The Definition Of "libertarian"

[Alceste]

Still dishonest, I see.

Not dishonest, just using standard definitions. You do support small government, private property, balanced budgets and so forth, do you not? Conservative is the name for that.

Edit: also, the unholy union of fiscal and social conservatism is hardly universal. Our governing conservative party keeps pretty quiet about women's reproductive rights, gay marriage and so forth. But they're still conservative as all hell.

 

[Revoltingest]

libertarian is very anti authoritarian, in both meanings. Thats the common ground.

That is the US usage of the term "libertarian", ie, maximal liberty in both social & economic areas.
But the RF definition also includes the bizarre "left libertarian".
From Wikipedia....

Libertarian socialism (sometimes called social anarchism[6][7] or left-libertarianism)[3][8] is a group of political philosophies that promote a non-hierarchical, non-bureaucratic society without private property in the means of production. Libertarian socialists believe in converting present-day private productive property into common or public goods, while retaining respect for personal property.[note 2] Libertarian socialism is opposed to coercive forms of social organization. It promotes free association in place of government and opposes the social relations of capitalism, such as wage labor.[note 3

How can one oppose "wage labor", & still be in favor of free association of individuals?

 

[Tarheeler]

Oh, don't get mad. You know I'm always nice to posters who give reasoned arguments.
RF staff are the ones who decided to use Americastanian definitions. I'm working from
their (your?) premises, & addressing the inconsistencies in the posted definitions.
My argument might seem fervent, but you know that I'm all warm & cuddly.

Perhaps it's ODD, ADD or my inner aspie, but I like neatly functioning elegant systems.
However the chips fall, whether I'm included here or booted there, the definitions should
be consistent & useful to the members in the groups.

The definitions were formatted so that people could figure out where they fit in based on their political beliefs.

The "US definition" qualifier is used because while we tend to identify Conservative with the right and Liberal with the left, and that is often not the case in most other places. We had to pick one in order to have some kind of base point, and, since most here are Americans, that's what we went with. But the definitions are worded and examples of non-American groups are given so that people who might use a different term to describe the same thing can find out where they belong.

Libertarianism, Socialism, and Capitalism are different animals. Where "liberal" and conservative" are typically used to describe a political position, these three are established political and/or economic philosophies with well established definitions that are generally accepted everywhere. While individual schools do exist within each that can vary greatly in their specific teachings, the core ideas remain the same. A libertarian is going to advocate for freedom above all else, a socialist is going to advocate for social ownership and cooperation, and a capitalist is going to advocate for a for-profit economy.

 

[xkatz]

You do support small government, private property, balanced budgets and so forth, do you not? Conservative is the name for that.

How are these contradictory to libertarianism? It's possible to be a conservative libertarian. Minimal govt.=minarchist=libertarian, no govt.=anarchist. The two are different (though similar in a few ways).

 

[CynthiaCypher]

The definitions were formatted so that people could figure out where they fit in based on their political beliefs.

The "US definition" qualifier is used because while we tend to identify Conservative with the right and Liberal with the left, and that is often not the case in most other places. We had to pick one in order to have some kind of base point, and, since most here are Americans, that's what we went with. But the definitions are worded and examples of non-American groups are given so that people who might use a different term to describe the same thing can find out where they belong.

Libertarianism, Socialism, and Capitalism are different animals. Where "liberal" and conservative" are typically used to describe a political position, these three are established political and/or economic philosophies with well established definitions that are generally accepted everywhere. While individual schools do exist within each that can vary greatly in their specific teachings, the core ideas remain the same. A libertarian is going to advocate for freedom above all else, a socialist is going to advocate for social ownership and cooperation, and a capitalist is going to advocate for a for-profit economy.

And there you go.

/End Thread

 

[Alceste]

How are these contradictory to libertarianism? It's possible to be a conservative libertarian. No government is anarchist, which isn't quite the same as libertarian (though similar) IMHO.

They're not contradictory. Rev is a right-libertarian and a fiscal conservative. It's just that he called me a liar for making that observation.

 

[Revoltingest]

The definitions were formatted so that people could figure out where they fit in based on their political beliefs.

The "US definition" qualifier is used because while we tend to identify Conservative with the right and Liberal with the left, and that is often not the case in most other places. We had to pick one in order to have some kind of base point, and, since most here are Americans, that's what we went with. But the definitions are worded and examples of non-American groups are given so that people who might use a different term to describe the same thing can find out where they belong.

Libertarianism, Socialism, and Capitalism are different animals. Where "liberal" and conservative" are typically used to describe a political position, these three are established political and/or economic philosophies with well established definitions that are generally accepted everywhere. While individual schools do exist within each that can vary greatly in their specific teachings, the core ideas remain the same. A libertarian is going to advocate for freedom above all else, a socialist is going to advocate for social ownership and cooperation, and a capitalist is going to advocate for a for-profit economy.

Your elucidation here is clearer than the definitions given.
Example:
In the capitalism forum, the inclusion of "state capitalism" would allow Soviet socialists to post there.
State capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This goes against common US usage of "capitalism".

As things stand socialists (including libertarian socialists) & capitalists (including "state capitalists")
can post in each others' forums. This strikes me as overly broad for restricted forums.

 

[xkatz]

They're not contradictory. Rev is a right-libertarian and a fiscal conservative. It's just that he called me a liar for making that observation.

Fair enough

 

[Revoltingest]

They're not contradictory. Rev is a right-libertarian and a fiscal conservative. It's just that he called me a liar for making that observation.

Meta-dishonesty?
I said you're dishonest for calling me a "conservative".
You've done it before. I've often corrected you, so you know better.
And yet you continue the falsehood.
If you don't like being called on it, then I suggest not making dishonest observations.


There....see how lovable I am towards reasonable posters?
OK, maybe not "lovable"...but how about unthreatening & tolerable?

 

[Alceste]

Meta-dishonesty?
I said you're dishonest for calling me a "conservative".
You've done it before. I've often corrected you, so you know better.
And yet you continue the falsehood.

Likewise, you continue to insist I am a liberal. I don't think you're a liar though, I just think your personal way of defining political philosophies is incorrect, and far too Americastanian to be descriptively useful. You guys have been stuck in a binary situation for too long, so you tend to try to bundle every school of political thought under the sun into one of your two camps. Most other countries have a wider variety of parties to choose from. Most notably, we all have at least one left leaning party, which the US completely lacks.

 

[Tarheeler]

Your elucidation here is clearer than the definitions given.
Example:
In the capitalism forum, the inclusion of "state capitalism" would allow Soviet socialists to post there.
State capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This goes against common US usage of "capitalism".

"Soviet socialists" could post there only if they advocated for capitalism rather than economic socialism.

Have you read through the entire wiki article? It's not bad, provided one reads through it. Here's a good use of "state capitalism" that fits well in many "western" capitalist economies:

Alternatively, state capitalism may be used (sometimes interchangeably with state monopoly capitalism) to describe a system where the state intervenes in the economy to protect and advance the interests of large-scale businesses. This practice is often claimed to be in contrast with the ideals of both socialism and laissez-faire capitalism.

 

[Revoltingest]

"Soviet socialists" could post there only if they advocated for capitalism rather than economic socialism.

Have you read through the entire wiki article? It's not bad, provided one reads through it. Here's a good use of "state capitalism" that fits well in many "western" capitalist economies:

I've perused the whole thing (a long read), & what I glean is that there are many definitions of
"state capitalism", including Soviet style socialism. Thus, it might not be the best phrase to
include in a description of "capitalism" if US usage is the goal. Other than posters who are
fervent fans of feudalism or foraging, is there anyone who is not a "capitalist"?

Please forgive my need to alliterate, btw.

For reference (underlinging added):

Capitalism: An economic system based on private ownership of capital, resources, production, and systems of distribution. It functions primarily through the use of competitive markets, wage labor, and private property rights. It is affected by the political system it operates under, and can be found in many models such as laissez-faire capitalism, state capitalism, and social-market capitalism.

 

[Iti oj]

That is the US usage of the term "libertarian", ie, maximal liberty in both social & economic areas.
But the RF definition also includes the bizarre "left libertarian".
From Wikipedia....
How can one oppose "wage labor", & still be in favor of free association of individuals?

I don't understand. Wage labor is in the way of freedom.

 

[Iti oj]

People would freely associate to create what was needed and capable of creating, those people would freely associate with other groups

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't understand. Wage labor is in the way of freedom.

For reference:
Wage labour - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wage labour (also wage labor in American English) is the socioeconomic relationship between a worker and an employer, where the worker sells their labour under a formal or informal employment contract.[1] These transactions usually occur in a labour market where wages are market determined.[2] In exchange for the wages paid, the work product generally becomes the undifferentiated property of the employer, except for special cases such as the vesting of intellectual property patents in the United States where patent rights are usually vested in the original personal inventor. A wage labourer is a person whose primary means of income is from the selling of his or her labour in this way.

No one forces the employer to hire the employee.
No one forces the employee to work for the employer.
So the relationship is voluntary.
Liberty (freedom) is reduced is this relationship is prohibited.

 

[Iti oj]

Btw I am a socialism libertarian.

 

[Alceste]

For reference:
Wage labour - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No one forces the employer to hire the employee.
No one forces the employee to work for the employer.
So the relationship is voluntary.
Liberty (freedom) is reduced is this relationship is prohibited.

We don't advocate prohibiting this association, just as you (I assume) don't advocate prohibiting unions, guilds, collectives, coops, and the other forms of social organization we left libertarians prefer to wage labour and direct employer to employee negotiation.

 

[Alceste]

Btw I am a socialism libertarian.

Me too.

 

[Tarheeler]

I've perused the whole thing (a long read), & what I glean is that there are many definitions of "state capitalism",
including Soviet style socialism. Thus, it might not be the best phrase to include in a description of "capitalism".
Other than posters who fervent fans of feudalism & foraging, is there anyone who is not a "capitalist"?

Please forgive my need to alliterate, btw.

I don't consider myself a capitalist, for one, and I know of several others here as well. While I have no choice but to operate within a capitalist system, I don't advocate that it is ideal or even preferable. Capitalism is a very broad category, and the definition matches that; while some understandings of state capitalism are contrary, many others are quite in tune with the general definition of capitalism.

 

[Iti oj]

For reference:
Wage labour - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No one forces the employer to hire the employee.
No one forces the employee to work for the employer.
So the relationship is voluntary.
Liberty (freedom) is reduced is this relationship is prohibited.

Just because you say it does not make it true. Survival dictates it can't be true.