The Definition Of "libertarian"

[Revoltingest]

We have new definitions, folks....
http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...3-definitions-restricted-political-areas.html
Let's look at ours....

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.

Note that it includes the European "libertarian socialism".
Let's see what Wikipedia (a neutral source) has to say about libertarian socialism....

Libertarian socialism (sometimes called social anarchism,[1][2] left-libertarianism[3][4] and socialist libertarianism[5]) 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, while retaining respect for personal property, based on occupancy and use.[6] 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.[7]

No "private property in the means of production" & opposition to "wage labor" directly
conflict with the N American libertarian value of free association, both social & economic.
But the theme of the new rules is to emphasize usage of terms in the USA, according to staff.

An exception is made for "libertarian", so that it includes both US & European definitions, ie,
anyone who is socially liberal. Contrast this with the definition used for "liberal"...it doesn't
include the European definition (which would include us classical liberals & libertarians).

We face the mischievous scenario of liberals being able to post in both the Liberal DIR & the
Libertarian DIR, but libertarians are denied such reciprocity. It is already enforced, ie, if one
identifies as a "libertarian" then one's posts in a liberal DIR will be deleted (even if one has
long identified as a classical liberal). Moreover, the forum definition of "liberal" does not allow
the prefix, "classical", but "libertarian" is allowed the suffix "socialist". This is a striking double
standard in favor those leaning left.

I urge more uniformity in applying the US usage standard. Let both "libertarian" & "liberal"
meet the identical standard, ie, US usage. Thoughts on this, fellow minarchists?

 

[Tarheeler]

Thoughts on this, fellow minarchists?

I was originally going to respond with reasoned reply on how, while the basic fundamental ideals of what makes one a "conservative" or a "liberal" differ greatly based on geography, the basic ideals of what makes one a "libertarian", a "socialist", or a "capitalist" does not change and it is only the specific ideas within those systems that differ.

But then I noticed that you were only looking for the input of those who you believe most likely to agree with you, and decided it would probably just be a waste of time.

 

[Alceste]

I'm not sure why only minarchists are invited to the table. I'd offer my thoughts, but as a libertarian socialist it has previously been made clear to me that my entire political philosophy does not exist as far as this DIR is concerned, Wikipedia and the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy be damned.

 

[Revoltingest]

I was originally going to respond with reasoned reply on how, while the basic fundamental ideals of what makes one a "conservative" or a "liberal" differ greatly based on geography, the basic ideals of what makes one a "libertarian", a "socialist", or a "capitalist" does not change and it is only the specific ideas within those systems that differ.

But then I noticed that you were only looking for the input of those who you believe most likely to agree with you, and decided it would probably just be a waste of time.

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.

 

[Alceste]

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.

Er... No they aren't, according to what you posted above. The definition you posted from the mods includes the whole spectrum.

Also, I am not a liberal. I'm a left libertarian, anarchosocialist.

Finally, conservatives like yourself certainly can post in several different political subforums. It's not as if there's a problem of unfairness using standard definitions of the terms instead of definitions unique to the US.

Edit: it's also quite rude for you to insist on US definitions. This is a global membership. InternationalLy recognized definitions should always be preferred.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm not sure why only minarchists are invited to the table. I'd offer my thoughts, but as a libertarian socialist it has previously been made clear to me that my entire political philosophy does not exist as far as this DIR is concerned, Wikipedia and the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy be damned.

I was a "liberal", & posted freely in that restricted forum. But the new definition excluded
me because they don't allow Europeanistanian & or classical Americastanian definitions.
(I found out when the poofed an non-offending post.)
They state they intend US usage. If so, this should be a uniform standard.
but as applied, the standards change for the apparent benefit of those leaning left,
- Liberals can post as libertarians, but not vice versa.
- Socialists can post as capitalists, but not vice versa.
(The capitalist forum definition allows "state capitalists", eg, Soviet style socialists.)

 

[Alceste]

I was a "liberal", & posted freely in that restricted forum. But the new definition excluded me because they don't allow Europeanistanian & or classical Americastanian definitions. They state they intend US usage. If so, it should be uniform, & not applied willy nilly.

I never heard what you are being described as "liberal" in Europe, and I lived there for years. Did you notice that "classical liberal" is actually on the list?

 

[Revoltingest]

...conservatives like yourself....

Still dishonest, I see.

 

[Revoltingest]

I never heard what you are being described as "liberal" in Europe, and I lived there for years. Did you notice that "classical liberal" is actually on the list?

"Classical liberal" is not on this list....

Liberal (also called modern liberalism): Subscribes to the ideas of social liberalism, social justice, and a mixed economy. Policies often include support for reproductive rights, social safety nets, universal healthcare, and same-sex marriage, and restrictions on corporate welfare, flat tax rates, and an unchecked capitalist economy. People who find themselves in this ideology often identify with political organizations such as: The US Democratic Party, the Liberal Party of Canada, the Liberal Democrats (UK), and the Democratic Movement (France).

I still identify as both a "liberal" & a "libertarian", but I can no longer post in the former forum without post poofery.
All I ask is that the definitions have a common basis, ie, pick a theme....Americastanian....European...or Kazakhstanian.
Apply that standard uniformly.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

"Classical liberal" is not on this list....

It isn't?

Conservative (also called classical liberalism): Subscribing to the ideas of fiscal and social conservatism. Policies often include support for limited government, limited taxation, a balanced budget, state rights, and restrictions on abortion, same-sex marriage, social welfare, drug legalization, and public administration of services. People who find themselves in this ideology often identify with political organizations such as: The “Tea” Party, the US Republican Party, The Conservative Party (UK), The Liberal Party of Australia, and the Free Democratic Party of Germany.

 

[Revoltingest]

It isn't?

Per the direct quote I took from the RF definition, it isn't in the definition of "liberal".

And while the new definition of "conservative" would allow me to post there, I don't
identify as one because I'm far from a social conservative. Note that the definition
says conservatives are typically Tea Partiers or Republicans. Those ain't me.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Per the direct quote I took from the RF definition, it isn't in the definition of "liberal".

Well it is in the definition of Conservative where it applies. You can go rant away all you want about Classical Liberalism over in that sub-forum.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well it is in the definition of Conservative where it applies. You can go rant away all you want about Classical Liberalism over in that sub-forum.

You're missing the point of the thread. I suggest reading the OP.
It's about the RF stated intention of definitions based upon US usage.
This standard is applied inconsistently.

 

[Revoltingest]

For reference, this is the staff notice I received:

....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.

I only ask that this approach be fully & uniformly implemented.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

You're missing the point of the thread. I suggest reading the OP.
It's about the RF stated intention of definitions based upon US usage.
This standard is applied inconsistently.

No it is not based upon US usage, it is based upon what the admins and moderator of this international forum define it as.

 

[Revoltingest]

No it is not based upon US usage, it is based upon what the admins and moderator of this international forum define it as.

Your source?

Mine:
From Badran....

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.

The definitions conflict with the approach proffered by RF staff.

 

[xkatz]

I think at it's very core, everyone can agree that Libertarianism requires freedom fries and riding a giant diesel-powered bald eagle into the sunset while shouting, "MUH LIBERTY!" as a prerequisite.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Your source?

Mine:
From Badran....
The definitions conflict with the approach proffered by RF staff.

Where was that posted?

 

[Revoltingest]

I think at it's very core, everyone can agree that Libertarianism requires freedom fries and riding a giant diesel-powered bald eagle into the sunset while shouting, "MUH LIBERTY!" as a prerequisite.

That's just stating the obvious.
No disagreement there.

 

[Iti oj]

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