What's in a name? That which we call a libertarian by any other name would smell as free..

Angus_Aboot · 08-10-2008, 11:20 PM

Originally Posted by Smull

That said, I don't think we should be backing Georgia, they fucked up. They pissed off they're big angry and aggressive next door neighbor, and had absolutely no reason to think that we would help them (at least militarily) in a war against Russia. Diplomatic pressure and aid to help them rebuild is all fine and well, but we cannot be expected to go to war with Russia to defend Georgia.

Just a quick question, Smull do you actually consider yourself a libertarian?

Smull · 08-11-2008, 01:58 AM

Originally Posted by Angus_Aboot

Just a quick question, Smull do you actually consider yourself a libertarian?

yes, I realize I'm not ideologically pure, but I still call myself libertarian for two reasons. I'm a hell of a lot more Libertarian than I am Republican or Democrat or any other political label I've found, and I'm also pragmatic. While it may be better in the long run to completely stop all foreign aid to all nations, we're simply not going to do that anytime soon. So long as we're giving billions of taxpayer money to Israel and Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, I think that giving Georgia a helping hand is justifiable.

As a side note, I think the libertarian party itself is too ideologically pure, if they were to become more lax, I think they would shake off the "lunatic fringe" image they have and reach a lot more people. So long as they don't become so lax that they stop being significantly different than the other parties.

Angus_Aboot · 08-11-2008, 02:26 AM

Originally Posted by Smull

yes, I realize I'm not ideologically pure, but I still call myself libertarian for two reasons. I'm a hell of a lot more Libertarian than I am Republican or Democrat or any other political label I've found, and I'm also pragmatic.

Ron Paul is a Republican are you more Libertarian than him? I though Republican and Democrat were simply party labels - not ideological labels (unlike Libertarian)

Originally Posted by Smull

While it may be better in the long run to completely stop all foreign aid to all nations, we're simply not going to do that anytime soon. So long as we're giving billions of taxpayer money to Israel and Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, I think that giving Georgia a helping hand is justifiable.

So, since the US gives other countries foreign aid it might as well give some to Georgia as well? You as US citizen don't care that more of your money is being sent overseas? Furthermore, do you really consider foreign aid to be a "helping hand?"

Originally Posted by Smull

As a side note, I think the libertarian party itself is too ideologically pure, if they were to become more lax, I think they would shake off the "lunatic fringe" image they have and reach a lot more people. So long as they don't become so lax that they stop being significantly different than the other parties.

They're not pure enough for my tastes, but even if they were I still wouldn't join. I think if they called themselves something meaningless like "Democrat" or "Republican" they would have an easier time being less ideologically stubborn.

Schrödinger's Cat · 08-11-2008, 12:41 PM

Originally Posted by Angus_Aboot

Ron Paul is a Republican are you more Libertarian than him? I though Republican and Democrat were simply party labels - not ideological labels (unlike Libertarian)

Libertarian can be considered a party label too. Also Rs and Ds can be just as mindlessly locked on the party as ideologues.

Angus_Aboot · 08-11-2008, 01:24 PM

Originally Posted by Schrödinger's Cat

Libertarian can be considered a party label too. Also Rs and Ds can be just as mindlessly locked on the party as ideologues.

It can be, but by supporting the Libertarian Party one will generally be supporting libertarian ideals (notice the little "l"). R's and D's don't really have a defining philosophy, although it is to their advantage.

Smull · 08-11-2008, 03:46 PM

I'm not necessarily against all government spending or all government aid but I think the ammount needs to be seriously scaled back. Helping out a war-torn ally who just got the shit kicked out of them? I can tolerate my taxes being spent on that, even if in a perfect world it wouldn't be that way. But my taxes going to a filthy rich Arab dictatorship? That crosses the line for me.

I can't find a label that suits me better. I'm a classical liberal and a capitalist, I want smaller and more responsible government, Rs and Ds both offer larger and larger government if I'm not libertarian what am I?

Ardentfrost · 08-11-2008, 03:54 PM

Originally Posted by Angus_Aboot

It can be, but by supporting the Libertarian Party one will generally be supporting libertarian ideals (notice the little "l"). R's and D's don't really have a defining philosophy, although it is to their advantage.

I don't think big L Libertarians are any different from Republicans and Democrats. big L Libertarians contain a lot of political ideology such as constitutionalists, paleo-libertarians, anarcho-capitalists, etc... just because the majority adhere to libertarianism doesn't make them them different from Republicans adhering to (neo)conservatism or Democrats adhering to liberalism. There is a lot of cross breeding. I think we can all identify a party we agree most with, and separately define our ideologies.

Personally, I don't think I could ever join a party because they're always going to push ideas I don't agree with. I'm a libertarian, but the Libertarian Party supports stuff I do not. That's just a weakness of parties, though.

Angus_Aboot · 08-11-2008, 06:52 PM

Originally Posted by Smull

I can't find a label that suits me better. I'm a classical liberal and a capitalist, I want smaller and more responsible government, Rs and Ds both offer larger and larger government if I'm not libertarian what am I?

A classical liberal of course or just an independent.

Angus_Aboot · 08-11-2008, 06:58 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

I don't think big L Libertarians are any different from Republicans and Democrats. big L Libertarians contain a lot of political ideology such as constitutionalists, paleo-libertarians, anarcho-capitalists, etc... just because the majority adhere to libertarianism doesn't make them them different from Republicans adhering to (neo)conservatism or Democrats adhering to liberalism. There is a lot of cross breeding. I think we can all identify a party we agree most with, and separately define our ideologies.

Personally, I don't think I could ever join a party because they're always going to push ideas I don't agree with. I'm a libertarian, but the Libertarian Party supports stuff I do not. That's just a weakness of parties, though.

Accept Republicans and Democrats don't adhere to any political ideology, they just put more emphasis on party loyalty then the Libertarians really could (being that they are libertarians and all). The Libertarian party does have different sects of libertarian ideology, but it's spectrum is far more narrow than either of the big two parties.

Ardentfrost · 08-11-2008, 07:24 PM

Originally Posted by Angus_Aboot

Accept Republicans and Democrats don't adhere to any political ideology, they just put more emphasis on party loyalty then the Libertarians really could (being that they are libertarians and all). The Libertarian party does have different sects of libertarian ideology, but it's spectrum is far more narrow than either of the big two parties.

It's a small party. There's not much room for a spectrum of ideologies. But, take any issue and there will be a difference of opinion within the party, just like the larger ones.

Angus_Aboot · 08-12-2008, 02:07 AM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

It's a small party. There's not much room for a spectrum of ideologies. But, take any issue and there will be a difference of opinion within the party, just like the larger ones.

One of the reasons it is so ideologically small is because they are called the Libertarian Party, a name like that really can only sound enticing to some sort of libertarian to begin with. Whereas "Republican" and "Democrat" are beautifully void of meaning.

Ardentfrost · 08-12-2008, 08:29 AM

Originally Posted by Angus_Aboot

One of the reasons it is so ideologically small is because they are called the Libertarian Party, a name like that really can only sound enticing to some sort of libertarian to begin with. Whereas "Republican" and "Democrat" are beautifully void of meaning.

eh, the word libertarianism in the way it is used now has only been around for some 50ish years. The ideology it refers to is classic liberalism, but liberalism took that word and it was too confusing to have two called that. Plus some people adhering to libertarian thought were also calling themselves conservatives (now we call it classic conservativism). All that shit means the same thing.

Democrats and Republicans have had their words be around for a LONG time, and they refer more to a form of government than they do an idea of freedom (although they don't refer to the form of government so much anymore). There's no such thing as a "libertarian government" so to speak, but you can have a republic and democracy (or a democratic republic even).

Maybe it is a bad idea to have the broad political ideology called libertarianism be the same name as a political party that follow those ideas in a general sense.

Angus_Aboot · 08-12-2008, 12:32 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

eh, the word libertarianism in the way it is used now has only been around for some 50ish years. The ideology it refers to is classic liberalism, but liberalism took that word and it was too confusing to have two called that. Plus some people adhering to libertarian thought were also calling themselves conservatives (now we call it classic conservativism). All that shit means the same thing.

Yeah, and the party has only been around since the 70's. But Libertarian philosophy and classical liberalism are only superficially the same. I'd say classical liberalism slowly became Robert Taft conservatism, after Wilson and FDR introduced the "new liberalsim."

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Democrats and Republicans have had their words be around for a LONG time, and they refer more to a form of government than they do an idea of freedom (although they don't refer to the form of government so much anymore). There's no such thing as a "libertarian government" so to speak, but you can have a republic and democracy (or a democratic republic even).

Do Democrats actually advocate Democracy over a Republic?

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Maybe it is a bad idea to have the broad political ideology called libertarianism be the same name as a political party that follow those ideas in a general sense.

Possibly. Although, I like that better than being labeled something almost meaningless.

Ardentfrost · 08-12-2008, 03:52 PM

Originally Posted by Angus_Aboot

Yeah, and the party has only been around since the 70's. But Libertarian philosophy and classical liberalism are only superficially the same. I'd say classical liberalism slowly became Robert Taft conservatism, after Wilson and FDR introduced the "new liberalsim."

Lots of ideologies evolve. Democrats trace their party heritage from Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans (which actually answers your next question), but liberalism in the modern sense of the word is most certainly NOT what Jefferson was advocating.

Classic liberalism comes from the founders being called liberals in their day. THAT liberalism is what libertarianism is.

Do Democrats actually advocate Democracy over a Republic?

Like I said above, it's just a name change that means little as far as the ideological evolution is concerned. In the "old days" both sides were supporting a pseudo-democratically elected republican form of government. I would certainly say that has changed to be more of a focus on statism over the years, but we're just talking origins here.

Possibly. Although, I like that better than being labeled something almost meaningless.

All parties are meaningless

But libertarians are often stereotyped as being crazy anarchists... and anarchists are stereotyped as being violently opposed to government. There's a lot of stigma associated with these labels, most giving the common man a predisposition against the ideologies, no matter how much sense they make.

Angus_Aboot · 08-12-2008, 05:27 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Lots of ideologies evolve. Democrats trace their party heritage from Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans (which actually answers your next question), but liberalism in the modern sense of the word is most certainly NOT what Jefferson was advocating.

Classic liberalism comes from the founders being called liberals in their day. THAT liberalism is what libertarianism is.

Are you sure it's the ideology that changed and not just the name of the ideology? Yes, the Democratic party in name only can be traced to Jefferson. However there is a big distinction between classical liberalism and libertarianism, just look at some of the key figureheads, like Adam Smith. Classical liberalism is really more like conservativism than libertarianism.

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Like I said above, it's just a name change that means little as far as the ideological evolution is concerned. In the "old days" both sides were supporting a pseudo-democratically elected republican form of government. I would certainly say that has changed to be more of a focus on statism over the years, but we're just talking origins here.

When were the "old days?" Both sides have always favored statism, one was for centralized statism one was for de-centralized statism, both sides have favored one or the other at one time. Now, I'd say both favor centralized statism.
Name change can mean quite a bit if you were once called the Libertarian Party and change to, the Socialist Party or something.

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

All parties are meaningless

Even if they can obtain political power?

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

But libertarians are often stereotyped as being crazy anarchists... and anarchists are stereotyped as being violently opposed to government. There's a lot of stigma associated with these labels, most giving the common man a predisposition against the ideologies, no matter how much sense they make.

Many libertarians are anarchists, even the word libertarian can mean anarchist...many are crazy too. If people don't like the stigma just pick a new label for yourself, call yourselves "volunteerists" or something. Thats why I suggest that the Libertarian party change it's name, how about freedom party or liberty party, or live-and-let-live party. Libertarian is too specific a term and if they really want to gain more moderates a more non-descript name will be necessary (also a mascot). I don't like all this shuffling of definitions. I'll stick with anarchist.

Ardentfrost · 08-12-2008, 11:09 PM

Both the Federalists and Anti-Federalists would be considered "anarchists" by today's standards

At least back then you had two parties that desired liberty. Today the two parties desire the opposite.

Anyhow, names don't mean anything. I think you're the one too caught up on what the Libertarian Party is. Me identifying myself as a libertarian means as little as you identifying yourself as an anarchist. No one can really know what someone else believes by their label or party, which is why they're pointless. It has nothing to do with power, but since labels are destined to be inaccurate (and even change meaning), it's only a method of controlling people who think they should belong to that label.

But the Libertarian Party has changed from an idea of libertarianism (and it's why I identify myself as little l as opposed to joining the LP). For instance, LP supports the Fair Tax, but as a libertarian, I cannot. The only thing I can support is no tax. I can still vote for an LP candidate, though, because the Fair Tax is better than what we have, but it doesn't meant I agree with the taxation.

Labels mean jack.

Angus_Aboot · 08-13-2008, 01:21 AM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Both the Federalists and Anti-Federalists would be considered "anarchists" by today's standards

I disagree, both were still statists just like both parties today (granted, we cannot call every anti-federalist a statist per se).

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

At least back then you had two parties that desired liberty. Today the two parties desire the opposite.

When? What parties?

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Anyhow, names don't mean anything. I think you're the one too caught up on what the Libertarian Party is. Me identifying myself as a libertarian means as little as you identifying yourself as an anarchist. No one can really know what someone else believes by their label or party, which is why they're pointless. It has nothing to do with power, but since labels are destined to be inaccurate (and even change meaning), it's only a method of controlling people who think they should belong to that label.

Labels and parties are indicators of what someone believes (unless the party is called something meaningless like, "Republican" or "Democrat" in contrast to the "Libertarian Party") They're good time-savers.

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

But the Libertarian Party has changed from an idea of libertarianism (and it's why I identify myself as little l as opposed to joining the LP). For instance, LP supports the Fair Tax, but as a libertarian, I cannot. The only thing I can support is no tax. I can still vote for an LP candidate, though, because the Fair Tax is better than what we have, but it doesn't meant I agree with the taxation.

Labels mean jack.

Why exactly do you even identify yourself as a libertarian if you feel that all labels are meaningless?
I'd say the Libertarian Party has done a far better job sticking to it's philosophical foundation than the other big two, partially because of the simple fact that it's name is bound attracts like-minded individuals (but keeps others away). I dislike the more recent attempts to bring over more conservative-leaning people, principle should come first. (Hence, why many libertarians are leaving or refuse to join).

Can you provide links to where the Libertarian Party endorsed the Fair Tax?

Smull · 08-13-2008, 08:29 PM

Originally Posted by Angus_Aboot

I'd say the Libertarian Party has done a far better job sticking to it's philosophical foundation than the other big two, partially because of the simple fact that it's name is bound attracts like-minded individuals (but keeps others away). I dislike the more recent attempts to bring over more conservative-leaning people, principle should come first. (Hence, why many libertarians are leaving or refuse to join).

Its true that the Libertarian party has stuck to its philosophical roots, but to what end? If you look at the standard libertarian platform, its so far removed from what the country is today that I think the party needs to focus on incremental change rather than radical sweeping changes. People don't like large and rapid change, and won't be very inclined to vote for it. Thats not to say they should abandon their overall ideals, but being as in the current political climate those are unachievable they should emphasize what can be done now. What measures already have some support that would push the country in a libertarian direction. Specifically ally with the left on social issues, and the right (or at least the right's rhetoric) on economic issues.

Smull · 08-13-2008, 08:29 PM

btw, good call starting a new thread.

Angus_Aboot · 08-14-2008, 02:42 AM

Originally Posted by Smull

Its true that the Libertarian party has stuck to its philosophical roots, but to what end? If you look at the standard libertarian platform, its so far removed from what the country is today that I think the party needs to focus on incremental change rather than radical sweeping changes. People don't like large and rapid change, and won't be very inclined to vote for it. Thats not to say they should abandon their overall ideals, but being as in the current political climate those are unachievable they should emphasize what can be done now. What measures already have some support that would push the country in a libertarian direction. Specifically ally with the left on social issues, and the right (or at least the right's rhetoric) on economic issues.

I thought Americans were desperate for change, isn't that Obama character coining the word? Also, I don't think libertarians really agree with people on the left when it comes to social issues, as people on the left tend to support government action and taxpayer money to enforce such measures. So that would just be a complete step in the wrong direction.
If they are going to continue using the Libertarian moniker they should stick to their principles, otherwise change the name to something less foul.