What are the differences between Libertarianism and Classical Liberalism?

My point being that if both systems are equally flawed, it makes sense to stick with the one that we've got. Change for change's sake is pointless, and even if we did ultimately end up back where we are now, we'd spend a hell of a long and hard time getting here, effectively wasting that time pursuing an avenue that brought us to this point in the first place. Trust me, England did this before you guys, and it worked out the same here. What you've got is the lesser of two evils, and pushing for more accountable big government is far more worthwhile than creating new small government and having to persuade them, despite your vote of confidence in them, to be nice.

 

Which would make sense if that was what I said.

I never said both systems are equally flawed. I said that your system is flawed. I also said that there exists the theoretical possibility that, given the right circumstances, a revision of the nature of man from the principles which lead to liberal democracies to the principles behind a libertarian perspective MAY lead to similar structures of dominant power. There also exists the theoretical possibility that aliens will come and blow up earth as soon as you finish reading this sentence.

Both systems are not equally flawed. Indeed the libertarian system of human relations is more flawed. But that is only because we’ve been so inundated by the current structures of power and their virtuous notions of equality and justice for all, that any principles attacking those ‘virtuous’ notions are affronts to all that is good and desirable.

I might propose change, but it would not be for change’s sake. It would be for the sake of the freedom of man the freedom from rights and privileges, the freedom from the freedom to. My change would not involve a change from big government to small government, as the principles of libertarianism are contrary to the notion of any such public contracts.

 

Can't remember if I said this in this thread or elsewhere, but I have a problem with any ideology that thinks it can change people. The whole point of politics is to work around what people already are, and find ways to make progress appealing. Otherwise you might as well go the whole hog and have them wear the nice grey uniforms for all the good it'll do. The reason capitalism is awesome is that it knows how to play on human vices as well as their virtues.

 

You mentioned it earlier in this thread. Where in the notion that a concept can alter action do you see fault? If we’re talking strictly within this thread then the whole point of the political sphere of life is to deny man the tragedy of himself in a state of nature. In the very beginning, a liberal democracy means to transform man from something he was to something he could be. They accomplished it by telling him what he should be. It would be pretty unobservant of us to deny that an idea can change the nature of man. We have evidence of the changing nature of man due to immaterial and material means more so now than ever in the history of the species because of our ability to see further than our eyes will let us. I do not subscribe to the idea that man simply is. While there are aspects of man that simply are, there are others that simply are alterable. These alterations will, and have happened through ideological paradigm shifts. I understand why we might have a problem with that. However the dilemma it proposes does not change the fact that it is.

 

Maybe I misunderstood you: there is a difference between altering action and altering humanity itself. You can stop people doing bad things - if you have the money and resources to police them - but you can't stop them thinking about doing bad things. You can keep them happy, but that's likely even more costly.

I guess it's the difference between a person and people. To quote an über-intellectual source (lol): A person is intelligent; people are slow stupid and panicky. Or something like that. Usually, there will be people who are open to an idea, or who believe it already but who will only become more vocal if others appear to be on their side. Normally, getting around those who are not open to the idea revolves around either suppressing their opposition, or else just waiting for them to die and hoping the generation that succeeds them is better.

 

Has anyone told Andre Moreau?

 

how did you possibly come to that bizzare conclusion?! Why do you have an anarchist avatar if you think someone who wants more government regulation is a lesser evil than someone who wants the government to stay out of the way? Fucking bizzare, man.

 

If one saw the appeal of anarchy, but saw human nature as the main obstacle to it, it would be logical to opt for someone who seeks to regulate that human nature.

 

Human nature an obstacle to anarchy? Isn't anarchy the state of not having human nature regulated by a government? How can calling the polar opposite view of yours a lesser evil than a view that is similiar to yours in any way logical?

 

I am saying that if one is ideally an anarchist, but believes that in practice, anarchy would require the formation of regulatory government, it is not illogical at all. Plenty of people like anarchy as an idea in theory, but if they know it won't work, or even won't work yet, liberalism is usually preferable. Anarchy is ideally about having no government, but it only works if you have a human nature that won't destroy itself. We don't have that, and I doubt we ever will, but I guess some people are anarchists.

I'd also consider the possibility that there are a limited number of avatars available.

 

Curious .... Self Control what are the principles of your concept of human nature?

 

That people are basically selfish, grasping, and largely given to only fleeting moments of anything approaching altruism throughout their lives. Is there another one?

 

As a libertarian and a liberal I believe the function of the government is to "provide for the national defence and regulate interstate commerce." All other functions of government should be decided at the state level. If you don't agree with your state government you have the option of 49 more to choose from. I personally give my time and money to my local community with no thought of a payback. To say that all of any group are the same is to deny the possibility of individuality. I don't agree with every other libertarian they don't always agree with me. I'm sorry you have such a low opinion of people in general. I've found the opposite to be true.
~Peace

 

Really? Are you sure that such a system wouldn't just inevitably privilege those who are more itinerate? How willing would you be to up and leave home any time the state you're living in decides to piss you off? Wouldn't it be better if they couldn't?

Not really. People are people. Most of us have common values dictated by our basic drives. This is kind of my point though; no matter how unique and special or boring and typical people are, can we agree that basic rights should not be decided by something as arbitrary as geography? I, for one, have a problem with a system where, for example, it's wrong to have an abortion in Iowa, but if you hop on a plane to Missouri or wherever it becomes ok. The problem with state laws on the big issues is that it simply would privileges freedom to those who are more able to pick and choose their state.

I don't really have a low opinion of people; I've just noticed that the worst people tend to be the loudest, particularly in politics. I wouldn't be surprised if, in the country I live in, devolving government to "state level" (our equivalent would be counties), based on our local elections I'd be stuck with whatever our conservatives think is best. And this is without even taking into account local interests. At state level, your religious fanatics (and you have a lot of them) would have far more influence than they do even now.

I'm not against some power being devolved to state level. But things like abortion, equality in marriage and so on... these things shouldn't be decided geographically. The "problem" of your country's moral polarisation shouldn't be solved by giving up (effectively setting up "Christianland" and "Atheistland" or whatever); it should be told by telling those who are clearly wrong to fuck right off, but no-one seems to have the balls to do that stuff.

 

When a federal government dictates what a state can or can not pass into law they vacate the rights of the citizens to decide. A libertarian government puts that power back into the hands of the people. And yes if I disagreed strongly enough with a state government I would move. I have family obligations keeping me here now but I plan on relocating to the Pacific N.W.. But before I go I'm going to do my level best to change the things that piss me off here. Putting the power into the hands of the states is the closest you can get to individual freedom. We are a nation of many religions, and each knows they are free to express them selves. This in no way means we are polarized. Most every one respects others and their right to worship as they see fit. Basic rights are not limited by geography, but as we see now the federal government is trampling on states rights in places like Oregon and California. The voters in those states decided to legalize Medicinal Marijuana, the DEA says otherwise. A truly libertarian system gets the government back into the hands of the people. Simply telling someone to fuck off solves nothing, unless its backed up at the ballot box. We do that on a rather regular basis.

 

Well I meant in political terms. And your point about the place not being polarised... I mean, you guys have this raging debate over abortion there, a debate that pretty much every other civilised country has had and shelved. Do you really want a situation where someone would have to travel two or three states over to have an abortion? Bearing in mind that, while you might be perfectly capable to just hop on a plane, other people won't be able to. I mean, fuck, I wouldn't be able to. I think you really over-estimate the average person's capacity to relocate, and that's ignoring the basic ideological issue I have with the "if you don't like [x state] then you can just get out" attitude - where's the obligation to make life better for everyone if you can just go with the lowest common denominator, and show your malcontents the door? Regardless of the capacity to choose, why should someone even have to?

My point is that it's a double-edged sword, that's all, and the fact that you seem to foresee only upsides to this ideology doesn't exactly fill me with confidence. You don't have a contingency plan, and you place a tremendous faith in humans to just be nice and considerate. Personally I quite like big government for redistributing wealth whether people like it or not. I don't know many people who give to charity or "do their bit", and I think you'd find that, no matter how much you "do your bit for your community", if it was purely left up to choice, it probably wouldn't be enough. Most people like the idea of being fine upstanding citizens, they just gloss over the bits that they don't like.

 

Roe V Wade gives women the right to decide for themselves. When you say polarized I believe you mean deadlocked on the issue. That's not the case, debate goes on between those that would over turn Roe V Wade and those who support it but its a healthy debate. At least our freedom of speech gives us the right to debate it.
I don't believe a person should have to relocate, but we do have the right to. Or better yet show the politicians the door, change administrations for one more representative of the peoples beliefs. Whatever we choose to do.
I don't know anyone, with the exception of a few Marxists who want big government to redistribute the wealth whether we want them to or not. That is why we founded this country, "No Taxation Without Representation." And dollar for dollar Americans give more money at home and abroad than any other people. Not counting foreign aid. Yes there is need for more but we more than do our bit in comparison. No country has eliminated the need for charity. And we are still waiting to be repaid for "Lend Lease" oh that's right we forgave that debt.
We do work to make things better for all citizens, there are programs for everything at both the state and federal levels, something I'd like to see less of because of the abuse they invite.
Again the topic was the differences between a libertarian and a liberal. That depends on your point of view.
By the way, how long have you lived in the United States of America? You must have spent decades studying and traveling here to have such a clear understanding of whats wrong with our country. Its people and its government.
~Peace atriot:

 

We have the right to debate it, but we have a climate where religion has to stay the fuck away from politics at all times. You guys don't, and so I'd be worried about debating it in case people get ideas. I consider it important because you've got people trying to overturn it, if it's not half of you then it certainly seems to be an over-represented minority. Without wishing to turn this into an abortion debate, there are a few issues that you guys are having where the answer is clear (i.e. if you object to something, don't do it) but it's still being argued. The anti-choice lobby in this country is microscopic and invisible compared to you guys', and it's because we've insisted.

When I talk about polarisation, I mean that some states seem to be massively Republican or massively Democrat, like their elections barely get any coverage because it's a foregone conclusion what the result will be. If you allow those states to decide their own laws re issues like abortion, are you seriously saying you wouldn't expect any state to overturn Roe vs Wade for their state?

See above. It's fine if you live in/can afford to up and move to a swing state, but if you live in a state where the majority either couldn't give a shit or don't want you to have an abortion, you're not going to have the option to "show the politicians the door". Those people might be a drop in the ocean on the federal scale, but on a local level they could comprise a majority.

I don't get why you're mentioning that we have "the right" to move. Why wouldn't you? It's not about the right to move, it's the right to stay that's important.

The difficulty I have is with issues like public services and maintenance. They're not popular issues, and a lot of people don't even seem to relate the taxes they pay to the fact that their roads are repaired or whatever. The problem with just "encouraging charity" is that animal charities get more money than kids charities... is it likely that your average citizen is going to offer to fix a road? Most people don't even realise they need fixing.

Haha, I don't even live in your country, dude. I live in the UK. I just have a problem with libertarianism because it seems to be an attempt to turn back the clock, and boy, from a global perspective, the last thing we need is for you guys to turn back the clock!

 

Its quite evident you don't live here, by your lack of knowledge of how our system functions. We have a separation of church and state. As far as being worried about debate "because people might get ideas"? I thought that was the point of debate. Or are you only for debating the ideas you want to change? So the opposing side "pro life" of abortion in your country is small because "you have insisted"? Do you mean repressed? As in if you don't agree don't allow them to speak?
No matter where we decide to live in this country we have free elections and we do show politicians the door. The biggest issue here is not abortion its the economy. The number one reason for relocating is for better wages. Let unemployment go up and a new governor is almost guaranteed. The one topic of discussion common to every one is the price of gas, it effects us all.
Not know a road needs fixing? Potholes, we have an annual spring contest in this states largest newspaper to ID the biggest one. The prize is a new set of tires. We are well aware of where the money comes from and where it goes. Road taxes are paid with a tax on gas and special user taxes on truckers.
As far as children versus animal charities that is your opinion and your welcome to it. I know better. From Big Brother/Big Sister to privately funded charter schools we work hard taking care of our own. Feed the Children, another charity that sends food to kids over seas. UNICEF, a UN program started and funded for the most part by Americans. CARE is another. There are many more examples, but again all off topic.
You live in Northampton, UK and yet you worry libertarianism might turn back the clock in this country. What is it your afraid we might do from your global perspective? Stop being the worlds policeman? Stop paying for foreign aid? Stop being the worlds biggest arms dealer? Stop killing world leaders we don't agree with? I can't imagine what it is your afraid of.
~Peace,
~Its more likely with a Libertarian government

 

Nah, it's a straight trade: they're allowed to speak, as long as that's all they're allowed to do. Sure, you have "separation". You've also got swarms of dicks trying to do away with that.

As for the rest, you really are painting a far rosier picture of your country than ANYONE ELSE from America I've ever spoken to.