Just What is Libertarianism?

Libertarianism has two offshoots. Left-wing and right-wing. The more left you are, the more the government should be connected with the economy. The more right you are, the more you believe the government should be disconnected with the economy. Libertarian and authoritarian refer to the amount of social freedoms. A left wing libertarian believes in a more socio-centric economy, and maximum social liberties. A right wing libertarian believes in a more capitalist centric economy, with maximum social freedoms.

The American libertarian party is composed of right wing libertarians. They believe in gay marriage, drug legalization, ect. They do not believe in expanding social programs and centralizing the economy. As you have probably already figured out, American democrats are left wing libertarians. It can be debated over whether American republicans are right wing libertarian or not, but they certainly allot less social freedoms than the libertarian party.

 

People on this thread need to read some basic political theory literature, because they do not even understand the four branches of a political spectrum.

 

I used to identify as a libertarian, and I still like alot of the basic principles. Do what you want, just don't hurt people or take their stuff. These days, though, I feel like it's more of a glittering generality utilized by people trying to seperate themselves from their political peers. Like Rand Paul. Or Jim Webb. I've seen both far-right capitalists and far-left socialists identify as libertarian, both social conservatives and social liberals identify as libertarian, both hawks and doves identify as libertarian, so on and so forth. It's basically a buzzword now. I find it hard to associate myself with the label in any way but a loose manner. Especially since I frequently have packs of anarchists stalking me, hissing and spitting, calling me a "LINO" anytime I halfway associate myself with the group. I still throw the label around sometimes, but I prefer calling myself a political moderate.

 

Why cant you people just be simple?

It is best summed up in the phrase:

Stop telling me what to do (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) it.

 

I don't agree with your categorization of left and right libertarians. I think left-libertarians are for equal rights … or in other words, the left are against government issued and enforced privileges. The right-libertarian is against equal rights … or in other words, the right wants a government just big enough to issue them privileges (such as land titles) so that they can monopolize and rule the earth and all if its inhabitants. The left is more concerned with producers keeping the product of their labor, while the right is more concerned with government protecting landowners rent-seeking privileges.

 

Why the anger? If YOU could define a libertarian you would. Every time I ask what a libertarian is and give my take on it, I get the obligatory link to some half-assed platform. Try using your own mind and see if you are capable of educating me.

 

Libertarianism is simple. If a choice only effects you, and others who consent to being effected, it is your right to make that choice, but if your choice has any effect, good or bad, on someone who does not wish to be effect. You have no right to make it. Government's sole duty and authority is to protect the rights of those who do not, or can't not consent. All legitimate government authority falls within that definition.

There are many who claim to be libertarian, but are not. The far right, for example, claims that regulating pollution levels violates the rights of business owners, but pollution effects all people, not just the business owners. So regulating pollution businesses falls within the allowed regulations under libertarianism.

 

Well said.

 

All non answers

 

No he does not confuse liberty with license you do.

No one said anything about slavery and what he said about parents is quite rational.

They did say what was explained and not what you imply they meant.

You are proven wrong.

 

this often happens when the discussion of libertarianism some up, most do not know or understand what consists of libertarianism. Here is a graphic I often point to in such occasions:





Libertarianism is the antithesis of authoritarian, which is practiced by the United States two major political parties. While authoritarianism espouses solutions based upon the state and devalues innumerable freedoms of individuals, libertarianism espouses solutions based upon the individual and set the freedom of individuals as sacrosanct.

 

Well ya sure showed me, didnya?

 

Ok, so you think women play the same roll as dirt when it comes to procreation (notice the word creation in there). Anyway have fun playing dumb.

 

I can agree with getting marriage out of government entirely. Syria is not a threat to us. As for "electable" officials I like its very few. Phone is (*)(*)(*)(*)ing up on me or id go into more detail

 

No, I think they (and men) have about as much conscious input into the design process that results in a human being as dirt does in the design of a watermelon. Glad to have cleared that up for you, and you're welcome.

 

No anger, it is just if you are going to discuss a topic, you should have an elementary knowledge of the subject. You seem to know absolutely nothing about this topic and attempting to educate someone incapable of learning is a waste of time.

 

LIbertarianism is a political philosophy that has as its basis the idea the it is unethical to violate the body or property of one's fellow man.

As far as I have seen, those who oppose libertarianism are those who wish to (via the government) violate the person or property of their fellow man.

 

I'm having trouble understanding exactly what your stance is. Perhaps you could clarify whether you consider it ethical to violate the person or property of your fellow man.

- - - Updated - - -

I find it hard to believe it is a joke to hold that one ought not violate the person or property of one's fellow man. I mean, that's what we all teach our children, so it can't be that far off.

 

read what I wrote again, this time for comprehension.

 

Yes, he did.

 

Funny because I was talking about women but hey, why not. Have fun because frankly I don't want to explain sexual reproduction to you.

 

I'd happily violate someone else's legal property by freeing chattel slaves.

 

Same, since slavery violates the body of one's fellow man. Those who wish to enslave their fellow man are most definitely not libertarians.

 

Sounds entirely plausible to me. Did it hit a nerve?