• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Liberal vs Libertarianism

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
In the classical definition, the liberal/conservative divide wasn't really a left/right thing necessarily:

- liberals advocated for government reform in some way.
- conservatives advocated for the existing government institutions in their current (or traditional) form.

These days, I think that "liberal" has become shorthand for "left wing" and "conservative" for "right wing", even in cases where the "conservatives" are the ones arguing for major governmental change and the "liberals" are arguing for keeping the government as it is.

Big L means you are a follower of the Libertarian Party and remain a strict monarchist.
Libertarian monarchist? Does such a beast exist? :confused:
 

Matthew78

aspiring biblical scholar
(Libertarian socialists think they exist, but capitalism will thrive unless there's a government strong enuf to quash it....& that ain't libertarian.)

You realize, right, that libertarian socialists invented the word "libertarian" before it was misappropriated many years later? People who like Von Mises, Hayek, and Murray Rothbard probably don't know this or don't like hearing this but it's true.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
You realize, right, that libertarian socialists invented the word "libertarian" before it was misappropriated many years later? People who like Von Mises, Hayek, and Murray Rothbard probably don't know this or don't like hearing this but it's true.
Evidence?
 

Rakhel

Well-Known Member
There's more than one type of Liberal. There's also more than one type of Libertarian when you're not speaking of the specific party. As much as we humans would like to think everyone falls into neat little categories, pretty much anything that has to do with humanity is more of a spectrum. Categories just make it easier for us humans to process. But at the same time, it leads to misconceptions.

I suggest this site:
Political Spectrum Quiz - Your Political Label
Still a Libertarian but closer to the middle on this quiz than I was on The Political Compass test
 

Matthew78

aspiring biblical scholar
Evidence?

I have taken the following quote directly from an Anarchist FAQ that I have found online:
However, due to the creation of the Libertarian Party in the USA, many people now consider the idea of "libertarian socialism" to be a contradiction in terms. Indeed, many "Libertarians" think anarchists are just attempting to associate the "anti-libertarian" ideas of "socialism" (as Libertarians conceive it) with Libertarian ideology in order to make those "socialist" ideas more "acceptable" -- in other words, trying to steal the "libertarian" label from its rightful possessors. Nothing could be further from the truth. Anarchists have been using the term "libertarian" to describe themselves and their ideas since the 1850's. According to anarchist historian Max Nettlau, the revolutionary anarchist Joseph Dejacque published Le Libertaire, Journal du Mouvement Social in New York between 1858 and 1861 while the use of the term "libertarian communism" dates from November, 1880 when a French anarchist congress adopted it. [Max Nettlau, A Short History of Anarchism, p. 75 and p. 145] The use of the term "Libertarian" by anarchists became more popular from the 1890s onward after it was used in France in an attempt to get round anti-anarchist laws and to avoid the negative associations of the word "anarchy" in the popular mind (Sebastien Faure and Louise Michel published the paper Le Libertaire -- The Libertarian -- in France in 1895, for example). Since then, particularly outside America, it has always been associated with anarchist ideas and movements. Taking a more recent example, in the USA, anarchists organised "The Libertarian League" in July 1954, which had staunch anarcho-syndicalist principles and lasted until 1965. The US-based "Libertarian" Party, on the other hand has only existed since the early 1970's, well over 100 years after anarchists first used the term to describe their political ideas (and 90 years after the expression "libertarian communism" was first adopted). It is that party, not the anarchists, who have "stolen" the word.
 

Storm

ThrUU the Looking Glass
There's more than one type of Liberal. There's also more than one type of Libertarian when you're not speaking of the specific party. As much as we humans would like to think everyone falls into neat little categories, pretty much anything that has to do with humanity is more of a spectrum. Categories just make it easier for us humans to process. But at the same time, it leads to misconceptions.

I suggest this site:
Political Spectrum Quiz - Your Political Label
I scored -4.14 x -4.63
6x28.gif

n29.gif

c27.gif

Average of All Quiz-Takers:

17x23.gif

n40.gif

c39.gif
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I have taken the following quote directly from an Anarchist FAQ that I have found online:
Your quoted piece covered anarchists, not socialists.
Anarchists are a different breed entirely....I have much in common with'm.
But I quibble....the origin of the term "libertarian" is immaterial. We know what it means now.
 

Matthew78

aspiring biblical scholar
Your quoted piece covered anarchists, not socialists.Anarchists are a different breed entirely....I have much in common with'm. But I quibble....the origin of the term "libertarian" is immaterial. We know what it means now.
But the piece that I produced in the form of an above quote was from socialists. Anarchists are libertarian socialists. That was the whole point. How do anarchists and socialists differ to you? The fact of the matter remains that "libertarian" was a word invented by anticapitalist leftists before it was misappropriated by folks like Murray Rothbard.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
But the piece that I produced in the form of an above quote was from socialists. Anarchists are libertarian socialists. That was the whole point. How do anarchists and socialists differ to you? The fact of the matter remains that "libertarian" was a word invented by anticapitalist leftists before it was misappropriated by folks like Murray Rothbard.
"Libertarian socialists" & some self-proclaimed "anarchists" are just confused. They actually aren't anarchists or libertarians, since socialism must be imposed
from the top down. Without strong a central authority to keep the order, too many entrepreneurs, reprobates, skalawags & malcontents would break from the
herd & start companies. Capitalism would go all malignant on society! Besides, there are other views on the etymology of the word, "libertarian"....
Online Etymology Dictionary
Examining this source, who better embodies the spirit of liberty than your typical modern libertarian? Certainly, it isn't the socialists, who want to have the
government meddling in our affairs. We even fit the 18th century meaning of "liberal" better than modern liberals do. But alas, I'm failing in my efforts to
reclaim that word for our own. Language evolves & confounds us, don't it?
 
Last edited:

Matthew78

aspiring biblical scholar
"Libertarian socialists" & some self-proclaimed "anarchists" are just confused.

How are they confused? They were vehemently antiauthoritarian and were opposed to statism.

They actually aren't anarchists or libertarians, since socialism must be imposed
from the top down.

Of course they were! Anarchists are people who are opposed to illegitimate authority. They opposed capitalism because capitalists were economic authorities who used the private ownership of capital to exploit the workers through wage-slavery, as they saw it. They opposed economic hierarchies as well as political and social hierarchies. True anarchists, therefore, really are socialists. There is no economic hierarchical authority in a classless society.

Without strong a central authority to keep the order, too many entrepreneurs, reprobates, skalawags & malcontents would break from the
herd & start companies. Capitalism would go all malignant on society!

How so? Why assume that socialism is synonymous with a "strong central authority to keep order"? This makes me wonder; have you read any of the anarchist thinkers like Peter Kropotkin? If not, you might want to refrain from making these statements.

Besides, there are other views on the etymology of the word, "libertarian"....
Online Etymology Dictionary
Examining this source, who better embodies the spirit of liberty than your typical modern libertarian?

Um, having been a libertarian socialist and knowing their ideas and well as the sources of these ideas, what do you think? You can't seriously expect me to believe that Murray Rothbard correctly embodies libertarian thought! Do you? I examined the link you posted to this online dictionary and I didn't find anything that contradicted what I quoted in my previous post from the Anarchist FAQ.

Certainly, it isn't the socialists, who want to have the
government meddling in our affairs. We even fit the 18th century meaning of "liberal" better than modern liberals do. But alas, I'm failing in my efforts to
reclaim that word for our own. Language evolves & confounds us, don't it?

Which socialists? Peter Berkman? Peter Kropotkin? M. Bakunin? Murray Bookchin? Michael Albert? Robin Hahnel? David Schweickart? These socialists want the government meddling in our affairs? I'm willing to bet that you might never have heard of these people much less read any of their works.
 
Last edited:

Darkness

Psychoanalyst/Marxist
Libertarian monarchist? Does such a beast exist? :confused:

Karl Widerquist argued that libertarianism has to accept the possibility of a monarchial form of government if one family/group gains control of the entire country through free-market acquisition. The entrepreneur simply labels himself or herself a "king" or "queen"[Read]
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
How are they confused? They were vehemently antiauthoritarian and were opposed to statism.
Socialism requires a strong government to maintain it, lest a capitalist infection run rampant.

Of course they were! Anarchists are people who are opposed to illegitimate authority. They opposed capitalism because capitalists were economic authorities who used the private ownership of capital to exploit the workers through wage-slavery, as they saw it. They opposed economic hierarchies as well as political and social hierarchies. True anarchists, therefore, really are socialists. There is no economic hierarchical authority in a classless society.
To oppose capitalism would be to oppose people coming together to pool resources for economic activity. This requires a powerful government to suppress entrepreneurs.

How so? Why assume that socialism is synonymous with a "strong central authority to keep order"?
Without a strong government to prevent it, people would naturally engage in capitalism.

This makes me wonder; have you read any of the anarchist thinkers like Peter Kropotkin? If not, you might want to refrain from making these statements.
I needn't read every confused pesudo-authority just to voice opinions. Feel free to make a cogent argument of your own.

Um, having been a libertarian socialist and knowing their ideas and well as the sources of these ideas, what do you think? You can't seriously expect me to believe that Murray Rothbard correctly embodies libertarian thought! Do you? I examined the link you posted to this online dictionary and I didn't find anything that contradicted what I quoted in my previous post from the Anarchist FAQ.
Your believing you're a libertarian socialist doesn't mean they exist. Socialism has the inherent trait of squashing economic liberty...& that ain't libertarian.

Which socialists? Peter Berkman? Peter Kropotkin? M. Bakunin? Murray Bookchin? Michael Albert? Robin Hahnel? David Schweickart? These socialists want the government meddling in our affairs? I'm willing to bet that you might never have heard of these people much less read any of their works.
Names, names & more names....I prefer reasoning to appeals to authority.

Tell me...in a socialist society, if I got together with some friends to build a factory, hired workers to make products, & sold them at a profit...what would the government do with us?
 
Last edited:

Darkness

Psychoanalyst/Marxist
I am going to shamelessly play the card that I am a political science student who intends to go onto a Ph.D., possibly in Political Theory (I am fine with it. No other profession makes you sound arrogant if you speak intelligently on the subject, like having a knowledge of carpentry, but the moment you proclaim to have above average intelligence on politics or society, you get labeled a snob Ah, well!). I will explain this really quickly, because I do not have much time.

Both modern liberalism (the philosophy of the contemporary Democratic Party) and libertarianism are strains of the broader political philosophy called liberalism. Liberalism was developed by thinkers such as Thomas Hobbes (kind of), John Locke and Adam Smith. The core belief is that we should look at people as individuals. The good society is the result of individuals coming together for the securement of each individual's natural liberties. In the state of nature, before society, each person is at a disadvantage, because safety and the protection of private interests cannot be ensured without a regulatory agency; an example John Locke used was that a wronged party may simply be too weak to retaliate against a wrong and ensure justice. Humans join forces to create a government that can secure this natural liberty. Classic liberals (or libertarians) interpret the government's role as being limited in order to protect our natural liberty. Modern liberals (also called social liberal) believe the government needs more expansive powers to secure the individual's liberty and view liberty in a expansive/positive sense (e.g. public education is necessary for equality of opportunity to function).

Does that make any sense? I do this **** all the time at my University, so I tend to skip over some things that are obvious to me, but that might be confusing (and need more explaining) to people who have never read people like Locke, Smith and Marx. Basically there are two ways to examine political ideology. The average person prefers to look at it by which policies they support. The intelligensia prefer to examine ideology in terms of philosophy. For me looking at the philosophy behind it is much simpler and much more informative.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I am going to shamelessly play the card that I am a political science student who intends to go onto a Ph.D., possibly in Political Theory (I am fine with it. No other profession makes you sound arrogant if you speak intelligently on the subject, like having a knowledge of carpentry, but the moment you proclaim to have above average intelligence on politics or society, you get labeled a snob Ah, well!). I will explain this really quickly, because I do not have much time.

Both modern liberalism (the philosophy of the contemporary Democratic Party) and libertarianism are strains of the broader political philosophy called liberalism. Liberalism was developed by thinkers such as Thomas Hobbes (kind of), John Locke and Adam Smith. The core belief is that we should look at people as individuals. The good society is the result of individuals coming together for the securement of each individual's natural liberties. In the state of nature, before society, each person is at a disadvantage, because safety and the protection of private interests cannot be ensured without a regulatory agency; an example John Locke used was that a wronged party may simply be too weak to retaliate against a wrong and ensure justice. Humans join forces to create a government that can secure this natural liberty. Classic liberals (or libertarians) interpret the government's role as being limited in order to protect our natural liberty. Modern liberals (also called social liberal) believe the government needs more expansive powers to secure the individual's liberty and view liberty in a expansive/positive sense (e.g. public education is necessary for equality of opportunity to function).

Does that make any sense? I do this **** all the time at my University, so I tend to skip over some things that are obvious to me, but that might be confusing (and need more explaining) to people who have never read people like Locke, Smith and Marx. Basically there are two ways to examine political ideology. The average person prefers to look at it by which policies they support. The intelligensia prefer to examine ideology in terms of philosophy. For me looking at the philosophy behind it is much simpler and much more informative.
Makes sense. But I'd label "expansive/positive" liberty as "security" provided to some by forcing others to provide.
This strikes me as very un-libertarian.
 

Darkness

Psychoanalyst/Marxist
Makes sense. But I'd label "expansive/positive" liberty as "security" provided to some by forcing others to provide.
This strikes me as very un-libertarian.

It is very un-libertarian, but still very liberal. :D

A good example is the modern liberal argument made for public schooling. If the upper-class helps finance schooling for the lower-classes, there won't be as many criminals on the street threatening to rob or kill them. :biglaugh:
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
It is very un-libertarian, but still very liberal. :D

A good example is the modern liberal argument made for public schooling. If the upper-class helps finance schooling for the lower-classes, there won't be as many criminals on the street threatening to rob or kill them. :biglaugh:
No argument here.

This is a good time to point out that I don't see libertarianism as a perfect solution to designing a society. It is merely my personal preference.
There are advantages (& drawbacks) to alternatives. One thing is certain....we'll always see a combination of competing systems. I'd just try
to steer that combination in a direction of maximal liberty (both social & economic).
 

Darkness

Psychoanalyst/Marxist
No argument here.

This is a good time to point out that I don't see libertarianism as a perfect solution to designing a society. It is merely my personal preference.
There are advantages (& drawbacks) to alternatives. One thing is certain....we'll always see a combination of competing systems. I'd just try
to steer that combination in a direction of maximal liberty (both social & economic).

The advantage I have with social democracy is that it is a pragmatic philosophy by its very nature. You cannot hold us to anything, because we argue that some government institutions work and others fail. :yes:
 
Top