NationStates Jolt Archive

This is intended as a split from a question that got brought up elsewhere, and should be of interest to the many streaks of libertarian philosophies here.

So, libertarians of NSG, name your "poison"! Left, right, prog, commie, geo whatever.

A 10 option poll would be inadequate to cover the libertarian spectrum, so bear with what limits NSG/Jolt/OMAC put on their service....

None of the above, Libertarianism is utter pish.

None of the above, Libertarianism is utter pish.

I'll agree on Libertarianism, but what of lall the other sorts of libertarianism?

I live by my own morals, and don't waste time with useless labels.

This is intended as a split from a question that got brought up elsewhere, and should be of interest to the many streaks of libertarian philosophies here.

So, libertarians of NSG, name your "poison"! Left, right, prog, commie, geo whatever.

A 10 option poll would be inadequate to cover the libertarian spectrum, so bear with what limits NSG/Jolt/OMAC put on their service....

define because right now libertarian doesn't fit on a normal left right spectrum.

I think I'm an objectivist when it comes to politics.

I think I'm an objectivist when it comes to politics.

Like Ayn Rand....yuck!!!! :eek:

I have been called a fake liberal cynic.

define because right now libertarian doesn't fit on a normal left right spectrum.

Indeed. Libertarianism is an entierly different spectrum from the trad L/R.

Simplist definition: individual choice over state coersion.

I dunno where you would put me.

I am right on economic issues, and I am left on social issues.

I think I'm an objectivist when it comes to politics.

Are you quite sure you mean an Ayn Ranist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand))?

I dunno where you would put me.

I am right on economic issues, and I am left on social issues.

Hate to say it, as I don't want to doubt you, but you've come across as a fairly trad. con. w/ authoritarian leaninigs at times...

Hate to say it, as I don't want to doubt you, but you've come across as a fairly trad. con. w/ authoritarian leaninigs at times...

trad. con. w/authoritarian leanings? Ok, what is Trad. Con. and how do I have authoritarian leaning?

With the options here, I'd probably be considered a paleo-libertarian. In the end, I'm probably best described as a 'me'-Libertarian... In other words, I don't follow one philosophy straight down the board.

trad. con. w/authoritarian leanings? Ok, what is Trad. Con. and how do I have authoritarian leaning?

Trad Con = Traditional Conservative, aka mainstream GOP.

As for where you've come off that way, I'm not the only one who's noted that about you... wait a bit, it may take some digging - this aint the best organised place...

Trad Con = Traditional Conservative, aka mainstream GOP.

As for where you've come off that way, I'm not the only one who's noted that about you... wait a bit, it may take some digging - this aint the best organised place...

The only time I can even come close to authoritarian is when it comes to punishment for pedophiles, which I admit are extreme views.

Other than that, I support gay marriage, gay adoption, I'm 420 friendly, I support people killing themselves with whatever drugs they want, my stance is basically this.

You can do whatever the Hell you want to do in the privacy of your own home, as long as your actions do not violates the right of others as stated in the Constitution & Bill of Rights of the United States.

The only time I can even come close to authoritarian is when it comes to punishment for pedophiles, which I admit are extreme views.

Nitty gritty detail. A pedophile is one who has a sexual attraction to children, surely you don't advocate punishing people based on their desire, but rather those that act on that desire, yes?

You can do whatever the Hell you want to do in the privacy of your own home, as long as your actions do not violates the right of others as stated in the Constitution & Bill of Rights of the United States.

Another nit picking detail. Saying "the constitution and bill of rights" is like saying "that book and chapter 3". The bill of rights is part of the US constitution

Are you quite sure you mean an Ayn Ranist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand))?

I think my post has been misunderstood or my definition of objectivism is different from both you and Santiago's.:wink:

When I say I'm objectivist when it comes to politics I mean that I believe politics should be the means to a goal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goal), a common goal. If the goal is acceptable, I'm pro it. If the goal isn't, then the means should be revised.

I think my post has been misunderstood or my definition of objectivism is different from both you and Santiago's.:wink:


It's also very different to the definition the OP is talking about.


When I say I'm objectivist when it comes to politics I mean that I believe politics should be the means to a goal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goal), a common goal. If the goal is acceptable, I'm pro it. If the goal isn't, then the means should be revised.

Well I doubt anyone would be against having a goal in politics. ;)

Nitty gritty detail. A pedophile is one who has a sexual attraction to children, surely you don't advocate punishing people based on their desire, but rather those that act on that desire, yes?

Let me rephrase, pedophiles who act on their desire. better?

It's also very different to the definition the OP is talking about.

It seems that way. I know about the Ayn Ranist and I know I'm not at all like what they profess. When I read the OP I thought my definition was the one that was being applied. I was mistaken.

Well I doubt anyone would be against having a goal in politics. ;)

Indeed.

I think my post has been misunderstood or my definition of objectivism is different from both you and Santiago's.:wink:

When I say I'm objectivist when it comes to politics I mean that I believe politics should be the means to a goal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goal), a common goal. If the goal is acceptable, I'm pro it. If the goal isn't, then the means should be revised.

Or you've misunderstood/misused Objectivisim...

See the link I posted...

Or you've misunderstood/misused Objectivisim...

See the link I posted...

I did, Dais-sama. I don't think I missused objectivism. But perhaps I did confuse Objectivist with the way I view politics.

I am center-right with some libertarian leanings. Your poll really doesn't cover that option.

Forgive my ignorance, but what the devil's a "paleo-rightist"?

All I can get from it is someone who's an ancient rightist, but I imagine that's entirely wrong.

All I can get from it is someone who's an ancient rightist, but I imagine that's entirely wrong.

Grog believe government should stay small. Grog think that big man with stick should only stop from other cave coming to this one. Grog think if want fire, make fire yourself, don't take Grog fire. Grog work hard for fire.

Wheel privilege, not right.

Grog believe government should stay small. Grog think that big man with stick should only stop from other cave coming to this one. Grog think if want fire, make fire yourself, don't take Grog fire. Grog work hard for fire.

Wheel privilege, not right.

Lolwut?

Lolwut?

grog think rising tide raises all boats.

Grog believe government should stay small. Grog think that big man with stick should only stop from other cave coming to this one. Grog think if want fire, make fire yourself, don't take Grog fire. Grog work hard for fire.

Wheel privilege, not right.
:D

Sweet.

Forgive my ignorance, but what the devil's a "paleo-rightist"?

All I can get from it is someone who's an ancient rightist, but I imagine that's entirely wrong.

Google Charley Reese or Barry Goldwater and that'll get you close.

Google Charley Reese or Barry Goldwater and that'll get you close.
Thanks.

OK. what the Frack is a libertarian communist how are the 2 compatable at all?

grog think rising tide raises all boats.

also, grog invent boat. you no has. too bad!

OK. what the Frack is a libertarian communist how are the 2 compatable at all?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism#Notable_libertarian_socialist_tendencies

OK. what the Frack is a libertarian communist how are the 2 compatable at all?

most broadly, a communist that holds liberty to be a fundamental value and thinks leninism and the like are bad. mostly anarchists, though there are a few other variants out there.

Voted "other left-lib" but I think you could have chosen better options for the poll.

I'm a voluntaryist, an agorist, and a peace-loving, dope-smoking, science-fiction-reading, semi-existentialist, Discordian pope.

Sod libertarianism, I like my governments how I like my teddies, big n cuddly :p

most broadly, a communist that holds liberty to be a fundamental value and thinks leninism and the like are bad. mostly anarchists, though there are a few other variants out there.

Communism without authoritarianism is impossible, people will never freely give up all they own therefore state control is needed. whereas libetarians are against big government making the two contradictory.

RWP, nobody ever said it was RATIONAL. People are capable of believing the most mind-blowingly contradictory things, and believing them with their entire being.

Communism without authoritarianism is impossible, people will never freely give up all they own therefore state control is needed. whereas libetarians are against big government making the two contradictory.

Communists argue that things like private property are incompatible with libertarianism, since that requires authoritarian control to maintain the privateness of that property, thus they argue only voluntary associations are compatible, a.k.a communes, a.k.a communism.

Like Ayn Rand....yuck!!!! :eek:

Don't hate. Lots of otherwise sane libertarians discovered libertarianism through Rand. Most of them grow out of it once they realize that she's kind of a fascist. Not that I don't still hold a special place in my heart for the ol' gal.

Communists argue that things like private property are incompatible with libertarianism, since that requires authoritarian control to maintain the privateness of that property, thus they argue only voluntary associations are compatible, a.k.a communes, a.k.a communism.

And how would you persuade people to join these communes? I doubt you could, meaning you'd end up having to force them thus needing authoritarianism, I'm not saying libetarianism is free from authority but communism requires it aswell.

And how would you persuade people to join these communes? I doubt you could, meaning you'd end up having to force them thus needing authoritarianism, I'm not saying libetarianism is free from authority but communism requires it aswell.

Well that's why Marxists support central redistribution property of property and creation of communes for a supposedly temporary authoritarian period of time until the economy has fully evolved into a communist society where no central government is needed.

Well that's why Marxists support central redistribution property of property and creation of communes for a supposedly temporary authoritarian period of time until the economy has fully evolved into a communist society where no central government is needed.

So communistic (if thats a word) libertarianism would require a short period authority before switching to real libertarian values. That at least sounds logical, I very much doubt the economy would ever evolve into true communism though, I think history shows us that.

So communistic (if thats a word) libertarianism would require a short period authority before switching to real libertarian values.

Well that's what Marxists argue, other communists don't.


That at least sounds logical, I very much doubt the economy would ever evolve into true communism though, I think history shows us that.

Agreed.

And how would you persuade people to join these communes? I doubt you could, meaning you'd end up having to force them thus needing authoritarianism, I'm not saying libetarianism is free from authority but communism requires it aswell.

"...the argument for liberty is not an argument against organization, which is one of the most powerful tools human reason can employ, but an argument against all exclusive, privileged, monopolistic organization, against the use of coercion to prevent others from doing better." ~ F.A. Hayek

In a truly libertarian society, filthy commies and capitalist pigs will live peacefully, side-by-side, with nice, thick, barbed-wire-topped stone walls separating their enclaves from one another. Voluntarily, of course.

While the commies are attempting to eke out a living without economic calculation and the capitalists are gorging themselves to an early grave, the rest of society will live happily, freely, and peacefully, enjoying the benefits of the free market.

Also note RWP that libertarians are not nescecerally anarchists.

Also not RWP that libertarians are not nescecerally anarchists.

Right. Only the consistent ones.

Right. Only the consistent ones.

Not really, libertarianism is about maximising freedoms, you need something in place to prevent other people from violating those freedoms, and to allow greater access to those freedoms.

SO then the distiction is the Differencs, between a "Big C" Communist and a "Small c" communist. In the same way a "Big D" Democrat is much different than a "Small d" democrat? (in the US meaning of the Democratic Party)

Not really, libertarianism is about maximising freedoms, you need something in place to prevent other people from violating those freedoms, and to allow greater access to those freedoms.

As was pointed out earlier in this thread, people are capable of firmly believing the most contradictory things. For example, so-called libertarians who believe that the one institution most capable of destroying liberty, (and has the most to gain from destroying liberty,) will magically act to prevent its destruction.

A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim.

Then again, the term 'libertarianism,' like the term 'liberalism' before it, is increasingly showing the symptoms of semantic instability, and may not mean the same thing for two people in an argument, or even an agreement, or even for one person in a private monologue from one moment to the next. Trying to fight the encroaching tide of semantic instability is futile.

The moment an ideological term becomes popular enough, its opponents will steal it and use it to label their own sinister ideology.

As was pointed out earlier in this thread, people are capable of firmly believing the most contradictory things. For example, so-called libertarians who believe that the one institution most capable of destroying liberty, (and has the most to gain from destroying liberty,) will magically act to prevent its destruction.


Even if you think it's impossible to happen in reality, it isn't inconsistent.


A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation.

There is no single definition of libertarians. The only thing all libertarians have in common is their attempt to maximise liberty, thus the starting premise of libertarianism is the maximisation of liberty. Regarding your specific definition however, many (including myself) view rights as products of governance, and not natural, thus to preserve the limitation of that right, a government is needed.


Then again, the term 'libertarianism,' like the term 'liberalism' before it, is increasingly showing the symptoms of semantic instability, and may not mean the same thing for two people in an argument, or even an agreement, or even for one person in a private monologue from one moment to the next. Trying to fight the encroaching tide of semantic instability is futile.

The moment an ideological term becomes popular enough, its opponents will steal it and use it to label their own sinister ideology.

Right, but what gives you the grounds to assert your definition as the one true definition?

Liberty requires taking responsibility, and taking resposibility requires accepting the negative outcomes of your actions, the consequences of failure, and the pain when your risks don't pan out.

Liberty is the freedom to fail-and that includes the freedom to face the consequences of your failure. This scares a lot of people-Freedom isn't for the cowardly, the faint-of-heart, or the stupid.

It is fundamentally anti-freedom, anti LIBERTY to socialize risks while privatizing profits, it is fundamentally anti-Liberty to compel one adult to support the addictions, laziness, lack of intelligence, or lack of moral courage of another. It is, however, Freedom if that adult does so of their own free will.

For example: It is anti-Liberty to compel taxpayers to pay for Abortion, it is NOT anti-Liberty for people to voluntarily contribute to groups that conduct family-planning services that include Abortion. See? simple.

Another example:
Bill starts a business and, because he is irresponsible, lazy, or ignorant, it fails. Compelling Jeff to pay for Bill's business failure is anti-Liberty. If Jeff steps up and says, "Hey, Bill, I'll give you a hand", that's Liberty in action-Jeff is helping Bill of his own free will.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism#Notable_libertarian_socialist_tendencies

thats not a branch of libertarian. its a branch of socialism that mid way between communal anarchism and traditional socialism. It never existed as a state and is not a living idea today.

thats not a branch of libertarian. its a branch of socialism that mid way between communal anarchism and traditional socialism. It never existed as a state and is not a living idea today.

I don't think that's true, in fact libertarian communism is one of the earliest political uses of the term libertarianism and is pretty much the same as communal anarchism, it can be argued that parts of Spain briefly followed this model during the civil war.

The social kind. Unlike the economic ass pie kind.

Right. Only the consistent ones.

only if the consistency we are after is measured entirely in opposition to the welfare state

Communism without authoritarianism is impossible, people will never freely give up all they own therefore state control is needed. whereas libetarians are against big government making the two contradictory.

funny, i'd say that anti-authoritarian communism is the only kind that has ever worked on a multi-generational scale. sounds like an empirical question to me. what percentage of societies over what percentage of human history have you checked?

I would describe myself as a left-libertarian. Insert anarchist ideology here.

I think my post has been misunderstood or my definition of objectivism is different from both you and Santiago's.:wink:

When I say I'm objectivist when it comes to politics I mean that I believe politics should be the means to a goal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goal), a common goal. If the goal is acceptable, I'm pro it. If the goal isn't, then the means should be revised.

Then you are more of a pragmatist

But

Be careful Nanatsu...some means have their very own goals.

Don't hate. Lots of otherwise sane libertarians discovered libertarianism through Rand. Most of them grow out of it once they realize that she's kind of a fascist. Not that I don't still hold a special place in my heart for the ol' gal.

She gives me the creeps...

when I read Atlas Shrugged I barfed...:gundge:

hate is good...we pacifists need more hate...:p

In a truly libertarian society, filthy commies and capitalist pigs will live peacefully, side-by-side, with nice, thick, barbed-wire-topped stone walls separating their enclaves from one another. Voluntarily, of course.
Whilst there is no way in hell you need me to validate your opinions, I like you.

Erm... Since I'm not up to date on these different definitions of libertarianism, I'll have to trust wikipedia for this.

Hmm...

Assuming this definition is correct:
They believe that a state is necessary, but should be minimal enough to protect the liberty and property of each individual. They generally believe in a night watchman state, limited to courts, police, defense, prisons and taxes.
I'm a minarchist.

Erm... Since I'm not up to date on these different definitions of libertarianism, I'll have to trust wikipedia for this.
Are you mad!?

Never do such a thing!

I did, Dais-sama. I don't think I missused objectivism. But perhaps I did confuse Objectivist with the way I view politics.

;)

I am center-right with some libertarian leanings. Your poll really doesn't cover that option.

"other - non lib or other lib" covers it.

Forgive my ignorance, but what the devil's a "paleo-rightist"?

All I can get from it is someone who's an ancient rightist, but I imagine that's entirely wrong.

Economic libertarian, socially conservative.
Paleolibertarianism is a school of thought within American libertarianism formerly associated with Lew Rockwell and the late economist Murray Rothbard, and the Ludwig von Mises Institute. It is based on a combination of radical libertarianism in politics and cultural conservatism in social thought. Austrian economics, anti-federalism[1], Misesian libertarianism, and anarcho-capitalism heavily influenced the movement's attitudes toward ideas on trade, commerce and statecraft.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolibertarianism

Grog believe government should stay small. Grog think that big man with stick should only stop from other cave coming to this one. Grog think if want fire, make fire yourself, don't take Grog fire. Grog work hard for fire.

Wheel privilege, not right.

:D

Google Charley Reese or Barry Goldwater and that'll get you close.

Reese says (http://web.archive.org/web/20010416233157/http://orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/columnists/orl-oped-reese15041501.column) he's not. And Goldwater wasn't either.

OK. what the Frack is a libertarian communist how are the 2 compatable at all?

Libertarian communism was the original deal. The term was first applied politically in the 1880s by French anarchists. It wasn't used on the right until the 1940s.

Voted "other left-lib" but I think you could have chosen better options for the poll.

Talk OMAC into allowing more poll options...


funny, i'd say that anti-authoritarian communism is the only kind that has ever worked on a multi-generational scale. sounds like an empirical question to me. what percentage of societies over what percentage of human history have you checked?

:D

Are you mad!?

Never do such a thing!

Trust the Wikipedia. The Wikipedia is your friend.

Somebody here's gotta get that one...

I live by my own morals, and don't waste time with useless labels.

*Labels VKZ a Communist, and gets him blacklisted*

I simply call myself an anarchist - but I'm a bit of a contadiction (aren't we all?). For a start, I often vote. I am a colectivist - asthe name suggests and I have worked to establish co-operatives which I see as part of a long term way of creating the sort of economic infrastructure to transform Capitalism into something better.

State "communism" has demonstrated itself to be an ideological dead-end. Vanguard parties continually corrupting themselves proved that. As for "free" market Capitalism? Well take a bow Lehman Brothers - you've earnt it.

I look forward to the day when corporations are no longer ther T-Rexes of the modern era - when syndicates and genuine free markets allow for a free and fair society. I know that all this takes time and effort on the part of those who dream about it.

OK. what the Frack is a libertarian communist how are the 2 compatable at all?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian#Political_Adoption

We're taking it back.

it is fundamentally anti-Liberty to compel one adult to support the addictions, laziness, lack of intelligence, or lack of moral courage of another. It is, however, Freedom if that adult does so of their own free will.

For example: It is anti-Liberty to compel taxpayers to pay for Abortion, it is NOT anti-Liberty for people to voluntarily contribute to groups that conduct family-planning services that include Abortion. See? simple.It is however, not fundamentally anti-liberty for adults to agree that in the event that one of them should need support from society, for that society to codify the giving of support into law.

Libertarianism and Communism don't seem to fit together. Communism places the good the many above the needs of the few while Libertarianism puts the rights of the one above the whims of society.

Mutualism also seems to go against a free market because according to mutualism, "the amount of labor necessary to produce an article of exactly similar and equal utility" and anything less than that would be considered exploitation. Well, in a truly free market people should be free to sell their goods at whatever price they damn well please, including competative prices, exagerated prices, and everything in between. I may be wrong about this but it just doesn't seem to me to be very "liberty above all".

I'm not sure what exactly you mean by progressive or a couple of the others but this poll seems very poorly done and the thread and its question probably isn't worth responding to in great detail.

Libertarianism and Communism don't seem to fit together. Communism places the good the many above the needs of the few while Libertarianism puts the rights of the one above the whims of society.Communism recognizes that the needs of the few are the same as the good of the many.

Mutualism also seems to go against a free market .Perhaps so, but libertarianism itself does not mandate a free market.

Libertarianism and Communism don't seem to fit together. Communism places the good the many above the needs of the few while Libertarianism puts the rights of the one above the whims of society.

Mutualism also seems to go against a free market because according to mutualism, "the amount of labor necessary to produce an article of exactly similar and equal utility" and anything less than that would be considered exploitation. Well, in a truly free market people should be free to sell their goods at whatever price they damn well please, including competative prices, exagerated prices, and everything in between. I may be wrong about this but it just doesn't seem to me to be very "liberty above all".

I'm not sure what exactly you mean by progressive or a couple of the others but this poll seems very poorly done and the thread and its question probably isn't worth responding to in great detail.

You seem to have confused libertarianism with Libertarianism. May I again point out that Libertarians do not have exclusive use of the word libertarian, having borrowed it from the French libertarian communists who firsat applied it to political usage. There is a wide spectrum of ideas in libertarianism about property rights and the free market.

As to libcoms, I'll let them defend themselves - they're quite able. For libprogs, here are some starting points:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_progressivism
http://www.democraticfreedomcaucus.org/dfc-platform/

The poll isn't poorly done. It just seems that wayt due to your confusion regarding the term libertarian.

You seem to have confused libertarianism with Libertarianism. May I again point out that Libertarians do not have exclusive use of the word libertarian, having borrowed it from the French libertarian communists who firsat applied it to political usage. There is a wide spectrum of ideas in libertarianism about property rights and the free market.

The poll isn't poorly done. It just seems that wayt due to your confusion regarding the term libertarian.
The fact is, most people when you say Libertarian, they understand it to mean the government protects property rights. Police, Army, that's about it. You can have some weird definition going back to the french meaning, but that is meaningless to this conversation, unless you preface it first. It's all about common usage of the word.

Libertarian can't be communist or left. Communism, socialism and nearly all left wing positions means helping out your fellow man through the auspices of the government taking from the rich. A Libertarian (in common usage of the word) would think tax is not protecting their property rights.

Libertarian is necessarily heartless as it depends on people who are not a contributing part of the community to be helped by individuals choosing to give them charity. There is too much selfishness and greed to make that not a heartless system.

If people want to define themselves as social libertarians, or economic libertarians, fine, but that does not make them libertarians. Libertarians embrace the whole package. I think a good 90% of the people answering this poll, aren't actually libertarians. All the left wing ones, may be socially libertarian, but they can't be economically for example.

The fact is, most people when you say Libertarian, they understand it to mean the government protects property rights. Police, Army, that's about it. You can have some weird definition going back to the french meaning, but that is meaningless to this conversation, unless you preface it first. It's all about common usage of the word.

Libertarian can't be communist or left. Communism, socialism and nearly all left wing positions means helping out your fellow man through the auspices of the government taking from the rich. A Libertarian (in common usage of the word) would think tax is not protecting their property rights.

Libertarian is necessarily heartless as it depends on people who are not a contributing part of the community to be helped by individuals choosing to give them charity. There is too much selfishness and greed to make that not a heartless system.

If people want to define themselves as social libertarians, or economic libertarians, fine, but that does not make them libertarians. Libertarians embrace the whole package. I think a good 90% of the people answering this poll, aren't actually libertarians. All the left wing ones, may be socially libertarian, but they can't be economically for example.

Hmm...I used to know someone who was libertarian communist, so I'll do my best to reproduce his reply when I asked similar questions. IIRC he said that that property rights, the 'free market' and the concentration of wealth serve to create a social environment incompatible with individual liberty and choice. For libertarian communists, true liberation in the economic sphere is not about unrestrained individual property rights, the free market and suchlike, but about voluntary cooperation on a communal basis without the exploitative economic relations or hierarchies that lead to unjust inequality and constraint on 'free choice'. Thus, goes the theory, in communes everyone would produce 'freely' and cooperatively without compulsion or exploitation, for the good of the community, on an equal basis. From their point of view, right-libertarian unregulated capitalism is about as hostile to liberty as you can get in the economic sphere. Its all about different definitions of what counts as economic 'freedom'. All are ultimately aiming for maximum social and economic liberty, so they can all call themselves 'libertarian'. Just because in America one version is more popular than the others, doesn't mean that their version is what 'libertarian' should automatically be taken to mean.

The fact is, most people when you say Libertarian, they understand it to mean the government protects property rights. Police, Army, that's about it. You can have some weird definition going back to the french meaning, but that is meaningless to this conversation, unless you preface it first. It's all about common usage of the word.

Point the first: I haven't been using Libertarian to refer to libertarians, only to Libertarians.

Point the second: I actually am using the common definition of the word. The US usage, ie only rightlibs are libs, is the anomolous usage. The wide usage is not simply some "weird definition going back to the french (sic) meaning". It's the original usage, which is still the common definition outside the US and by many libs in the US. It's much like the political color symbolism. Throught the world blue is red and blue is right. The US media idiots went and arbitrarily changed it in the early 90s.

Edit: note the number of the various leftlibs here on this forum from the US. Just in this thread: myself, Free Soviets, Jello Biafra, Everywhar, etc.

Libertarian can't be communist or left. Communism, socialism and nearly all left wing positions means helping out your fellow man through the auspices of the government taking from the rich. A Libertarian (in common usage of the word) would think tax is not protecting their property rights.

See the Organisational Platform of the Libertarian Communists (http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/platform/plat_preface.html). That's libertarian communism.

Libertarian is necessarily heartless as it depends on people who are not a contributing part of the community to be helped by individuals choosing to give them charity. There is too much selfishness and greed to make that not a heartless system.



If people want to define themselves as social libertarians, or economic libertarians, fine, but that does not make them libertarians.

Again, see the Organisational Platform of the Libertarian Communists (http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/platform/plat_preface.html).


Libertarians embrace the whole package. I think a good 90% of the people answering this poll, aren't actually libertarians. All the left wing ones, may be socially libertarian, but they can't be economically for example.

So, those who don't embrace the whole package ranging from libertarian communism to an-caps aren't real libs?

I'll also note that the poll ATM stands at 27-21 between left and righ libs, w/ 15 others.

commie libertarian, aka eurocommunist (quod vide)

Pragmatic libertarian: People should be free enough that they can lead their own lives without much interference, but not so free that they can actually have any influence on how the country is run (unless they are sufficiently intelligent and well-educated or otherwise responsible enough for a government position).

Anti-idiot laws would still be in place, of course: you'd still have to wear seat belts and obey speed limits, hard drugs would be banned outright and soft ones would not be allowed in public, licenses would be required for risky activities and you couldn't sue anybody if you hurt yourself doing it. There would be social safety nets for the unfortunate, but they wouldn't be extensive enough that you could have any advantages over the people with jobs. Et cetera.

The fact is, most people when you say Libertarian, they understand it to mean the government protects property rights. Police, Army, that's about it. You can have some weird definition going back to the french meaning, but that is meaningless to this conversation, unless you preface it first. It's all about common usage of the word.

what do you think of when i say "civil libertarian"?

Pragmatic libertarian: People should be free enough that they can lead their own lives without much interference, but not so free that they can actually have any influence on how the country is run (unless they are sufficiently intelligent and well-educated or otherwise responsible enough for a government position).

Anti-idiot laws would still be in place, of course: you'd still have to wear seat belts and obey speed limits, hard drugs would be banned outright and soft ones would not be allowed in public, licenses would be required for risky activities and you couldn't sue anybody if you hurt yourself doing it. There would be social safety nets for the unfortunate, but they wouldn't be extensive enough that you could have any advantages over the people with jobs. Et cetera.

So basically, not a libertarian, but a a social democrat?

Libertarianism and Communism don't seem to fit together. Communism places the good the many above the needs of the few while Libertarianism puts the rights of the one above the whims of society.
Not so.

Libertarian-communists (note: small 'l', small 'c') would argue that humans are only truly free (indeed, only truly human) when they are free of oppression from undesirable economic and political forces; noting that these economic and political forces are intimately connected. Thus, one must be free from both the State and capitalism. Both must be abolished. (This is one of the major differences between libertarian-communists and 'mere' communists, who believe the state will simply "wither away", as Marx put it, after capitalism is abolished.)

Once again, be careful of confusing small-l libertarianism and big-L Libertarianism.

Mutualism also seems to go against a free market because according to mutualism, "the amount of labor necessary to produce an article of exactly similar and equal utility" and anything less than that would be considered exploitation. Well, in a truly free market people should be free to sell their goods at whatever price they damn well please, including competative prices, exagerated prices, and everything in between.
Mutualists, and others who subscribe to the labour theory of value, would argue that selling "at whatever price they damn well please" is exactly the definition of an un-Free Market. If profit is being made, then somewhere along the line, someone is making money off of a worker working more than is necessary to hire them. You, as a worker, are being paid for (say) the equivalent of six hours work, when in fact you're working for eight. This is how surplus-value, or profit, is created. If each worker was paid for exactly the amount of labour they expended into an item, and if every item was bought and sold for the exact amount of labour was put into the item, no profit would be made.

Thus, any profit is made from exploitation of a worker.

The only time I can even come close to authoritarian is when it comes to punishment for pedophiles, which I admit are extreme views.

Other than that, I support gay marriage, gay adoption, I'm 420 friendly, I support people killing themselves with whatever drugs they want, my stance is basically this.

All libertarians can say that.

How much of the current status quo of western society is due to government intervention into economic freedoms?

Put an answer to that question and we can tell you what sort of libertarian you are. But the original estimation was correct, you are a very right leaning libertarian, not paleo-, but near it.

If I wasn't aware of your political leanings beforehand, I could have guessed where you were based on your apparently unflagging support of the US Constitution.

So basically, not a libertarian, but a a social democrat?

That kind of depends on what you believe a "libertarian" is. If the only qualification for libertarianism is support of increased civil and economic liberties, then yeah, I'm a libertarian. If the definition is further narrowed by adding in support of small government and democracy, then no, I'm not.

Well, to clarify, I think sufficiently large government is a good idea, mostly in order to keep the essential infrastructure of the nation running -- police, fire, military, sanitation, roads, environmental protection. On the other hand, while government-run schools, hospitals, public transport, and the like are fine too, the government need not be too involved in these areas, as the private sector can fill them, and would be more accountable to the public. Government involvement in other areas of life should be cut down, although were I in power, I would at least attempt to gain some sway over popular media as well (and will operate under the assumption that all governments think likewise).

So, yeah. That doesn't really make me a libertarian, but it's pretty close to the NS nation type of Libertarian Police State (or maybe Benevolent Dictatorship), so... whatever.

Mutualists, and others who subscribe to the labour theory of value, would argue that selling "at whatever price they damn well please" is exactly the definition of an un-Free Market. If profit is being made, then somewhere along the line, someone is making money off of a worker working more than is necessary to hire them. You, as a worker, are being paid for (say) the equivalent of six hours work, when in fact you're working for eight. This is how surplus-value, or profit, is created. If each worker was paid for exactly the amount of labour they expended into an item, and if every item was bought and sold for the exact amount of labour was put into the item, no profit would be made.

Thus, any profit is made from exploitation of a worker.

While I mostly agree with this, it must be remembered that:

Leadership can create value. It doesn't necessarily do so, but it most certainly can.

A merchant typically sells goods at a higher cost because he too has provided some labour. In the past, this was transportation. These days, it's maintaining a shop where people can come in and browse the goods.

So, while I generally agree with the idea, it must be remembered that no value of any object is ever static.

Anarchist, even though i know itll never work. wishful thinker is my political ideology

I am a libertarian in that I believe the government's only job is to prevent oppression. Invading armies are oppression, rape is oppression, ruthless capitalism is oppression. Smoking pot is not oppression, gay marriage is not oppression, suicide is not oppression, ect.

A merchant typically sells goods at a higher cost because he too has provided some labour. In the past, this was transportation. These days, it's maintaining a shop where people can come in and browse the goods.
But (again according to the labour theory of value, which, it might be noted, I believe has flaws to it) the cost of that transportation, etc., is factored into the price of the item. It's part of the labour expended to produce the item.

So, if everyone is getting paid exactly what their labour is worth, including those who transport goods or clean a shop-front, and items are being sold at the value of labour expended into them, then surplus-value (profit) should not arise.

While I mostly agree with this, it must be remembered that:

Leadership can create value. It doesn't necessarily do so, but it most certainly can.

A merchant typically sells goods at a higher cost because he too has provided some labour. In the past, this was transportation. These days, it's maintaining a shop where people can come in and browse the goods.

So, while I generally agree with the idea, it must be remembered that no value of any object is ever static.

not to get into a defense of any particular theory of value, but the cost of running the store is clearly distinct from profit. the stockholders of walmart do not maintain the shop floor.

<---Socially liberal, fiscally conservative, international non-interventionist, but believing in MAD defensive capabilities.

So, those who don't embrace the whole package ranging from libertarian communism to an-caps aren't real libs?
Correct. The most important part of Libertarianism is the "liberty" part. That is the central tenant. If you attempt to limit someone's liberty, you can't be a libertarian (except when that person is looking at depriving another person of their liberty, or impinging on their property rights).

So in your communist libertarian community, what happens when someone doesn't contribute at all? Do you compel him?
Left wing libertarianism is impossible in the current world. If the human race improves and the majority begin to care about their fellow man more than themselves, then it could work, but it is a pipe dream now.

So in your communist libertarian community, what happens when someone doesn't contribute at all? Do you compel him?

hold up, hold up. what exactly happens to the 'non-contributor' do in anarcho-capitalotopia?

Correct. The most important part of Libertarianism is the "liberty" part. That is the central tenant. If you attempt to limit someone's liberty, you can't be a libertarian (except when that person is looking at depriving another person of their liberty, or impinging on their property rights).

So in your communist libertarian community, what happens when someone doesn't contribute at all? Do you compel him?
Left wing libertarianism is impossible in the current world. If the human race improves and the majority begin to care about their fellow man more than themselves, then it could work, but it is a pipe dream now.
*takes a hit*

I tend to be centrist and wary of extremes. I find Libertarianism in any form to be extreme.

Correct.

So to be a "true libertarian", one must be both ancap and ancom. Interesting take...

So in your communist libertarian community, what happens when someone doesn't contribute at all? Do you compel him?

You'll have to ask others, for that's not where I'm coming from. Note, that nowhere here have I argued for any particular type of libertarianism.

I tend to be centrist and wary of extremes. I find Libertarianism in any form to be extreme.

Even centerism can be taken to extremes - Radical Centerist? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_center_(politics)#Philosophy) :wink:

Google Charley Reese or Barry Goldwater and that'll get you close.

I'd say look up Lew Rockwell... He's probably the best example of Paleo-Rightist.

I'd say look up Lew Rockwell... He's probably the best example of Paleo-Rightist.

Indeed so.

But (again according to the labour theory of value, which, it might be noted, I believe has flaws to it) the cost of that transportation, etc., is factored into the price of the item. It's part of the labour expended to produce the item.

So, if everyone is getting paid exactly what their labour is worth, including those who transport goods or clean a shop-front, and items are being sold at the value of labour expended into them, then surplus-value (profit) should not arise.

I suppose. I won't agree that profit is surplus-value though, because you can still have profit from running a store which reflects the labour you've added onto the costs by maintaining and managing the store. That wouldn't be surplus-value, but it would be profit.

not to get into a defense of any particular theory of value, but the cost of running the store is clearly distinct from profit. the stockholders of walmart do not maintain the shop floor.

It could be argued that they are giving you resources, which allows you to be more productive. For example, if I had a machine that I didn't use and I gave it to you, it could make you more productive... then the question becomes, do I deserve to get anything for giving you the machine?

I suppose. I won't agree that profit is surplus-value though, because you can still have profit from running a store which reflects the labour you've added onto the costs by maintaining and managing the store. That wouldn't be surplus-value, but it would be profit.

You have answered your own question. That value is the value that the owner has put into the firm with his own labour. This is separate from profit. Profit is the benefit the owner gains by appropriating the surplus value of other people's labour.

But (again according to the labour theory of value, which, it might be noted, I believe has flaws to it) the cost of that transportation, etc., is factored into the price of the item. It's part of the labour expended to produce the item.

So, if everyone is getting paid exactly what their labour is worth, including those who transport goods or clean a shop-front, and items are being sold at the value of labour expended into them, then surplus-value (profit) should not arise.

It should be noted that it is not specifically profit that the mutualist is concerned about, rather the mutualist is concerned about rent and usury.

Economic rent and usury is the income someone receives from the ownership of some resource, or more precisely to the mutualist, the denial of another's use of the factors of production.

While I mostly agree with this, it must be remembered that:

Leadership can create value. It doesn't necessarily do so, but it most certainly can.

A merchant typically sells goods at a higher cost because he too has provided some labour. In the past, this was transportation. These days, it's maintaining a shop where people can come in and browse the goods.

So, while I generally agree with the idea, it must be remembered that no value of any object is ever static.

You generally agree with the idea because it is generally correct.

Pricing on the market does tend to reflect cost, but this is because cost (plus the producers necessary return from the risk of producing) is the floor price at which someone will produce. Competition constantly pushes prices towards this level.

But the subjective theory of value is far better and far more explanatory.

not to get into a defense of any particular theory of value, but the cost of running the store is clearly distinct from profit. the stockholders of walmart do not maintain the shop floor.

While you are correct that the cost of running a store is distinct from profit, the risk of investment is a cost of running a store.

And this is not a defense of wal-mart or their corporate owners and managers.

You have answered your own question. That value is the value that the owner has put into the firm with his own labour. This is separate from profit. Profit is the benefit the owner gains by appropriating the surplus value of other people's labour.

Profit is merely selling price minus cost, and price is not a matter of labor. The two of us could expend the same amount of labor on two different products without exploiting anyone and we could receive two very different prices for our products.

So to be a "true libertarian", one must be both ancap and ancom. Interesting take...
As I said, libertarianism is all about liberty. Anything that puts in laws, diminishes the main point, and moves it away from libertarianism. Put in laws that don't relate to property rights, and protection of citizens and it's shot. And you can't weasel around it by saying "I'm protecting the citizens from themselves by banning porn, abortion,etc".

So I think a more apt definition of those saying they are a left libertarian, are that they are a socially libertarian socialist. The socialist aspect, for most, is more critical than the libertarian.

Any conservative "Libertarian" who is anti-abortion is lying to themselves as well.

As I said, libertarianism is all about liberty. Anything that puts in laws, diminishes the main point, and moves it away from libertarianism. Put in laws that don't relate to property rights, and protection of citizens and it's shot. And you can't weasel around it by saying "I'm protecting the citizens from themselves by banning porn, abortion,etc".

So I think a more apt definition of those saying they are a left libertarian, are that they are a socially libertarian socialist. The socialist aspect, for most, is more critical than the libertarian.

So how do you reconcile the claim that you must be both a communist and capitalist to be a true libertarian?

Any conservative "Libertarian" who is anti-abortion is lying to themselves as well.

Devils advocate: what of the right to life of that unborn human?

Devils advocate: what of the right to life of that unborn human?

They don't have the right to life. End of Story.



The problem I have libertarians, is, other then being complete and utter nonsense, they seem to have this nasty habit of defining anyone who isn't the stereotypical conservative, or liberal, or socialist or capitalist, as 'libertarians'.

So how do you reconcile the claim that you must be both a communist and capitalist to be a true libertarian?
Where did I say that? I didn't.

A less inflamatory example than abortion. A couple with 4 kids seperate. The father was absolutely in love with this woman and was naive enough to have every asset in her name, and let her get educated work and she has all the skills and ability to get a job, while he doesn't. He looks after the kids.

Explain to me, you "leftist libertarians" how you can give a satisfactory result, that is leftist and libertarian. The leftist says "she pays". The libertarian says, no compulsion, she doesn't pay.

Where did I say that? I didn't.

A less inflamatory example than abortion. A couple with 4 kids seperate. The father was absolutely in love with this woman and was naive enough to have every asset in her name, and let her get educated work and she has all the skills and ability to get a job, while he doesn't. He looks after the kids.

Explain to me, you "leftist libertarians" how you can give a satisfactory result, that is leftist and libertarian. The leftist says "she pays". The libertarian says, no compulsion, she doesn't pay.

No, the libertarian says send the issue to privately enforced arbitration.

If this is a marriage, likely there is also a marriage agency involved (probably not specifically a marriage agency buy some business who deals in these things) who managed the contractual agreement between these people and will enforce it per their agreement.

If it is not a marriage, it can still be taken to arbitration, and the man can attempt to prove that he had some implicit agreement and ownership of their property.

If he cannot prove such a thing, then he may have gotten himself screwed, but how is that different from our current justice system?

No, the libertarian says send the issue to privately enforced arbitration.
You subcontract out justice which isn't related to property to a privately enforced arbitration? That's corporatism, not libertarianism.

If this is a marriage, likely there is also a marriage agency involved (probably not specifically a marriage agency buy some business who deals in these things) who managed the contractual agreement between these people and will enforce it per their agreement.
And in my example, I have already stated that one party was a naive fool, and didn't bother protecting their future, thus there is no contract to enforce.
If he cannot prove such a thing, then he may have gotten himself screwed, but how is that different from our current justice system?
It's not different. But a leftist says it should be, and I am arguing that to be leftist in the current world filled with selfish people, you have to take goods from selfish people to protect and help the poor. A libertarian can not accept that. Ergo, no leftist libertarians.

Where did I say that? I didn't.

You most certainly did:
So, those who don't embrace the whole package ranging from libertarian communism to an-caps aren't real libs?
Correct.
Like I said above, that was an interesting take...

And you still haven't defended your statement re abortion... (Changing the subject is not a defense...)

Where did I say that? I didn't.

A less inflamatory example than abortion. A couple with 4 kids seperate. The father was absolutely in love with this woman and was naive enough to have every asset in her name, and let her get educated work and she has all the skills and ability to get a job, while he doesn't. He looks after the kids.

Explain to me, you "leftist libertarians" how you can give a satisfactory result, that is leftist and libertarian. The leftist says "she pays". The libertarian says, no compulsion, she doesn't pay.Such an explanation would depend upon the specific way property rights are defined.
Personally, I would generally give a 'use it or lose it' rule. Since the man is living in the house, he has the right to continue to live there.
Also, there would presumably be the right to education, so the man would be able to get an education following the separation to be able to work a better job.

You subcontract out justice which isn't related to property to a privately enforced arbitration? That's corporatism, not libertarianism.[QUOTE]

I am not sure what you are talking about.

The typical marriage contract would likely include a provision for an uninterested individual to handle the disposition of the joint property per the stipulations of the contract and generally accepted practice.

I don't know how that is corporatism, or if your meaning for corporatism is the same as mine.

[QUOTE]It's not different. But a leftist says it should be, and I am arguing that to be leftist in the current world filled with selfish people, you have to take goods from selfish people to protect and help the poor. A libertarian can not accept that. Ergo, no leftist libertarians.

We are on different worlds, bud.

Such an explanation would depend upon the specific way property rights are defined.


Yes, much of any explanation for how my sort of libertarian society would look like depends on a great number factors.

Asking how a libertarian society might solve a situation does very little, as the solution proposed is formulated in the context of a vastly different society.

Yes, much of any explanation for how my sort of libertarian society would look like depends on a great number factors.

Asking how a libertarian society might solve a situation does very little, as the solution proposed is formulated in the context of a vastly different society.This is true, which is why I didn't go into too much depth.

what can i say. it's not the little green pieces of paper that are unhappy.
letting them get away with murder adds absolutely nothing to the freedom of any real person, place or thing. so no, i'm no kind of "libertarian" in any partisan idiological sense at all, and see absolutely nothing constructive or useful in it.

libertarianism means letting government freeload off of everyone while doing absolutely nothing to legitimately justify its existence.

A commie libertarian? Oxymoron overload! *Failure level 10*

A commie libertarian? Oxymoron overload! *Failure level 10*Clearly somebody didn't read the thread.
*shames*

A commie libertarian? Oxymoron overload! *Failure level 10*

son, i reckon you ain't up to handling the meta-libertarian arguments necessary to hold that position.

Also, there would presumably be the right to education, so the man would be able to get an education following the separation to be able to work a better job.

In a libertarian society there wouldn't be! Education requires a pupil and a teacher. The teacher needs some incentive to teach the student. If the pupil is too poor to pay for the teacher, then why will the teacher teach the student.

The state makes the teacher teach, the most common method being paying the teacher. The state gets the money to pay the teacher by compelling people to pay taxes. That doesn't happen in a libertarian society.

The state gets the money to pay the teacher by compelling people to pay taxes. That doesn't happen in a libertarian society.

says you

You most certainly did:
You seem more focused on "winning" the debate in a "6 - 4 to Daistallia" kind of way. I think the quotes you have chosen, can only be interpreted in the way you have by ignoring nearly everything else I have said.
And you still haven't defended your statement re abortion... (Changing the subject is not a defense...)
And you haven't actually answered anything how a libertarian can be leftist either. I have clearly stated any leftish system requires compulsion in the economic realm, as too many people are selfish. Compulsion means you can't be libertarian.

It seems that these people claiming to be leftist, are saying that in a perfect utopian world, you can be a leftist libertarian.The world isn't like that.
In this utopia where libertarianism works, any system would work. A capitalist system would have enough people giving to charity, no-one intentionally ripping someone off, so it would work. A communist system would work as everyone would contribute according to their ability, because everyone is a saint in this world where left and libertarian can agree.

In regards to the abortion question, the right of the bundle of cells is arbitrary. As long as the bundle of cells can't live away from the person, then it has no rights. Otherwise, every time you have a wank, you are killing a potential child and should go to jail. Every time you use contraception, etc. This argument has had it's own thread so often and so long, that I wont comment further, and I deliberately went away from that example.

says you
A well written erudite post that explains exactly why what I wrote was wrong. Thanks for your contribution.
Unfortunately I think many people here don't have my psychic powers and can't mind read the other 10 paragraphs that you thought. Please assist those other readers by posting how a libertarian system guarantees education without compelling it's citizens in some way?

In a libertarian society there wouldn't be! Education requires a pupil and a teacher. The teacher needs some incentive to teach the student. If the pupil is too poor to pay for the teacher, then why will the teacher teach the student. Because the teacher likes to teach?

The state makes the teacher teach, the most common method being paying the teacher. The state gets the money to pay the teacher by compelling people to pay taxes. That doesn't happen in a libertarian society.Taxation is not compulsion. If it were compulsion, people would have the right to the money that is taxed and they would be forced to give it up. Given that people do not have the righ to money that is taxed (except perhaps under a few social contracts), taxation is not compulsion.

A well written erudite post that explains exactly why what I wrote was wrong. Thanks for your contribution.

you're welcome.

problem 1 is that you have defined even most pro-capitalism liberts out of being libertarian, and i see no reason to let you do so.

problem 2 is that taxation is not necessarily illegitimately compelled anyway, even under ridiculous extremes of libertarian thought. people will always be compelled to pay for things they would rather get for free under any workable system, as long as people want something for nothing and those things require resources.

problems 3 through 58 involve the inherently anti-liberty nature of a society which sets up a system where some get massive benefits from birth while others do not. you wind up failing to maximize liberty at all, and instead maximize power concentration.

You seem more focused on "winning" the debate in a "6 - 4 to Daistallia" kind of way. I think the quotes you have chosen, can only be interpreted in the way you have by ignoring nearly everything else I have said.

Let's review the specifics:

It's all about common usage of the word.

As pointed out repeatedly, the common usage is wider than you definition.

Libertarian can't be communist or left.

To repeat myself for the umpteenth time, comunist libertarianism is the root libertarianism, a subset of the whole. To claim that communist libertarianism is not libertarianism is to either misundestand or misapply the word "libertarianism". Much like one would claim that the statement "A" is not a letter of the English alpahbet is either a misunderstanding or misapplication.

For the third time, I'll post a historical document supporting my case:

See the Organisational Platform of the Libertarian Communists (http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/platform/plat_preface.html). That's libertarian communism.

As for the contradictory claims you made, let's also review:

Libertarians embrace the whole package.
So, those who don't embrace the whole package ranging from libertarian communism to an-caps aren't real libs?
Correct.
So how do you reconcile the claim that you must be both a communist and capitalist to be a true libertarian?

Your words, not mine.

And you haven't actually answered anything how a libertarian can be leftist either.

I've done so repeatedly, as have others here. To state it yet again, in different terms, the definition is not one of economics.

I have clearly stated any leftish system requires compulsion in the economic realm, as too many people are selfish. Compulsion means you can't be libertarian.

The equally reverse statement (capitalism requires compulsion) has yet to be disproven. With capitalism, government intervenes in favor of those who've benifited from the previous theft of property.

It seems that these people claiming to be leftist, are saying that in a perfect utopian world, you can be a leftist libertarian.The world isn't like that.
In this utopia where libertarianism works, any system would work. A capitalist system would have enough people giving to charity, no-one intentionally ripping someone off, so it would work. A communist system would work as everyone would contribute according to their ability, because everyone is a saint in this world where left and libertarian can agree.

Your perfect pure capitralist system also requires people to be saints. This is why I support neither a pure left or pure right economic system, but a progressive one.

This argument has had it's own thread so often and so long, that I wont comment further, and I deliberately went away from that example.

It was your argument that "Any conservative "Libertarian" who is anti-abortion is lying to themselves as well."

You weaken your arguments if you aren't willing to defend them.

Because the teacher likes to teach?
But the teacher probably prefers to eat a bit more. Not to mention that's it's hard to teach when you are starving and without shelter. If teaching is what that person does, and the pupil can't pay, someone else has to.

That is either the state, which libertarianism says shouldn't be involved in things such as education, or charity, which if you look at the education budgets of most 1st world countries, charity couldn't step in to fix that unless human being become a lot nicer than they currently are.

problem 1 is that you have defined even most pro-capitalism liberts out of being libertarian, and i see no reason to let you do so.
Most extreme social systems don't work. Most of the people saying they are libertarian, put some caveats on their libertarianism so it's a working social system. This stops it being libertarianism. This is a reason why I call myself a socialist, not a communist.
For example: Communism requires everyone to work as best as they can, and the brilliant people of society don't get rewarded any more than the dull but adequate people even though the brilliant person contributes more to society. The brilliant people get pissed about this quite quickly. Add to that people who are just lazy and don't work as best as they can, and the system fails.
problem 2 is that taxation is not necessarily illegitimately compelled anyway, even under ridiculous extremes of libertarian thought. people will always be compelled to pay for things they would rather get for free under any workable system, as long as people want something for nothing and those things require resources.
I am claiming pure libertarianism is a fundamentally flawed system. No matter how "just" a tax is, if someone doesn't want to pay for it, and the community forces them to, you are no longer in a pure libertarian place.
problems 3 through 58 involve the inherently anti-liberty nature of a society which sets up a system where some get massive benefits from birth while others do not. you wind up failing to maximize liberty at all, and instead maximize power concentration.
Agreed about that. Libertarianism doesn't solve this. You will still get cliques of rich people teaming together to rip off poor people. Just like now, no-one is compelled to work for a low wage, but if no-one else is offering better, and you don't have the finacial reserves to get better educated, you have to take it.

But the teacher probably prefers to eat a bit more. Not to mention that's it's hard to teach when you are starving and without shelter. If teaching is what that person does, and the pupil can't pay, someone else has to.The community would, of course.

That is either the state, which libertarianism says shouldn't be involved in things such as education, or charity, which if you look at the education budgets of most 1st world countries, charity couldn't step in to fix that unless human being become a lot nicer than they currently are.No, right-libertarianism says that charity should pay for those things.

For the third time, I'll post a historical document supporting my case:
That's libertarian communism.
From what I read of it, it is a fluffy idealogical document, that is pretty much the communist manifesto. The only difference, after we break the state, we somehow magically decide amongst ourselves who gets everything. Which little collective runs this, which little collective runs that. There'll be no conflict, no argument.
Systems that depend on collective agreement, such as roads, everyone who uses them will just decide to pay, or we'll have tolls everywhere but somehow magically the cost of administering them wont make the road system unviable.

I've done so repeatedly, as have others here. To state it yet again, in different terms, the definition is not one of economics.
But yet the document you link to focuses primarily on the class system, and the economic imbalance. Make up your mind.
The equally reverse statement (capitalism requires compulsion) has yet to be disproven. With capitalism, government intervenes in favor of those who've benifited from the previous theft of property.
It's not a reverse statement. Capitalism and a leftist system both require compulsion. he leftist system requires compulsion to get the rich to support the poor. The capitalist system needs compulsion to tax the middle class and funnel it the rich.
Your perfect pure capitralist system also requires people to be saints. This is why I support neither a pure left or pure right economic system, but a progressive one.
It's not my system. I support a socialisy system. I understand that the world isn't full of saints. i can't see any way your "libertarian communist" system would work in a world populated by humanity.

You weaken your arguments if you aren't willing to defend them.
And you once again show you are trying to score points instead of debate facts. The above as well as you trying to suggest I am saying libertarians have to be communist and capitalist shows this.
I actually wrote a defence of the anti-abortion point, which you conveniently didn't quote. I just don't want this thread to degenerate in to a "When does life start debate".
In regards to the capitalist/communist, I responded to
So, those who don't embrace the whole package ranging from libertarian communism to an-caps aren't real libs
You have chosen to somehow read it in a completely illogical way (obviously you can't be capitalist and communist) to try to score cheap points. Most people reading my point would think, he means any of the people who call themselves libertarians in this broad spectrum aren't libs, if they suggest even one thing that curtails liberty (except property and safety). It's quite weak really. I hope you aren't/weren't on your school debating team.

The community would, of course.
But what if significant parts of the community don't want to?You are just posting about a utopia. Use the real world.

But what if significant parts of the community don't want to?Then they wouldn't be living in a libertarian socialist community in the first place.