The Definition Of "libertarian"

[Shadow Wolf]

I'm still very iffy on Social Anarchism = Libertarianism. What is best for the community may-and in today's society especially-mean limiting freedoms. Water does not belong to one person or corporation to suck up, the land does not belong to one person, or corporation, for business expansion (especially when it means potentially endangering the people who are already there), and discrimination should not be tolerated. The freedoms of the many will inhibit the freedoms of the few. But, by Revoltingest's definition somewhere in this thread, it can still be Libertarian.
I still remain confused. I'd prefer the definition provided by Tarheeler. A Libertarian is about personal liberty, a Capitalist is about personal capitol, and socialist is about all of society. Though prioritizing society does lead to more personal liberty than enslaving ourselves to the few who believe they have the right because they have more money.
I have to admit though, it's rather quite something to wake up and realize that all along your views are, at least to the collective powerhouse of Wiki (I do consider them to be more credible than most sources because of its collective, and instantly updated, effort), considered to be something that you thought they absolutely were not.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Would I be able to compete with communal housing...offering a product which tenants would prefer?

There would be no capitalism in a communist commune as the two systems cannot coexist. You would have to establish a capitalist commune and you would be free to do so.

 

[Alceste]

It's what happens in all societies (that I know of).
There is common property & private property.
And this division will differ greatly among them.
It is demonstrable. It is not "truth".

The Dene live as a sovereign nation in the NWT. I am finding it difficult to find specifics on their land use, but I understand from conversations I've had with a Dene guy that their land and the proceeds from any economic activity within their territory are shared by the whole community.

That's not so uncommon a model for First Nations peoples. They lived without the concept of land ownership or private property for thousands of years before Europeans showed up. They had personal property and familial or tribal rights to the proceeds of this or that fishing hole or berry bush, but that's not the same thing at all.

 

[Alceste]

Would I be able to compete with communal housing...offering a product which tenants would prefer?

IMO, the only thing that allows private landlords to compete with coops even now is the fact that the waiting list for coop housing is absolutely enormous. Like, YEARS of waiting to get into one. IMO, it would be very hard for profit-motivated property owners to compete with them if there were to become more available. There are a number of reasons for this, but the main reason is that while private landlords redirect the proceeds of housing to line their own pockets, coop housing boards keep their profits to a minimum on purpose and pour any excess income back into the building and surroundings, resulting in both cheaper rent and larger, nicer properties.

 

[Revoltingest]

The Libertarian forum is unique in its breadth here.
It appears to be defined along the lines of the Political Compass definitions.

With both "left" & "right" quadrants, it appears to be half of the political spectrum,
ie, everything south of y=0. It is essentially everyone who is socially liberal.
Based upon conversations with members & staff, this is the intent of our forum....we
will agree on things social, & differ greatly on things economic. This difference on
things economic will have major social consequences for those of us who want economic
free association....a whole lotta conflict.

I wonder if a split is in order.
In Europspeak, they'd be:
1) Right libertarians, who favor social permissiveness (liberal) & free markets (capitalist environment which allows other structures)
2) Left libertarians, who favor social permissiveness (liberal) &....uh.....I don't dare describe what would go here. Help, anyone?

 

[CynthiaCypher]

2) Left libertarians, who favor social permissiveness (liberal) & Freedom from economic exploitation and coercion

There you go

 

[Alceste]

I wonder if a split is in order.
1) Right libertarians, who favor social permissiveness (liberal) & free markets (capitalist environment which allows other structures)
2) Left libertarians, who favor social permissiveness (liberal) &....uh.....I don't dare describe what would go here. Help, anyone?

& socialist forms of production (collective / communitarian environment which allows for other structures).

 

[Revoltingest]

& socialist forms of production (collective / communitarian environment which allows for other structures).

So.....
1) Right libertarians, who favor social permissiveness (liberal) & free markets (capitalist environment which allows other structures)
2) Left libertarians, who favor social permissiveness (liberal) & socialist forms of production (collective / communitarian environment which allows for other structures)

 

[Revoltingest]

There you go

I dislike quotes falsely attributed to me.

Originally Posted by Revoltingest
2) Left libertarians, who favor social permissiveness (liberal) & Freedom from economic exploitation and coercion

I did not post that.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

I dislike quotes falsely attributed to me.

I did not post that.

I was helping you out like you asked. I correct it for you.

 

[Alceste]

Yours was better.
So.....
1) Right libertarians, who favor social permissiveness (liberal) & free markets (capitalist environment which allows other structures)
2) Left libertarians, who favor social permissiveness (liberal) & socialist forms of production (collective / communitarian environment which allows for other structures)

You can perhaps see why I don't think a split is necessary, since both our preferred forms of libertarianism would inevitably coexist with very little rancour, as long as we both really mean it when we say "while allowing other structures".

 

[Revoltingest]

I was helping you out like you asked. I correct it for you.

The form you chose made it appear to quote me.
Whatever your intent, I dislike misrepresentation.
Notice how Alceste answered my request properly, neutrally & thoroughly.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

The form you chose made it appear to quote me.
Whatever your intent, I dislike misrepresentation.
Notice how Alceste answered my request properly, neutrally & thoroughly.

Are you going to nitpick now?

 

[Revoltingest]

You can perhaps see why I don't think a split is necessary, since both our preferred forms of libertarianism would inevitably coexist with very little rancour, as long as we both really mean it when we say "while allowing other structures".

The differences are great, particularly about owning property.
It appears (from the answers given) that left libertarianism is
strong (some, if not all) on prohibiting such ownership.
It would be akin to combining the Jewish, Xian, & Muslim DIRs,
since they all share an Abrahamic origin. Arguing over economics
is even more divisive than religion. This heathen finds more
acceptance among religious fundies than this capitalist finds
among socialists & commies. (I believe fundies think of me
as a wayward but non-threatening halfwit. I'm good with that.)

Edit:
The economic divide is so great that we cannot even agree on
the definition of "liberty".

 

[Revoltingest]

Are you going to nitpick now?

Your nits are yours to do with as you please.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

We already have the Capitalist and Socialist DIRs so can we please stick to issues that effect libertarians in general here? If we want to talk economics, we have those other rooms. So let's just bash the State in here. XD

 

[Alceste]

The differences are great, particularly about owning property.
It appears (from the answers given) that left libertarianism is
strong (some, if not all) on prohibiting such ownership.
It would be akin to combining the Jewish, Xian, & Muslim DIRs,
since they all share an Abrahamic origin. Arguing over economics
is even more divisive than religion. This heathen finds more
acceptance among religious fundies than this capitalist finds
among socialists & commies. (I believe fundies think of me
as a wayward but non-threatening halfwit. I'm good with that.)

So you are saying that your ideal libertarian society would not permit socialistic economic models to compete with capitalistic ones?

I say why not? Let's dismantle the existing authoritarian paradigm and let the best woman win!

 

[Revoltingest]

So you are saying that your ideal libertarian society would not permit socialistic economic models to compete with capitalistic ones?

If you can find where I said it, then I said it.
If you can't find where I said it, then I didn't.
(To save time, just assume the 2nd option.)

I say why not? Let's dismantle the existing authoritarian paradigm and let the best woman win!

Does it seem odd that half of the political spectrum is in one forum?
It seems rather pointless. Those excluded (anyone even slightly socially
conservative) would likely have no interest in posting here.

 

[Revoltingest]

We already have the Capitalist and Socialist DIRs so can we please stick to issues that effect libertarians in general here? If we want to talk economics, we have those other rooms. So let's just bash the State in here. XD

But even those are co-mingled, since the RF definition of "capitalism"
includes "state capitalism", which includes socialism.
Does it serve any purpose to have these separate forums which don't
exclude each other. We could just post in general forums with almost
all of the threads we've seen so far, & the responses would be by the
same people.

 

[Revoltingest]

Again, we could even change the name of the forum from "libertarian" to "socially liberal".
I think the latter would be clearer, since in Americastan, all the major media I've ever
seen treat "libertarian" as what RF calls "right libertarian". And in both Americastan &
Canuckistand, the Libertarian Party represents "right libertarian". But look at the term
"socially liberal"....isn't that comparatively unambiguous?