The Definition Of "libertarian"

[Revoltingest]

It was in my second post, Rev.

This....

A lot of people, especially in the US, have a hard time differentiating between voluntary socialism, which is what libertarian socialists advocate, and the state socialism as seen in the USSR and China.

...does not address whether Badran's statment that US usage of political definitions is the theme here.

For reference, it was (underlinging added)....

Basically the issue is, the political DIRs used to be vaguely defined and there were many messy threads/posts where people would post in several of these DIRs while in practice they can't really belong to multiple of those at the same time. So what we did was, we defined the DIRs with very specific definitions based on the US related understanding of what these political labels entail, and we've applied that all across the DIRs.

In the "libertarian" definition (underlining added)....

Libertarian: This term means very different things depending on where one is located, but the general philosophy is that liberty is paramount. In the US, it is generally used to describe right-libertarianism; this ideology tends to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative, and can be described as minarchist. In Europe, the term is typically used for left-libertarianism; this ideology stresses social justice and individual freedom, and is often described as libertarian socialism. People who find themselves in this ideology often identify with political organizations such as: the Libertarian Party (US), the Libertarian Party of Canada, the Occupy Movement, and the “New Left” Movement.

...we see the Europeanistanian definitions included.

 

[Tarheeler]

This....

...does not address whether Badran's statment that US usage of political definitions is the theme here.

For reference, it was (underlinging added)....

That wasn't my second post.

 

[Revoltingest]

That wasn't my second post.

OK.....this time I found a unique (to the first page) word, "goodness", & used <ctrl> F to find the 2nd occurrance, which yielded this post.....

"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:

This doesn't answer it either.
Just to save time & effort, could you just answer the question with a yes or no with an explanation?

 

[Tarheeler]

OK.....this time I found a unique (to the first page) word, "goodness", & used <ctrl> F to find the 2nd occurrance, which yielded this post.....

This doesn't answer it either.
Just to save time & effort, could you just answer the question with a yes or no with an explanation?

I answered it in my second post, and was clear when I said I was done arguing about the definition with you, Rev.

I really don't know how to state it any more directly.

 

[Revoltingest]

I answered it in my second post, and was clear when I said I was done arguing about the definition with you, Rev.
I really don't know how to state it any more directly.

You could say that Badran is correct, ie, that US usage governs the definitions, or..
You could say that Badran is wrong, ie, that US usage does not govern the definitions.
Wouldn't a direct answer be better than referring me to a "2nd post" which I seem unable to find.

There's a possible practical side to all this wrangling. If the definitions are to remain unchanged,
then there might be use for some new restricted forums, eg, laissez fair capitalist, right libertarian.

 

[Alceste]

You'll have the answer to your erroneous question if you read the thread...including my posts.
Voluntary socialism is simply "libertarian"....without any preffix or suffix.
Government imposed socialism is not "libertarian"....no matter what suffix one adds.

Who is advocating government imposed socialism?

 

[Revoltingest]

Who is advocating government imposed socialism?

You're asking me?
I haven't seen it in this thread.
The post you quoted addresses concepts, not particular individuals' stances.

 

[Iti oj]

I gave you a simple definition. Its a non or anti authoritarian stance. What was wrong with that?

And why do you keep bringing up state socialism?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That's a good definition of free-market capitalism. Libertarianism is something else.

From what I have read, Libertarianism is a defence of liberty via free-market enterprise. There is private ownership of production/distribution, and the government does very little outside of providing defence for the nation. Several Libertarian authors even consider Socialism and Collectivism to be bad, even evil. Rand may have even thought collectivists deserve to die, if the Atlas Shrugged train wreck is any indication.

You are thinking of a uniquely American, populist definition of libertarianism. The rest of us are using an academic definition with a different meaning. AKA, the opposite of authoritarianism. The US spent decades trying to convince Americans that socialism and authoritarianism are interchangeable terms, so your confusion is completely understandable. Those efforts at redefining these political philosophies never really took off outside your borders. Mainly because they do not correlate with the real world.

Even academically, I have not encountered a brand of Libertarianism that promotes Socialism. Academically, I have read that Libertarianism is a distinct American political ideology with no real equivalents in other countries. Up until the Wiki article, literally everything I have read about Libertarianism does not support socialism, and they even often attack it. Defending the free market and individual liberties seems to be the main core of Libertarianism. At least what may be an American Libertarianism that lacks a more specific labelling. But now I read the Occupy Movement, and I think the system of labelling is broken.

 

[Revoltingest]

I gave you a simple definition. Its a non or anti authoritarian stance. What was wrong with that?

It leaves the door open to whether economic authoritarianism is included.
Do you think your definition comports with mine?:
- Maximal liberty both socially & economically (liberty being freedom from governmental coercion)

And why do you keep bringing up state socialism?

As I stated, government imposed socialism would not be libertarian because extensive
coercion is needed. So someone advocated that, they wouldn't be libertarian.

 

[Tarheeler]

From what I have read, Libertarianism is a defence of liberty via free-market enterprise. There is private ownership of production/distribution, and the government does very little outside of providing defence for the nation. Several Libertarian authors even consider Socialism and Collectivism to be bad, even evil. Rand may have even thought collectivists deserve to die, if the Atlas Shrugged train wreck is any indication.



Even academically, I have not encountered a brand of Libertarianism that promotes Socialism. Academically, I have read that Libertarianism is a distinct American political ideology with no real equivalents in other countries. Up until the Wiki article, literally everything I have read about Libertarianism does not support socialism, and they even often attack it. Defending the free market and individual liberties seems to be the main core of Libertarianism.

Even Wikipedia's article on Libertarianism has entries on several schools that center around a socialist economy. You should check out the thread I linked to earlier.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/political-debates/150468-what-libertarian.html
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

 

[Alceste]

From what I have read, Libertarianism is a defence of liberty via free-market enterprise. There is private ownership of production/distribution, and the government does very little outside of providing defence for the nation. Several Libertarian authors even consider Socialism and Collectivism to be bad, even evil. Rand may have even thought collectivists deserve to die, if the Atlas Shrugged train wreck is any indication.



Even academically, I have not encountered a brand of Libertarianism that promotes Socialism. Academically, I have read that Libertarianism is a distinct American political ideology with no real equivalents in other countries. Up until the Wiki article, literally everything I have read about Libertarianism does not support socialism, and they even often attack it. Defending the free market and individual liberties seems to be the main core of Libertarianism. At least what may be an American Libertarianism that lacks a more specific labelling. But now I read the Occupy Movement, and I think the system of labelling is broken.

I'm sorry to say you've been reading nonsense.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Why would anyone who doesn't classify themselves as a libertarian argue so much about why they should be classified as a libertarian? Or anything else for that matter?

 

[Iti oj]

It leaves the door open to whether economic authoritarianism is included.
Do you think your definition comports with mine?:
- Maximal liberty both socially & economically (liberty being freedom from governmental coercion)


As I stated, government imposed socialism would not be libertarian because extensive
coercion is needed. So someone advocated that, they wouldn't be libertarian.

Every one here agress no one here has you keep bringing it up for no reasons. Yes I think it did fit with your definition, heck mine goes further in protecting those freedoms. It also included freedom from economic authoritarianism.

 

[Iti oj]

Its a school of anarchy for goodness sake....

 

[Revoltingest]

FEven academically, I have not encountered a brand of Libertarianism that promotes Socialism. Academically, I have read that Libertarianism is a distinct American political ideology with no real equivalents in other countries. Up until the Wiki article, literally everything I have read about Libertarianism does not support socialism, and they even often attack it. Defending the free market and individual liberties seems to be the main core of Libertarianism. At least what may be an American Libertarianism that lacks a more specific labelling. But now I read the Occupy Movement, and I think the system of labelling is broken.

In your opinion, does the Libertarian Party (US) represent what comes to mind when you think of "libertarian"?
Platform | Libertarian Party
The LP of Canuckistan is quite similar, except that they use more maple syrup.
Official Site of the Libertarian Party of Canada

 

[Revoltingest]

Every one here agress no one here has you keep bringing it up for no reasons. Yes I think it did fit with your definition, heck mine goes further in protecting those freedoms. It also included freedom from economic authoritarianism.

Hey, I just asked a question to understand your perspective.
I have no idea what the underlined sentence means.

 

[Alceste]

Why would anyone who doesn't classify themselves as a libertarian argue so much about why they should be classified as a libertarian? Or anything else for that matter?

That's just the thing. I am a libertarian. When this DIR cropped up, I was all "WOOHOO" because I have identified as a libertarian socialist / anarchosocialist / anarchosyndicalist for my entire adult life. Then all of a sudden Rev voted himself the DIR bouncer and chased me away, claiming that none of these well-established political philosophies even exist. Or that if they do, it's irrelevant because the politically unsophisticated American masses should get to decide what "libertarian" means, not the people who coined the term or the academics around the world who study their work.

Also, anywhere I've lived in the world, calling myself a libertarian has caused no confusion. Perhaps the US should adapt to the rest of the world and not the other way around.

 

[Alceste]

In your opinion, does the Libertarian Party (US) represent what comes to mind when you think of "libertarian"?
Platform | Libertarian Party
The LP of Canuckistan is quite similar, except that they use more maple syrup.
Official Site of the Libertarian Party of Canada

I'm not claiming that free market libertarians don't exist. Illustrating that they do is not a very effective rebuttal against the claim that libertarian socialists ALSO exist.

 

[Iti oj]

Hey, I just asked a question to understand your perspective.
I have no idea what the underlined sentence means.

Every one here agrees that state run socialism would not be libertarian. Only you have brought it up. In your op you posted the wiki, one we all agreed with it stated as such.