[ home / board list / faq / random / create / bans / search / manage / irc ] [ ]

/libertypol/ - Libertarian General

Political discussion board for all libertarians. Other viewpoints welcome.

Catalog

8chan Bitcoin address: 1NpQaXqmCBji6gfX8UgaQEmEstvVY7U32C
The next generation of Infinity is here (discussion) (contribute)

You may buy ads now for any board, betakey is removed. Please contact ads@8ch.net for information or help with this service.
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Options
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4
Max filesize is 8 MB.
Max image dimensions are 10000 x 10000.
You may upload 1 per post.

File: 1418097892253.jpg (29.46 KB, 256x192, 4:3, 1075.jpg)

7945b4 No.24

The problem with libertarians is
that it's as incoherent as feminism insofar as what it means to everyone who calls themself a liberal (And most of them are either de-facto liberals, or anarchists/people who can't ever recognize a legitimate government function/action),

7945b4 No.25

>>24
*insofar as what it means to everyone who calls themself a libertarian

f620fd No.26

>>24

Agreed, I have noticed that a lot of libertarians are actually full-on ancaps. There should be some additional definitions on what's what.

And all they talk about is abolishing the influence of the state here and there, but never come up with a functional design of the government that they'd actually support.

1bfd86 No.27

>>26 There is a lot of private investment alternatives to government. There's especially a lot of Mises Institute which generally talks about how infrastructure and police could be handled by the private sector.

Though i'm a minarchist myself as are most libertarians.

d2eda4 No.31

>>27
>There is a lot of private investment alternatives to government.

All of which are obviously flawed beyond repair if you have even the slightest knowledge of 1900's company towns.

At some point libertarianism devolves into the same place socialism is, where followers just invent slightly-different flavors and insist that since each variation hasn't been tried and proven bad, the ideology must be right after all.

15b5ab No.33

Actually, the terms liberalism and conservatism are far less coherent than libertarianism, which has a very specific meaning portable across any time period.

If I were to tell you that some thinker in Tang Dynasty China had a libertarian outlook, you'd know immediately that they believed in no government or a very limited government. What would a conservative mean in Tang Dynasty government? You only have some vague ideas without knowing specifically about Chinese culture, and you can easily be wrong if you don't know about that particular time period.

15b5ab No.37

>>31

>All of which are obviously flawed beyond repair if you have even the slightest knowledge of 1900's company towns.

I really don't think that's much of a comparison. That is a wealthy corporation acting within a government's legal system.

An anarchist society would be operating with no government within a system of polycentric law.

98c808 No.52

File: 1418624494457.jpg (29.45 KB, 350x438, 175:219, george-carlin-quotes-sayin….jpg)

>>24
And that is why I like to define it for people.

>>33
>the terms liberalism and conservatism are far less coherent than libertarianism
I don't think OP means objectively. There are Tea Party-ers that think they're libertarian. Term is being hijacked, just like liberal was. Still, at least it narrows the conversation a little and gives an academic, philosophical basis to work with.

>>31
>At some point libertarianism devolves into the same place socialism is
[Citation Needed]

>>37
Going to pick on semantics… When you say anarchist, it makes me think of the Syndicalist crowd. Having interacted with them, I understand why Rothbard stopped using the term in favor of ancap. Not that I really have any problem with those folks, just we're definitely moving toward two very different goals.

fd2921 No.59

The reason its incoherent to them is because, just like feminism, Libertarianism is a group of concepts that share a common principle rather than a monolithic concept itself. However, the laymen is only familiar with "libertarianism" rather than paleo-conservatism, minarchism, anarcho-capitalism if you consider that Libertarianism. So most people just say "I'm a Libertarian", when they may have very different views from another person who describes themself as a Libertarian.

The incoherence stems from ignorance rather than a problem with the definition.

b38823 No.71

>>52

>Going to pick on semantics… When you say anarchist, it makes me think of the Syndicalist crowd. Having interacted with them, I understand why Rothbard stopped using the term in favor of ancap. Not that I really have any problem with those folks, just we're definitely moving toward two very different goals.

Left-anarchism is much bigger than anarcho-syndicalism, which is mostly dead today anyway.

I don't really like the term anarcho-capitalism, as it roots a political outlook in a specific way of life. Capitalism is only a few centuries old, and younger than the medieval societies that folks like Murray Rothbard and David Friedman used as examples of some of their ideas in action.

I have zero problem with the term anarchist. I'm a propertarian, but only where it makes sense. It does not make sense with hunter-gatherers or nomadic tribes. It makes much sense, in varying contexts and degrees, within agricultural and industrial societies.

8c1cfe No.72

>>71
I probably wouldn't be opposed to its usage if I didn't find the use of the term to be an instant conversation stopper in most contexts. Even amongst younger generations that wouldn't be opposed to it in terms of concept, it brings up images of listless skaters spray painting the letter A everywhere. Pop culture has really destroyed the meaning of the word for the time being.

Propertarian sounds useful though. It's descriptive and hasn't been defiled yet.

I would disagree with your stance on capitalism. The way I see it, capitalism has always existed. It's the default option; we know it instinctively from our youth. You don't ever have to teach a child what "mine" is, they always pick that word up on their own.

Now getting them to respect somebody else's "mine", that's another story. I wouldn't say it's that they don't know when something doesn't belong to them, it's just that humans aren't morally pure. Not even children.

As for hunter-gatherers, isn't that basically what about half the population of Georgia, Alabama, and South Carolina are? That's proof positive that you can be a hunter-gatherer and still be a capitalist! Ha ha ha.

3fbf95 No.305

>>24

>that it's as incoherent insofar as what it means to everyone who calls themself a libertarian

you mean people have different oppinions?

>>26

>There should be some additional definitions on what's what

libertarianism is a dimension. on the left you have totalitarian/dictatorship, on the other side full blown anarchy.

how socially responsible you want to be is another dimension.

so then you have a grid and certain regions have names. see wikipedia. some are unnamed, you can give them a name. if thats too hard for you, maybe you prefer a government that tells you what to think, what to do.

>never come up with a functional design of the government

current government with more technological deregulation i.e. enabling people/entrepeneurs to do their thing instead of holding them back with stupid buerocracy (theres good regulation too) is functioning. and respecting individuals freedom generally, including sexual development, data security and many others doesnt require a complete reformation either.

it doesnt take more to be a libertarian.

beyond that, generally the consensus is that society as a whole isnt ready to handle something like this. too much stupidety and niggering. so people are incremental about the implementation.

what does a libertarian utopy look like? well libertarians are just realistic anarchists. so the ultimate utopia is a world where there are zero rules and everybody is perfectly reasonable and only acts 100%, empircally not just percieved, in humanities best interest. anything between that and today is libertarian.


3fbf95 No.306

>>31

the 1900's are very different to todays society and technology environment

>At some point libertarianism devolves into the same place socialism is, where followers just invent slightly-different flavors and insist that since each variation hasn't been tried and proven bad, the ideology must be right after all.

youre confusing libertariansism with anarchy

libertarians are very aware of this problem and seek realistic solutions



[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ home / board list / faq / random / create / bans / search / manage / irc ] [ ]