150 years of "Libertarian".

[Wessexman]

Now I'm neither a rightwing libertarian nor a social anarchist but I do recognise that a pretty underhanded theft of the word did and is taking place and here is an interesting article on the origins of the word.

150 years of Libertarian | Anarchist Writers

This year, 2008, marks the 150th anniversary of the use of the word “libertarian” by anarchists.....


.....The first anarchist journal to use the term “libertarian” was La Libertaire, Journal du Mouvement Social. Somewhat ironically, given recent developments in America, it was published in New York between 1858 and 1861 by French communist-anarchist Joseph Déjacque. The next recorded use of the term was in Europe, when “libertarian communism” was used at a French regional anarchist Congress at Le Havre (16-22 November, 1880). January the following year saw a French manifesto issued on “Libertarian or Anarchist Communism.” Finally, 1895 saw leading anarchists Sébastien Faure and Louise Michel publish La Libertaire in France. [Max Nettlau, A Short History of Anarchism, pp. 75-6, p. 145 and p. 162].......

 

[Oftencold]

The many shadings of the term "Libertarian," has led me to eschew its use in most cases.

Frankly, I'd be happier if political movements just adopted random symbols for names, since the descriptive terms, "Republican," and "Democrat," for instance are never accurate of exclusive.

Using terms like things like "Purple Tree party," or "Silver Square Movement" work better I think.

 

[Wessexman]

Or perhaps terms like whigs and Tories? Interesting idea.

 

[Tucker Case]

I belong to the Non-Ocular Conjunctivitis Party

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Now I'm neither a rightwing libertarian nor a social anarchist but I do recognise that a pretty underhanded theft of the word did and is taking place and here is an interesting article on the origins of the word.

150 years of Libertarian | Anarchist Writers

This year, 2008, marks the 150th anniversary of the use of the word “libertarian” by anarchists.....


.....The first anarchist journal to use the term “libertarian” was La Libertaire, Journal du Mouvement Social. Somewhat ironically, given recent developments in America, it was published in New York between 1858 and 1861 by French communist-anarchist Joseph Déjacque. The next recorded use of the term was in Europe, when “libertarian communism” was used at a French regional anarchist Congress at Le Havre (16-22 November, 1880). January the following year saw a French manifesto issued on “Libertarian or Anarchist Communism.” Finally, 1895 saw leading anarchists Sébastien Faure and Louise Michel publish La Libertaire in France. [Max Nettlau, A Short History of Anarchism, pp. 75-6, p. 145 and p. 162].......

Somewhere in the DP archives is a debate between some "Socialist Libertarian" (who was just a communist IMO) and myself.

He could never answer me as to how he could use the term libertarian when he didn't believe in a right to own, or earn anything... He kept trying to explain how his utopia (slavery) was freedom... it was really quite entertaining... I think I'll search for it.

 

[Red_Dave]

Somewhere in the DP archives is a debate between some "Socialist Libertarian" (who was just a communist IMO) and myself.

He could never answer me as to how he could use the term libertarian when he didn't believe in a right to own, or earn anything... He kept trying to explain how his utopia (slavery) was freedom... it was really quite entertaining... I think I'll search for it.

Well what does give anyone a right to own anything?

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Well what does give anyone a right to own anything?

Do you really want to derail this thread? The same source that gives us all of our other rights... that is if you acknowledge any human rights at all...

Do you disagree that we have a right to own things? Are you saying that I have no right to my stuff, that one needs no justification for taking it? Or that people should not stand up against theft? Hire police to stop it?

The short answer to your question is the constitutions of their government, the more contentious answer would be the fact that I and enough people are willing to defend said right. Disagree with me? Take up theft and see how well it works for you in a place that recognizes rights.

If you are in fact not a theft apologist, answer your own question for me in respect to any rights that you do acknowledge. I mean, if I tried to take something of yours, wouldn't you stop me? Or have try and have the state intervene?

 

[Red_Dave]

Do you really want to derail this thread? The same source that gives us all of our other rights... that is if you acknowledge any human rights at all...

Do you disagree that we have a right to own things? Are you saying that I have no right to my stuff, that one needs no justification for taking it? Or that people should not stand up against theft? Hire police to stop it?

The short answer to your question is the constitutions of their government, the more contentious answer would be the fact that I and enough people are willing to defend said right. Disagree with me? Take up theft and see how well it works for you in a place that recognizes rights.

If you are in fact not a theft apologist, answer your own question for me in respect to any rights that you do acknowledge. I mean, if I tried to take something of yours, wouldn't you stop me? Or have try and have the state intervene?

Bit tectchy today arent we? If someone had expressed a genuine interest in what i though i would have taken that as a compliment. I dont know why all that venom was necessary

I havent disagreed with anything yet. I wouldnt go so far as saying that noboddy has a right to own anything. What im asking is how we define who has a right to own what and more importantly what *Gives* them that right. Its no good to say "i own this therefore this is mine* without legitimising it somehow.

I think theres plenty of ocasions in which an orthodox understanding of property rights isnt aplicable. For example theres plenty of places inhabbited by indegenious people who have no concept of property rights in the sence that we would, alot of the time someone from outside will "buy" the property and they will end up displaced. What you have to ask yourself is what legitimacy these concepts have when the only thing backing them up is force.

Now ild agree that none of us want to live in a society where we randomly streal from each other which is why we need to agree to all follow some sort of rule book. What im essentially asking is what legitimacy values like property rights have unless people consent to them? Or more importantly if they still exist if people withdraw their consent

So say the country where the indingenous people lose there land elects a government that attempts to nationalise the land that had been taken from the indigenous people. Alot of right wingers would see a coup against this government as completely legitimate because its defending "property rights" even though this property was taken by force in the first place. Isnt that basically saying that might is right?

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Bit tectchy today arent we? If someone had expressed a genuine interest in what i though i would have taken that as a compliment. I dont know why all that venom was necessary

I havent disagreed with anything yet. I wouldnt go so far as saying that noboddy has a right to own anything. What im asking is how we define who has a right to own what and more importantly what *Gives* them that right. Its no good to say "i own this therefore this is mine* without legitimising it somehow.

The venom is necessary because in not stating whether you agree or disagree, you're playing a game and wasting my time.

Do you or do you not believe in a right to property? Yes or No.

You must answer that before we can proceed because things are what they are. And if you accept the existence of rights, then you must understand the shared source.

I think theres plenty of ocasions in which an orthodox understanding of property rights isnt aplicable. For example theres plenty of places inhabbited by indegenious people who have no concept of property rights in the sence that we would, alot of the time someone from outside will "buy" the property and they will end up displaced. What you have to ask yourself is what legitimacy these concepts have when the only thing backing them up is force.

I don't understand how property rights aren't applicable. Are you talking about people who knowingly sold their land, or people who had their land taken by conquest?

If you know "this is my spot" and you knowingly trade it away, you have to have some concept of whats being lost.

Now ild agree that none of us want to live in a society where we randomly streal from each other which is why we need to agree to all follow some sort of rule book. What im essentially asking is what legitimacy values like property rights have unless people consent to them? Or more importantly if they still exist if people withdraw their consent

I don't understand your question...

So say the country where the indingenous people lose there land elects a government that attempts to nationalise the land that had been taken from the indigenous people. Alot of right wingers would see a coup against this government as completely legitimate because its defending "property rights" even though this property was taken by force in the first place. Isnt that basically saying that might is right?

Let me get this straight...

If I buy something from you, say a house for example. I give you money for it, but you don't leave and then you have the state take it back... I would say that those you or those engaging in nationalization are operating under the assumption that "might is right" rather than respecting human rights.

To sell, then use force to take back is theft even if your government is the one that is doing it.

The fact remains that we have the right to property, you cannot deny this. Deny that this should be and I regard you as a thief or an enabler.

The only question that is up for debate is under what circumstances can said right be violated; Eminent domain for example.

 

[Unrein]

Do you really want to derail this thread? The same source that gives us all of our other rights... that is if you acknowledge any human rights at all...

Do you disagree that we have a right to own things? Are you saying that I have no right to my stuff, that one needs no justification for taking it? Or that people should not stand up against theft? Hire police to stop it?

The short answer to your question is the constitutions of their government, the more contentious answer would be the fact that I and enough people are willing to defend said right. Disagree with me? Take up theft and see how well it works for you in a place that recognizes rights.

If you are in fact not a theft apologist, answer your own question for me in respect to any rights that you do acknowledge. I mean, if I tried to take something of yours, wouldn't you stop me? Or have try and have the state intervene?

Maybe this is what Red Dave is trying to say, maybe it isn't, but I will say this regardlessly. What gives someone a 'right' is nothing more the collective agreement of the ruling power, be it a monarchial king, or a democratic republic. "Rights" are simply actions that will be protected by the government, there is no 'higher power' granting these rights, when you take away (human) government you are converting human defined rights into 'Darwin' defined rights. In fact, anarchy is a rather incomplete idea, it's empty in this regard: there is always some power governing us. Anarchy does not strip away or reduce government, is changes government to something else. It changes government from people to underlying nature. And since underlying nature is where human-made government came from, anarchy is self defeating. The second you take away human-government, nothing will stop it from filling right back into place.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Maybe this is what Red Dave is trying to say, maybe it isn't, but I will say this regardlessly. What gives someone a 'right' is nothing more the collective agreement of the ruling power, be it a monarchial king, or a democratic republic. "Rights" are simply actions that will be protected by the government, there is no 'higher power' granting these rights

I agree, we only have these rights because we chose to....

when you take away (human) government you are converting human defined rights into 'Darwin' defined rights.

Huh?

In fact, anarchy is a rather incomplete idea, it's empty in this regard: there is always some power governing us. Anarchy does not strip away or reduce government, is changes government to something else. It changes government from people to underlying nature.

What?... You're saying without man's laws there is still the natural law I think...

And since underlying nature is where human-made government came from, anarchy is self defeating. The second you take away human-government, nothing will stop it from filling right back into place.

I don't follow... Anarchy is self defeating because in the absence of laws people will form another government?

 

[new coup for you]

Best political cartoon ever:

 

[Unrein]

I agree, we only have these rights because we chose to....

Then property rights/ownership rights are based on the government, or a result of the government.

What?... You're saying without man's laws there is still the natural law I think...

As in the laws of physics, yes.

I don't follow... Anarchy is self defeating because in the absence of laws people will form another government?

Correct.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Best political cartoon ever:

Yeah, having a problem with the forced redistribution of wealth is SO Anarchist. :roll:

People equating libertarians w/ Anarchists is almost as much of a pet peeve of mine as equating skepticism with cynicism or arrogance.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Then property rights/ownership rights are based on the government, or a result of the government.

Rights and governments are based on their constitutions. But what are you getting at?

As in the laws of physics, yes.

Correct.

I agree, so what was your point? I don't see how this has to do w/ Red Dave's point.

 

[Unrein]

Rights and governments are based on their constitutions. But what are you getting at?

Not necessarily, not all government have constitutions or any related document. But that document is written by humans none-the-less.

I agree, so what was your point? I don't see how this has to do w/ Red Dave's point.

You were suggesting libertarianism requires belief in the "right to own" and a socialist who doesn't believe in the right to own cannot be a libertarian. The "right to own" is human-government protected right as well as denying the 'right to own', they are both government principals so neither is more socialistic or less libertarian than the other.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Not necessarily, not all government have constitutions or any related document. But that document is written by humans none-the-less.

Please, name me a sovereign nation who's rules of government are not written down.

You were suggesting libertarianism requires belief in the "right to own" and a socialist who doesn't believe in the right to own cannot be a libertarian. The "right to own" is human-government protected right as well as denying the 'right to own', they are both government principals so neither is more socialistic or less libertarian than the other.

What? Did you just say that denying one's right to own their property is a government principle? I don't follow...

Is your argument seriously that "government principals" are irrelevant to the definition of political ideologies?!? THAT'S WHAT A POLITICAL IDEOLOGY IS!

Libertarianism is a philosophy on how governments should respect certain rights. The degree to which one is a libertarian is the degree to which they agree that government should not infringe on said rights...

I really don't know what to say to you... what I just read is tantamount to "The ingredients are irrelevant to the final product, having no eggs in the batter doesn't make it any less "cake." "

Words mean what they mean, you cannot be a socialist if you're for all the same civil rights and government as a free market capitalist society.

 

[The silenced majority]

I see Libertarianism as a Minor-league political ideology; a crossroads.

Either Libertarians move on and realize that politics is the art of the possible & become true Conservatives or they go the route of an all out resentment for government and become essentially anarchists.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

I see Libertarianism as a Minor-league political ideology; a crossroads.

Do you have a logical rebuttal for any libertarian principles, or is the absence of such rebuttals in your mind the reason for such insults?

Either Libertarians move on and realize that politics is the art of the possible

Yeah, if only the founding fathers understood that life without the mother country wasn't possible... :roll:

Just how are libertarian politics not possible?

& become true Conservatives

So in order to be "true" one has to be willing to compromise on ones principles? A true conservative is one who betrays it? :lol:

or they go the route of an all out resentment for government and become essentially anarchists.

You must be right, no one dies a libertarian. Its just a "phase" before anarchism or conservatism. :roll:

Or your pathetic false dichotomy has no basis in reality, and we're the real conservatives.

Do you realize how insulting your post is or was that intentional? It would be a bit like me saying:

"The so called 'true conservatives' are a minor league political ideology @ a crossroads. Either they stop hating gays, shredding the constitution, trying to teach religion in science class and engaging in divisive Rovean politics that no longer work on the American people, or they'll keep losing like in 06 and 08 and go the way of the "Federalists."

Oh wait I'm sorry, In imitating you I was supposed to say something that was utterly false... my bad. I just cant do "wrong" as well as you can.

 

[Unrein]

Please, name me a sovereign nation who's rules of government are not written down.

It doesn't matter that document was written by humans which was my only point regarding constitutions.

What? Did you just say that denying one's right to own their property is a government principle? I don't follow...

Communism in essense, the denial of personal ownership of property, that is a government prospect is it not?

Is your argument seriously that "government principals" are irrelevant to the definition of political ideologies?!? THAT'S WHAT A POLITICAL IDEOLOGY IS!

My simple point is that both libertarians AND communists want the government to play a role in property ownership. Libertarians want property ownership to be protected by the government, no? Even libertarians want theft to be illegal, correct? The notion that communists want government mediation in property ownership but libertarians do not is false.

Words mean what they mean, you cannot be a socialist if you're for all the same civil rights and government as a free market capitalist society.

Capitalism is not the same thing as libertarianism and words mean what they are interperted to mean.

 

[Unrein]

Libertarianism is not incompatible with socialism. Some people might believe in a system in which individuals freely elect participation (libertarian) in a deliberately socialistic network of organization and commerce.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

It doesn't matter that document was written by humans which was my only point regarding constitutions.

Okay, written by humans, so what?

Communism in essense, the denial of personal ownership of property, that is a government prospect is it not?

Yeah... so?

My simple point is that both libertarians AND communists want the government to play a role in property ownership.

Yes, but what makes one a libertarian rather than a socialist is just how they want their government to play that role.

Libertarians want property ownership to be protected by the government, no? Even libertarians want theft to be illegal, correct? The notion that communists want government mediation in property ownership but libertarians do not is false.

I think you're confusing the defense of one's rights with the state intervention or for example the market.

The defense of our rights is the very purpose of the government in libertarianism.

Capitalism is not the same thing as libertarianism

Didn't say that it was. Capitalism requires liberty, which is what libertarianism advocates.

and words mean what they are interperted to mean.

What kind of crazy subjectivist taught you that? If I say AND mean "do not rape me" and you "interpret" that as "no means yes" what you interpreted DOES NOT EQUAL what I meant.

Words mean what they mean, things are what they are regardless of how we perceive them.

Libertarianism is not incompatible with socialism.

I don't see how two contradicting approaches works out as compatible in your head...

Some people might believe in a system in which individuals freely elect participation (libertarian) in a deliberately socialistic network of organization and commerce.

What does it mean to "freely elect participation" and how the heck is that libertarianism?

------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps I should explain to you how this sounds to me:
Person 1: Whats a grapper?
Person 2: A grapper is a person who only eats purple M&M's, not to be confused with redders, who eat only the red ones.
Person 1: Oh I see, I guess that makes me a redder and a grapper...
Person 2: No... that would make you something else...
Person 1: Why cant one be both?
Person 2: The definitions contradict...
Person 1: Not necessarily...

 

[Unrein]

I think you're confusing the defense of one's rights with the state intervening.

What happens when someone violates a right being protected by the government?

What does it mean to "freely elect participation" and how the heck is that libertarianism?

You aren't being forced by the government to participate in the socialistic system, in fact there may very well be no 'government' at all. It's both the libertarian idea of freedom combined with socialism, a system of exchanging goods and services for the good of the whole or common.

A notable libertarian socialist would be Noam Chomsky.

 

[The silenced majority]

Do you have a logical rebuttal for any libertarian principles, or is the absence of such rebuttals in your mind the reason for such insults?

Sure. Libertarians generally adhere to an abstract take on liberty that has never existed. Believing foolishly that order comes from a government contract. Liberty only comes after order is established; liberty via government only comes when there is a consensus via order.. Libertarians believe to a certain extent that our society (one that is where it is today because of a high level of cooperation) is one where man can retreat back in to his own personal sovereign castle and society will move along just fine.

Yeah, if only the founding fathers understood that life without the mother country wasn't possible... :roll:

Libertarianism is the ideology of Murray Rothbard and to a lesser extent Daniel Shays. It has almost nothing to do with the aristocratic founders who sought a more perfect union. Alas, those who adhere to this ideology think that they are restoring the vestiges of a Republic lost.

Just how are libertarian politics not possible?

Libertarians view Government as the great oppressor. Government in fact is necessary to a certain extent to advance civilization. Furthermore, Libertarians belief in a minimal government relies on an inherent goodness of man. Ideologies are like that.

So in order to be "true" one has to be willing to compromise on ones principles? A true conservative is one who betrays it? :lol:

Not necessarily. To deal with anything in absolutes is unwise. Conservatives generally accept that not everything is black and white.

You must be right, no one dies a libertarian. Its just a "phase" before anarchism or conservatism. :roll:

You're right about that I suppose.

Or your pathetic false dichotomy has no basis in reality, and we're the real conservatives.

You're not a real conservative. Libertarians believe in no transcendent moral order, relying instead on the petty rationale of the individual. Libertarians believe that the only thing that holds society together is a cash payment. Libertarians (like Marxists) believe in the benevolence of human nature, Conservatives understand that man is imperfect and that a society controlled by government or absent of government will be left to the wicked hands and machinations of power mad men.

We can agree on many things. No vainglorious foreign policy. No foreign entanglements. No centralized authority.

I find anymore that Libertarianism is just a convenient place to loge unremitting criticism of society, morality and the transcendent order. These things are cherished among Conservatives as we believe that they are the foundation from with our laws, order and liberty come from.

Do you realize how insulting your post is or was that intentional?

In all fairness, you are invariably condescending and insulting, so deal with it.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Sure.

Really? And you'll do it logically, im game!

Libertarians generally adhere to an abstract take on liberty that has never existed.

Strike 1: Straw man & Ad Hominem

I asked you to refute logically a libertarian principle, not to generalize about libertarians. You might as well say "they're generally stoners too," you've still failed at debunking a principle.

I don't care what they do, whats wrong with what they believe?

Believing foolishly that order comes from a government contract.

Strike 2: Another straw man. I don't know where you're getting this from...

This is not a libertarian principle... nor does it represent the opinion of anyone I've ever met. If anything libertarians have little regard for order, they would rather be less safe if more free.

Heck, a dictator can provide order.

Liberty only comes after order is established; liberty via government only comes when there is a consensus via order.. Libertarians believe to a certain extent that our society (one that is where it is today because of a high level of cooperation) is one where man can retreat back in to his own personal sovereign castle and society will move along just fine.

One can be free on a deserted island, in utter absence of "order." Order is no requirement for liberty simply because you assert it as so.

Its not smart to make absolute statements that can easily be refuted with a single example of an exception.

Libertarianism is the ideology of Murray Rothbard and to a lesser extent Daniel Shays. It has almost nothing to do with the aristocratic founders who sought a more perfect union. Alas, those who adhere to this ideology think that they are restoring the vestiges of a Republic lost.

Libertarian principals are what they are, if you're saying that they are not in the same as the principles of M. Rothbard and D. Shays, so what? Liberalism isn't what it used to mean, that doesn't make any of it wrong (although many other things do.)

If you're right about that, whats your point? I don't see how that makes them invalid political principals?

Libertarians view Government as the great oppressor. Government in fact is necessary to a certain extent to advance civilization. Furthermore, Libertarians belief in a minimal government relies on an inherent goodness of man. Ideologies are like that.

Yes, governments TO AN EXTENT are necessary, the extent to which libertarians want government is the defense of their rights. Is there a point here?

None of what you said explains how libertarian politics are "not possible." Everyone who defends the 1st amendment is engaging in libertarian politics.

So in order to be "true" one has to be willing to compromise on ones principles? A true conservative is one who betrays it?

Not necessarily. To deal with anything in absolutes is unwise. Conservatives generally accept that not everything is black and white.

To ignore an absolute is far less wise, some things are absolute, and to be without conservative principles makes you not a conservative.

You're right about that I suppose.

... is sarcasm wasted on you as well?

You're not a real conservative.

Of course, to stand up for conservative principles is the most unconservative thing that I do. :lol:

Libertarians believe in no transcendent moral order, relying instead on the petty rationale of the individual.

We're talking about politics in a secular government, if you want to pretend that we live under a theocracy, by all means divorce yourself from reality.

Libertarianism does not have ANYTHING to say about supernatural morals, again you're generalizing about people rather than addressing their actual principles.

So far, you've given me NOTHING. I know quite a few libertarians who believe in transcendent moral orders.

Libertarians believe that the only thing that holds society together is a cash payment.

More straw men? Wow this is getting pathetic...

Libertarians (like Marxists) believe in the benevolence of human nature, Conservatives understand that man is imperfect and that a society controlled by government or absent of government will be left to the wicked hands and machinations of power mad men.

You understand nothing, the free will to do the wrong thing is not an imperfection. Your idea of perfection is a robot, and my idea of a nightmare of an existence.

We can agree on many things. No vainglorious foreign policy. No foreign entanglements. No centralized authority.

I find anymore that Libertarianism is just a convenient place to loge unremitting criticism of society, morality and the transcendent order. These things are cherished among Conservatives as we believe that they are the foundation from with our laws, order and liberty come from.

Criticisms are often warranted, especially in regards to supernatural claims about morality; They have no place in a SECULAR government.

In all fairness, you are invariably condescending and insulting, so deal with it.

Does it look like I'm having difficulty "dealing" with your tripe? You started it, "don't start nothin, wont be nothin."

If you don't like how I respond to insults, don't open with them.