Ye Olde Libertarian Pub

[Albion]

When I say left libertarian I mean closer to the green party

There isn't anything libertarian about Socialism or the Green Party.

 

[FreedByte]

There isn't anything libertarian about Socialism or the Green Party.

In the context of American libertarianism, you're mostly correct (although the Green Party is civil libertarian). In the context of global and historical libertarianism, you're not so correct. Also, this.

 

[Albion]

In the context of American libertarianism, you're mostly correct (although the Green Party is civil libertarian.

I'd agree with that, more or less. While the word itself has had different meanings in history--as liberal, conservative, socialist, and others have also--at the present and in this country (as you noted) it almost always is understood as referring to the view that people should be free from outside coercion.

The term "civil libertarian" has almost ceased to be used, I've noticed. However, to the extent that it refers to policies allegedly aimed at promoting social equality, I'd agree that you're right. But that would be "civil libertarianism," not "libertarianism."

 

[FreedByte]

at the present and in this country (as you noted) it almost always is understood as referring to the view that people should be free from outside coercion.

That's actually how libertarian socialists view it too, the difference is that they view enforcement of private property as coercion. They generally prefer a kind of "possession" of land based on occupancy+use (which excludes absentee ownership). Wikipedia has more on those views.

 

[Albion]

That's actually how libertarian socialists view it too, the difference is that they view enforcement of private property as coercion. They generally prefer a kind of "possession" of land based on occupancy+use (which excludes absentee ownership). Wikipedia has more on those views.

'Libertarian Socialism' is a good example of an oxymoron.

 

[FreedByte]

'Libertarian Socialism' is a good example of an oxymoron.

Given this response, I'm not sure if you read what I wrote.

It's only an oxymoron if you are considering state socialism, rather than libertarian socialism. I suggest that you actually learn about something before dismissing it just because you see the word "socialism". Socialism doesn't imply any government involvement.

 

[Albion]

That's actually how libertarian socialists view it too, the difference is that they view enforcement of private property as coercion. They generally prefer a kind of "possession" of land based on occupancy+use (which excludes absentee ownership). Wikipedia has more on those views.

These days, no one cares about "Libertarian Socialism," not any more than they care about "Christian Socialism" or "Utopian Socialism." In fact, hardly anyone has any idea what any of them mean. Marxist Socialism has scooped that field and Libertarianism is recognized--whenever the word is used--as standing for the freedom of the individual at the opposite end of the political spectrum.

 

[FreedByte]

These days, no one cares about "Libertarian Socialism," not any more than they care about "Christian Socialism" or "Utopian Socialism." In fact, hardly anyone has any idea what any of them mean.

That's not true. Noam Chomsky and many others use the term to describe their views.

Marxist Socialism has scooped that field and Libertarianism is recognized--whenever the word is used--as standing for the freedom of the individual at the opposite end of the political spectrum.

As I said before, libertarian socialism does not differ in standing for individual freedom, it differs in defining what individual freedom requires.

I'm not arguing that "libertarianism" means "libertarian socialism", I'm saying you can't dismiss libertarian socialism as a non-libertarian ideology simply because that's not the popular definition of libertarianism.

 

[ColoradoGrrrl21]

Hello fellow libertarians. I'll try to jump into the discussion better at some point, but for now just wanted to say "hello!" and that it's nice to see so many Christian libertarians here.

 

[FreedByte]

Hello fellow libertarians. I'll try to jump into the discussion better at some point, but for now just wanted to say "hello!" and that it's nice to see so many Christian libertarians here.

Hi

 

[Knee V]

Hello fellow libertarians. I'll try to jump into the discussion better at some point, but for now just wanted to say "hello!" and that it's nice to see so many Christian libertarians here.

Hello there!

 

[FreedByte]

"do what you want as long as you don't tread on anyone else."

Hi and welcome!

And in response, that seems pretty vague to me, what constitutes treading on someone else?

 

[FreedByte]

It's simple. If what you're doing infringes on my rights, you don't have the right to do it. I have the right to free speech. If you're prohibiting my free speech, you're treading on me.

But how do you determine what rights we have? Isn't it arbitrary?

 

[abysmul]

But how do you determine what rights we have? Isn't it arbitrary?

? Are you a libertarian?

 

[FreedByte]

? Are you a libertarian?

In some ways, yes (the civil and social sense).

If this is only for people who are libertarian across the board, I will happily leave.

 

[FreedByte]

Life. Liberty. The pursuit of happiness. Ring any bells?

Yes it rings bells, but it's still arbitrary. What if the government defined it as something else? What if the government said that "treading on" someone doesn't include treading on their property if they aren't putting that property to use or aren't occupying that property?

 

[FreedByte]

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are rights for all men, not just Americans.

You might want them to be, but not all governments grant their people those rights.

The government doesn't get to define what that means.

Then is it a coincidence that you happen to agree with the US government's definitions? The government does get to define what it means because it is the only enforcer.

The concept is very simple, and you're making it complicated.

On the contrary, it is a very complicated concept that is being oversimplified. It ignores questions like: to what extent is homesteading a valid way of accumulating property? To what extent can someone legitimately own land without actually using it? etc. These are questions libertarians need to address.

You should have the freedom to do as you please, so long as you aren't denying someone the same.

This is a simple definition with a wide variety of interpretations. Someone on the far-left would view all property ownership as stealing from the people something that cannot be owned. I'm not defending this position, I'm just using it to show that yours is not as simple as it seems.

 

[FreedByte]

As I understand it, debate is forbidden in these threads for the Republicans, Democrats, and Libertarians. As I find you annoying and don't wish to discuss these things with you, I'm done.

I'll order my beer, find a seat, and you can bugger off.

Alright then, I thought we were discussing a core libertarian principle and its validity, but apparently that thought was not mutual.

 

[ChrisBot]

This thread was split automatically after 1000 replies and this thread has been automatically closed.
The new thread automatically created is here: "Ye Olde Libertarian Pub (2)"