Libretarianism?

Remove all ads!

Almost every test I have taken has shown me to be a liberatarian. To me it can be summarized very easily.

I want government to be at the local level and to leave people alone. I do not want a government to tell me what I can and cannot do, and I do not want their hand in my wallet.

At the federal level, the government should be in charge of transportation and defense and that is about it.

 

The trouble with libertarianism is that you have to embrace it 100%. I just can't see adopting some libertarian laws while keeping others.

For example, if you legalize drugs with the libertarian notion that "hey, it's your body do what you want to it" then who's going to pay the medical bills of all those sick junkies who show up at local hospitals? They're broke because they've spent all their money on drugs and are too high all the time to work and earn money.

The pure libertarian view on this is "screw 'em" but the US would never just let them all rot in the streets.

Another problem with Libertarianism is that is assumes that charities will make up for the lack of government welfare. And since we'll have more money to spend under a Libertarian government, we'll have more money to donate to good causes.

Yeah right! I think most of us are pretty selfish and if the gov't was taking less of our paycheck we'd just buy bigger cars, bigger houses, fancier cellphones and go on more vacations. Donate to a charity that provides medical care to drug addicts? Pshaw!

 

Regarding libertarian/liberalism, I don't know if this holds any water regarding US usage of the words, but I have always seen liberalism as traditional right wing ideology, based upon the ideas of Locke, Smith, Von mises etc. While I view libertarianism as a leftist twist of the word used to support leftist causes, such as minority rights - enforced by the state - etc. As I said, I don't know if there is such relation in the US - from what I have read here it does not - but thats how I see it anyway.

 

As a liberatarian I have to disagree with this, various aspects of liberatarian policy can and have been implemented sepratly. The problem is only the most extreme liberatarian policies are often represented, most liberatarians make a political compromise and describe themselves as democrats or republicans, whichever they feel at the time to best represent them.

Liberatarianism does not entail simply privitizing everything. Of course some things should be privetized, but public services in which there is no compitition would still have to be provided by the state. In general governemnt should be minmized and made locally acountable.

 

Libertarianism sounds somewhat dodgy. I'm sympathetic to the pro-local government stance and pro-freedom - but absolutely can't see how handing everything over to corporations is going to help anyone. Better, I think, to have one central corporation (ie: the government) which we can blame all the screwups on and who have an interest in appeasing the populance than have many different ones running around screwing up their individual areas and probably without much care for the populance outside of how they can suck more money out of them.

Of course, my solution is to abolish both of them - so you probably shouldn't listen to me

 

I saw this topic again, and decided to come back to it. I think the problem lies in that Libertarian - as a political party - does not have anything to do with Liberalism - as a political movement founded some 100-200 or so years ago depending on where you live. At least, not as the term is used in the U.S. today.

 

In what way. All I've seen from "libertarian" parties is 20% simple and traditional laisser faire and 80% populism of the usual cheap kind. I know both from home. A extreme laisser faire stand like complete privatization of schools and such is liberal. It's a liberal party looking for voters with a huge populist touch.


And this side has pretty much the same program like your usual liberal party in Europe.

Indeed, their stand on immigration and on drugs is classic liberal.

 

Sorry - I wasn't avoiding this - I was away from a few days.

I think I also should point out that liberalism is a polical/social movement doesn't mean the same thing as being politically liberal. You seem to be taking terms that have different definitions as used today in American socio-politics and using them synominously. In fact, you did exactly that. I stated a difference between libertarianism and liberalism, and you turned it into a difference between the definition of libertarian and liberal.

There are three words being used: Liberal, liberalism, and libertarianism. And NONE of them mean the same thing other than having the same root word. Pretty much everyone in western society agrees with liberalism as a socio-political concept, and yes some of these people are liberal, and some may even be libertarian - it's certainly possible to be all three at once. However, just because the terms are not mutually exclusive doesn't mean that they are mutually inclusive either.

 

Not here. That is considered something conservatives have dreams about for any number of ideological reasons, which have nothing to do with education:

1. And this is a biggie: they despise the teachers union. Of course, they can't stand unions in general, but this one gets special attacks by conservative ideologues because it does what is supposed to do - protect its members.

2. Teachers are "liberal." Everyone knows that. Much like jouranlists and the media, and lawyers and judges, there are scientific surveys that prove beyond a doubt that the above are all "liberals." Replace them with corporate clones, and that solves that "problem."

3. Public school systems actually practice the American tradition of separation of church and state. Aren't they silly?

4. Public education is, well, public. Anything that is "public" is evil. We are talking about the "private" vs the public here regarding education. And that is really the difference in the libertarian/liberal situation. But are large corporations really private? Are religious schools really private? No, they are all special interests. The idea that they are in some way "private" is not really very accurate. But it has a nice warm, fuzzy, "ring" to it. Kinda like the elimination of Social Security being called "private accounts."

Follow any of these political hotwire issues and they all lead to libertarian/liberal differences.

[ March 15, 2006, 05:11: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Aldeth:

Well, as I stated in my inital post on this thread, the word "libertarian" is humbug. It should not be used. In fact, that's not the only place were American terminology is messed up (a federalist is a centralist ? !). Libertarian should not be used. Never ever. And under no circumstances from an European. Never ever. It should be dubbed liberal à la Austria or extremely liberal.

My ad-hoc and guessed history of the political correct nonsense "libertarian": Europeans went from Europe to the US in the 1930's until 1960's. There they arrived with their liberal ideas from home, yet found out that a liberal tradition in the US didn't exist (or only some fragments). And the word liberal was used in different ways. So they made a decision to conjure up a new term (liberatarian) to make their liberal positions known.

But that's problematic for many reasons

Firstly, there is obviously no strong liberal tradition in the US. That's troublesome, yet explains many things. And obviously, liberalism of the European kind is a completely foreign and alien concept. A concept completely unkown (or only available in small fragments, like "libertarian")

Secondly, because unnecessary new words creates myopia, misconception and misunderstandig. Thesy blurry the view. Liberal is a "false friend" (in the language translating sense". Do you think that the people that work for your daily paper (the main task of a daily paper is still to explain the world to his reader) really can get over are trunkhold of false friends that separate the US from the rest of the world and manage to understand the foreign terminology. Watching and reading some American media outlets, I am extremely doubtful. Terminology is a pond of its own.

Thirdly, because it causes a fashion trend. Suddenly everyone and his mother and cat are "libertarian".

fourthly, libertarian reminds me of Europop: Je, je suis libertine, Je suis une catin

And I say it again, there is nothing else in the libertarian party that you'll find in your average next door European liberal party.

Chandos

But this should not be. I think it is extremely unhealthy, because there is a whole package in "liberal". Those points are all liberal, just in an other degree and with a different assumption to reach the main goal.

In Switzerland, it was one of the liberal parties that decided 1848 that the school should be public and mandatory for everyone. Reason: liberalism demands maturity. There is no personal freedom without maturity (and insight). An etaistic sidestep that made the liberal parties number one until now. Some liberal paties want more laisser faire and "re-think" the public schools, yet they do not invent a fancy new name for themselves.

 

Well, yes. That is the same liberal movement as it was here in America, and the concept of education is the same: an educated electorate will lead t intelligent choices, and further towards the main goal, which is greater liberty for all. The difference now is that education is supposed to promote "productive members of society." That term can have any number of meanings (because it is a meaningless term), which can be viewed as libertarian and an approach that is wholly "private," rather than public. Hence the difference between liberal and libertarian in that the goals are not really the same.

 

Iago,

I've never been to Europe, so I have to assume that everything you're telling me about the political ideologues of Europe are completely true. I guess the only point I'm making is that the way the terms are used in Europe, are different than the way they are used here. While I respect your opinion, I do not think there is mass confusion regarding Libertarianism in the U.S. In fact, the Libertarian party is a rather small party, typically garnering less than 5% of the vote in popular elections. Over 90% of the country is either Democrat or Republican, so it's certainly not a case of it becoming a fashion trend and everyone joining the party.

 

Have you ever heard of someone that'is dyinging of deception like Shakira does in "don't bother"? So don't bother
I won't die of deception
I promise you won't ever see me cry

I venture that you didn't and that Shakira made mistake with a "false friend". A "false friend" is a problem that arises when dealing with different yet closely related languages, like German, English and Spanish. The "fales friend" is a word that is very similar in both languages yet may have a different meaning or is used in a different way. And usually, the worst and most embarrassing mistakes stem from "false friends" because they are so familiar, their meaning (falsely) is so obvious, no reflection necessary and the mistake goes unnoticed. And voilà, the mistake is made. A true misunderstanding.

Deception in English, I guess, means something like being misled, being tricked while in Spanish it means disappointment, dismay, to be let down... a frustrated feeling that makes one wanna die. And I think Shakira was tricked by a false friend. (I guess, I could be wrong of course)

Ok, so appearances are deceving, words even more. The "confusion" thing is two-fold. Or at least I see a two-fold problem. Obviously the word liberal is formally pretty much the same, but it's meaning is completely different. A false friend.

And the problem being:

A: Making a mistake by seeing liberal and translating it as liberal, which obviously is completely wrong. Example: A Swiss member of a liberal party converses with an American and states being a member of "liberal" party.

B. After finding out that liberalism isn't left wing but right wing... is the cultural concept behind "liberalism" understandable for each of them without doing thorough research of what the term actually means in both cultures, or better said in the potential involved multitude of cultures, wherever thay may crash?

I'd like to add something about the fashion trend too, but I fear this post has already outgrown the length of easy readabiltiy.

 

Alright, I'm going to try to clear up this confusion over defenitions once and for all, so listen up everyone:

-In AMERICA, the two major political parties (Democrats and Republicans) have become associated with two political philosophies: Libralism and Conservatism. To say someone is a "Liberal" is to say that they agree with the political stances of the Democrats, to say that someone is "Conservative" is to say that they share the viewpoints of the Republicans. Whatever "Liberal" philosophy really means, in modern-day America this meaning has been lost, because it is so closely associated with the views and philosophies of the Democrats.

-Now, Libretarians are members of the Libretarian party. Libretarianism is the word that encompases the viewpoints and political philosophies of the Libretarian party.
http://www.lp.org/
That is their website.

 

Well, if you read my posts and particularly the last one, you'll see that I actually asked two questions, i'll repeat and try to make them more understandable:

1. Why try to create a neologism for something that may be foreign to you, but does exist around the world and has its very own tradition. You keep calling spaghetti spaghetti too and don't replace the name with "long-red-thingies" or call a margherita alabama...

Emphasise on the WHY. You are aware that with the neologism "libertarian", you are importing something brand new and completely foreign, why not keep the brand, it would stress the novelty and prepare for that there is actually some work to put in before one can understand and appreciate the principal.

Or you run the risk that you mistake liberalism for a yearning and longing for the good old days as Germany and Austria were ruled by Emperors and a "von" was a "von". If you get my meaning.

2. Do you think that creating random neologism somehow may impair your view and understanding of the world and things going on? Or do you think there is no problem at all? For example, are you sure that people working in your media are able to discern all the false friends and are able to give you an adequate picture of what is going on in the outside world?

3. Libertarian is a complicate world, libertine.

here

 

Wow, Iago, thank you for the latest post, because I had no idea you were implying those three questions in the post previous to that. In fact, I was completely clueless as to what you were talking about at all, beyond how you were defining "false friends". I'm still not sure I understand completely, but I'll do my best to answer as best I'm able.

Because the tradition in America is different from other cultures in the world. There are many words that have their roots in the Greek language, but yet don't mean the exact same thing as they did in ancient Greece. What I'm saying is this isn't anything new - it's been happening for centuries. Maybe I don't understand exactly what you're asking, because it doesn't appear to me to be a novel concept.

I've never thought of that before, but I assume that this happens. We assume that the terms we here on various media refer mean what they mean to Americans, even though the words may have significantly different connotations in their original meaning, and how they were used in other parts of the world. Of course, most Americans don't both with U.S. news, never mind world news, so for most people it doesn't matter.

Was this an attempt at a pun? Unless libertine also has a very different meaning in Europe. Here's the English definition of the word:

 

Iago, the 4th defenition that you gave for Libretarian is the one I started this post to discuss. I'm sorry if it caused confusion, but I don't know what the European word to describe the ideals of the Libretarian party is.

 

[Edited] As it's a long post, for easy reading, the first half is trying to clarify the debate that has been going on the last two pages. The second half, I have addressed the actaul question possed at the begining. Hope it helps [/Edit]

Liberalism itself is like democracy, a very wide term that includes many many beliefs. Like someone mentioned above, Libretarians are liberals.

The type of Liberal that Iago is speaking of, if I'm not mistaken (although I could very well be, it's not all that clear to me), is the Modern Liberalism belief; where as Libretarian (once agian, from what I understand, I don't know much about American politics) is Neo-Liberal, which is more closely aligned with the Classical Liberal notions.

Classical Liberalism, as has been described above under verious names, is the belief in individualism and freedom. It describes freedom as the absense of restrcitions and rules. Notice the negative definition. This refers to less governmental control and regulation, more market oreintated things. They believe that the state should just be a neutral body who is there to sort out any disagreements and so forth that may arise, but not play an active part in the market. Neo-Liberalism, from my understanding, is a revival of this belief under a different name. This belief is right-winged, using the traditional spectrum.

Modern Liberalism, while still maintaining the belief in individualism and freedom, define freedom differently, which makes a very big difference. They define it as the power for all members of society alike to make the best of themselves. They say that freedom is this, instead of freedom isn't that. They believe that to have proper freedom all people must have an equal start. Everyone should be educated. There shouldn't be descrimination. And so on. This Liberalism is more associated with Left-Wing belief, although of course the left-right spectrum is relevent to modern society and changes.

I think what you have missed out, Iago, is that beliefs do change. Beliefs and ideas are ever evolving. And particularly with an idea as broad as Liberalism, there aer many many different off-shoots of it which still count as Liberalism, including Libretarism.

[Edit III]
Just found a nice quote from the Politcal Ideologies book, called Political Ideologies; An Introduction by Andrew Heywood.

Bolded added in the important part.[/Edit]


Regarding the initial question though, as it is about time to get back on topic, I am personally more aligned with the Modern Liberalism beliefs. I would say that although having no government restrictions and interventions in the market, like the Neo-Liberals (and Libertarians, if I understand right) wish is complete freedom, I do not think it gives everyone a chance to make the most of that freedom.

I cannot see how the government not intervening in the market (although I think that it should only be a very limited capacity - when we get to things like tarrifs and some of the things that governments in the EU do to encourage farming, it gets a bit rediculas) is needed for people to be equal. Or atleast more equal.

Without government intervention in some manners (such as public education, sickness benefits, anti-discrimination laws, etc) we see what happens in many countries, where there is a massive seperation between the wealthy and the poor. All the wealth and resources will be held by very few, oppressing (and I use that word reluctantly) the poor.

(Please note: this is without a government intervening. Talking about the oppression of the poor by the wealthy in the same sentence gave me the ideas that I was referring to marxism, but they believe that the government does that. Just thought I would mention that, incase someone else misunderstood what I was saying, as it got me for a few moments, and I wrote it!)

[Edited word order]

[ March 27, 2006, 05:11: Message edited by: Rotku ]

 

Ooops. Sorry, I wasn’t aware that I was confusing. And sorry that it took so long.

To “Flase Friends/cognates”

here

And Shakira was wrong! «deception» in Spanish -> painful disappointment. And I’m 100% that in English, «deception» means «illusion». Shakira obviously stumbled over a “false friend”. I think the Shakira example is quite illustrative about the importance of “false friends”. They are the Scylla and Charybdis of every translation and even more so daily conversation and it happens to the best and even mulit-million selling record artists and the staff of their labels.

That is, I still might err, and “dying of deception” is in fact proper English.

Well, if I am right, “deception” belongs to more dangerous kinds of “false friends”. Those who have a twin in another language that doesn’t make the mistake instantly obvious. For example, if someone is going to a lake and is talking about going to the sea, the mistake is instantly recognised by an English speaker who knows that there is no ocean in sight. It’s lake and not “sea”. (Yes, I struggle with the concept of “sea” meaning “ocean” and not “small pond in the backyard”)


That’s why translators are also required to have a in-depth cultural understanding of both languages and knowledge about the subject matter. Even if disciplines like chemistry evade this problem with using extra symbolic and internationally valid standard definition, to translate a whole book about chemistry, someone has to know both languages and a significant amount of chemistry.


Yet with the words like deception and liberal, things are more difficult, there is the possibility of a hidden misunderstanding. Because there is no obvious grammatical error involved and most of the said things make sense. That’s a serious danger of a prolonged or even permanent misunderstanding without the chance to realise it.

The root would be latin, but even more important: Continental European. The problem with the world is two-fold: One one hand, the different meaning in English and on the other hand, the continental European concept.

Now, development around the Atlantic in the last 4 centuries is not unlike the development around the Mediterranean in greek times, -> sitting like frogs around one single small pond, thoughts and ideas travel faster than mere people and not only since modern communication.

But even more so, I think there at least were two times that liberal thought has reached American shores by immigration waves, besides the obvious liberal Jefferson and Madison and co. Liberal Refugees from the failed liberal revolutions of 1848 and liberal refugees from around 1925 to 1944. I think this second wave brought the “libertarian” party about, i.e. spread their liberal thinking.

Edit: Both waves, I think the post 1848's may have had their influence, bringing the civil war about... for good reason and liberal priniple.

And there's is a certain problem with the fact that they left Europe with, actually understandable, bad feelings and to many of them, democracy is merely a prelude to a dictatorship. As it was in Austria, Spain, Italy and Germany.

The "cultural concept"... I think this translation decision from an American puts it way better across than I:

http://www.mises.org/easier/L.asp#17

[ March 27, 2006, 21:50: Message edited by: Iago ]

 

I'm an American, and I wouldn't define a deception as an illusion. You can certainly use an illusion as part of a deception, but you don't require an illusion for a deception. Deception is the noun form of the verb deceive - which basically means to fool or trick - and thus, it implies malicious intent. A magician uses illusions, but I wouldn't really classify them as deceptions, because he's just providing entertainment. The word deception is more than just tricking someone - it usually implies that it's not just a prank, but that you're tricking someone for the purpose of personal gain.