NationStates Jolt Archive

Where are you on the political scale?

This was meant to be a poll... However you can just answer in your post.

Some common ones:

fascist, Republican, totalitarian, capitalist, centrist, libertarian, Democrat, Anarchist, socialist.

I just wanted to see the general consensus on the NS boards.

(I am a Liberal Socialist)

Libertarian Capitalist FTW!

I love people but I am opposed to many freedoms (speech etc.), so I guess "friendly fascist" or "benevolent dictatorship promoter" sort of fits me.

I find it hard to categorize myself, but generally, I tend to be very libertarian on social issues and relatively left-wing on economic issues.

Wow, original content!

Wow, original content!
Yeah, it’s not like we have 50 bajillion copycat threads on this topic, or a thread dedicated to listing members’ political beliefs (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=444888)...

I'm a spicy meatball.

Where are you on the political scale?

This was meant to be a poll... However you can just answer in your post.

Some common ones:

fascist, Republican, totalitarian, capitalist, centrist, libertarian, Democrat, Anarchist, socialist.

I just wanted to see the general consensus on the NS boards.

(I am a Liberal Socialist)

...
I could´ve sworn I answered this already...
:confused:

I'm a spicy meatball.

The best kind.

...
I could´ve sworn I answered this already...
:confused:

Don't worry, we all get confused sometimes.

I'm some sort of socialist/libertarian hybrid.

Socialist. The only remotely sane and rational belief.

I'm what you would call a Conservative Republican.

~ Romandeos

Ultra-liberal-capitalist-right-libertarian-classical liberal

Libertarian communist.

Ultra-liberal-capitalist-right-libertarian-classical liberal

Another one?

libertarian with fleeting primmie inclinations

I am one of those annoying people who dislike being labelled.

But yeah, really, whoever is against abortion, against the Death Penalty for Universal health care and for a healthy militarism all at the same time?

Another one?

probably the same one

i think i've met all 25 of them irl.

I am one of those annoying people who dislike being labelled.


You are a zesty marinade! *slaps a label saying so on the back of your head*

I have long since evolved beyond the need for political scales.

Click Stand;13604793']Don't worry, we all get confused sometimes.

I'm some sort of socialist/libertarian hybrid.

No, no, no. I meant I think I´ve already answered a question like this one on another thread. Hey, I already did my homework so I don´t have to answer the bonus question. Cool!:p

I guess I'm a moderate Green socialist but that sounds like too much work for my views

a thread dedicated to listing members’ political beliefs (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=444888)...

theres no possible way that was me who did my profile (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9662524&postcount=7) :eek:

I have long since evolved beyond the need for political scales.

I too am afraid of anything with the word "scales" in it ;)

I'm a socially liberal, economic conservative.

if you were to look at my political compass you would see me in the bottom right quadrant as socially liberal as you can get and a little shy of the most extreme you can get on economic conservative.

probably the same one

i think i've met all 25 of them irl.

Well, to be fair, most internet "libertarians" are:

1. RonPaulbots

2. From the school of "OMG! BUSH DID 9/11!"

3. "TEH EBIL MEXICANS & MUZLIMZ TOOK R JERBS! SEEL TEH BORDURS!"

4. "TEH GOLD STANDARD FTW"

5. "ANYONE WHO DOESNT LOVE REAGAN AND THE USA IS A COMMIE"

Well, to be fair, most internet "libertarians" are:

1. RonPaulbots

2. From the school of "OMG! BUSH DID 9/11!"

3. "TEH EBIL MEXICANS & MUZLIMZ TOOK R JERBS! SEEL TEH BORDURS!"

4. "TEH GOLD STANDARD FTW"

5. "ANYONE WHO DOESNT LOVE REAGAN AND THE USA IS A COMMIE"

That's why I've given up calling myself "libertarian". I swear, given how strongly most of them support the free market and the capitalist economy upon which it is built, they appear to have little or no actual knowledge of how a market economy works or how the economic history of that market and the varying external factors far beyond their simplistic conceptions have shaped it.

So, basically, I just say I'm a strong supporter of efficient, free markets and personal freedom. Anything more than that and you're just fantasizing based upon models that do not work in reality.

I swear, given how strongly most of them support the free market and the capitalist economy upon which it is built, they appear to have little or no actual knowledge of how a market economy works or how the economic history of that market and the varying external factors far beyond their simplistic conceptions have shaped it.


This is because "libertarians" of the mainstream American tradition don't advocate free markets. They advocate the interests of the employing class. This is why the pursuit of the interests of the employing class via the state (police, militaries, and the private property they protect) is at least tollerable if not absolutely necessary (even if couched in euphemisms like "minarchism" or "lesser of evils"), while the protection of the interests of the working class is only the lowest point of oppressive evil (despite, as you say, all of the historical and other evidence that contradicts their simplistic conceptions).

I quit associating myself with them when I realized that their "philosophy" essentially amounts to what are the tenants of bureaucratic statism, only somehow made legitimate because we "privatized" it or otherwise worked the phrase "private property" into the sentence. When Fred Thompson is "at least pro-market," as I have seen stated among "libertarians" here on NationStates, something is extremely wrong.

Libertarianism essentially amounts to a sort of neo-feudalism. And for the life of them, they can't figure out why they can't top 2% of the vote in any given election. "Because 'the people' are morons who don't understand their own interests."

Uh-huh.

Socially liberal lefty :)

For: Universal Health Care, Universal Free Education (at all levels), Nationalised Infrastructure, Transport and Utilities, Legalisation of Prostitution and Drugs (well except outright dangerous ones I guess, like tabaco ;) ), Progressive income tax, Anarcho-syndicalist ownership/management of large enterprise, Political Decentralisation, Small but highly specialised Army, and pretty much everything in terms of civil liberties (freedom of religion, though religious institutions would be taxed; freedom of speech, in every circumstance; right to abortion at all stages, etc.)

In those conditions I would even trust a free market, given a nationalised Central Bank, though in times of hardship I would expect the government to ration essential foods and distribute them equally.

I'm a spicy meatball.

*chews madly on LG*

oh,....for the record, im kinda mixed

part National Socialist, part Left-Wing Radical Communist

Ultra-liberal-capitalist-right-libertarian-classical liberal
I have long since evolved beyond the need for political scales.

I pray both realized there was a political scale in their signatures while posting.

the general consensus on the NS boards.

what

According to online political tests, I've been everything there is. I've been listed as Republican, Liberal, Facist, Conservative, Strong Democrat, Capitalist, and one even equated me with Darth Vader.

However, I consider myself a right leaning centrist.

Socialist. The only remotely insane and irrational belief.:)

I love people but I am opposed to many freedoms (speech etc.), so I guess "friendly fascist" or "benevolent dictatorship promoter" sort of fits me.

Same here. Let the people be 'free', but let the decisions be made by those who know whats best.

I believe in either a benevolent dictatorship, for the good of mankind... Or possibly a Totalitarian Capitalist thing, though that would probably be less good for mankind, but I'm sure we'll get better TV shows and video games that way.

I'm a communist-anarchist.

Overly horny libertarian socialist

Marxist-Leninist.

Marxist-Leninist.

WHAT!?!?! I thought you were a libertarian!:confused:

I vary depending on the issues, but I generally end up on the moderate left-center.

Click Stand;13607559']WHAT!?!?! I thought you were a libertarian!:confused:
I lol'd.

My political/ social compass scores have been prominently displayed in my sig for nearly three years. I consider myself a Social Democrat.

A very liberal socialist.

:)

No other political philosophy makes as much sense as Socialism. The only thing holding it back is one to entrust power too, as there really is no one we can trust.

Socialist. :)

Either pirate socialist, Utopian socialist, or Keynesian socialist or a mixture of the three.

Well you could say we are Fascist in appearance (symbols,uniforms,marching,parades,youth stuff) But we have some liberal ideas and no real group of people are oppressed. You could say its like a club and the only way to get in is to be a supporter of Phantomism.

Keynesian socialist

What kind of category is this?

Liberal tree-hugging hippie beatnik.

I just follow the crowd.

I just follow the crowd.

*points to the mud pit* They went thataway!

*points to the mud pit* They went thataway!

*pushes LG into the mudpit* Go swim with your brethren, oh clowny mud-person.

*points to the mud pit* They went thataway!

Ha ha, I'm not falling for that one again.

*goes other way, falls in mudpit*

Diabolical!

*pushes LG into the mudpit* Go swim with your brethren, oh clowny mud-person.

*splashes mud everywhere* YAY! *dives*

What kind of category is this?

God knows, I believe as a Marxist definition he would be a 'bourgeois socialist', as in one willing to use radical social policies to alleviate ills in order to preserve capitalism in the long run, ie New Deal and Welfare State.

That's why I've given up calling myself "libertarian". I swear, given how strongly most of them support the free market and the capitalist economy upon which it is built, they appear to have little or no actual knowledge of how a market economy works or how the economic history of that market and the varying external factors far beyond their simplistic conceptions have shaped it.

So, basically, I just say I'm a strong supporter of efficient, free markets and personal freedom. Anything more than that and you're just fantasizing based upon models that do not work in reality.

I feel your pain

"LAWYERZ DUN KONTRIBUTE 2 TEH EKONOMEE"

Nationalist, somewhere between Conservative and Libertarian. I borrow from both camps, depending on the issue. For example, I'm not so religious and don't really enjoy religious conservatism, but I'm also really big on border security/immigration control. I'm also big on free speech, individuality, personal freedom and liberty.

Conservative/Monarchist.

well according to one political compass thing (a sticky i think) on this i was put between Ghandi and the Dalai Lama for political scales. so i guess i'm a bit of a hippie. except i don't smoke weed.

in one willing to use radical social policies to alleviate ills in order to preserve capitalism in the long run, ie New Deal and Welfare State.

am I reading this right? *hands gold starr* (http://youtube.com/watch?v=RBz-9371tVo)

so i guess i'm a bit of a hippie. except i don't smoke weed.

so your just lazy for no apparent reason? :p

I'm an anarcho-syndicalist, with less emphasis on the anarcho- part.

I love people but I am opposed to many freedoms (speech etc.), so I guess "friendly fascist" or "benevolent dictatorship promoter" sort of fits me.

Better a single lion than a thousand rats, huh?

am I reading this right? *hands gold starr* (http://youtube.com/watch?v=RBz-9371tVo)



so your just lazy for no apparent reason? :p

that would cover it.:p

I fall within the broad category of libertarian socialism.

I'm so far left I make it look like the right.

Oh wait...

Better a single lion than a thousand rats, huh?
Damn right. At least a lion has a single purpose, unlike a thousand, infighting, stupid rats. Gives you a single target to remove if it gets a bit out of hand, too.

What kind of category is this?
A fairly sensible one. Keynes knew his stuff, after all, and socialism is a pretty good thing, overall. Keeps people just where you want them - cheery enough not to do anything stupid because they can't eat, but looking for a job to buy a TV etc.

Damn right. At least a lion has a single purpose, unlike a thousand, infighting, stupid rats. Gives you a single target to remove if it gets a bit out of hand, too.

But that lion also has an army of a thousand well armed rats to do his bidding for him.

But that lion also has an army of a thousand well armed rats to do his bidding for him.
This extended imagery is utter pish, but remember that said armed rats have rat families at home that may be starving hungry due to the lion's piss poor rule, and are a notoriously fickle power base.

See Mugabe. He's not going to last long, seeing as quite a lot of the generals are now against him on the quiet, and we even had a coup last year.

Off Topic:

Yootopia's name has given me an awesome idea for an internet social network.
It's called Youtopia and it's exactly like Facebook, except there aren't any friends lists and you can't see other people's profiles.

Off Topic:

Yootopia's name has given me an awesome idea for an internet social network.
It's called Youtopia and it's exactly like Facebook, except there aren't any friends lists and you can't see other people's profiles.
Sounds more like a pure internet vanity site, unlike Facebook, which is 90% vanity and 10% talking to other people and looking at events, quizzes etc.

Sounds more like a pure internet vanity site, unlike Facebook, which is 90% vanity and 10% talking to other people and looking at events, quizzes etc.

Vain perhaps, but a hermit vanity.

Edit: I do not forsee this site being very popular.

This extended imagery is utter pish, but remember that said armed rats have rat families at home that may be starving hungry due to the lion's piss poor rule, and are a notoriously fickle power base.

See Mugabe. He's not going to last long, seeing as quite a lot of the generals are now against him on the quiet, and we even had a coup last year.

Yeah, not to mention that life is so much better under Mugabe (or almost all other dictators or absolutists and non-democracies ever) than under most democracies (or other societies with comparably more freedoms).

well,on the behalf of me,and The Empire of JJRBSMS is a true dictatorship,almost. I want 2 c my people through it,but they have 2 know that i will lead them 2 great hights...my stand on civil rights is poor,but yesterday it was better...im not leading my people just down the road...to have no freedom. Im leading them in new hopes then before.

thank you,
on the behalf of
JJRBSMS

I've taken the liberty of reproducing the template from the earlier thread.

Political Beliefs:
Abortion: I don't care for it, but so what? I'm a guy. AND, it's no business of the government whatsoever.
Affirmative Action: A good idea for its time, it swiftly degenerated into an entitlement program. We're best off without it.
Arms Trade: Should be a war crime.
Death Penalty: Against
Drugs: Government power ratcheted up to absurd lengths. Legalize. And, don't sell them in "state" stores, and tax no more than any other commodity.
Economic System: Capitalism, small-scale, preferably.
Education: A worthy investment.
Electoral College in USA Elections: It's outlived its time, but, from a practical standpoint, there are enough small states so that it looks like we're stuck with it forever.
Environmentalism: As a matter of individual responsibility, yes.
Euthanasia: I reluctantly favor it.
Evolution or Creation?: Evolution as part of a science curriculum. Creation can be taught by churches if they wish.
FCC: Their attempts to monitor "decency" are a classic example of government overreach.
Gay Marriage: Absolutely. But it isn't gay marriage, its just marriage.
Gun Control: Molon labe!
Immigration Policies: should favor assimilation over multiculturism.
Income Tax: 10 % max, if at all.
Israel/Palestine: Israel. Israel has gay pride parades, free elections, and criticizing the government is practically a national pasttime. The Palestinians should seek to integrate within Israel, and enjoy the rights and privileges of Israeli citizens.
Philosophy: is either internally consistent, or it is not. Either way, it comes no closer to the truth than religion does.
Political Party Affiliation: independent.
President Bush/American Policies: They've been disastrous. Most of our forces are deployed overseas, leaving the US more vulnerable than ever.
Prostitution: Legalize.
Religion: Something we need to outgrow, and most likely will.
Social Security: Well, as long as I get what I paid into it. . .
The UN: An unnecessary expense.
Veganism/Vegetarianism: I eat meat, but enjoy vegetarian dishes from time to time.
War in Iraq: A terrible idea, incompetently executed.
War on Terror: Let's not declare any wars against concepts, methodologies, ideologies, please. The only legitimate purpose of war is to physically destroy the enemy by any means necessary (we should accept an unconditional surrender if offered).

left economically, libertarian socially

Click Stand;13604793']Don't worry, we all get confused sometimes.

I'm some sort of socialist/libertarian hybrid.

Those are kind of exact opposites...
I'm a libertarian.

Something incredibly boring and "practical", not interesting like Marxism. :(

For a strong military with little gov. interference, private healthcare, a little less freedom of speech b/c some of it is borderline treason, death penalty. Yeah you decide what I am.

Those are kind of exact opposites...

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

"Libertarian" and "socialist" have been synonymous terms since at least the 19th century. To this day, "Libertarian" continues to carry strongly left-wing connotations around most of the world.

A fairly sensible one.

An impossible one. Keynes was no socialist. Not even remotely.

I've taken the liberty of reproducing the template from the earlier thread.

Political Beliefs:
Abortion: I don't care for it, but so what? I'm a guy. AND, it's no business of the government whatsoever.
Affirmative Action: A good idea for its time, it swiftly degenerated into an entitlement program. We're best off without it.
Arms Trade: Should be a war crime.
Death Penalty: Against
Drugs: Government power ratcheted up to absurd lengths. Legalize. And, don't sell them in "state" stores, and tax no more than any other commodity.
Economic System: Capitalism, small-scale, preferably.
Education: A worthy investment.
Electoral College in USA Elections: It's outlived its time, but, from a practical standpoint, there are enough small states so that it looks like we're stuck with it forever.
Environmentalism: As a matter of individual responsibility, yes.
Euthanasia: I reluctantly favor it.
Evolution or Creation?: Evolution as part of a science curriculum. Creation can be taught by churches if they wish.
FCC: Their attempts to monitor "decency" are a classic example of government overreach.
Gay Marriage: Absolutely. But it isn't gay marriage, its just marriage.
Gun Control: Molon labe!
Immigration Policies: should favor assimilation over multiculturism.
Income Tax: 10 % max, if at all.
Israel/Palestine: Israel. Israel has gay pride parades, free elections, and criticizing the government is practically a national pasttime. The Palestinians should seek to integrate within Israel, and enjoy the rights and privileges of Israeli citizens.
Philosophy: is either internally consistent, or it is not. Either way, it comes no closer to the truth than religion does.
Political Party Affiliation: independent.
President Bush/American Policies: They've been disastrous. Most of our forces are deployed overseas, leaving the US more vulnerable than ever.
Prostitution: Legalize.
Religion: Something we need to outgrow, and most likely will.
Social Security: Well, as long as I get what I paid into it. . .
The UN: An unnecessary expense.
Veganism/Vegetarianism: I eat meat, but enjoy vegetarian dishes from time to time.
War in Iraq: A terrible idea, incompetently executed.
War on Terror: Let's not declare any wars against concepts, methodologies, ideologies, please. The only legitimate purpose of war is to physically destroy the enemy by any means necessary (we should accept an unconditional surrender if offered).

We don't have anywhere near MOST of our armed forces overseas. Check statistics on that.

To this day, "Libertarian" continues to carry strongly left-wing connotations around most of the world.
That couldn't be more wrong. Libertarianism is "Classic Liberalism", which is a right wing freedom ideology calling for maximum liberty from government in the economy and also in private lives. A much smaller (but existance) government in general.

"Libertarian" and "socialist" have been synonymous terms since at least the 19th century. To this day, "Libertarian" continues to carry strongly left-wing connotations around most of the world.

Assuming that God339 is American, the rest of the world need not apply.

That couldn't be more wrong. Libertarianism is "Classic Liberalism", which is a right wing freedom ideology calling for maximum liberty from government in the economy and also in private lives. A much smaller (but existance) government in general.

I think he means (well obviously) left on the social left/right rather than economically.

I think he means (well obviously) left on the social left/right rather than economically.
Then he could have just said he's Left. If he's left economically and left socially, he's Left.

But he didn't. He said this which is totally incorrect:
To this day, "Libertarian" continues to carry strongly left-wing connotations around most of the world.
Which is just not true. Some of the staunchest anti-Leftists are hard core Libertarians because they hate Leftists ideas of collectivism, for example.

That couldn't be more wrong. Libertarianism is "Classic Liberalism", which is a right wing freedom ideology calling for maximum liberty from government in the economy and also in private lives. A much smaller (but existance) government in general.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proudhon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakunin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_Goldman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bookchin

If one can demonstrate that the above socialists were for minimizing freedom or for maximizing the size of government, please try. Please show how "libertarian" is an inappropriate description.

I think he means (well obviously) left on the social left/right rather than economically.

I mean that there is no meaningful distinction between "social" and "economic" freedom. I mean libertarians.

Then he could have just said he's Left. If he's left economically and left socially, he's Left.

But he didn't. He said this which is totally incorrect:

Which is just not true. Some of the staunchest anti-Leftists are hard core Libertarians because they hate Leftists ideas of collectivism, for example.

I think you confuse libertarian with American libertarian, libertarian is a very broad term.

I mean that there is no meaningful distinction between "social" and "economic" freedom. I mean libertarians.

In a very broad sense, it's still very easy to maximise social freedoms, whilst limiting economic autonomy. You may think that it would be a contradictory position to hold in terms of the maxims or intentions behind it, but it's still perfectly possible.

I think you confuse libertarian with American libertarian, libertarian is a very broad term.
See below. While there are unfortunately "libertarian socialists"...the term by itself "libertarian" means property freedom, individuality, capitalism and liberty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proudhon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakunin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_Goldman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bookchin

If one can demonstrate that the above socialists were for minimizing freedom or for maximizing the size of government, please try. Please show how "libertarian" is an inappropriate description.

Because for example.....the first one you list claims that "property is theft". That would be a diagreement with probably THE core element of Libertarianism. That is, that property is a vital element to freedom and liberty and most be enforced at all costs.

Assuming that God339 is American, the rest of the world need not apply.

The myopic world-view that continues to flourish as an ideological component of American "Libertarianism" fascinates (read: "sickens") me. Especially considering that the ideology is supposed to be rather internationalist in perspective. But then, considering how popular of anti-immigrant sentiments are even among American Libertarians (I live in the American Southwest, in a county whose major newspaper touts its "Libertarian" virtues even while condemning the free flow of labor across borders...), one begins to figure out what deregulated globalized capitalist "free markets" are really all about.

Capital is free, dirty workers are not.

See below. While there are unfortunately "libertarian socialists"...

You mean left libertarian.


the term by itself "libertarian" means property freedom, individuality, capitalism and liberty.


And guess what, some people like to describe this freedom thing as left wing, and being anti freedom as right wing, who would've thunk it aye?

Because for example.....the first one you list claims that "property is theft". That would be a diagreement with probably THE core element of Libertarianism. That is, that property is a vital element to freedom and liberty and most be enforced at all costs.

Proudhon also said, in the same work, that "Property is freedom." He was drawing a distinction between that property which is the result of one's labor and free trade/association ("freedom"), versus that "property" which exists only through royal or state decree ("theft"). The essential argument is that the state cannot decree the existence of, or protect, or "enforce" property because otherwise the state must necessarily possess the power to not decree the existence of, protect, or "enforce" property. If the state can giveth, then the state must also be able to not giveth; to taketh away.

Thus, Proudhon could realize the danger to personal liberty and property that the state is, because Proudhon was a libertarian. Of course, capitalists also understand the nature of the state in exactly the same way, but they tend to use it in order to make property into theft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_vs._New_London), rather than defend individual liberty.

Any more?

And guess what, some people like to describe this freedom thing as left wing, and being anti freedom as right wing, who would've thunk it aye?
Freedom is not left or right...it is, on a scale of extremes, between no government to a fascist totalitorian state.

Theoretically, maximum freedom is no state at all, but classical liberals, that is the enlightenment thinkers that came up with the ideas of freedom to life liberty property and pursuit of happiness, understood that without a small state, there would be no one to enforce the laws that promote and protect freedoms and rights (including property rights). These enlightenment thinkers also understood freedom to mean a much more dergulated economy, hence a free economy. Adam Smith, an economist of the enlightenment and "founding father" of Capitalism was working towards a free economy.

Gay Marriage: Absolutely. But it isn't gay marriage, its just marriage.
Israel/Palestine: Israel. Israel has gay pride parades, free elections, and criticizing the government is practically a national pasttime. The Palestinians should seek to integrate within Israel, and enjoy the rights and privileges of Israeli citizens.


okay, youre a waste of space

to drag a quote out of one of the Issues from the nations:

option 2] "I don't care what these so-called scientific studies say," says Peggy Mistletoe, representing a number of conservative religious organisations. "How can a boy hope to develop properly into a man if he's being brought up by poofs? A father figure is not supposed to behave as if it is 'okay' to be, um, romantically invested in another man - and the same goes for lesbians! Why? Because it is not okay. It'll just give them gay! Think about it: say you have two gay panthers - they can't have children because nature did not provide them with the tools and if God wanted gays to have kids then they would have those tools. Don't legalise this blasphemy! Think of the children!"]

A strong note of reality in the Issues, good reason to love NS - real life issues can be discussed without some liberal PoS throwing legal action at you for actually using Free Speech

In a very broad sense, it's still very easy to maximise social freedoms, whilst limiting economic autonomy. You may think that it would be a contradictory position to hold in terms of the maxims or intentions behind it, but it's still perfectly possible.

Everything is possible. Not everything is libertarian.

These enlightenment thinkers also understood freedom to mean a much more dergulated economy, hence a free economy. Adam Smith, an economist of the enlightenment and "founding father" of Capitalism was working towards a free economy.

Well, that's debatable.

Edit: Much more deregulated than the mercantalism of the time? Certainly. But I doubt deregulated in the sense so often used by big-L Libertarians.

Adam Smith, an economist of the enlightenment and "founding father" of Capitalism was working towards a free economy.

"We rarely hear, it has been said, of the combinations of masters, though frequently of those of workmen. But whoever imagines, upon this account, that masters rarely combine, is as ignorant of the world as of the subject. Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform combination, not to raise the wages of labour above their actual rate… [When workers combine,] masters… never cease to call aloud for the assistance of the civil magistrate, and the rigorous execution of those laws which have been enacted with so much severity against the combinations of servants, labourers, and journeymen."

The Wealth of Nations

"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary."

The Wealth of Nations

"The proposal of any new law or regulation which comes from [businessmen], ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it."

The Wealth of Nations

"Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all."

The Wealth of Nations

"What improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconvenience to the whole. No society can be flourishing and happy if the greater part of the members are poor and miserable."

The Wealth of Nations


Adam Smith also spent a great deal of time describing how rich owners of capital used their power to their own advantage, and to the great disadvantage of others. The "father of Capitalism" wouldn't trust a capitalist farther than he could throw it.

Well, that's debatable.

Edit: Much more deregulated than the mercantalism of the time? Certainly. But I doubt deregulated in the sense so often used by big-L Libertarians.

Among Big-L "Libertarians," Adam Smith is the most popular author nobody has ever read.

I won't even bother mentioning The Theory of Moral Sentiments...

It depends on my mood.

Occasionally when I'm in a democratic mood, I lean towards the left (social issues and economic ones).

Though generally, I support the idea of an absolutist (as in government power) dictatorship, with me at the head. Of course, the social policies would be leftist, and people would be allowed liberties. The economy would probably be state organized, and payment would be based on merit and work ethic. That way, we cut out the corrupt politicians (though an ever wary eye must be there to protect from bureacratic corruption), we cut out the waste on things like elections, and we keep people that shouldn't be leaders far away from power. Categorize that.

Freedom is not left or right...it is, on a scale of extremes, between no government to a fascist totalitorian state.


And fairly authoritarian governments and non fairly authoritarian governments, and so on and so on...


Theoretically, maximum freedom is no state at all, but classical liberals, that is the enlightenment thinkers that came up with the ideas of freedom to life liberty property and pursuit of happiness

Yes I know what classic liberalism is.


, understood that without a small state, there would be no one to enforce the laws that promote and protect freedoms and rights (including property rights). These enlightenment thinkers also understood freedom to mean a much more dergulated economy, hence a free economy.

Thank you captain obvious, I fail to see its relevance however.


Adam Smith, an economist of the enlightenment and "founding father" of Capitalism was working towards a free economy.

Adam Smith was hardly the libertarian he's made out to be, but granted he was more pro unregulated rather than regulated economy, I still fail to see the relevance. This is right wing economics yes, on a left wing premise.

Because for example.....the first one you list claims that "property is theft". That would be a diagreement with probably THE core element of Libertarianism. That is, that property is a vital element to freedom and liberty and most be enforced at all costs.

i am confused. are you claiming that property is THE core element of libertarianism? it seems to me that the more obvious choice of core elements would be liberty. and since it is trivially obvious that not just any set of property relations would even be compatible with liberty, it follows that property and liberty cannot be synonymous.

of course, i do think your characterization of usian 'libertarians' is accurate. they are largely just propertarians, pure and simple. but that's no reason to let them sully the good name of liberty.

Adam Smith was hardly the libertarian he's made out to be...


On the contrary, for his time, Adam Smith was quite the libertarian. He clearly recognized the value of labor and the productive capacity of free association and the honest trade that follows. Adam Smith simply didn't try to pretend that capital or businessmen where the freedom-loving saviors that today's "Libertarians" make them out to be. After all, he was arguing against the businessman's merchantilist wet dream.

On the contrary, for his time, Adam Smith was quite the libertarian. He clearly recognized the value of labor and the productive capacity of free association and the honest trade that follows. Adam Smith simply didn't try to pretend that capital or businessmen where the freedom-loving saviors that today's "Libertarians" make them out to be. After all, he was arguing against the businessman's merchantilist wet dream.

When I say libertarian, I mean the sort that TAI is referring to.

When I say libertarian, I mean the sort that TAI is referring to.

But Adam Smith does at least fit the ideal that American "Libertarians" cite, even if many/most American "Libertarians" completely miss that ideal themselves.

(I'd assume that most left-wing or socialist libertarians wouldn't include Adam Smith in their ideological canon [even though they should])

But Adam Smith does at least fit the ideal that American "Libertarians" cite, even if many/most American "Libertarians" completely miss that ideal themselves.

Then we are in agreement.