Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ocassus)
    No... Just... Stop


    A libertarian is usually associated with the classical liberalist ideology, economically conservative and socially liberal.


    You are no better than the occupy protestor i had a chat to who claimed Adam smith was a socialist. :rofl:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wriQGI5NGOM

    Am I going to listen to the most educated and important intellectual alive today OR a random kid on the internet? Hmmm... Tough choice...

    :teehee:

    You have no idea what you're talking about.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ocassus)
    A libertarian is usually associated with the classical liberalist ideology, economically conservative and socially liberal.
    Well, that association is false. A right-wing libertarian is, ironically, oxymoronic.

    (Original post by Ocassus)
    You are no better than the occupy protestor i had a chat to who claimed Adam smith was a socialist. :rofl:
    "As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce"


    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I'm massively boring and despise radicalism of any sort. Ayn Rand and Karl Marx are equaly vomit-inducing as far as I'm concerned. By all means tweak a few things here and there, but I'm indescribably glad that no mainstream politician could ever advocate anything other than the mixed economy and the welfare state in this country.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mysteries)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wriQGI5NGOM

    Am I going to listen to the most educated and important intellectual alive today OR a random kid on the internet? Hmmm... Tough choice...

    :teehee:

    You have no idea what you're talking about.
    Noam chomsky? Most educated and intellectual person on the planet? I nearly scared half the peole on the bus with a most maniacal laugh at that statement. The man is an influential political thinker yes, but by no means can you qualify that statement. Indeed, the very credibility of your claim is undermined because of the present correlation of biases in your political point of view and his.

    I'll counter then, read some 'books'. Andrew Heywood might be a good start, UoM lecturer and head of their politics and IR department. His most recent publication emphasises clearly that a libertarian can be either on the right or left of the spectrum, however they are both on the 'liberal' side of the compass. However, when he explains the various different sections of the right wing, he terms classical liberalism to be broadly used as a synonym for libertarianism. Let's look at the US shall we? Hmm, I wonder where the libertarian party stands on the spectrum hmm? What about LPUK?

    I am not saying that libertarianism is never used to referred to the 'modern liberalist' ideas that are espoused on the left, but your claim that it is the predominant synonym is quite frankly, ridiculous.



    Oh, and appeal to authority and all that good stuff.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Socktor)
    Well, that association is false. A right-wing libertarian is, ironically, oxymoronic.
    Ehm, classical liberalism and negative freedom, look it up.



    "As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce"


    You seem to be seeing something of a negative connotation in that statement, Adam smith actively advocated invisible hand and attrition economics, labour exploitation merely represents a cog in his model.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Classical Liberal)
    Firstly, what if there are no unemployed.
    And this is where the business cycle comes into play.

    Secondly, the embolden part does not follow.
    If I choose to spend money on something, it means I'm not spending it on something else.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by floridadad55)
    Anarchism:

    How so?

    Are you saying that the South Korean economy is not stronger than the North Korean economy? Have you seen the pictures from outer space of the two Koreas at night? North Korea is totally dark. South Korea is lit up like a firecracker.

    Are you saying that West Germany did not have a stronger economy than East Germany?

    Are you saying that Taiwan did not have a better economy than pre-reform China?

    Are you saying that the Cubans of Havana have a stronger economy than the Cubans of Miami?

    And for that matter, are you saying that post reform India today does not have a stronger economy than it did during its socialist days?

    And did not pre-socialist Ukraine produce a lot more food when compared to socialist Ukraine?

    It seems pretty clear to be that capitalism, despite its faults, has won this "election", and by a landslide. This does not mean capitalism does not need some reforms as well, of course. But let us not throw out the baby with the bath water.
    Unless by 'socialist Ukraine', you mean the Makhnovists (which I doubt you do), I wouldn't consider any of those states socialist.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ocassus)
    A libertarian is usually associated with the classical liberalist ideology, economically conservative and socially liberal.
    And that's a uniquely anglospheric thing, and didn't even exist there until recently. For over a century, libertarian always referred to the far-left. Nozick probably gets the blame for changing it.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ocassus)
    Noam chomsky? Most educated and intellectual person on the planet? I nearly scared half the peole on the bus with a most maniacal laugh at that statement. The man is an influential political thinker yes, but by no means can you qualify that statement. Indeed, the very credibility of your claim is undermined because of the present correlation of biases in your political point of view and his.
    Well such things are always subject to debate. I will point out however that Noam Chomsky was voted the most important public intellectual alive the 2005 poll by Foreign Policy (a US magazine) and is commonly referred to as such in many circles. He definitely ranks in the top 10 regardless of your political persuasion.

    I'll counter then, read some 'books'. Andrew Heywood might be a good start, UoM lecturer and head of their politics and IR department. His most recent publication emphasises clearly that a libertarian can be either on the right or left of the spectrum, however they are both on the 'liberal' side of the compass. However, when he explains the various different sections of the right wing, he terms classical liberalism to be broadly used as a synonym for libertarianism. Let's look at the US shall we? Hmm, I wonder where the libertarian party stands on the spectrum hmm? What about LPUK?

    I am not saying that libertarianism is never used to referred to the 'modern liberalist' ideas that are espoused on the left, but your claim that it is the predominant synonym is quite frankly, ridiculous.
    Incorrect. Did you even watch the video? As others have pointed out, it is only in the United States (and now Britain it seems) that Libertarianism has come to mean the OPPOSITE of what it means everywhere else. From Wikipedia:

    In most parts of the world, the terms "libertarian" and "libertarianism" are synonymous with Left anarchism.[13] It is only in the United States that the term libertarian is commonly associated with those who have conservative positions on economic issues and liberal positions on social issues.[14] This is based on the common meanings of "conservative" and "liberal" in the United States.
    So for the 400 million idiots brainwashed by Anglo-Saxon capitalist propaganda 'libertarian' means, as Chomsky said, "an extreme advocate of total tyranny." But for the remaining 6.6 BILLION people on this planet the term libertarian has always been associated with far left anarchism.

    Please get the terminology correct before you discuss "complicated" things like politics because people with such a vague understanding of the matter really make any sort of dialogue impossible.

    You're making yourself look quite the uneducated rube...
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mysteries)
    Well such things are always subject to debate. I will point out however that Noam Chomsky was voted the most important public intellectual alive the 2005 poll by Foreign Policy (a US magazine) and is commonly referred to as such in many circles. He definitely ranks in the top 10 regardless of your political persuasion.
    Mmm no, I would contend that very few 'true intellectuals' would reside in the political sphere at all. Intelligence is also not a populist perception, you cannot base the truth of somebodies ability to rationalise off of a democratic vote. Furthermore, Foreign Policy is critically anti-israel, so is Chomsky, the readership is going to reflect that, the sample voting size is not a plausible representation of the wider population anyway. Chomsky in my view is not an important intellectual by any stretch, he is influential and certainly a great deal more credible than the likes of Micheal Moore, but he is not important.

    Incorrect. Did you even watch the video? As others have pointed out, it is only in the United States (and now Britain it seems) that Libertarianism has come to mean the OPPOSITE of what it means everywhere else. From Wikipedia:
    Yes, from wikipedia.

    (Original post by Wikipedia)
    Libertarianism generally refers to the group of political philosophies which emphasize freedom, individual liberty, and voluntary association. Libertarians generally advocate a society with small or no government power.
    I am a Libertarian because I advocate the above. There are just different interpretations of the above, some which believe freedom to be 'Negative' and some which believe it to be 'Positive'.

    So for the 400 million idiots brainwashed by Anglo-Saxon capitalist propaganda 'libertarian' means, as Chomsky said, "an extreme advocate of total tyranny." But for the remaining 6.6 BILLION people on this planet the term libertarian has always been associated with far left anarchism.
    Total tyranny = Right wing Libertarianism? I beg your pardon? As I stated above, SMALL GOVERNMENT is the aim of Libertarianism, regardless of which side of the economic line you fall under.
    Let me further start quoting Wikipedia, which says that Libertarianism falls under three distinct definitions that all have different philosophies regarding Positive and Negative freedoms. Most importantly I must note, the original being 'Classical Liberalism' from the 18th century, Post Enlightenment which I should remind you, PRECEDES the anarchistic definition.

    EDIT : It is also rather prudish to dismiss an argument on the basis that the proponent of an argument is 'Brainwashed', somewhat overly-contrarian thinking no?

    Please get the terminology correct before you discuss "complicated" things like politics because people with such a vague understanding of the matter really make any sort of dialogue impossible.

    You're making yourself look quite the uneducated rube...

    Oxford, Magdelen College, PPE.

    Implied Ad Hominem fallacy.

    Part of your argument hinges on circular logic.

    That is all.

    Double EDIT : Oh, and your wiki link where it talks about Libertarianism being synonymous with left-anarchism is SOURCED from Chomsky himself. So that is a null point.


    Triple edit : From a ****ing dictionary; 'advocating liberty or conforming to principles of liberty.'
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    And that's a uniquely anglospheric thing, and didn't even exist there until recently. For over a century, libertarian always referred to the far-left. Nozick probably gets the blame for changing it.
    Post Enlightenment Classical Liberalism is a recent thing? :iiam:
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ocassus)
    Post Enlightenment Classical Liberalism is a recent thing? :iiam:
    Them calling themselves 'libertarians' is a recent thing.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Them calling themselves 'libertarians' is a recent thing.
    As I said above, Libertarianism is defined, formally, in the dictionary as the following.

    (Original post by Oxford English Dictionary)
    [ADJ] Advocating liberty or conforming to principles of liberty.
    Classical Liberalism adheres to those points, so what justification is there for denying any plausibility for a Classical Liberal to call themselves Libertarian?

    The dispute lies in what one defines as 'Liberty', and aside from Chomsky, I can find a great deal of academics who advocate that Libertarianism is all about individualism and responsibility rather than collective communes and anarcho-socialism.

    Tomato Sauces

    http://www.theihs.org/what-libertarian

    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...al+Libertarian

    http://civilliberty.about.com/od/lib...n_Movement.htm

    There are a vast many more.

    Edit : Oh and ironically, upon closer inspection.

    (Original post by Legal Dictionary)
    Libertarianism can be traced back to ancient China, where philosopher Lao-tzu advocated the recognition of individual liberties.
    Anglospheric eh? :l
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    Why are you all arguing what the word libertarian means? It is juast a word. We all know what all the beliefs are, whether they refer to themselves as 'libertarian socialist' or 'conservative libertarian'.
    Generally libertarianism is a socially liberal viewpoint. It has no economic implications.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ocassus)
    As I said above, Libertarianism is defined, formally, in the dictionary as the following.
    And that's quite a broad and subjective definition.

    Edit : Oh and ironically, upon closer inspection.
    So he obviously meant classical liberalism, an ideology which didn't even exist at the time.

    And you aren't responding to what I've said. 'Libertarian' meaning classical liberal dates from the 1960s and 1970s. 'Libertarian' meaning anarchist dates from the 1850s. And prior to that no-one really used it to mean a political ideology (a few used it for philosophical concepts, but these were few and far between and it meant different things)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ocassus)
    Mmm no, I would contend that very few 'true intellectuals' would reside in the political sphere at all. Intelligence is also not a populist perception, you cannot base the truth of somebodies ability to rationalise off of a democratic vote. Furthermore, Foreign Policy is critically anti-israel, so is Chomsky, the readership is going to reflect that, the sample voting size is not a plausible representation of the wider population anyway. Chomsky in my view is not an important intellectual by any stretch, he is influential and certainly a great deal more credible than the likes of Micheal Moore, but he is not important.



    Yes, from wikipedia.



    I am a Libertarian because I advocate the above. There are just different interpretations of the above, some which believe freedom to be 'Negative' and some which believe it to be 'Positive'.



    Total tyranny = Right wing Libertarianism? I beg your pardon? As I stated above, SMALL GOVERNMENT is the aim of Libertarianism, regardless of which side of the economic line you fall under.
    Let me further start quoting Wikipedia, which says that Libertarianism falls under three distinct definitions that all have different philosophies regarding Positive and Negative freedoms. Most importantly I must note, the original being 'Classical Liberalism' from the 18th century, Post Enlightenment which I should remind you, PRECEDES the anarchistic definition.

    EDIT : It is also rather prudish to dismiss an argument on the basis that the proponent of an argument is 'Brainwashed', somewhat overly-contrarian thinking no?




    Oxford, Magdelen College, PPE.

    Implied Ad Hominem fallacy.

    Part of your argument hinges on circular logic.

    That is all.

    Double EDIT : Oh, and your wiki link where it talks about Libertarianism being synonymous with left-anarchism is SOURCED from Chomsky himself. So that is a null point.


    Triple edit : From a ****ing dictionary; 'advocating liberty or conforming to principles of liberty.'
    Please... Could you be any more smug and pretentious? An Oxford education is hardly a sign of intelligence, especially these days... Some of the dumbest people in the world went to the best universities and they fail everyday to solve the most basic and obvious problems in human society. Just look at our politicians!

    Your opinions on Chomsky are irrelevant. Most people consider him more than 'important' so you're on your own with that one... But I digress... Let's discuss the facts.

    Both left-wing and right-wing libertarians advocate very small or no government. Agreed?

    What you right-wingers seem to ignore is the fact that if we were to abolish the government or significantly reduce its influence and deregulate the markets who do you think would take over? That's right! The corporations.

    They already have FAR too much influence in the public domain. They would end up running the world and exploiting people even MORE than they already do so. Remember that they have no allegiance to ANY nations and operate with the sole intent of making a profit in any way possible. There is nothing democratic about how a corporation is run. That's what Chomsky was referring to when he made the "tyranny" analogy. At least where the state is concerned the people tend to have SOME say in how it operates. Not so when it comes to corporations.

    This would lead to even GREATER poverty and inequality than what we witness today.

    So tell me, from one libertarian to another, how do you address this eventuality?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    And that's quite a broad and subjective definition.



    So he obviously meant classical liberalism, an ideology which didn't even exist at the time.

    And you aren't responding to what I've said. 'Libertarian' meaning classical liberal dates from the 1960s and 1970s. 'Libertarian' meaning anarchist dates from the 1850s. And prior to that no-one really used it to mean a political ideology (a few used it for philosophical concepts, but these were few and far between and it meant different things)

    It is the dictionary definition, that is all that really matters no? If it can be applied to both ideologies then where is the discrepancy? As I have also said before, there seems to be more consensus with academics that Libertarianism is a Classically liberalist philosophy, that branches out into Anarcho-Capitalism, Anarcho-Socialism, Out-and-out anarchism etcetera.
    The definition that is given fits all of these things, so for one part of the spectrum to monopolise it as their own term is ridiculous.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ocassus)
    It is the dictionary definition, that is all that really matters no? If it can be applied to both ideologies then where is the discrepancy? As I have also said before, there seems to be more consensus with academics that Libertarianism is a Classically liberalist philosophy, that branches out into Anarcho-Capitalism, Anarcho-Socialism, Out-and-out anarchism etcetera.
    The definition that is given fits all of these things, so for one part of the spectrum to monopolise it as their own term is ridiculous.
    You are still completely ignoring my point, which is that classical liberals describing themselves anywhere as 'libertarians' is a recent thing. Anarchists doing so has much more history. Yet you seem obsessed with trying to turn this into a debate about something else.

    Also, 'anarcho-capitalism' is an oxymoron and 'anarcho-socialism' is a tautology.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'm a Libertarian.

    So I'd probably fit in your 'capitalist' label but it'd be real capitalism, i.e. free-market principles (essentially Austrian economics) not the kind that Britain has today.

    To be honest I'd rather not label myself though, I like to take the parts of all the 'isms' and make my own!
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mysteries)
    Please... Could you be any more smug and pretentious? An Oxford education is hardly a sign of intelligence, especially these days... Some of the dumbest people in the world went to the best universities and they fail everyday to solve the most basic and obvious problems in human society. Just look at our politicians!
    You believe Politicians are in positions of sufficient power to solve the worlds problems? My god, can't you understand the basic principle that you cannot please everybody, and peoples ideal worlds will ALWAYS differ? Politicians have to work with what they have and what the majority will reasonably accept, they cannot act radically or prioritise one thing over the other because it damages their future ability to do so. If a politician tries to solve poverty in foreign countries, people will bandwagon onto the fact he is not solving things in his own country, there are consequences with opposite reactions for every action, positive or negative. To suggest that even the most educated person could have such an impact is ridiculous.
    In regards to me sounding 'snooty or smug', well sorry, lets not call let the pot call the kettle black though right? You were the one throwing around words such as 'uneducated rube'.

    Your opinions on Chomsky are irrelevant. Most people consider him more than 'important' so you're on your own with that one... But I digress... Let's discuss the facts.
    Appeal to majority, this is a non-argument. Chomsky is not 'important' because he is popular, his views are no more or less valid. It is also worth pointing out he is far more 'important' to the people who align with his political views, strange correlation for somebody who is meant to espouse objectivity in order to convince skeptics.

    Both left-wing and right-wing libertarians advocate very small or no government. Agreed? Agreed.

    What you right-wingers seem to ignore is the fact that if we were to abolish the government or significantly reduce its influence and deregulate the markets who do you think would take over? That's right! The corporations.
    I don't advocate Anarcho-Capitalism though, that is one branch of Right-Libertarianism. Don't lump everybody into the same block. I advocate pluralist government and open forum Politics.

    They already have FAR too much influence in the public domain. They would end up running the world and exploiting people even MORE than they already do so. Remember that they have no allegiance to ANY nations and operate with the sole intent of making a profit in any way possible. There is nothing democratic about how a corporation is run. That's what Chomsky was referring to when he made the "tyranny" analogy. At least where the state is concerned the people tend to have SOME say in how it operates. Not so when it comes to corporations.
    I have several things to say to this.
    Firstly, I would never wish to see Corporations 'take over' so to speak, like I said, an open forum.
    Secondly, a Corporation ultimately exists because of other people. A corporation uses money as its lifeblood, and it would run dry without financial committal. A corporation that is of no use to the rest of society or atleast a substantial section of society, would wither and die without support. Fundamentals of Supply and Demand economics.
    Thirdly, Right wing libertarianism, as I have said before, is NOT necessarily Anarcho-Capitalism, as there is a good deal of disagreement within the ideologies between how far the state should be scaled back.

    This would lead to even GREATER poverty and inequality than what we witness today.

    So tell me, from one libertarian to another, how do you address this eventuality?
    Well from my perspective, state interference has artificially tampered with the market mechanism. It has allowed powerful conglomerates to afford themselves wealth which does not belong to them. So I would kick out Political favoritism to corporations and collective business interests, they have no place in Politics. Politics should work on an individual level, it should work in a forum of ideas and discussions, which best produce rational outcomes, not a complex system of financial and political pressures that it operates on now.
    In a proper legal framework, the CEO of a FTSE 500 company should not be able to buy more direct influence or representation over the state than any other human being.

    Poverty and inequality are issues, and I do believe they will forever persist, but there are things we can do to reduce them. Charity initiatives are important, if society is based on empathetic individualism, one is more likely to be able to provide voluntary superstructure to those who need it. In addition, the Private sector when structured around a subjective, majority-inspired moral 'system' (Think corporate structures like John Lewis, which are run on that basis entirely voluntarily), is the most efficient and best way to provide fulfillment and prosperity, whilst still maintaining the principles of Negative Liberty and self-reliance.
    The supposed 'Fat cats' that people berate at humans aswell as everybody else, if they wish to take a greater slice of their private capital, then that is their prerogative, the goal is not coercion. I think humans are inherently self-interested, the goal is to show everybody that a system based on production (The Free market) combined with a Socially liberal system that promotes acceptance, tolerance and charity is the best way to structure society, so that both they and everybody else benefits simultaneously.

    I hope that sheds some light.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.