Topic: Can someone explain to me the various flavors of Libertarianism? - page 2. (Read 4577 times)

To be socialist and truly libertarian, you can't just vote or legislate the socialism into place. That's not libertarian, and anyone thinking it is is only fooling himself.

Now, you could start your own libertarian socialist community if you like. Churches in the distant past have been organized like that, and I believe the pilgrims in Jamestown started with that setup (which failed miserably, prompting them to change it.) Again, I doubt it'll last long.

Alternatively, you could try to convince everyone in society to throw their property into the communal pot, but let's be honest, that's never going to happen, so really, turning an existing society into a libertarian socialist one isn't a realistic option.

That said...

One thing I find people miss about the NAP in particular (regardless of how closely any particular "flavor" of libertarianism adheres to it) is that it's more of a moral principle for people to impose on their political views than it is a political system. IOW, whether anyone else "likes" the NAP, or thinks it will work, or wants to try to implement it in their life or their society is pretty irrelevant. Those who DO believe it to be a moral principle worth following intend to follow it, period. They will refuse to intrude upon the liberty of others, and that's that. All the debates in the world about the political workings of it isn't going to convince them to start voting for anything that, in their minds, is aggression.

So I find myself wondering why people who think the NAP is bad/doesn't work/is silly/etc. even bother debating it or whatever... it's not like those who follow it are going to try to try to intrude on those who don't. It's a little like wasting time denouncing a group of people who believe in the golden rule. You may think it's naive, but it's not as if by following it those people are possibly going to hurt you, so why waste the time? "You're dumb for believing people ought to be left alone! You need to start believing that aggression of innocents is OK!" It's not exactly an argument that is in one's own self interest.

Well, yes, it IS perfectly acceptable to have a completely voluntary (read: non-aggressive, i.e. libertarian) form of socialism.

I doubt it would work, but there's nothing inherently coercive about multiple people holding their assets in common and voluntarily agreeing to a distribution method.

The kids will need to opt-in when they get old enough though....

That spectrum is completely flawed, mostly because you are assuming an incorrect definition of socialism. Socialism is very broadly defined is the means of production in the public domain. What many consider to be socialist systems (the Soviet Union) were not technically socialist under the traditional definition.

As for libertarian socialism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

Spectrum

libertarian-------------------------------------------------------------------socialist

Libertarian socialist...ive never heard that one before

I like how everyone ignored my post 

The pirate party does have some "real libertarian" members, but most of them are leftists.

"Real libertarianism" is an extreme minority view in Europe, and that's why they will never have their own party.

The word "libertarian" doesn't even exist in the German vocabulary. There is only "liberal", which is used by moderate pro-market parties, and "freiheitlich" (literally: freedomist), a term which used to mean something like libertarian, but has now been hijacked by nationalist/populist parties on the authoritarian end of the spectrum.

I would not call the german pirate party a "libertarian" party. Many of them support the idea of an unconditional basic income, which in my opinion is rather socialist.
I don't think that real "libertarian" parties do exist in germany, at least not to the extent described in this thread.

the fdp has always been liberal in name only. they never tried to develop long term unique positions and represent the modern politician like no other party: slick, opportunistic and completely free of any actual opinions or ideals.
the pirates are the complete opposite: inexperienced and often ackward or naive and full of ideals and visions, many of them convenient targets for ridicule.
they are much more like the green party in its early days. question is if they too fail to keep their ideals when they start to become more established and experienced.

Bendy rulers make an awesome "wonga wonga wonga" sound when you flick them off the side of a desk though. To me that makes the horrors of the bendy line bearable.

Yep. I also started calling myself "libertarian" instead of "liberal" ever since people have re-defined the latter as its own opposite.

Few rules, but stick to them. Don't try to force things onto others unless it's really necessary. For example, one can argue there's a point in breaking up a monopoly that otherwise dead-locks a whole market. But actions like subsidizing an arbitrary part of the economy with tax money because some people think "it deserves it more" is too much.

This should be completely unsurprising as modern Western civilization is completely unsustainable without a lot of wars.

To add an European point of view, in this case a German one: "liberal" (spelled exactly the same in German) still means libertarian over here. Most prominent party representing a less taxes, less laws and more civil liberties policy in such respect is the FDP (Freie Demokratische Partei). They are every second or so turn elected into government and mostly form a coalition with the CDU (Christlich Demokatische Union Deutschlands = 'Cristian Democratic Union of Germany'), representing the conservatives. They suffer from the 'caught in the middle' problem, as they have nothing really unique to offer, that would set them apart from the SPD (Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands = the social democrats) or CDU and therefore live off the unpleased but still center of society voters, that are unsatisfied with both CDU and SPD, which at least in the past always formed coalitions either with one another or mostly, with FDP (+ CDU) or the greens (+ SPD). They are therefore always in the minority and often have to struggle to get into parliament at all, as we have a 5% hurdle in place, giving legitimicing only those partys for a seat in parliament, that hold at least 5% of the public votes. Because SPD and CDU each hold their own libertarian ideals, it doesnt feel like libertarian views are missing in German politics most of the time.

Please correct me if Im wrong.

Lately they have even been challenged, and lost, by another competitor in the political arena: The Pirates, that stand for civil liberties even more then the FDP does.

Basically, libertarianism is classical liberalism.

Personally, I prefer my rulers 30cm, but also use a 15cm one as it is easy to carry around.
What I HATE are the 30cm foldy rulers, their middle is wonky and makes my straight lines slightly bendy.

Don't forget Libertarian Socialists, such as myself! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialist

In my own words, I define libertarian socialism as a voluntary community of democratic enterprises such as some of the co-operatives that exist today, where workers operate the society in a non-hierarchial fashion.

Would increasing power of orginisations over goverment, due to way that Google for example can realise something like Google Maps, the log in system that websites can use to manege there users, Google Health etc... and make a difference immedeatly wheras the goverment can do very little because it's become impossible for them to be inovative. Would this be a path to Libertarianism, but wouldn't it result in a lot more laws in turms of orginisations individual policies and interactions between them?

There are those who believe in a minimal amount of rules and rulers and there are those who believe in a minimal amount of rules and no rulers.


It's that simple.

This might be a topic best for Politics section, but I would say that pretty much every version of Libertarianism follows the NAP (non-aggression principle). Where they all differ is in the interpretation of what qualifies as aggression. Some people think intellectual property laws are aggression. Some forms view land property laws as aggression. I've even heard an anarcho-syndicalist argue that state-enforcement of property itself is aggression. I don't know what to think anymore when someone says they are a libertarian, it's turning too much into a catch-all phrase, but I would venture to guess we all see the state and "too many laws" as the problem.

I tend to see myself as less concerned with the brands and more concerned with doing what Philip K. Howard suggests, and reboot the laws, and simply return some of the legal code back to state and local control. Thomas Jefferson even lamented that we go without a revolution every so many decades, and I think if we reset to the Constitution and started rewriting laws in our states we'd probably see a pretty prosperous time. There'd be problems for sure, but there are just so many proactive laws that we can't go a single day without breaking one of them (at least in the US). Not every libertarian believes in a weak federal government, but most of them tend to. I'm not sure we should have a legal system built for millions when our brains are built for societies of mere hundreds.

I've heard of so many different types of Libertarianism and Anarcho-_______ism and I'm trying to pin each one down to a certain set of beliefs.

Does anyone know how to rigorously define these belief systems?