|
Post by IMAGINARYphilosophy on Jun 4, 2010 6:17:49 GMT -5
What is Libertarianism?
The Libertarian Philosophy is a theoretical framework for government, politics, society and economics characterized by the belief that the freedom of the Individual should supersede the power of the Authority. It is sometimes further construed that the Authority should be tightly restrained or all-together abolished to prevent subversion or repression of Individual Liberty.
Within the field of Libertarian Philosophy there exists a spectrum of ideologies on how Libertarianism should be practically applied. For the purpose of this discussion, I wish to focus on two specific and opposing Libertarian ideologies in the United States: Conservative Libertarianism and Liberal Libertarianism.
While both Liberal and Conservative Libertarianism hold that the rights and freedoms of the Individual are sacrosanct, they differ in regard to their definitions of where the separating line is drawn between the Individual and the Authority.
For Conservative Libertarians, the Authority in question is manifested in the Federal Government. The power of the Federal Government over individual persons, lesser governments, and private business is the focus of Conservative Libertarian ideology. In this ideology, a sharp distinction is drawn between the Federal Government and the citizens it governs, wherein the citizenry must be protected from the Federal Government's use of Authority. However, no such distinction exists between individual persons and business entities, which are by extension viewed as Individuals with rights and freedoms needing protection.
In contrast, Liberal Libertarians view the Authority in question to be a more nebulous entity perhaps best defined as "those in power". This ideology draws no sharp line based upon economic and governmental institutions, but rather between those individuals who exert Authority and those individuals who are subject to that Authority.
For this thread I wish to discuss further the distinction between these opposing Libertarian ideologies and whether either is suitable as a practical governing philosophy.
|
|
|
Post by KipEnyan on Jun 5, 2010 22:02:17 GMT -5
Well, in it's truest form, isn't realized Libertarianism little more than a step above anarchy?
|
|
|
Post by IMAGINARYphilosophy on Jun 6, 2010 1:23:57 GMT -5
Well, in it's truest form, isn't realized Libertarianism little more than a step above anarchy? Essentially, yes. But there are feuding ideologies over what form that step should take.
|
|
|
Post by KipEnyan on Jun 6, 2010 13:29:45 GMT -5
Well then I think it's a moot point. I, and I believe most marginally intelligent people, want nothing to do with near-anarchic political philosophies.
|
|
|
Post by IMAGINARYphilosophy on Jun 7, 2010 3:00:11 GMT -5
Well then I think it's a moot point. I, and I believe most marginally intelligent people, want nothing to do with near-anarchic political philosophies. Is that a dig against the supporters of Ron Paul and the Republicans and Tea Partiers that got Rand Paul his nomination in Kentucky?
|
|
TheIslander
Planet
From a Land Surrounded by Sea.
Posts: 403
|
Post by TheIslander on Jun 7, 2010 3:45:10 GMT -5
Well, in it's truest form, isn't realized Libertarianism little more than a step above anarchy? Libertarians want a government with little or close to no authority. Anarchists want no government, no authority. So in theory, liberal libertarianism might seem like a form of anarchism but in practice they are two very different concepts. More below. Conservative libertarianism, the classic form of libertarianism encourages private ownership and personal sovereignty in turn promoting individual liberty. A non-authoritarian right wing concept. Leftists have branded their own version of libertarianism as "Liberal Libertarianism", though this is a contradiction in itself as the left wing preaches equality above all. Equality and private ownership clash and despite both implying individual liberty, one cannot have a mix of both. Take it this way: Classic libertarianism is the concept which holds that one can swing his arms as wide as he wants, as much as he wants - given he does not hit other people. Liberal libertarianism on the other hand brings equality in: Once can swing his arms as much as wide as he wants, as much as he wants - but only if everyone's arms are of an equal length. Liberal libertarianism by concept can either grant a false sense of freedom or to the other extreme, as Kipenyan mentions, a form of anarchy. There is no such thing as Liberal Libertarianism, it is just a polite way of saying anarchism. The only form of libertarianism is conservative libertarianism, classical libertarianism.
|
|
|
Post by IMAGINARYphilosophy on Jun 7, 2010 6:00:28 GMT -5
Take it this way: Classic libertarianism is the concept which holds that one can swing his arms as wide as he wants, as much as he wants - given he does not hit other people. Liberal libertarianism on the other hand brings equality in: Once can swing his arms as much as wide as he wants, as much as he wants - but only if everyone's arms are of an equal length. That is a beautiful metaphor. However, you lose me when you say later that Liberal Libertarianism is equivalent to Anarchism. How does anarchy advance the cause of equality?
|
|
TheIslander
Planet
From a Land Surrounded by Sea.
Posts: 403
|
Post by TheIslander on Jun 7, 2010 10:21:42 GMT -5
Non-authoritarian left = anarchy = Supposedly Liberal Libertarianism
|
|
|
Post by KipEnyan on Jun 7, 2010 19:06:59 GMT -5
I wasn't taking stabs at anyone, but if that was interpreted as a stab at Rand Paul, I'll take it, because that guy is a fucking nutjob.
And I still don't see how Conservative Libertarianism isn't also one step above anarchy.
|
|
|
Post by IMAGINARYphilosophy on Jun 7, 2010 19:35:41 GMT -5
Non-authoritarian left = anarchy = Supposedly Liberal Libertarianism That doesn't explain anything.
|
|
FranticProdigy
Planet
[AWD:1c]
Im classy because I use words like touch
Posts: 312
|
Post by FranticProdigy on Jun 9, 2010 17:19:23 GMT -5
Well, in it's truest form, isn't realized Libertarianism little more than a step above anarchy? Anarchy isn't always bad. I dont think people should have to pay taxes, but those who dont, dont get to benefit from the government.
|
|
Cortney
Star
[AWD:0c15]The Objectioner
The Bown
Posts: 885
|
Post by Cortney on Jun 9, 2010 18:46:56 GMT -5
Libertarianism is "one step above anarchism," like everyone has been saying. They are not extremely different. Yes, they are slightly different, but both share the aspiration that authority back the poop off.
|
|
|
Post by KipEnyan on Jun 9, 2010 20:15:16 GMT -5
Well, in it's truest form, isn't realized Libertarianism little more than a step above anarchy? Anarchy isn't always bad. I dont think people should have to pay taxes, but those who dont, dont get to benefit from the government. I suppose anarchy isn't always bad if you're a fan of mob rule. If you think you and your friends can be physically more dominating than everyone else, then anarchy just might be for you. And there's a little bit of a logical error in your taxes argument. There's no way to have non-mandatory taxes. It'd be impossible to NOT benefit from taxes, because you benefit just by living in the country. Your taxes go to roads, and the military, and everything else, not just social programs. Its impossible to live in a taxed country and not be taxed fairly.
|
|
Obilink
Meteor
Pink is a Plus
Posts: 68
|
Post by Obilink on Jul 7, 2010 22:05:40 GMT -5
I suppose anarchy isn't always bad if you're a fan of mob rule....Its impossible to live in a taxed country and not be taxed fairly. Are you sure you live in the New York? The entire US tax code as we know it is extremely one-sided and slanted. It favors certain groups of people in many places and does not always go to the places it should. Personally, I am a Democratic-Republican Libertarian, meaning I believe in a society in which we are ruled by Democratically-elected, educated representatives whose sole purpose is to make sure that no one, including themselves, interfere with or take away with my personal rights unless I am using those rights to interfere with or take away someone else's personal rights. I believe in freedom. Why? Because it works.
|
|
|
Post by low on Jul 8, 2010 1:11:31 GMT -5
I suppose anarchy isn't always bad if you're a fan of mob rule. If you think you and your friends can be physically more dominating than everyone else, then anarchy just might be for you. And there's a little bit of a logical error in your taxes argument. There's no way to have non-mandatory taxes. It'd be impossible to NOT benefit from taxes, because you benefit just by living in the country. Your taxes go to roads, and the military, and everything else, not just social programs. Its impossible to live in a taxed country and not be taxed fairly. Some people prefer ideology and shouting labels out to being pragmatic and understanding that compromise can accomplish great things.
|
|
|
Post by Enemynarwhal on Jul 8, 2010 16:20:03 GMT -5
Well then I think it's a moot point. I, and I believe most marginally intelligent people, want nothing to do with near-anarchic political philosophies. I dont know. I would argue that you can be intelligent and extremely optimistic at the same time. I've read some of the specific philosophies for anarchism or near anarchism and in theory they're nice, however i'm too cynical to ever believe they could work. Still, I think it's nice some people could be so optimistic.
|
|
FranticProdigy
Planet
[AWD:1c]
Im classy because I use words like touch
Posts: 312
|
Post by FranticProdigy on Jul 14, 2010 22:37:54 GMT -5
Anarchy isn't always bad. I dont think people should have to pay taxes, but those who dont, dont get to benefit from the government. I suppose anarchy isn't always bad if you're a fan of mob rule. If you think you and your friends can be physically more dominating than everyone else, then anarchy just might be for you. And there's a little bit of a logical error in your taxes argument. There's no way to have non-mandatory taxes. It'd be impossible to NOT benefit from taxes, because you benefit just by living in the country. Your taxes go to roads, and the military, and everything else, not just social programs. Its impossible to live in a taxed country and not be taxed fairly. Dont let people use roads.
|
|
|
Post by KipEnyan on Jul 15, 2010 23:33:57 GMT -5
I suppose anarchy isn't always bad if you're a fan of mob rule. If you think you and your friends can be physically more dominating than everyone else, then anarchy just might be for you. And there's a little bit of a logical error in your taxes argument. There's no way to have non-mandatory taxes. It'd be impossible to NOT benefit from taxes, because you benefit just by living in the country. Your taxes go to roads, and the military, and everything else, not just social programs. Its impossible to live in a taxed country and not be taxed fairly. Dont let people use roads. What about the land they live on? What about property taxes? And what if another nation attacks, do we just kick those people out? It makes no sense.
|
|