clue: what does the word "absolute" mean to you?
― mark s (mark s), Wednesday, 28 August 2002 12:46 (twenty-one years ago) link
If the principle is conceded that it is legitimate for the state to curtail certain individual freedoms for the public good, then "Libertarianism" must be argued as a relative, not an absolute position.
This may seem so obvious as not to be important; not so, because the continual, often deliberate and manipulative, confusion of abolute and relative is a ongoing part of the modus operandi. As previously said, much Libertarian rhetoric is based on the assumption that abstract principles like "freedom" and "individual liberty" are self-evidently and purely good things, that we can't have too much of them. If the "real" argument is something along the lines of, "well we accept that there has to be a trade-off between individual liberty and public good, but we think the line has been drawn in the wrong place", then that is the argument that libertarians are required to make. Not the simplistic and quasi-mystical invocation to pure principle that some use cynically and others, more worringly, actually seem to believe.
― ArfArf, Wednesday, 28 August 2002 12:58 (twenty-one years ago) link
― mark s (mark s), Wednesday, 28 August 2002 13:12 (twenty-one years ago) link
― ArfArf, Wednesday, 28 August 2002 13:58 (twenty-one years ago) link
ArfArf is (korrektly) pointing out that libertarians also often play such games with definition, so the unfairness is not that unfair after all.
― mark s (mark s), Wednesday, 28 August 2002 15:51 (twenty-one years ago) link
So it's not entirely just a caricature of their absolutism: they've actively assembled themselves as such and are happy to sink further into it. This is true of really any fringe party in the U.S. -- the only way to work the fringe is with some clever easily-digested panacea like "yes we are the flat-tax party," which occasionally makes them good launching pads for issues but rarely makes for a widely coherent platform.
― nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 28 August 2002 16:07 (twenty-one years ago) link
Of course, the other side of the statement you put in as a 'position paper' (i. e. you don't believe it or claim anyone else does but it's there to make a point) is that in a Libertarian 'society' each child would have the absolute social liberty not to be killed by serial child killers. Or, as I sometimes put it, negative rights supersede positive rights. This is just a different side of the coin from Ayn Rand's 'mutual uncoerced consent.'
Hmmm. Does 'absolute social liberty' have any meaning 1 to a Libertarian 2 at all?
― Tim Bateman, Friday, 30 August 2002 09:41 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Tim Bateman, Friday, 30 August 2002 09:43 (twenty-one years ago) link
Following are two quotes from http://www.self-gov.org/libfaq.html
Drugs:All of the hard drugs were legal before 1914, and there were few addicts. Studies show that even addicts can be productive, and also that they do not engage in crime when they can get their drugs inexpensively.
"We have addicts today despite drug criminalization. We also have the violence that is caused by drugs being illegal. Let's decriminalize drugs so we stop the violence and get help to those who need it."
I subcribe to this point of view, all drugs should be made legal. I want total souvereignity over my own body.
Guns:"Libertarians,, like other Americans, want to be able to walk city streets safely and be secure in their homes. We also want our Constitutional rights protected, to guard against the erosion of civil liberties. In particular, Libertarians want to see all people treated equally under the law, as our Constitution requires. America's millions of gun owners are people too. "
I do not subscribe to the typically American point of view to gun ownership. Cfr Bowling for Columbine http://www.bowlingforcolumbine.com/flash-01.php
Take the skinheads bowling! --Camper Van Beethoven
― Jan Geerinck (jahsonic), Thursday, 27 February 2003 11:56 (twenty-one years ago) link
fuck libertarians, fuck them all three holes.
― That one guy that hit it and quit it, Monday, 13 August 2007 22:58 (sixteen years ago) link
blimey get me on this thread
― mark s, Monday, 13 August 2007 23:01 (sixteen years ago) link
The dude I was talking about in the batshit facebook thread considers himself a libertarian..
― W4LTER, Monday, 13 August 2007 23:04 (sixteen years ago) link
guess what's in my other window: facebook libertarians.
― That one guy that hit it and quit it, Monday, 13 August 2007 23:05 (sixteen years ago) link
Groups 30 of 67 groups.See All
Libertarian Conservatives ▪ I ♥ Brisbane ▪ Have you ever disgraced yourself at a Law related function? ▪ SYDNEY IS BETTER THAN MELBOURNE! ▪ Mr Gormsby's Class 5F ▪ Ludwig Von Mises Appreciation Society(1881-1973) ▪ Global Warming is a Hoax ▪ I proudly support the State of Israel & I don't care that it's not trendy! ▪ Right-wingers have more fun ▪ Pro Tobacco ▪ ANTI-united nations, anti-EU ▪ In Support of the Death Penalty ▪ Capitalist Student Network ▪ Sydney University Liberal Club ▪ Abolish Welfare! ▪ The Justice J. D. Heydon Appreciation Society ▪ WorkChoices sucks - the labour market is STILL overregulated ▪ Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy ▪ The movement to legalise duelling ▪ I oppose WorkChoices on federalist grounds ▪ I always wear sun glasses because the sun never sets on the British Empire ▪ Young Liberal Movement ▪ Richard Dawkins Created the Meme ▪ The Will Ferrell is GOD Collective ▪ Chief Justice Harry Gibbs Appreciation Society ▪ Proud WASPs ▪ Justice Callinan Fan Club ▪ Flat Rate Tax ▪ The Anglo Saxon Group ▪ I support John Howard
― W4LTER, Monday, 13 August 2007 23:07 (sixteen years ago) link
hahaha i support palestine (like a football club) only because it's trendy.
― max, Monday, 13 August 2007 23:13 (sixteen years ago) link
lol richard dawkins, NO SURPRISE THERE.
― That one guy that hit it and quit it, Monday, 13 August 2007 23:16 (sixteen years ago) link
proud member since oct 06
― Just got offed, Monday, 13 August 2007 23:19 (sixteen years ago) link
libertarianism in america = fundamentally a misreading of jefferson, who wanted a republic of local township-republics, who would vote on everything to do with themselves, athens-style, and leave only the major stuff (defense, welfare, etc) to the feds.
libertarians read this as getting RID of government, when it's really just a radical redistribution of it. their "ideal" country would provide no means of breaking up monopolies or even overthrowing a tyrant because libertarians fundamentally deny what hannah arendt took to be the most important thing in politics - the right of citizens to come together to make something happen, which they dismiss as "collectivism." (reducing all human experience to "collectivism" and "individualism," as libertarians inevitably do, is also pretty dumb: one could fairly argue that both existed in nazi germany.) an actual libertarian state would be impossible for the simple fact that libertarians wouldn't admit any laws to check the power of ANYONE "outside the state," so there'd be no way to prevent any ambitious and talented businessman from essentially running the country.
libertarians also assume that economics ALWAYS precedes politics, which is why their screeds (when they're not entertainingly arguing that blackmail should be legalized) are so unreadable.
― J.D., Monday, 13 August 2007 23:59 (sixteen years ago) link
Libertarians are cute, like handicapped puppies. They're special.
― milo z, Tuesday, 14 August 2007 00:07 (sixteen years ago) link
more's the shame, then, that ofttimes (with some notable exceptions) their grasp of economics is pretty shitty. (i.e., there's a reason why the Austrian School isn't exactly in the mainstream among academic economists and it isn't b/c academic economists are closet "collectivists"/Commies.)
― Eisbaer, Tuesday, 14 August 2007 00:11 (sixteen years ago) link
Given that no-one is self-identifying as libertarian, isn't this a strawman thread? I would at least start to defend *aspects* of libertarianism, but the thread is already marred by unhelpful simplifications.
― paulhw, Tuesday, 14 August 2007 00:15 (sixteen years ago) link
Less strawman than gangbang, I'd say.
― milo z, Tuesday, 14 August 2007 00:18 (sixteen years ago) link
Milo OTM.
― Dandy Don Weiner, Tuesday, 14 August 2007 01:45 (sixteen years ago) link
anyone who wants to defend libertarianism or refute any of my points is entirely welcome.
― J.D., Tuesday, 14 August 2007 02:39 (sixteen years ago) link
an actual libertarian state would be impossible for the simple fact that libertarians wouldn't admit any laws to check the power of ANYONE "outside the state," so there'd be no way to prevent any ambitious and talented businessman from essentially running the country.
my understanding of libertarianism is that they believe that government exists to prevent people from violating the rights of others. if government couldn't pass laws to check the power of private citizens, wouldn't that just be anarchy?
― elan, Tuesday, 14 August 2007 03:50 (sixteen years ago) link
also i don't think that libertarians deny citizens a right to do things together. maybe you meant they don't want government to make citizens do things together?
― elan, Tuesday, 14 August 2007 03:53 (sixteen years ago) link
i'm not a libertarian but this is some stupid straw-man bullshit, like saying that republicans are gonna steal the 2008 general election.
― elan, Tuesday, 14 August 2007 03:54 (sixteen years ago) link
Ahh well, I guess at least we've learnt that Will Ferrell is acceptable to libertarians.
― W4LTER, Tuesday, 14 August 2007 03:57 (sixteen years ago) link
since libertarians inevitably oppose any effort to interfere with businesses' right to do whatever they want (rarely bothering to distinguish between, say, enron and the mom and pop store down the street), it's hard to see how their high and mighty john stuart mill principles really translate into anything, in practical terms, except "every dog for himself." as for anarchy, plenty of the best-known libertarian thinkers basically were anarchists - murray rothbard, for one.
government "making people do things together" is mainly an issue in the kind of society libertarians claim they want - a society where the citizens ask nothing and get nothing from their government. a country where people are actually involved in their government, on a community by community level, isn't likely to give way to tyranny (and the fact that the united states, despite the fact that the vast majority of cities don't measure up to jefferson's ideal of the township-community, has never fallen under a dictatorship is some testament to the effectiveness of this system).
by contrast, all libertarians can offer is some dickensian ideal state where every businessman is a benevolent ebenezer scrooge (post-conversion) who takes care of any problems we might have (and hey, if you're not satisfied, you could always just become rich yourself!) libertarians are right about a lot of the problems in america, but they're clueless when it comes to what to do about them.
― J.D., Tuesday, 14 August 2007 05:08 (sixteen years ago) link
-- paulhw, Tuesday, 14 August 2007 00:15 (6 hours ago) Link
i guess you must be a libertarian.
louis, i'm toying with that. c-word though.
― That one guy that hit it and quit it, Tuesday, 14 August 2007 06:51 (sixteen years ago) link
I think it was Boyd Rice, of all people, who said something along the lines of "Libertarians are just anarchists without the leather jackets."
That said, as far as pure logic goes, taking the study of rhetoric into account and all that, it's one of the more attractive political philosophies, wouldn't you agree?
― If Assholes Could Fly This Place Would Be An Airport, Tuesday, 14 August 2007 10:06 (sixteen years ago) link
Most of the anarchists I know (and most of the anarchists throughout history, I think) are left-leaning, so they do believe in collectivism and collective action, just not authority. I guess libertarianism is close to right-wing anarchism, but that has always been a weaker strand in the history of anarchism.
― Tuomas, Tuesday, 14 August 2007 10:32 (sixteen years ago) link
I guess anarchism and libertarianism have a similar philosophical idea in their core, but the conclusions and political actions they've reached from from that have been quite different.
― Tuomas, Tuesday, 14 August 2007 10:34 (sixteen years ago) link
those conclusions and political actions again: "let's sit this one out (feat.self-regarding commentary)"
― mark s, Tuesday, 14 August 2007 10:39 (sixteen years ago) link
i think only quite young and able-bodied people can really sign up for libertarianism.
― That one guy that hit it and quit it, Tuesday, 14 August 2007 10:42 (sixteen years ago) link
young, able-bodied and COMIC BOOK GUY
― mark s, Tuesday, 14 August 2007 10:46 (sixteen years ago) link
i think only quite young and able-bodied
and rich and privately educated and fucking superior. it's a fucking SCOURGE at cambridge.
that group has quite an amusing wall-posting:
As a true Tory I have little time for Libertarians. Why take something as wonderfully sensible and straightforward as conservatism and make an ideology out of it? The strength of Tories is that we don't need to waste our time with committees and mission statements and all that nonsense. All the same, I still think that as a mostly leftist gathering, someone really ought to tell you all to go to hell.
Go to hell.
You think he's joking?
― Just got offed, Tuesday, 14 August 2007 11:31 (sixteen years ago) link
since libertarians inevitably oppose any effort to interfere with businesses' right to do whatever they want (rarely bothering to distinguish between, say, enron and the mom and pop store down the street), it's hard to see how their high and mighty john stuart mill principles really translate into anything, in practical terms, except "every dog for himself."
libertarians only appose govt. regulation. that doesn't mean individuals or groups cannot interfere, protest, boycott, and expose big business anyway. also why do you mention John Stuart Mill? (or did you mean utilitarianism?). i don't know that libertarianism advocates "every dog for himself" although coming from the right collective action is often demphasized. libertarianism is part of the US social fabric and if you accept that there are libertarians on the left too then the wobblies and people who lived in communes and hunter s thompson and dorothy day are libertarians too.
this is just silly.
― artdamages, Tuesday, 14 August 2007 11:52 (sixteen years ago) link
i get the sense that a lot of people are taking libertarianism as something like the social darwinist or randian 'survival of the fittest' and assuming that naturally follows from reducing the size of the state.
― artdamages, Tuesday, 14 August 2007 12:00 (sixteen years ago) link
i like the mark s comment about linguistic communities and message boards. libertarians and anarchists aren't against order as such just power with the former focusing on the state and the latter on capitalism.
― artdamages, Tuesday, 14 August 2007 12:03 (sixteen years ago) link
well gosh darn if the libertarians haven't gone all out to correct that impression.
xpost
― That one guy that hit it and quit it, Tuesday, 14 August 2007 12:04 (sixteen years ago) link
I think Wobblies were more anarchosyndicalists than "libertarians on the left", whatever that means. Like I said, the core philosophy in these two is quite similar, so we have to take practice into account, and in practice anarchists have leaned on the left and libertarians on the right. Also, it seems quite true that libertarians have focused more on opposing the state and defending free enterprise, whereas anarchists on opposing capitalism and defending workers's issues. Have there ever been any self-proclaimed working-class libertarians?
― Tuomas, Tuesday, 14 August 2007 12:15 (sixteen years ago) link
it's a difficult question because the word has been comprehensively taken by the right. its meaning has shifted so far (as with 'conservative' i guess) that using the word just confuses things.
― That one guy that hit it and quit it, Tuesday, 14 August 2007 12:29 (sixteen years ago) link
i was thinking though, that it seems to have spread among basically apolitical young people far more than the anti-globalization movement c. 2001 did.
― That one guy that hit it and quit it, Tuesday, 14 August 2007 12:31 (sixteen years ago) link
probably because libertarianism is the most anti-political ideology i can imagine.
― J.D., Tuesday, 14 August 2007 12:42 (sixteen years ago) link
ooh, interesting footnote from george woodcock's anarchism:
"Sébastien Faure, who founded Le Libertaire in 1895, is often credited with having invented the word libertarian as a convenient synonym for anarchist. However <Joseph> Déjacque's use of the word as early as 1858 suggests it may have had a long currency before Faure adopted it." (p263, Pelican edn, 1963)
Déjacque also ran a magazine called Le Libertaire, in New York (1858-61): he was an upholsterer.
(haha he also FORESAW ILX: "In Déjacque's world of the future, the great metropolises of the 19th century will disappear, and on their sites will rise enormous monumental; meeting halls, called cyclideons, each capable of holding a million people, and conceieved by Déjacque as 'altars of the social cult, anarchic churches of Utopian humanity'. There, in the total liberty of discussion, 'the free and great voice of the public' will be heard...", ibid., p264)
― mark s, Tuesday, 14 August 2007 12:44 (sixteen years ago) link
"we have to take practice into account, and in practice anarchists have leaned on the left and libertarians on the right"
anarchists: http://www.wolfstone.com/images/20010222Twins.jpg
libertarian: http://farm1.static.flickr.com/27/45017300_07a6caaa47.jpg
― artdamages, Tuesday, 14 August 2007 12:47 (sixteen years ago) link
i do think people attracted to the libertarian movement are linear thinkers. whereas i am all over the place. ts: hedgehog or fox?
― artdamages, Tuesday, 14 August 2007 12:49 (sixteen years ago) link
Have there ever been any self-proclaimed working-class libertarians?
Karl Hess, Barry Goldwater's speech writer became a welder after his political fallout w/the Republicans.
― artdamages, Tuesday, 14 August 2007 12:51 (sixteen years ago) link
From Wikipedia:
The first known use of a term that has been translated as "libertarian," in a political sense, was by anarcho-communist Joseph Déjacque[16] who used the French term "libertaire" in a letter to Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in 1857.[17] The word stems from the French word libertaire (synonymous to "anarchist"), and was used in order to evade the French ban on anarchist publications. Many anarchists still use the term (e.g., terms translatable as "libertarian" are used as a synonym for anarchism in many non-English languages, like French, Italian and so on), and in the English language socialist anarchism and communist anarchism are often referred to as Libertarian socialism or Libertarian communism respectively to distinguish it from authoritarian Marxist varieties of socialism and communism. In the United States, however, Libertarian refers to members of the American Libertarian party, whose politics might be described as classical liberalism. Those who support similar policies but are not members of the Libertarian party are known as libertarians in the United States and much of the English speaking world.
I think the American meaning of libertarianism as an ideology separate from anarchism has become more and more prominent, and hence "libertarian" as a synonym to "anarchist" is losing it's value. At least the Finnish anarchists I know consider "libertarian" more of a swear word than something they'd call themselves.
― Tuomas, Tuesday, 14 August 2007 12:54 (sixteen years ago) link
no
Legalize child labor.Children will learn more on a job site than in public school.— Libertarian Party NH (@LPNH) June 7, 2021
― A viking of frowns, (Camaraderie at Arms Length), Monday, 7 June 2021 22:28 (two years ago) link
Yes. Children should especially learn how to pick our crops. Since they are already low to the ground they are ideal for picking lettuce, strawberries, cucumbers and similar edibles. Their job site would be open air, they'll get lots of exercise, and they'll learn every day what it feels like to be devalued, exploited and abused. Invaluable lessons to carry them through their miserable lives.
― What's It All About, Althea? (Aimless), Monday, 7 June 2021 23:06 (two years ago) link
counterthought - children will learn more watching Libertarians being set ablaze and screaming for their lives
― Feta Van Cheese (Neanderthal), Monday, 7 June 2021 23:11 (two years ago) link
https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/237/129/e97.jpg
― Joe Bombin (milo z), Monday, 7 June 2021 23:26 (two years ago) link