What Libertarianism Isn't

Lew Rockwell.com ^ | December 22nd 2001 | Edward Feser

[rdb3]

Like I said, I owe you nothing. If you look at it, you come jumping in with both feet as to what is or is not "silly."

I'm not inclined to entertain rudeness or disrespect. Like I was saying to MadameAxe, the tone was full of respect, even though we may disagree. And her respect was returned.

[rdb3]

You know, the definitions of both conservatism and liberalism are muddled. I'm a conservative in the sense that I am a classical liberal. So-called liberals are nothing more than socialists at best, communists at worse.

The dictionary doesn't do justice in describing these terms in the political sense.

[MadameAxe]

Well, there's different sorts of taxation. User fees aren't necessarily coercive.

I was mentally defining "socialist" as someone who wants to collect funds from individuals, beyond the purpose of the common defense of their liberty and property, to redistribute as "social" benefits to some utopian end. I didn't bother to look it up though; do you have a definition of "socialist" handy?

[Jolly Rodgers]

Close enough.

That's what I suspected. The anti-libertarians characterize the position on immigration the same way they do the position on drugs. They misrepresent what is said and twist it into something that it is not.

[Torie]

When it comes to the essential middle of modern liberalism, just put a "bit more" in rather than a "bit less." Actually on many issues, the differences are less prononced than they used to be. That is especially true in Britain, where the two major parties have no real substantive differences, except on Europe to some degree. And yes classical liberalism has nothing to do with modern liberalism. But modern liberalism really isn't socialist. Modern liberalism likes the market by and large, if only because it generates more economic activity to tax and then redistribute to its assorted constituencies. Conservatism is ditto, it is just that its constituencies make do with less. But if you want a list of the welfare queens of the conservative constituency, let me know.

[Torie]

The traditional definition of socialist is one who thinks the government should own the means of production. That has little or no saliency now.

[rdb3]

I don't believe it was me who wrote what you are replying to.

[rdb3]

There are tons of welfare queens on the "conservative" side. Just use the word "corporate" to modify welfare and you have it perfectly.

I do not believe that taxes should be used to help the private sector. That is not a free market.

[Torie]

My first post in about the last 500 that is worth a damn really, maybe. Cheers, and Merry Christmas!

[MadameAxe]

I was responding to your assertion that my description of socialism encompassed all taxation.

[MadameAxe]

The traditional definition of socialist is one who thinks the government should own the means of production.

Hmm, I thought that was the traditional definition of a communist. I guess communism could be considered the most extreme form of socialism.

BTW, my initial point would seem to remain untoppled -- a libertarian cannot simultaneously be a socialist.

[Torie]

BTW, my initial point would seem to remain untoppled -- a libertarian cannot simultaneously be a socialist.

I think that one is irrefutable, given any common understandig of the terms. Sort of like the notion that woman have a longer life expectancy than men.

[Torie]

Socialism. Scroll up to the top.

[MadameAxe]

Thanks. I'm terribly lazy today; I couldn't be bothered to go to the other room and look it up for myself...

[Mark Bahner]

"The anti-libertarians characterize the position on immigration the same way they do the position on drugs. They misrepresent what is said and twist it into something that it is not."

We Libertarian are ourselves too picky about people being "pure" in their Libertarian beliefs. For example, there was a poll of 200 Libertarians in our Party's monthly newspaper, about the proper size of the federal government. Answers ranged from zero percent of the current size to 50% of the current size, with a median number of 12% (as I recall). Far too many Libertarians seem to be quick to say that the folks in the 12-50% range aren't really "pure" enough to be libertarians. And then they'd say the people at zero percent are really anarchists. As a Libertarian, *I* say anything from 0 to 50% of current spending would be so much like heaven--and so different from Democrats OR Republicans--that I'd be insanely happy.

The key things about immigration, in my opinion are: 1) completely eliminate federal government services that encourage people to come here without working, and 2) completely eliminate quota restrictions. Any idea that we shouldn't be allowed to screen them for things like communicable diseases, or hostility towards the U.S., is wrong.

Mark (Libertarian)

[Jolly Rodgers]

Any idea that we shouldn't be allowed to screen them for things like communicable diseases, or hostility towards the U.S., is wrong.

I would also like to see the emphasis placed on actually becoming a citizen with mandatory classes on what makes liberty work and how the government is intended to function. Furthermore, they should be able to demonstrate enough english to actually function safely in our society.

[Kewlhand`tek]

no, LP's symbol is the statue of liberty!

[Lchris]

<< Over-diversification, as I posed to Lchris in political theory, is an apparent "strength" to him or her (don't know which by the name). It appears to lack glue and cohesiveness. The libertarianism, say, of The Cato Institute and of a site like LewRockwell.com appear different outside of the non-initiation of force idea. Which one is the most indicative of libertarianism? If it is up to the interpreter, then you must admit that all interpretations of libertarianism are correct.>>

I'm a "he" fyi. If anything, libertarianism has a more specific meaning than either liberalism or conservatism. You might find the non-initiation of force to be vague, but it's at least a basic principle by which you can analyze issues against. Can you come up with a more satisfactory definition of conservatism? Adherence to traditonal values? Maybe, but traditional to whom and when? George Will and Patrick Buchanan are both considered conservatives, but they disagree on many issues. The same argument could, of course, be levelled against any ideology or religion (Catholics, Methodists and Mormons all claim to be Christian...etc.), as you'll always find people who interpret things differently.