libertarians...got something to prove?

met a few in my time. all very egotistical

 

Not libertarian socialists .

 

They mostly seem to be young and disassociated Americans.

 

Yeah many of the younger generation are into these capitalist forms of libertarianism......can you really blame them though? How many political ideologies and organizations fight for liberty and youth rights as much as libertarians? It used to be that the democrats and the left in general used to be the one that was supposed to fight for youth rights and liberty from them authoritarian conservatives......but most democratic/so-called left wing politicians seems to be as much into restricting liberty and pushing the status quo forward. Youth rights seem so marginalized now by either party by the traditional family coalitions and the "save the children" groups.

Many youth were re-vitalized into politics by the ron paul campaign for liberty, even if the guy did not reflect everything that youths wanted. I suppose the problem with such an arrangement can arise when libertarians sell their souls to republicans and even neo-conservatives just because their economics are more similar. I know this first hand......my brother started to consider himself libertarian when he found out more about the philosophy but due to his prior staunchly conservative viewpoints (mainly for identity reasons I often think).....not much in him was libertarian, except perhaps being in support for the legalization of pot.

But don't discount libertarians so easily though. Many of the later radicals for freedom and equality started out libertarian due to a conservative up-bringing. I know when I used to consider myself libertarian it had largely to do with my philosophy coming from a negative liberty perspective. Once there is an understanding of the concept of positive liberty then not much is needed to make the perspective more balanced for equality.

 

im curious, how did you come to understand the concept of positive liberty?

 

Well I guess a better understanding is more like it. I've always understood what the concept meant even as a more right wing libertarian, but I've always thought of it as a utopian or impossible goal. But it obviously isn't especially went looked at from a less absolutist notion of property. For example many right wing libertarians tend to assume that with less or no government that the natural state of things is property rights.....and that distinct property hierarchies are to follow. Of course the left wing view that people will share the Earth common is also true....as it has been in many parts of the world. Ultimatley yeah you do need negative liberty but what's the use of all that negative liberty when it cannot be channeled into positive liberty. Even if you had the autonomy of negative liberty one can still live their life without ever having much liberty due to poverty while someone else with the same negative liberty can still have more liberties......due to being able to claim certain land and wealth to the exclusion of others. Economics can be a real limiting factor for liberty and unless it is addressed with providing more positive liberty, liberty will be under threat. Rugged individualism can easily go to way of fascism if unchecked....as what has happened in many countries before and is especially happening in countries like the US.

 

My struggling points, Bear with me where you have covered this (i have perception issues)

positive liberty seems like altruism, sort of maintaining a base level of equality. I'm on thin ice here with a weak idea of liberty....but it seems to be inalienable rights as an individual,both in the sense of being able to succeed AND being able to submit. Eg I have the right to buy your land which I feel more valuable than you think, and you have the right to sell your land without fully knowing its value.

So is that the more conservative view of libertarian? or something else..or maybe an oversimplification idk

 

Disassociated Americans??? I have never heard such an expression before.

You mean disaffected Americans?

 

No. I meant disassociated Americans.

I have noticed a number of Libertarians are from a younger generation with a disassociated psychological philosophy.

Like what Silverman was talking about earlier in this thread. Many libertarians are young re-vitalized ron Paul supporters in the USA, rallied in support of liberty, champions of right-wing middle-class capitalism, but what that liberty entails within the philosophy is decided from one individual to the next. There is no clear Libertarians cannot understand a basic myth is false, that is, consumption is the most important element of the economy. Thus, lack of association.

Libertarians like to be able view a neatly packaged up political economy, and wish to pass it off as moderate progressive social policy.

Here's a link to a typical Libertarian philosophy handbook:

http://www.mises.org/store/Economics-of-Liberty-The--P62.aspx

One specific article is entitled "How to Desocialize?" by Murray Rothbard. Fancy a renowned Libertarian publishing works on how to desocialize.

 

isnt rothbard in that article discussing how to remove the economy from state hands? what does that have to do with disassociation?

 

If the economy isn't in the hands of the state, it goes into the hands of corporations. This is what most Libertarians favour.

 

Well in a sense, yeah. Actually many right wing libertarians will be often first to say they are against the elitism of corporations......but do little to support this view while ignoring corporate injustice. And some libertarians may sell their soul for social policy......ie less civil liberties at the cost of more economic liberty.

 

And the corporations run the state. So either way it's bad.

The problem with libertarians is that they place economics above all else, not realizing that the money system itself is a mechanism of control. Whoever controls that system has power over everyone else.

 

Corporations do not run the state. They lobby the government and have a significant presence because of limited liability whenever they break and law, and they wield power in the global realms and secure particular markets.

But the corporations do not run the state. That would be fascism.

 

well we are in a form fascism. the federal reserve, income tax. both illegal yet enforced by force by the government. the continued loss of personal freedoms.
in a direct way corporations do run the nation. they lobby certain positions give political figures large donations and in return they are given handout or laws benefiting them.
its not just corporations either its with most large organzations. unions, religions...