Wikipedia's article on Libertarianism

[Symmetry]

Kind of an off-shoot of why I think libertarianism is possibly a failed revolution in the making is the problem it seems to have with defining itself. I also think it's pretty much an American thing, at least as a term.

Anyway, have a look at the wiki page for Libertarianism.

Have a quick skim through and see if you can work out what it means.

I've added a poll, and links to definitions of any of the terms can be found in the wiki link above, although I ran out of options and couldn't even fit a kittens option in.

[BigBallinStalin]

Oh, aren't you just adorable.

[Symmetry]

Oh, aren't you just adorable.

I try, I really do. But seriously, libertarianism seems to cover almost anything on that wiki article.

[thegreekdog]

Oh, aren't you just adorable.

I try, I really do. But seriously, libertarianism seems to cover almost anything on that wiki article.

It's awesome in its coverage.

I tried looking up republicanism but ended up at some wiki discussing republican forms of government. Then I tried to look up democraticism, but that's not a word. Then I realized that Symmetry wasn't talking about the Libertarian Party, he was talking about "a failed revolution" and that the Libertarian Party is a political party that, like most political parties, encompasses wide swaths of specific ideologies under one ideology.

So if libertarianism is the background of the Libertarian Party, then the background of the Republican Party must be conservatism and the background of the Democratic Party must be liberalism. So I decided to look up conservatism and found out that conservatism has similar definitional problems. There's "liberal conservatism" (in the words of Moe Szyzlak... "Whaaa?") and "conservative liberalism" and "libertarian conservatism" and "fiscal conservatism" and "green conservatism" and "cultural and social conservatism" and "religious conservatism." Then I looked up liberalism, the differences in which are harder to pin down. I did find two: "classical liberalism" and "social liberalism." But classical liberalism shares traits with many of the libertarianisms and conservativismsmsms. So then I looked at the Democratic Party wiki which had the following "factions" in the Democrat Party: left wing (which includse progressive Democrats, liberal Democrats, unions, and the religious left), centrist wing, conservative wing, and libertarian democrats. So many things to choose from!

In sum, I expect that we will see Symmetry's additional posts on conservativism and liberalism (or the Republican and Democrat Parties) in the near future showing how those are failed revolutions. I look forward to those.

[PLAYER57832]

I have been citing that article a lot recently.

[thegreekdog]

I have been citing that article a lot recently.

Yeah, that's unfortunate. I would have thought you'd at least cite to the Libertarian Party website.

You know how you will occasionally go on a spree where you say "conservatives and liberals aren't really conservatives and liberals" and all that stuff? There are so many variations on political groups and within parties that to suggest that the reason that the Libertarian Party and libertarianism has not succeeded (I won't say failed since it hasn't really gotten a chance to succeed) is because they have too many variations is, in my humble opinion and no offense to Symmetry, kind of dumb.

[PLAYER57832]

I have been citing that article a lot recently.

Yeah, that's unfortunate. I would have thought you'd at least cite to the Libertarian Party website.

I did..... You apparently never read the links I provided or read the excerpts I provided. You just claimed I did not know the Liberaterian platform.

You never cited anything to counter, either.. you just claimed I could not possibly understand and, well, pretty much called ma liar too boot for saying I have known about liberaterianism for a long time.

[PLAYER57832]

Kind of an off-shoot of why I think libertarianism is possibly a failed revolution in the making is the problem it seems to have with defining itself. I also think it's pretty much an American thing, at least as a term.

Anyway, have a look at the wiki page for Libertarianism.

Have a quick skim through and see if you can work out what it means.

I've added a poll, and links to definitions of any of the terms can be found in the wiki link above, although I ran out of options and couldn't even fit a kittens option in.

There are no failed revolutions. Or, rather vurtually ALL revolutions are essentially temporary.

This is because there are always people who are unsatisfied with just modicoms of power.. they always want more. They want more wealth, more power, more... whatever and feel they have the fundamental right to those things. What changes is the excuse they use. AND, it ALWAYS starts out with "we know better" or "we are better able".

It was true when priests were in charge, it was true when we had monarchies, it is true for dictators, true for communists, true for business leaders. The only real answer is a system that permanently prevents too much power from being concentrated in one body. AND a system that relies heavily on objective facts for critical decisions, while allowing full freedom in virtually every other area.

[thegreekdog]

I have been citing that article a lot recently.

Yeah, that's unfortunate. I would have thought you'd at least cite to the Libertarian Party website.

I did..... You apparently never read the links I provided or read the excerpts I provided. You just claimed I did not know the Liberaterian platform.

You never cited anything to counter, either.. you just claimed I could not possibly understand and, well, pretty much called ma liar too boot for saying I have known about liberaterianism for a long time.

Actually, I do not think you understand or think about the consequences of the Libertarian Party platform compared to the actual results of our current system. I also think that you think our current system is libertarian in nature. That makes me think that you do not understand the Libertarian Party or libertarianism; it does not make me think you can't read websites.

[PLAYER57832]

I have been citing that article a lot recently.

Yeah, that's unfortunate. I would have thought you'd at least cite to the Libertarian Party website.

I did..... You apparently never read the links I provided or read the excerpts I provided. You just claimed I did not know the Liberaterian platform.

You never cited anything to counter, either.. you just claimed I could not possibly understand and, well, pretty much called ma liar too boot for saying I have known about liberaterianism for a long time.

Actually, I do not think you understand or think about the consequences of the Libertarian Party platform compared to the actual results of our current system. I also think that you think our current system is libertarian in nature. That makes me think that you do not understand the Libertarian Party or libertarianism; it does not make me think you can't read websites.

Except, you have NEVER provided any concrete examples. You demand them, then insist you don't want to get bogged down in details. You don't provide them. So, its easy for you to claim I "don't understand".

[BigBallinStalin]

Anyway...

[InkL0sed]

Anyway, this thread is stupid.

[thegreekdog]

Anyway, this thread is stupid.

Hey! I put a lot of time and effort into my post. I even quoted Moe Szyzlak, erstwhile owner of the fictional Moe's Tavern. That alone should ensure that this thread is not stupid.

[Symmetry]

Oh, aren't you just adorable.

I try, I really do. But seriously, libertarianism seems to cover almost anything on that wiki article.

It's awesome in its coverage.

I tried looking up republicanism but ended up at some wiki discussing republican forms of government. Then I tried to look up democraticism, but that's not a word. Then I realized that Symmetry wasn't talking about the Libertarian Party, he was talking about "a failed revolution" and that the Libertarian Party is a political party that, like most political parties, encompasses wide swaths of specific ideologies under one ideology.

So if libertarianism is the background of the Libertarian Party, then the background of the Republican Party must be conservatism and the background of the Democratic Party must be liberalism. So I decided to look up conservatism and found out that conservatism has similar definitional problems. There's "liberal conservatism" (in the words of Moe Szyzlak... "Whaaa?") and "conservative liberalism" and "libertarian conservatism" and "fiscal conservatism" and "green conservatism" and "cultural and social conservatism" and "religious conservatism." Then I looked up liberalism, the differences in which are harder to pin down. I did find two: "classical liberalism" and "social liberalism." But classical liberalism shares traits with many of the libertarianisms and conservativismsmsms. So then I looked at the Democratic Party wiki which had the following "factions" in the Democrat Party: left wing (which includse progressive Democrats, liberal Democrats, unions, and the religious left), centrist wing, conservative wing, and libertarian democrats. So many things to choose from!

In sum, I expect that we will see Symmetry's additional posts on conservativism and liberalism (or the Republican and Democrat Parties) in the near future showing how those are failed revolutions. I look forward to those.

I don't think it's necessarily a failed revolution, but I think it has some problems with how it defines itself. I don't think I've shown that libertarianism is a failed revolution, so I'm not sure how I could show that conservatism is, or was, or even liberalism.

Point is- libertarianism as it stands is basically a U.S. based term, and defined so broadly that it seems like a bit of a catch-all opposition movement to whoever is in government. A libertarian government would immediately have libertarians arguing that it wasn't truly libertarian, and that it was over-reaching.

Mock if you want, but there really should be something that makes libertarianism a pro-active force, rather than, as it seems to me, a reactive one, and one that is fairly insularly American.

At the moment, the movement is so broad that it has very little power or influence, it seems. I hope it sets itself up a bit more tightly, and believe it or not, I even have a fair amount of respect for Ron Paul. I think he's a bit of a nut, but he has a policy platform that he sticks with, but obviously could never implement.


Unfortunately, at the moment, so much of libertarianism seems to me to be about what it isn't, rather than what it is.

[thegreekdog]

Here's how I define the political spectrum (or at least as I think it should be):

Fiscal conservative, social conservative --> Conservatives/Republicans
Fiscal conservative, social liberal --> Libertarians/Libertarian Party
Fiscal liberal, social conservative --> Statist
Fiscal liberal, social liberal --> Liberals/Democrats

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAiYlaGxyV0

[Symmetry]

Here's how I define the political spectrum (or at least as I think it should be):

Fiscal conservative, social conservative --> Conservatives/Republicans
Fiscal conservative, social liberal --> Libertarians/Libertarian Party
Fiscal liberal, social conservative --> Statist
Fiscal liberal, social liberal --> Liberals/Democrats

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAiYlaGxyV0

But again, those terms are kind of weighted towards defining where US political parties stand, or towards US political positions. They're very binary- geared towards there only being two positions and libertarianism merely being a mix of orthodox view points. Social vs Fiscal, Conservative vs. Liberal.

[General Brock II]

Oh, aren't you just adorable.

I try, I really do. But seriously, libertarianism seems to cover almost anything on that wiki article.

It's awesome in its coverage.

I tried looking up republicanism but ended up at some wiki discussing republican forms of government. Then I tried to look up democraticism, but that's not a word. Then I realized that Symmetry wasn't talking about the Libertarian Party, he was talking about "a failed revolution" and that the Libertarian Party is a political party that, like most political parties, encompasses wide swaths of specific ideologies under one ideology.

So if libertarianism is the background of the Libertarian Party, then the background of the Republican Party must be conservatism and the background of the Democratic Party must be liberalism. So I decided to look up conservatism and found out that conservatism has similar definitional problems. There's "liberal conservatism" (in the words of Moe Szyzlak... "Whaaa?") and "conservative liberalism" and "libertarian conservatism" and "fiscal conservatism" and "green conservatism" and "cultural and social conservatism" and "religious conservatism." Then I looked up liberalism, the differences in which are harder to pin down. I did find two: "classical liberalism" and "social liberalism." But classical liberalism shares traits with many of the libertarianisms and conservativismsmsms. So then I looked at the Democratic Party wiki which had the following "factions" in the Democrat Party: left wing (which includse progressive Democrats, liberal Democrats, unions, and the religious left), centrist wing, conservative wing, and libertarian democrats. So many things to choose from!

In sum, I expect that we will see Symmetry's additional posts on conservativism and liberalism (or the Republican and Democrat Parties) in the near future showing how those are failed revolutions. I look forward to those.


...

Fiscal conservative, social conservative --> Conservatives/Republicans
Fiscal conservative, social liberal --> Libertarians/Libertarian Party
Fiscal liberal, social conservative --> Statist
Fiscal liberal, social liberal --> Liberals/Democrats

Actually, you've got that kind of backwards. The libertarians, as a general political/sociological system, believe in a laissez-faire type government. So they basically wish that the government is there in a capitalist society (as opposed to anarcho capitalism), but they wish it to restrict itself to monetary/fiscal policy and, perhaps, an aid program for those who are truly uncapable of caring for themselves. They also desire rigorous separation of church and state, and greater respect for individual rights to freedom of expression and freedom of choice in personal lifestyles. They oppose government programs for the redistribution of income, the inculcation of "politically correct" values through government schools and propaganda outlets, all forms of government-imposed censorship, the imposition of criminal penalties for the commission of "victimless crimes," and in general all forms of social, economic or cultural "engineering" by the government.

You're right... There are numerous political labels, and it is rather amusing. I am generally a right wing Conservative...

You should probably include Anarchism, Communism and socialism in that list. lol

[Symmetry]

And that's exactly what I mean- I'm not trolling about asking about Libertarianism (well, mostly not), and neither presumably is Player. It's just confusing when a lot of people claim to say what it is who argue with each other. It's perfectly fair to say that conservatism and liberalism are up for the same criticisms, but they're a bit more established as terms, much less nebulous. It would be tough to describe liberalism in terms of whether it was fiscally libertarian or socially libertarian.

[BigBallinStalin]

TGD's describing the Libertarian Party, i.e. the one espoused in that video link. That political spectrum was created by the founder of the Libertarian Party, so hopefully that clears that up.


@General Brock II:

You're correct that libertarianism can incorporate anarchy and socialism, but its main emphasis is on maximizing personal liberty and economic freedom while minimizing state power/intervention.

___________________________________________________

If people just read the wiki page, then they could see the basic outline for libertarianism:

Libertarianism has been variously defined by sources. In the strictest sense, is the political philosophy that holds individual liberty as the basic moral principle of society. In the broadest sense, it is any political philosophy which approximates this view. Libertarianism includes diverse beliefs, all advocating strict limits to government activity and sharing the goal of maximizing individual liberty and political freedom.[1]

Philosopher Roderick T. Long defines libertarianism as "any political position that advocates a radical redistribution of power" from the coercive state to voluntary associations of free individuals", whether "voluntary association" takes the form of the free market or of communal co-operatives.[2] According to the The U.S. Libertarian party, libertarianism is the advocacy of a government that is funded voluntarily and limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence.[3]

italics: general libertarianism
bolded: US Libertarian Party's basic agenda

[BigBallinStalin]

And that's exactly what I mean- I'm not trolling about asking about Libertarianism (well, mostly not), and neither presumably is Player. It's just confusing when a lot of people claim to say what it is who argue with each other. It's perfectly fair to say that conservatism and liberalism are up for the same criticisms, but they're a bit more established as terms, much less nebulous. It would be tough to describe liberalism in terms of whether it was fiscally libertarian or socially libertarian.

Liberalism as today infers the general appeal to government to find solutions to problems.

International liberalism is the mindset of basically exporting democracy. If it's done through coercion (military or economic punishment), then the libertarians leave the train.

Progressivism marked the US split from Classical Liberalism (back in the 1890s-1917 or so). It appears that Liberalism is the offspring off the Progressives; however, progressivism set the trend along which US politics has evolved. Libertarianism is a retaliation against that political movement/mentality. For many, libertarianism and classical liberalism have much in common.

Classical Liberalism describes the ideal, liberal democracy, which entails "limited government, constitutionalism, rule of law, due process, and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.[1][2]"

So, if you're against any form of government, then you're an anarchist, but you can incorporate libertarian ideals. Same applies for socialists of the no-state, but community-driven variety.

[Symmetry]

And that's why I think it's kind of a niche part of the American political system, rather than a genuine political philosophy at the moment. It's rare, for example, to see libertarians on this forum advocate limits on government that go beyond the US Constitution, for example.

[BigBallinStalin]

And that's why I think it's kind of a niche part of the American political system, rather than a genuine political philosophy at the moment..

"Genuine"? So libertarianism is fake? Explain.. :/

What don't you understand about libertarianism as "[a] political philosophy that holds individual liberty as the basic moral principle of society"?

It's rare, for example, to see libertarians on this forum advocate limits on government that go beyond the US Constitution, for example

Right, you're describing the libertarians who identify with classical liberalism (i.e limited government). That's pretty much describes most libertarians.

[Symmetry]

And that's exactly what I mean- I'm not trolling about asking about Libertarianism (well, mostly not), and neither presumably is Player. It's just confusing when a lot of people claim to say what it is who argue with each other. It's perfectly fair to say that conservatism and liberalism are up for the same criticisms, but they're a bit more established as terms, much less nebulous. It would be tough to describe liberalism in terms of whether it was fiscally libertarian or socially libertarian.

Liberalism as today infers the general appeal to government to find solutions to problems.

International liberalism is the mindset of basically exporting democracy. If it's done through coercion (military or economic punishment), then the libertarians leave the train.

Progressivism marked the US split from Classical Liberalism (back in the 1890s-1917 or so). It appears that Liberalism is the offspring off the Progressives; however, progressivism set the trend along which US politics has evolved. Libertarianism is a retaliation against that political movement/mentality. For many, libertarianism and classical liberalism have much in common.

Classical Liberalism describes the ideal, liberal democracy, which entails "limited government, constitutionalism, rule of law, due process, and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.[1][2]"

So, if you're against any form of government, then you're an anarchist, but you can incorporate libertarian ideals. Same applies for socialists of the no-state, but community-driven variety.

Hmm, difficult post to deal with- you start by talking about liberalism now, and I don't entirely disagree with that, but the phrasing is odd (why wait till later to use the word democracy?)

International Liberalism sounds a lot like Neo-conservatism in your second point.

On your third point, then what's the difference between classical liberalism and libertarianism? And why didn't it work before? (That last question is a bit trolly)

[Symmetry]

And that's why I think it's kind of a niche part of the American political system, rather than a genuine political philosophy at the moment..

"Genuine"? So libertarianism is fake? Explain.. :/

What don't you understand about libertarianism as "[a] political philosophy that holds individual liberty as the basic moral principle of society"?

I understand it, I just think it's vague, and could cover pretty much anything. It's the way you go about dealing with the problems of individuals having freedom that differentiates political systems, and the philosophies behind them. Seriously, even Marxism holds individual freedom as a basic moral principal as freedom from a class system.

It's rare, for example, to see libertarians on this forum advocate limits on government that go beyond the US Constitution, for example

Right, you're describing the libertarians who identify with classical liberalism (i.e limited government). That's pretty much describes most libertarians.

I asked this before, but, are Libertarians just classical liberals?

[BigBallinStalin]

And that's exactly what I mean- I'm not trolling about asking about Libertarianism (well, mostly not), and neither presumably is Player. It's just confusing when a lot of people claim to say what it is who argue with each other. It's perfectly fair to say that conservatism and liberalism are up for the same criticisms, but they're a bit more established as terms, much less nebulous. It would be tough to describe liberalism in terms of whether it was fiscally libertarian or socially libertarian.

Liberalism as today infers the general appeal to government to find solutions to problems.

International liberalism is the mindset of basically exporting democracy. If it's done through coercion (military or economic punishment), then the libertarians leave the train.

Progressivism marked the US split from Classical Liberalism (back in the 1890s-1917 or so). It appears that Liberalism is the offspring off the Progressives; however, progressivism set the trend along which US politics has evolved. Libertarianism is a retaliation against that political movement/mentality. For many, libertarianism and classical liberalism have much in common.

Classical Liberalism describes the ideal, liberal democracy, which entails "limited government, constitutionalism, rule of law, due process, and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.[1][2]"

So, if you're against any form of government, then you're an anarchist, but you can incorporate libertarian ideals. Same applies for socialists of the no-state, but community-driven variety.

(1) Hmm, difficult post to deal with- you start by talking about liberalism now, and I don't entirely disagree with that, but the phrasing is odd (why wait till later to use the word democracy?)

(2) International Liberalism sounds a lot like Neo-conservatism in your second point.

(3) On your third point, then what's the difference between classical liberalism and libertarianism? And why didn't it work before? (That last question is a bit trolly)

I'm just trying to sum up 120 years of US political history, and then relate it to libertarianism, so bear with the difficulties please. =P

1a) I mentioned liberalism because in order for me to talk about Classical Liberalism, I had to outline what modern liberalism means, and how it's completely different from "liberalism" back in the day, i.e. Classical Liberalism.

1b) "liberal democracy" refers to "liberalism" of "Classical Liberalism" and not modern day "liberalism."

() Referring to your main point about "liberalism" and "conservatism," those are still vague terms. They can either describe one's social or political stance. (we can get into that later if you'd like).

2) The difference between "liberal internationalism" (sorry, mixed it up earlier) and "neoconservatism" is that the former tends to rely upon multilateral means and soft power (i.e. dove); whereas, the later tends to focus on a unilateral approach and hard power (i.e. it's more hawkish). Those two approaches are enshrined in the Clinton Doctrine and the Bush Doctrine.

3a) Simply put, not much. Most libertarians follow the principles of classical liberalism, but I'm not sure how many are actually aware of that.

3b) It's difficult to answer... Progressivism replaced classical liberalism mostly because key politicians during a crisis could aggregate power by playing on people's fears. For example, FDR basically subsidized votes and established quasi-fascist bureaucracies (e.g. NRA) in order to bring businesses under FDR and Co.'s influence and give people the impression that FDR was actually improving the situation. Unfortunately, he prolonged the Great Depression, but it kept him in power. The earlier president Hoover was also complicit in this problem of government expansion as well.

The less critical explanation was that those presidents acted under good intentions and the negative outcomes was just the result of unintended consequences. That's a difficult case to make for FDR after scholars had access to his close associates' diaries (e.g. Morgenthau's, his finance minister, IIRC, described FDR as a scary, demagogue).