I'm gonna go with:
Consequentialist, semi-proprietarian, statist.
The thing is, I'm a libertarian in the sense that I prefer less government and think that it has done little beyond make very poor decisions in almost all fields. I'm also a believer in reasonable market controls (no monopolies, minor epa, etc) and even social programs as long as they were smaller and looked nothing like the jokes we have now. I also wish we really were a union of states.
The first two, I think are too absolute. There is a gray area. Things have to be measured case-by-case.
My choice of semi-proprietarian is similar. Ownership should be the default, but if you can prove harm to others, then you are infringing on their rights.
Lastly, I'm libertarian, not anarchist. If I wanted no government, I would be anarchist, which is a different belief system all together.
Sorry if I'm not terribly helpful. I'm trying to give straight answers, but being libertarian doesn't necessarily mean a strict belief system. I figure that's why you have the poll
I used a very broad definition of libertarianism, as not to leave out anarchists who do value liberty. I remember that the first person to call himself a libertarian was an anarcho-communist. Since then, the term has been used for various right-wing movements with the prior definitions being left out.Keridan said:Lastly, I'm libertarian, not anarchist. If I wanted no government, I would be anarchist, which is a different belief system all together.
I am an Deontological, Anti-Proprietarian, Anarchist who can tolerate the state and some progressive policy.
My Anit-Proprietarian views stems from the Lockean Proviso. I believe that man owns himself and has a right to his/her labor. However, natural resources were not created by man and need fair share and appropriation restraints. However, this contradicts my anarchism, since fair share and appropriation restrains would require a government.
I am best described as a geo-libertarian which combines Georgism with libertarianism.
I am also one of the few libertarians who believes in the estate until we get our crony capitalism under control. I am not a fan of taxation, but estates and natural resource use are the best places to tax and fund a limited government.
I used a very broad definition of libertarianism, as not to leave out anarchists who do value liberty. I remember that the first person to call himself a libertarian was an anarcho-communist. Since then, the term has been used for various right-wing movements with the prior definitions being left out.
Interesting. So you are a libertarian leftist then, correct?
Aren't you really a propertarian then? I used to be a Mutualist anarchist or near-anarchist. We were right on the edge between propertarian and non-propertarian. I personally support the Land Value Tax though I'm not libertarian nor do I necessarily see it as the panacea to all social problems some Georgists seem to imply.I am an Deontological, Anti-Proprietarian, Anarchist who can tolerate the state and some progressive policy.
My Anit-Proprietarian views stems from the Lockean Proviso. I believe that man owns himself and has a right to his/her labor. However, natural resources were not created by man and need fair share and appropriation restraints. However, this contradicts my anarchism, since fair share and appropriation restrains would require a government.
I am best described as a geo-libertarian which combines Georgism with libertarianism.
I am also one of the few libertarians who believes in the estate tax until we get our crony capitalism under control. I am not a fan of taxation, but uber rich estates and natural resource use are the best places to tax and fund a limited government.
Aren't you really a propertarian then? I used to be a Mutualist anarchist or near-anarchist. We were right on the edge between propertarian and non-propertarian. I personally support the Land Value Tax though I'm not libertarian nor do I necessarily see it as the panacea to all social problems some Georgists seem to imply.
I don't think that you are. If you were propertarian and anarchist (i.e. property can be obtained even to the detriment of others), then that would instantly force you into the far-right, anacho-capitalist category if I am not mistaken. There seems to be little to no economic 'middle ground' for anarchists (not being used as an insult). What I mean is, an economically center-left/center-right/centrist anarchist would be impossible to find.Antiderivative said:Regardless, I gravitate towards geolibertarianism in which I consider anti-propertarian, but perhaps I am misunderstanding something.
I just meant that though geolibertarians are 'less' of propertarians than various Lockeans and the like, they do have a belief in private property, indeed one that extends beyond the personal, occupany and use of Mutualists and obviously quite at odds to the social anarchists. I suppose it depends how you define propertarian though. I would say Mutualists or individualist anarchists, like Proudhon and Tucker, were on the line between the propertarians and non-propertarians.I would not consider myself a propertarian in regard to natural resource use, but feel fee to elaborate and state your case. In addition, I am not a idealogue nor to I believe that any political philosophy has the panacea to all our problem. Life should not be held captive to ideologues.
Regardless, I gravitate towards geolibertarianism.
So basically if you accept a strict interpretation of Locke's proviso whereby you can't own property absolutely if it is scare; at least without paying compensation, as in Georgism. That could certainly be another definition of Propertarian.I think that the line between propertarian and non-propertarian should be when one is allowed to obtain property to the detriment of other individuals, i.e. where poverty is technically allowed in an anarchist society.
So basically if you accept a strict interpretation of Locke's proviso whereby you can't own property absolutely if it is scare, at least without paying compensation, as in Georgism. That could certainly be another definition of Propertarian.
I think that the line between propertarian and non-propertarian should be when one is allowed to obtain property to the detriment of other individuals, i.e. where poverty is technically allowed in an anarchist/libertarian society.
Anti-propertarian would basically be someone who didn't accept any sort of property not based on direct, personal use and occupancy. So in a sense any sort of absenteeism, not counting going on holiday or such trivial instances as that. So social anarchist and libertarians socialists as well as Mutualists and Individual anarchists.Can you define anit-propertarian so I have better sense of where you are coming from?
If I am not mistaken, Rothbard's ideal system proposes that property disputes be regulated by voluntary corporations. The law would be 'privately run'.TurtleDude said:Likewise I find the term anarcho capitalist (a term a well known leading lefty used to apply to me when we studied together) to be contradictory capitalism requires a system of courts to protect private property
Anarchism is almost always sort of contradictory, unless you were some complete egoist who believed in basically chaos; which very few anarchists actually are. The difference is more that anarchists want a really decentralised and tiny state, whether it is worker's councils, local, consensus democracy or private agencies. There is though only really a change in degree and not kind between these and any other position on the state.failure is always allowed in a proper society because to try to wipe out failure means forcing others who are innocent of causing someone to fail-to have to help remedy it
Likewise I find the term anarcho capitalist (a term a well known leading lefty used to apply to me when we studied together) to be contradictory capitalism requires a system of courts to protect private property
Anarchism is almost always sort of contradictory, unless you were some complete egoist who believed in basically chaos;
I'm not an anarchist any more. I'm a traditionalist conservative Christian. So no I'm not a fan. But I didn't really mean egoist in the strict Steiner-esque sense. More just people who utterly reject all organisation and rules for selfish chaos.Not a fan of Max?
I am going on a tangent, but here is a nice write up between the Egoist and Natural Rights school of Anarchy.
Egoism and Anarchy | Strike-The-Root: A Journal Of Liberty
I'm not an anarchist any more. I'm a traditionalist conservative Christian. So no I'm not a fan. But I didn't really mean egoist in the strict Steiner-esque sense. More just people who utterly reject all organisation and rules for selfish chaos.
How does one make such a great ideological transformation? How long did that take?Wessexman said:I'm not an anarchist any more. I'm a traditionalist conservative Christian.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?