What are the differences between Libertarianism and Classical Liberalism?

When people say "The land of the free" their sure aren't talking about the UK. And as far as you not having spoken to someone with a different opinion than yours it doesn't suprise me. Birds of a feather do tend to flock together. And from what I read of the posters who replied to you earlier they didn't agree with you either. Back on topic.

Libertarianism is a philosophical position in metaphysics with respect to free will and determination.
From the Libertarian Party
Preamble
As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no on is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.
We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.
Consequently, we defend each persons right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any other authoritarian power.
~Peace

 

That's not what I meant. I've spoken to plenty of people who disagree with me politically, but who aren't naïve enough to think that people are basically good. That's the difference.

See, it falls on its arse at the last sentence, ultimately. Up until then, that could be describing most relatively centrist ideologies. The others are just more practical. Ideally, most people would want a world "where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any other authoritarian power". The problem is that that's not going to happen.

Look, it's obviously not going to get us anywhere to argue this out. You're convinced that people are basically good, and selectively ignore any evidence to the contrary because look look, we had a pothole contest!. I believe that people are good when it's good for them. I do not believe people are bad for that, I'm just realistic. Realistic effective governments find ways of channelling people's selfishness so that, more often than not, it doesn't result in anyone getting killed. It's not something you can just ignore though, and I don't know many people who are naïve enough to think so.

 

Your twisting words around and being selective in the lines you quote to try and bolster an opinion you can not uphold with fact. The remark about potholes was a response to your statement that people would not know when a road was in need of repair. It has nothing to do with whether people are inherently good or bad. I don't see any evidence that people are bad, there are a few bad people. You condemn the human race based on what, your vast experience among all races? I have travelled to Portugal, Spain, Italy, Yugoslavia, Greece, Turkey, Mexico and Jamaica. I found all of those places and people to be a positive experience. As far as saying something is not going to happen, if we do nothing nothing happens. There were those in this country's early history who said we would never be free from kings and tyranny. They were wrong to. I am a realist when it comes to human nature, I am not taken in by flim flam BS. I know when someone has there own interests at heart. But looking out for your own interests does not make you a bad person. You say you have evidence that I have ignored that proves people are bad. Produce your evidence, not opinion.