Libertarianism means nothing.

[Figleaf]

Libertarianism doesn't make any sense. Supposedly it advocates limited government, but what dose that mean, really? What reference points are there to determine what is 'limited' enough? How, if at all, does that differ theoretically from straight up liberalism?

As there are not good answers to those questions, Libertarianism in practice just amounts to a name for individual complaints about governments ... I say the GST is bad, you say there at too many civil servants, he says to much is spent on national parks, she says ....

[Renegade]

I think it was discussed here : Libertarianism

[Figleaf]

I don't think this variation on the issue is canvassed there.

[Slavik44]

So if you met a person who told you they were a social conservative and supported Gay Marriage, Stem cell research, abortion, and Drug Legalization. Would you conclude Social conservatives don't make any sense or that the person in reference was just misnaming themselves?

[Figleaf]

So if you met a person who told you they were a social conservative and supported Gay Marriage, Stem cell research, abortion, and Drug Legalization. Would you conclude Social conservatives don't make any sense or that the person in reference was just misnaming themselves?

I already know social conservativism doesn't make any sense.

My point about libertarianism is not about outliers misnaming themselves, its about the movement itself having no meaningful distinguishing content.

[Canadian Blue]

Libertarianism tend's to advocate free markets with full individual liberties. If you have ever done a political test you would find their are four area's, Libertarian, Statist, Conservative, and Liberal. Libertarianism is more concerned with individual freedom's and liberty.

Libertarianism doesn't make any sense. Supposedly it advocates limited government, but what dose that mean, really? What reference points are there to determine what is 'limited' enough? How, if at all, does that differ theoretically from straight up liberalism?

Liberalism tend's to be for government intervention in the economy, and often in order to facilitate social change. Libertarianism tend's to support the ideal that it is up to individual's and not the government to bring about social change.

http://www.theihs.org/search/home_result.asp

http://www.politopia.com/interactive_map.htm#

It does make sense, since it supports the idea that people deserve the right to live their lives however they want, economically and socially, and the government should not interfere.

[Figleaf]

Liberalism tend's to be for government intervention in the economy, and often in order to facilitate social change.

No, that is not liberalism, that's social democrats or further left.

Libertarianism tend's to support the ideal that it is up to individual's and not the government to bring about social change.

I've never heard that libertarians are particularly interested in social change, except reducing the scale and scope of government (which presumably requires collective, not individual, action.)

It does make sense, since it supports the idea that people deserve the right to live their lives however they want, economically and socially, and the government should not interfere.

That's meaningless. Libertarians don't want to destroy all government, so they are for SOME level of government. But what is that level? How do they draw the lines, theoretically, between enough and too much government?

[Wilber]

That's meaningless. Libertarians don't want to destroy all government, so they are for SOME level of government. But what is that level? How do they draw the lines, theoretically, between enough and too much government?

Why just libertarians? That's everyones dillema. Some people thing more government is better, some think less is better but I doubt any of them know the answer as to how much.

[ClearWest]

Libertarians don't want to destroy all government, so they are for SOME level of government. But what is that level? How do they draw the lines, theoretically, between enough and too much government?

Good question! Here's one answer, given by a former chairman of the Libertarian party of Ontario - Marilee Haylock:

Libertarians do not look at government as a sacrosanct body that cannot be questioned, but simply as the agency which has a monopoly on the legal use of force. Libertarians therefore address themselves to one basic question: What is the proper justification for the use of government's coercive power?

The Libertarian answer is that government power must be used only to protect the individual from the use of force or fraud by others.

[Figleaf]

That's meaningless. Libertarians don't want to destroy all government, so they are for SOME level of government. But what is that level? How do they draw the lines, theoretically, between enough and too much government?

Why just libertarians? That's everyones dillema. Some people thing more government is better, some think less is better but I doubt any of them know the answer as to how much.

It's libertarians who's sole point is the size/scope of government. Other philosophies are about other things.

[Figleaf]

Libertarians do not look at government as a sacrosanct body that cannot be questioned, but simply as the agency which has a monopoly on the legal use of force. Libertarians therefore address themselves to one basic question: What is the proper justification for the use of government's coercive power?

The Libertarian answer is that government power must be used only to protect the individual from the use of force or fraud by others.

That doesn't really explain much though. Why limit gov. to only protection from force and fraud? How are they to be defined?

[Canadian Blue]

QUOTE(Canadian Blue @ Dec 31 2006, 04:28 PM)

Liberalism tend's to be for government intervention in the economy, and often in order to facilitate social change.

No, that is not liberalism, that's social democrats or further left.

QUOTE

Libertarianism tend's to support the ideal that it is up to individual's and not the government to bring about social change.

I've never heard that libertarians are particularly interested in social change, except reducing the scale and scope of government (which presumably requires collective, not individual, action.)

QUOTE

It does make sense, since it supports the idea that people deserve the right to live their lives however they want, economically and socially, and the government should not interfere.

That's meaningless. Libertarians don't want to destroy all government, so they are for SOME level of government. But what is that level? How do they draw the lines, theoretically, between enough and too much government?

I'll try to answer your question's.

Liberalism tend's to be for government intervention in the economy, and often in order to facilitate social change.

No, that is not liberalism, that's social democrats or further left.

Classical liberalism I'm assuming is what you subscribe to, that is basically moderate libertarianism. Many liberal's including Federal Liberal's believe government is responsible for facilitating social change.

That doesn't really explain much though. Why limit gov. to only protection from force and fraud? How are they to be defined?

I believe libertarianism strongly supports the notion of personal responsibility which is a notion which should be adopted by most democracies. I'm sick of hearing people suing for million's for doing something they knew would be harmful to them [eating fast food, smoking, irresponsibility with weapons]. Most libertarian's believe the government's only role is too protect individual liberties, so a police force, military, and judicial system. However their are many different idea's with libertarianism, and school's of thought, the same as any other political philosophy.

I've never heard that libertarians are particularly interested in social change, except reducing the scale and scope of government (which presumably requires collective, not individual, action.)

Libertarian's support everyone having equal rights, and being free to live their personal lives the way they want. Live and let live is the attitude among most libertarian's, so if you wanna smoke cocaine go ahead as long as you don't endanger anybody else while doing it. Same with all victimless crimes.

That's meaningless. Libertarians don't want to destroy all government, so they are for SOME level of government. But what is that level? How do they draw the lines, theoretically, between enough and too much government?

Libertarian's, not anarchists. They support government so as to ensure that people's individual liberties are protected. However they believe in legalizing all "victimless crimes" and allowing the free market to have all power over the economy. Personal responsibility is an essential part of libertarianism.

[Renegade]

Libertarianism doesn't make any sense. Supposedly it advocates limited government, but what dose that mean, really? What reference points are there to determine what is 'limited' enough? How, if at all, does that differ theoretically from straight up liberalism?

As there are not good answers to those questions, Libertarianism in practice just amounts to a name for individual complaints about governments ... I say the GST is bad, you say there at too many civil servants, he says to much is spent on national parks, she says ....

I think to answer your question you have to ask another "What should be the role of government vs the individual?"

On a gradient, at one extreme, an anarchist would say that the government should play no role and all responsibility should be assumed at an individual level. Slightly left of an anarchist, a libertarian would say that the government should assume responsibilities in a few areas such as the protection of individual rights, but no role in other areas such as wealth redistribution. Extreme left-wing views would see the government having a role in virtually everything.

Interestingly, many of the ideals of Libetarianism, lead to policies which match those of social leftists. (eg abortion, SSM, separation of church and state, etc) however Libertarianism fiscal policies would be very close to conservative fiscal policies.

[ClearWest]

Like many political movements, I see Libertarianism as more of a direction rather than a destination. Just like conservatives want to push for more traditional values, new democrats want to push for more social programs, greens want to push for more environmental regulation; Libertarians want to push for more personal freedoms and responsibilities - thus less government.

Right now there is a very blatant trend going on in government, it is getting bigger and more all-encompassing. Sure, every once in a while a new reigning party will cut back on spending here, or cut back on regulation there. But if you look at the big picture, we have more government monopolies and government place in people's lives than ever before in this part of the world. Libertarians want to reverse that trend, and they seem to be the only party that really wants to do that.

The reason why most libertarians set out 'protection from force or fraud' as the only legitimate role of government: As "an agency which has a monopoly on the legal use of force" we need to determine what is the right thing for that power to be used for. Some argue that that power shouldn't even exist - but it does, so I think the best thing we can do is contain it, limit it, and take it in the right direction through the democratic process, and the process of educational discussion.

[August1991]

Here's one answer, given by a former chairman of the Libertarian party of Ontario - Marilee Haylock:

Libertarians do not look at government as a sacrosanct body that cannot be questioned, but simply as the agency which has a monopoly on the legal use of force. Libertarians therefore address themselves to one basic question: What is the proper justification for the use of government's coercive power?

The Libertarian answer is that government power must be used only to protect the individual from the use of force or fraud by others.

Why should the government have to protect the individual from fraud? Is a government bureaucrat better at detecting fraud than an individual (excepting perhaps a child)?

I would say that government bureaucrats have an important role to play in a civilized society but detecting fraud is not one of those roles. I'm not even certain that protecting individuals from the use of force is an important role.

[Figleaf]

Thank you, Canadian Blue, Renegade, and ClearWest for your replies, but I don't think any of you have really addressed the issue I have raised. Why is certain gov. activity thought good, but others not? How does Libertarianism draw its lines?

What theoretical or conceptual framework allows a libertarian to determine that government should protect property from theft, but not protect common interests from devastation, for example?

[Renegade]

Thank you, Canadian Blue, Renegade, and ClearWest for your replies, but I don't think any of you have really addressed the issue I have raised. Why is certain gov. activity thought good, but others not? How does Libertarianism draw its lines?

What theoretical or conceptual framework allows a libertarian to determine that government should protect property from theft, but not protect common interests from devastation, for example?

IMV, according to the Libertarian ideal, the only actions which should be left to government are those which cannot be done any other way.

If you can show that all individual's property can be protected by some other means than government, then that obligation should not lie with govenment.

[Figleaf]

IMV, according to the Libertarian ideal, the only actions which should be left to government are those which cannot be done any other way.

Hmmm. What about things that COULD be done privately, but which either:

a- are massively less expensive if done governmentally; or

b- would never get organized initially without government?

[Renegade]

IMV, according to the Libertarian ideal, the only actions which should be left to government are those which cannot be done any other way.

Hmmm. What about things that COULD be done privately, but which either:

a- are massively less expensive if done governmentally; or

b- would never get organized initially without government?

Such as?

[Figleaf]

IMV, according to the Libertarian ideal, the only actions which should be left to government are those which cannot be done any other way.

Hmmm. What about things that COULD be done privately, but which either:

a- are massively less expensive if done governmentally; or

b- would never get organized initially without government?

Such as?

Oh, piles of things. But I prefer to deal with the abstract point, rather than particulars.

[Slavik44]

Thank you, Canadian Blue, Renegade, and ClearWest for your replies, but I don't think any of you have really addressed the issue I have raised. Why is certain gov. activity thought good, but others not? How does Libertarianism draw its lines?

Perhaps it is a bit of a misnomer to say that a Libertarian would view certain government actions as good. I believe it was Thomas Paine who wrote that Government even in its best state is but a necccessary evil. Being a neccessary evil however, is far different than being good.

It is also important to note that rarely is there a stringent line that defines any political ideology...Other than perhaps Totalitarianism and Anarchism. Both of which on the extreme and opposite end of the political spectrum. Obviously given that in most western countries there are very few people who follow such a stringent ideology, most political philosophies will not have a strict line in the sand, you are either with us or against us policy.

What would then define political ideologies is infact a more abstract principle, in the case of Libertarians it is in the promotion and preservation of personal and economic freedoms. I suppose then on a case by case basis some libertarians may see things somewhat differently, on wether or not an action is "evil" or a "neccessary evil."

[Canadian Blue]

Thank you, Canadian Blue, Renegade, and ClearWest for your replies, but I don't think any of you have really addressed the issue I have raised. Why is certain gov. activity thought good, but others not? How does Libertarianism draw its lines?

What theoretical or conceptual framework allows a libertarian to determine that government should protect property from theft, but not protect common interests from devastation, for example?

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

Well I guess I'll try to jump in here. I believe Libertarianism supports a judiciary and police force to deal with people's problem's, and protect individual liberties. But once again as with any political ideology their are different school's of thought as to the role of the government. I'll give you some link's to help with your questions.

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

In the United States and other English-speaking countries, libertarianism is a political philosophy maintaining that every person is the absolute owner of his or her own life and should be free to do whatever he wishes with his person or property, as long as he respects the liberty of others. There are two types of libertarians. One type holds as a fundamental maxim that all human interaction should be voluntary and consensual. They maintain that the initiation of force against another person or his property - with "force" meaning the use of physical force, the threat of it, or the commission of fraud against someone - who has not initiated physical force, threat, or fraud, is a violation of that principle (many of these are individualist anarchists or anarcho-capitalists). The other type comes from a consequentialist or utilitarian standpoint. Instead of having moral prohibitions against initiation of force, some of these support a limited government that engages in the minimum amount of initiatory force (such as levying taxes to provide some public goods such as defense, law, and roads, as well as some minimal regulation), because they believe it to be necessary to ensure maximum individual freedom (these are minarchists). Anarcho-capitalist libertarians believe that a free market can adequately provide these functions via private defense agencies, arbitration agencies, toll roads, and the like. Libertarians generally do not oppose force used in response to initiatory aggressions such as violence, fraud or trespassing. Libertarians favor an ethic of self-responsibility and strongly oppose the welfare state, because they believe forcing someone to provide aid to others is ethically wrong, ultimately counter-productive, or both. Libertarians also strongly oppose conscription because they believe no one should be forced to fight a war they oppose.

By the way didn't you once refer to yourself as a "classical liberal", if so you are probably leaning more the libertarian side of the spectrum.

[Figleaf]

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

Well I guess I'll try to jump in here. I believe Libertarianism supports a judiciary and police force to deal with people's problem's, and protect individual liberties. But once again as with any political ideology their are different school's of thought as to the role of the government. I'll give you some link's to help with your questions.

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

In the United States and other English-speaking countries, libertarianism is a political philosophy maintaining that every person is the absolute owner of his or her own life and should be free to do whatever he wishes with his person or property, as long as he respects the liberty of others. There are two types of libertarians. One type holds as a fundamental maxim that all human interaction should be voluntary and consensual. They maintain that the initiation of force against another person or his property - with "force" meaning the use of physical force, the threat of it, or the commission of fraud against someone - who has not initiated physical force, threat, or fraud, is a violation of that principle (many of these are individualist anarchists or anarcho-capitalists). The other type comes from a consequentialist or utilitarian standpoint. Instead of having moral prohibitions against initiation of force, some of these support a limited government that engages in the minimum amount of initiatory force (such as levying taxes to provide some public goods such as defense, law, and roads, as well as some minimal regulation), because they believe it to be necessary to ensure maximum individual freedom (these are minarchists). Anarcho-capitalist libertarians believe that a free market can adequately provide these functions via private defense agencies, arbitration agencies, toll roads, and the like. Libertarians generally do not oppose force used in response to initiatory aggressions such as violence, fraud or trespassing. Libertarians favor an ethic of self-responsibility and strongly oppose the welfare state, because they believe forcing someone to provide aid to others is ethically wrong, ultimately counter-productive, or both. Libertarians also strongly oppose conscription because they believe no one should be forced to fight a war they oppose.

Still, that's not really responsive.

Why is certain gov. activity thought good, but others not? How does Libertarianism draw its lines?

What theoretical or conceptual framework allows a libertarian to determine that government should protect property from theft, but not protect common interests from devastation, for example?

[Canadian Blue]

I see where your going, but once again their are too many different schools of thought in the libertarian camp with regards to how government should intervene in an individual's life.

All I can really answer is that government should provide a bare minimum to the country, however emergency services, military, and a judiciary, must all be maintained in order to protect individual rights.

During a crisis I'd imagine a government can intervene. However the rules governing a country can vary greatly depending on whether or not their is a crisis, war, emergency, etc.

In all ideologies their will be question's as to what the role of the government is for the individual. Libertarianism tend's to be socially liberal, and fiscally conservative.

[August1991]

Why is certain gov. activity thought good, but others not? How does Libertarianism draw its lines?

What theoretical or conceptual framework allows a libertarian to determine that government should protect property from theft, but not protect common interests from devastation, for example?

Figleaf, if you want to understand the Libertarian perspective, you should first understand - as Margaret Thatcher once said - there is no such thing as "society" or the "collective". What "common" interests do you mean? In the Libertarian scheme of things, there are only individuals who ideally should be each free to pursue their own interests.

Libertarians often use the the phrase "initiation of force". "Force" is used to respect a contract.

Frankly, I find this kind of debate sterile and simplistic. It is like debating the nature of the aether when it is known that whether the earth, while revolving around the sun, is moving towards a distant star or six months later is moving away from the same star, the star's light is recorded on earth at the same speed. IOW, libertarianism is a 19th century debate but we live in the 21st century. We understand better now the complexity of collective decisions based on individual choice, just as Einstein gave us the insight of relativity.