why has the rest of the world singularly failed to take libertarianism seriously??

[Ziggy Stardust]

And its impossible to deny that this website is very left-wing. People like me are needed to keep it balanced.

This website is not very left-wing. We've had polls showing it is left leaning, sure. But as often, you're exaggerating again to place yourself in a special position. I'll have you know that the right-wing posters who have been here for years are more than capable, and more eloquent in arguing their position. You are not needed. You're welcome, but not needed.

Just because you see yourself faced against 4 or 5 posters at times, and very little posters beside you is just because you use terms like "tyranny" when talking about your government. And Tyranny is reserved for a specific kind of government which has VERY LITTLE in common with your current government. So I guess the right wing posters here, even those who go on about socialism (the minority) have very little incentive to argue with you against those 4 or 5 posters. Really mate, if you lay of the extreme terminology and stop trying to use buzz words for emotional impact, I think that a. you'll get less vitriolic responses and b. less often find yourself alone facing multiple 'opponents'.

You may not take my word for it, but me, being a left wing Social Democrat (if I have to shoehorn myself into a denomination, that'd be it I guess, not sure) have argued economic principles with quite a number of people who had different opinions.

edit: I know what's going on here.

The only right-wing libertarian that posts often in OT that I can think of other than me is Moonbat. I'm sure there are a couple of others, but hardly many.

And people like MobBoss, Amadeus, Luiz, VRWCAgent, JerichoHill are not right wing?

Are you making a distinction between right wing and right wing libertarians, only considering the latter really right wing? Because in that case you should apply the same extreme standards to the left wing, but you don't. You consider McCain left wing. So in summary, you are very reluctant to count anyone in your little exclusive, dare I say elitist, right wing sewing circle, but very ready to dump anyone who disagrees with your presented strict libertarian views (and I say presented, because when push comes to shove, you're not as libertarian as you'd like to think) into the left wing. With that sort of slanted view you are keeping your own myth alive.

And by the definition I'm using, he's a Glow-in-the-dark transvestite space hooker. Idiosyncratic use of terminology is counter-productive.

Yeah, that's the same I'm using. So our definition has the power of numbers behind it.

That is nonsense. There are a mere handful of posters here that can be reasonably considered "far-left", and no more than their right-wing equivalents. That you choose to locate your personal "centre" somewhere between Reagan and Franco is neither here nor there.

Ding, ding, ding.

By American standards, Obama would be far-left. Look at how many people FREAKED OUT when he was elected.

Yeah, even the people who elected him went: Oh my gosh, look how far-left he is

Or do you mean, look how apeskip cray the right wing went when they had to face defeat. Oh my gosh, losing sucks Bunch of cry babies. Fox-teet-sucking crybabies.

Remember this?

That was funny for 8 years wasn't it? Well guess what, tag, you're it.

But still, by American standards, a 0 on the Political Compass would be far-left, and most here have negative numbers.

When you say American Standard, you mean Domination's standard. You view everything relative to yourself, and since you consider yourself the most American American, you claim to be the American Standard.

For the last time, you are not representative of Americans. Stop it.

By WESTERN DEMOCRATIC standards we are as a whole center to moderate left.

Absolute nonsense.

I once opened a thread in hopes of getting an intelligent discussion in the ways of early 20th century factory life and stardards including the socio-economic classes of the average citizen and what sort of housing, diet and wages they had.

3 posts In 32 days.

The advantage of this thread is that everyone goes: "Hey, I know a reply to this!". This is a McDonalds all you can eat thread. Requires little thought. Sort of an intellectual masturbation thread, only without the intellectual.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

Well, two of the three anyhow.

And again the Titoists get ignored....

 

[Newbunkle]

btw i thought this was the forum of "civfanatics.com" instead it resembles more a sub-forum of revleft.com

We're not all left wing dude. You're just assuming we are because we're concerned about the human cost of what you're advocating - and we should be. Any decent human being should be, no matter what side of the fence they're on.

 

[JerichoHill]

For the record, I am clearly not right-wing. I'm a centrist who leans right fiscally and left socially. I get ticked because I do like some of the libertarian (note the lower case) philosophy ( I have a graduate degree from GMU after all), but how Alio represents it, he's just turning it into a joke and that's a shame.

 

[Arakhor]

Holy floating testicles in a fruit bat cave! This thread has 650 posts in two days!!

 

[xarthaz]

OP: you needn't worry about brining policy change through political method(and really, thats what the political discussion on this forum circles about). Most hardcore misesians / libertarians have abandoned this, from rothbard's post-neoliberal disappointment in the early 90ies onwards.

3) People have different beliefs as to what counts as liberty. Liberals will argue that universal healthcare grants more liberty for more people. Libertarians will argue that is convenience. The fact remains though that both sides believe they are supporting liberty.

Incorrect. In fact the argument supporting libertariansim goes to a way more larger scale than that:

Libertarianism is the only political theory that can possibly aim at universal rules.

So the fact that the libertarian idea of liberty is more universal than collectivist one is self evident.

To elaborate:
In particular, once a good
has been first appropriated or homesteaded by "mixing one's labor" with
it (Locke's phase), then ownership of it can only be acquired by means
of a voluntary (contractual) transfer of its property title from a previous
to a later owner. These rights are absolute. Any infringement on them is
subject to lawful prosecution by the victim of this infringement or his
agent, and is actionable in accordance with the principles of strict liability
and the proportionality of punishment.

Taking his cues from the very same sources, Rothbard then offered
this ultimate proof for these rules as just rules: if a person A were not the
owner of his physical body and all goods originally appropriated,
produced or voluntarily acquired by him, there would only exist two
alternatives. Either another person, B, must then be regarded as the owner
of A and the goods appropriated, produced, or contractually acquired
by A, or both parties, A and B, must be regarded as equal co-owners of
both bodies and goods.

In the first case, A would be B's slave and subject to exploitation. B
would own A and the goods originally appropriated, produced, or
acquired by A, but A would not own B and the goods homesteaded,
produced, or acquired by B. With this rule, two distinct classes of people
would be created--exploiters (B) and exploited (A)-to whom different
"law" would apply. Hence, this rule fails the "universalization test" and
is from the outset disqualified as even a potential human ethic, for in
order to be able to claim a rule to be a "law" (just), it is necessary that
such a rule be universally-equally-valid for everyone.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

For the record, I am clearly not right-wing. I'm a centrist who leans right fiscally and left socially. I get ticked because I do like some of the libertarian (note the lower case) philosophy ( I have a graduate degree from GMU after all), but how Alio represents it, he's just turning it into a joke and that's a shame.

'pologies. I wanted to include a center right-winger ... so I named you.

 

[Cutlass]

How is the circle-jerking?

btw i thought this was the forum of "civfanatics.com" instead it resembles more a sub-forum of revleft.com

Nobody here is doing more to discredit libertarianism than you are.

 

[Murky]

For the record, I am clearly not right-wing. I'm a centrist who leans right fiscally and left socially. I get ticked because I do like some of the libertarian (note the lower case) philosophy ( I have a graduate degree from GMU after all), but how Alio represents it, he's just turning it into a joke and that's a shame.

Some aspects of Libertarism are a good counter-balance to some of the more extreme socialist ideas. Like not having government be in control of everything. We certainly don't want to nationalize all private business.

 

[GhostWriter16]

This website is not very left-wing. We've had polls showing it is left leaning, sure. But as often, you're exaggerating again to place yourself in a special position. I'll have you know that the right-wing posters who have been here for years are more than capable, and more eloquent in arguing their position. You are not needed. You're welcome, but not needed.

Oh I'm well aware. I said right-wingers in general were needed.

Just because you see yourself faced against 4 or 5 posters at times, and very little posters beside you is just because you use terms like "tyranny" when talking about your government. And Tyranny is reserved for a specific kind of government which has VERY LITTLE in common with your current government. So I guess the right wing posters here, even those who go on about socialism (the minority) have very little incentive to argue with you against those 4 or 5 posters. Really mate, if you lay of the extreme terminology and stop trying to use buzz words for emotional impact, I think that a. you'll get less vitriolic responses and b. less often find yourself alone facing multiple 'opponents'.

Understood and accepted.

edit: I know what's going on here.
And people like MobBoss, Amadeus, Luiz, VRWCAgent, JerichoHill are not right wing?

I specifically stated right-wing libertarian because that's my personal viewpoint. There are obviously right wingers that aren't libertarians. But they wouldn't be right-wing libertarians.

I've never seen Mobboss post on an economic issue, but he's definitely not a libertarian.

Amadeus is Libertarian.

Never seen Luiz post in a social thread, I just know he's capitalist.

VRWC is borderline I guess.

Don't know much about Jerichohill, but what I've seen him post he's a centrist.

Are you making a distinction between right wing and right wing libertarians, only considering the latter really right wing? Because in that case you should apply the same extreme standards to the left wing, but you don't. You consider McCain left wing. So in summary, you are very reluctant to count anyone in your little exclusive, dare I say elitist, right wing sewing circle, but very ready to dump anyone who disagrees with your presented strict libertarian views (and I say presented, because when push comes to shove, you're not as libertarian as you'd like to think) into the left wing. With that sort of slanted view you are keeping your own myth alive.

No I don't consider Mccain left, I consider him a centrist with a slight right-wing leaning. As would most Americans.

When you say American Standard, you mean Domination's standard. You view everything relative to yourself, and since you consider yourself the most American American, you claim to be the American Standard.

I consider myself a radical right-winger so I don't get your point here...

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Oh I'm well aware. I said right-wingers in general were needed.

Birds of all feathers are needed.

Understood and accepted.

Thanks for not taking offense, I did get a little personal.

I consider myself a radical right-winger so I don't get your point here...

But still, by American standards, a 0 on the Political Compass would be far-left

I'll give you center-left. But far-left is reaching. Compared to you, sure, not compared to the average American.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Thanks for not taking offense, I did get a little personal.

I don't. I agree I overuse the word tyrannical too much. I just get very upset when the government does something totally stupid and illegal and people ignore it. The word authoritarian would probably be better though, because being the antonym of small l libertarian (Which is really a comparative term), is a less offensive and far-reaching term. Totalitarianism, on the other hand, is the opposite of Big L Libertarianism, translation, a dictatorship. So I certainly overuse the term.

But still, by American standards, a 0 on the Political Compass would be far-left

I'll give you center-left. But far-left is reaching. Compared to you, sure, not compared to the average American.

Well, let's use the political compass, flawed as it is, and explore this. Mccain (Who, by American standards, is reasonably close to center as far as Republicans go) is a +6 (Or so) on the L/R scale. Obama is a +2 or so (I think.) And I think we can agree that Obama is a bit further left than the average American, but maybe average as far as Dems go (I'd buy that in recent years I guess, I think Clinton was more moderate though and he was still a lefty.) So the average independent, moderate, or small l libertarian would probably fit between a 3 and a 5. Not all of them to be sure, but that's a good measure to go by. So I guess far-left by American standards would require more like a -1 to -3. So by Political Compass standards, a 0 would be moderate left.

I don't think the political compass is perfect by any means, but as a means of averaging, I could accept that.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Well, that went smoothly.

Who are you and what have you done to Domination?

 

[MagisterCultuum]

OP: you needn't worry about brining policy change through political method(and really, thats what the political discussion on this forum circles about). Most hardcore misesians / libertarians have abandoned this, from rothbard's post-neoliberal disappointment in the early 90ies onwards.



Incorrect. In fact the argument supporting libertariansim goes to a way more larger scale than that:

Libertarianism is the only political theory that can possibly aim at universal rules.

So the fact that the libertarian idea of liberty is more universal than collectivist one is self evident.

To elaborate:
In particular, once a good
has been first appropriated or homesteaded by "mixing one's labor" with
it (Locke's phase), then ownership of it can only be acquired by means
of a voluntary (contractual) transfer of its property title from a previous
to a later owner. These rights are absolute. Any infringement on them is
subject to lawful prosecution by the victim of this infringement or his
agent, and is actionable in accordance with the principles of strict liability
and the proportionality of punishment.

Taking his cues from the very same sources, Rothbard then offered
this ultimate proof for these rules as just rules: if a person A were not the
owner of his physical body and all goods originally appropriated,
produced or voluntarily acquired by him, there would only exist two
alternatives. Either another person, B, must then be regarded as the owner
of A and the goods appropriated, produced, or contractually acquired
by A, or both parties, A and B, must be regarded as equal co-owners of
both bodies and goods.

In the first case, A would be B's slave and subject to exploitation. B
would own A and the goods originally appropriated, produced, or
acquired by A, but A would not own B and the goods homesteaded,
produced, or acquired by B. With this rule, two distinct classes of people
would be created--exploiters (B) and exploited (A)-to whom different
"law" would apply. Hence, this rule fails the "universalization test" and
is from the outset disqualified as even a potential human ethic, for in
order to be able to claim a rule to be a "law" (just), it is necessary that
such a rule be universally-equally-valid for everyone.

Locke himself however added a caveat, which would come to be known as the Lockean Proviso. He acknowledged that it is not actually the land itself that becomes one's property by mixing one's labor with it, but the improvements built by one's labor. Land always has some value before labor is mixed with it, to which the homesteader by no means has an absolute right. Homesteading is lauded so long as land of equal quality is plentiful and the act does not deprive anyone of the right to do the same. However, when land is scarce, monopolizing this natural resource without compensating society for the privilege of its sole use amounts to theft. On a small scale Locke favored merely sharing some of one's produce with one's neighbors, but on a larger scale where that becomes unfeasible he considered property taxes to be more appropriate.

 

[sophie]

Well, let's use the political compass, flawed as it is, and explore this. Mccain (Who, by American standards, is reasonably close to center as far as Republicans go) is a +6 (Or so) on the L/R scale. Obama is a +2 or so (I think.) And I think we can agree that Obama is a bit further left than the average American, but maybe average as far as Dems go (I'd buy that in recent years I guess, I think Clinton was more moderate though and he was still a lefty.)

Is he though? What has Obama done to make him further left than the average American? I just don't see it.

 

[Newbunkle]

Not wanting to let people die needlessly is left wing in America.

 

[JerichoHill]

wow. A mises.org post with no substance behind.

 

[Xanikk999]

Not wanting to let people die needlessly is left wing in America.

It's hard to get people in this country to agree to significantly higher taxes if it means nobody has to suffer from not being able to afford health care treatment.

It is common sense for people like me because we want everyone to be guaranteed health care but for libertarians like the OP, it is "left-wing" to want to guarantee a good standard of living for all Americans. The right wing would call that socialism. I don't understand why some Americans have such an aversion to socialism. In limited doses it can be good.

 

[kosiosko 1]

wow. A mises.org post with no substance behind.

but its self evident....

 

[Leonel]

And its impossible to deny that this website is very left-wing. People like me are needed to keep it balanced.

Sweet Jesus, it's like looking into a mirror at myself 6 years ago! Was I this bad?