate strong with big? They are not the same. Courts and laws would be no weaker under a minarchist system a priori. Minarchism at its very base is the government providing law, order and protection - the Nightwatchman State. You don't need a fascist State for this.

How?
Erm, like they are currently provided? It'd also employ the free-market where possible with schemes such as school and health vouchers to cut down fiscal burden.

Giving people too much freedom can be a bad thing.

I think.
Please tell me that you're joking.

No I do not like libertarianism. I think that its adherents like to ignore history. When libertarianism was tried in the 19th century, we received nothing but poverty,
Wow--what a way to ignore history! In fact, when controls were relaxed, we saw the standard of living increase for all. In the 20th century, we saw socialism tried--and it failed spectacularly.

I wonder why you see things so backward.


Libertarianism offers no true freedom, because it consigned those who couldn't afford education to remain in their social place for life.
Except that it doesn't.

Hint: you might just want to back up your idiotic claims, rather than spouting something which can be easily gainsaid. Just a thought, mind you.


I also disagree with their positions on gambling, heroin and abortion (I consider them to be destructive), and some other issues.
That doesn't mean you have to be a nanny to everyone. Yes, that is what you're desiring.


I'm a supporter of the welfare state and a bigger supporter of free education.
Then you support theft and slavery.

Several reasons. Monopolies, healthcare, education, etc.
Ummm....by monopolies you probably mean coercive monopolies, which ONLY exist via government fiat. In fact, governments themselves are the largest coercive monopolies around. So next time you think monopolies are bad, you must be railing against governments.

Healthcare and education aren't rights, either, just so you know. They are services, and should not be paid for via stolen money (i.e. taxation).

Then you support theft and slavery.

Sounds like a great idea.

Healthcare and education aren't rights, either, just so you know. They are services, and should not be paid for via stolen money (i.e. taxation).

Sounds like a great use for stolen money!

Sounds like a great idea.

Theft is theft, regardless of what the intention is.

libertarianism=AWESOME mainly becuase a government is there to defend the things that i have earned and what i have attained in my life time. I agree we need government but only to a point

Sounds like a great use for stolen money!

Then give them your own goddamn money. Don't tell other people what to do with theirs.

Theft is theft, regardless of what the intention is.

The ends justify the means.

Then give them your own goddamn money. Don't tell other people what to do with theirs.

Already do and so do you. Good boy we thank you for your money.

The ends justify the means.

How very fascist.

How very fascist.

If it does the job sure. I am happy to steal your money to educate the children.

If it does the job sure. I am happy to steal your money to educate the children.

And yet, leftists say we're the ones who are selfish.

And yet, leftists say we're the ones who are selfish.

If I was selfish, I would be keeping the money.

If I was selfish, I would be keeping the money.

You are selfish. You feel you should decide what other people do with their money, regardless of what they want, and that the money should go to people who did nothing to earn it.

You are selfish. You feel you should decide what other people do with their money, regardless of what they want, and that the money should go to people who did nothing to earn it.

Cool! I LOVE stealing your money for education!

I REALLY LOVE stealing your money to help out people that fall on hard times!

THANK YOU!

:headbang:
*Sigh* Something given has no value.

Ends do not justify means except in war.

Okay, now you're just being an asshole. I see no reason to waste more time debating the likes of you.

Good day, fascist.

Aww I am so hurt. To bad I don't care about what many liberts say.

Overall. I am just using your own style of debate. Annoying isn't it?

:headbang:
*Sigh* Something forcibly given has no value.

Edited for accuracy.

Something given freely has value. Being forced to give lessens the value of anything.

This message is hidden because The Black Forrest is on your ignore list.

COOL! I finally made it on someones ignore list!

Eh, that was uncalled for of me. TBF, I apologize for being an asshole. Whether you accept or not is your choice, so long as you read this.

I'm not normally this short-tempered.

Eh, that was uncalled for of me. TBF, I apologize for being an asshole. Whether you accept or not is your choice, so long as you read this.

I'm not normally this short-tempered.

No worries actually.

I should shouldn't have acted like a dick either. Trolling is usually not my style and for that I apologise.

Eh, that was uncalled for of me. TBF, I apologize for being an asshole. Whether you accept or not is your choice, so long as you read this.

I'm not normally this short-tempered.

No worries actually.

I should shouldn't have acted like a dick either. Trolling is usually not my style and for that I apologise.

Awwwww! :fluffle: :fluffle:






had to break the awkward silence somehow

No worries actually.

I should shouldn't have acted like a dick either. Trolling is usually not my style and for that I apologise.

I accept. :)

You two are really so cute together.......:D