Defining Libertarianism

A lot of people call themselves libertarian, but if we take everyone who does that seriously, the word has no meaning. It doesn't make sense to call you a libertarian if you're actually a socialist, or a conservative. I think a good place to draw the line is at the nonaggression principle. If you can't affirm the nonaggression principle and at least try to be consistent, you can't be a libertarian. If you at least hold peace in high esteem and want to minimize the violence in society, particularly systematic violence, you are a libertarian.

By this criterion, a minarchist who just still can't see how people can have law without monopolizing it can be a libertarian. This is unfortunate, because it means we have to say that there are some libertarians who are also statists, but it's better than what libertarian means now which is anyone who calls themselves libertarian. This way there is only one division in the libertarian camp; the "minarchists", or "statist libertarians", and the "regular libertarians", or "libertarians".

 

Also, if you're obsessed with having rent collected from the highest bidder on all land from a central office and spent in ways you think are good for "the people", you can't be a libertarian since that's obviously not consistent with the nonaggression principle. You can be called a "geoist", but not a "geolibertarian" because that makes no sense.

 

An anarcho-primitivist can be a libertarian, but any primitivist wanting to ban technology can't be a libertarian, obviously, because banning things is totally unlibertarian given that it's aggressive as hell.

 

I like some of libertarians ideas. However, I find they go to extremes sometimes to stick to the ideology. A lot of people do. YOu don't have to be all in on one philosophy, you can agree with others. But too many people have made it all or none. YOu must be all in on these policies, no matter how dumb some of them are, or else you aren't really a conservative, liberal, libertarian

 

Labels are just labels. Look to the views of the individual: anyone who's serious cannot be encapsulated neatly in some label.

 

Like any ideology, there are variations within them.

The entire idea of trying to clear-cut define Libertarianism, is a smack in the face TO Libertarianism.

 

I just think people should be consistent. If you believe one thing, you should not try to also believe some other thing that conflicts with the one thing. I find too many of those contradictions in the legal opinions of most people who are not "hard core libertarians", and it's annoying.

 

Dictionaries are lists of labels. But yeah, I know what you mean; we can't rely completely on the set of labels we have when we meet a new person or idea; we usually have to let people explain themselves.

 

How do people grow, or learn if one doesn't keep open the mind to the possibility of change.

Guess we should add back the old, "Here there be Dragons" to global maps...

 

The OP was really just intended as a smack in the face of fake posers who call themselves libertarians.

 

Who are you to define an ideology?

Just as there are Liberal Democrats, there are Moderate.

Just as there are ultra conservative Republicans, there are Moderate.

And so on, and so on, and so on.

Your way of thinking, is the type that keeps people at eachother's throats.

 

... especially moderates who think Political Compass is a good metric for political opinion.

 

If I read this right, are you stating that the key to any sect of libertarianism to be truly libertarian is volunteerism?

 

Libertarianism is basically classical liberalism that the founding of this country is based on.

 

Political opinion is just that. Opinion.

Like anuses, all have them, & without taking care of them, they usually stink.

 

"voluntarism" or "voluntaryism", but no, I just think we should narrow it down to include minarchists at most. The way people are talking about it now, it seems to mean anyone with a political opinion.

 

I understand the meaning of "classical liberalism", basically. But "that which this country was founded on" is more nebulous than anything, and it becomes less meaningful, and bears less resemblance to libertarianism, the more one learns about what those guys really believed.

 

I agree, words are just labels used to denote concepts. Which is why I don't understand people who insist that they have a monopoly on any given term. Socialists or libertarians for instance.

 

Feel free to make a case for including yourself as a libertarian. The reason I think it should only include people who at least hold the nonaggression principle as an ideal to be striven for is because we have done much more than any other group to define the philosophy and, if we don't narrow it down, the term has no meaning.

 

I'm not a Libertarian. But a house divided against itself cannot stand. That's why a Progressive Democrat cannot be a practicing Christian. It is not believable. It is not possible.

 

This I can get on board with.

I agree there has to be a basic platform for any ideology, but that platform doesn't need to have a lot of lumber.

I personally don't know anyone who espouses Libertarian values, who is in favor of aggression.
Defence yes, aggression, no.

EDIT:
I apologize if I misunderstood an earlier post.

 

Tell me what you don't like or are opposed to.

https://www.lp.org/platform/

 

You didn't misunderstand anything and don't need to apologize. I was goading you.

It's just that I see so many people who call themselves libertarian defending state aggression that doesn't seem necessary at all, even by minarchist standards.

 

Couldn't agree more.

 

Not talking about myself. Referring to the inherent lack of meaning of any label. You could call libertarians schtuzwozzas for all it matters. People trying to claim labels are silly. Words are for communication. If nobody understands what you're on about there's no point.