The Definition Of "libertarian"

[Revoltingest]

Reread the wiki

I'm interested in your personal understanding more than some wiki.

 

[Revoltingest]

How is maximizing the freedom and liberty of people forced? I just happen that freedom and liberty of the people can be maximized if we eliminate and abolish private property. Eliminate private property and the need for big government disappears.

Good luck with that view.
Taking my property away would require coercion....& I'm armed.

 

[Alceste]

But that would mean that no one could sell me their land.
Do we just rent it?
Do we just take it?
What if someone else wants it?
If I build a factory, how could I protect my investment in buildings & tooling if I cannot own it?

In my country, only 11% of the land is privately owned. The rest should be treated as the commons, IMO. No transfer of public land to a private party should occur without public consent, and any such transfer should be matched by an equal transfer to those of us who would prefer land management models other than private ownership. As to the privately owned parts, do whatever you like with them as long as your activities don't impact the liberties of your neighbours (for example, clean water, clean soil, freedom of movement, etc).

Edit: that's another beef with my government and society. I am not permitted to set up a residence of any kind on any part of the vast Canadian commons unless I go so far out the RCMP can't find me. I am therefore coerced to participate in the private property market whether I like it or not, which is the number one obstacle to any meaningful exercise of liberty on my part.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Good luck with that view.
Taking my property away would require coercion....& I'm armed.

Well, perhaps they'll free everyone who disagrees from this mortal coil, so everyone can live happy and free.

 

[Revoltingest]

Dang it! I had to look up "mortal coil".

It's a lot different from "double coil".

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Good luck with that view.
Taking my property away would require coercion....& I'm armed.

We'll let you keep your toothbrush.

 

[Revoltingest]

We'll let you keep your toothbrush.

I'm keeping both the means of production, & the means of leisure.
And I'm a very good shot.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

And I'm a very good shot.

And so am I.

 

[Revoltingest]

And so am I.

Do you imply that you'll be in the mob coming to confiscate my property?
If you're willing to use force to take property from another, you're no
libertarian....."unless libertarian warlordism" is now in the defnintion.

It's time to come clean.....you're poeing us, right?

 

[Revoltingest]

Yeah, I did not find this quiz to be relevant to any of the countries I have lived and traveled, or consistent with my understanding of political philosophy. It does help me understand why you keep calling me a liberal, but using standard definitions, for example Wikipedia or the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, I am not one.

Since you regularly post in the "Liberal Only" forum, it's reasonable to assume you identify as one.
Example from the thread, "Any Pro-Gun Liberals?":
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/1222667-post134.html
So either you are disingenuously posting in a restricted (purple) forum to which you don't
belong, or you are a liberal. Why object to a label which you yourself have tacitly adopted?
Do you disagree with them philosophically?

 

[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.

OK, I finally located your 2nd post. I don't know why I had such difficulty, but
you could'a provided a post number or a link when I kept failing to find it.
Your explanation is clearer than the definitions posted in the sticky thread.

Why is "state capitalism" included in the definition of "capitalism"?
Let's look at dictionary.com's definition of it:

noun
1. a form of capitalism in which the central government controls most of the capital, industry, natural resources, etc.

Looking at a portion of the Wikipedia article on it:

State capitalism is usually used as criticism of states that named themselves socialist;[2] for instance, many communist and Marxist tendencies argue that the Soviet Union did not establish socialism, but rather established state capitalism.[2][3] State capitalism has also come to refer to an economic system where the means of production are owned privately but the state has considerable control over the allocation of credit and investment....

If "capitalism" is, as you say, about a "for profit company", why does the RF definition
include "state capitalism", which is essentially socialism (not even the voluntary
libertarian kind)?
To eliminate "state capitalism" would alter the RF definition to match common usage
as you explained, ie, for-profit companies.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Why is "state capitalism" included in the definition of "capitalism"?
Let's look at dictionary.com's definition of it:

Looking at a portion of the Wikipedia article on it:

If "capitalism" is, as you say, about a "for profit company", why does the RF definition include what is essentially socialism (not even the voluntary libertarian kind)?
To eliminate "state capitalism" would alter the RF definition to match common usage.

Let's play Dueling Definitions!

Ok, people can you name the source from which I got this definition for "State Capitalism"?

State capitalism is usually described as an economic system in which commercial (i.e. for-profit) economic activity is undertaken by the state, with management and organization of the means of production in a capitalist manner, including the system of capital accumulation, wage labor, and centralized management. This designation applies to economies regardless of the political aims of the state, even if the state is nominally socialist. State capitalism is characterized by the dominance of state-owned business enterprises in the economy. Examples of state capitalism include corporatized government agencies (agencies organized along corporate and business management practices) and states that own controlling shares of publicly listed corporations (acting as a shareholder). State capitalism is usually used as criticism of states that named themselves socialist; for instance, many communist and Marxist tendencies argue that the Soviet Union did not establish socialism, but rather established state capitalism.

 

[Revoltingest]

I used the same Wikipedia source.
Is your quote support for some argument you're making?
I'm making the point that the RF definition of "capitalism"
effectively includes socialism, which is overly broad.

When you think of who you are, do you describe yourself as "socialist" or "capitalist"?

 

[CynthiaCypher]

I used the same Wikipedia source.
Is your quote support for some argument you're making?

State Capitalism is a form of capitalism.

 

[Revoltingest]

State Capitalism is a form of capitalism.

Exactly....according to some sources.
But for the RF definition purposes, do we really want a definition of "capitalism" which
includes full blown "socialism"? They can define it however they want here.
I say it makes more sense if socialism & capitalism are viewed as different economic systems.

Or is the real goal here that capitalists cannot post in the socialist forum,
but socialists can post in the capitalist forum?
I also notice that liberals can post in the libertarian forum, but libertarians
cannot post in the liberal forum. This is why we find ostensible libertarians
advocating against capitalism (free economic association) in this forum.

 

[Alceste]

Since you regularly post in the "Liberal Only" forum, it's reasonable to assume you identify as one.
Example from the thread, "Any Pro-Gun Liberals?":
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/1222667-post134.html
So either you are disingenuously posting in a restricted (purple) forum to which you don't
belong, or you are a liberal. Why object to a label which you yourself have tacitly adopted?
Do you disagree with them philosophically?

Lol, " regularly"? And the only example you could find is SIX YEARS OLD? You are absolutely hilarious.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Lol, " regularly"? And the only example you could find is SIX YEARS OLD? You are absolutely hilarious.

It's like watching a person chasing their own farts.

"Oh here here! I caught one...oh damn it got away again"

 

[Alceste]

It's like watching a person chasing their own farts.

"Oh here here! I caught one...oh damn it got away again"

"That's OK, I'll just make more! "

 

[Revoltingest]

Lol, " regularly"? And the only example you could find is SIX YEARS OLD? You are absolutely hilarious.

I didn't check for a date.
But I notice you're evading the point.
I've said I am a "liberal", & I posted there.
You say you aren't, but you posted there too.
You object to being referred to as a "liberal", which isn't an insult in my book.
So I ask why.
You don't answer.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm confused. As far as I knew, Libertarianism was all about the free market and private ownership of production/distribution? But, according to the classification of social anarchism, I could post in the Libertarian thread, even though Libertarian, from what I knew, is a label that barely applies to me because of my views of owning the means of distribution/production and promoting social equality above maximizing freedoms.
It seems the more specific we try to be with labels, the more confusing things get.

Being specific isn't really a problem if one methodically designs a definition to fit what
is envisioned. I can't really tell what RF staff intended....it seems more like a mine
field where a non-member will explode underneath me, or I'll post someplace where I
feel at home, & then a moderator bomb goes off, sending me out of the forum.