Thank you

[King of Creation]

Yeah, you are needlessly repeating yourself cause you're answers just keep on being misinformed and wrong, and don't address the issues you apply them to.

Libertarianism

Libertarian Socialism

The difference is quite clear.

 

[Sander]

This article deals with libertarianism as understood in the United States.

That's the first line in your source, and as I have been constantly saying, that is one form of Libertarianism, while the other is Libertarian Socialism, as your own article admits in the second sentence:

For a discussion of the meaning of the term libertarian that is traditional in continental Europe, see libertarian socialism.

There you go.

 

[King of Creation]

Yeah, but if you actually bothered to read the articles, or what I wrote before, you would know that

However, there is still confusion because in Europe, the French word libertaire, the Spanish word libertario, etc., which are usually translated into English as libertarian, traditionally referred to a kind of socialist anarchism.

Libertarianism is not socialism, nor, in its pure original form (which is originally an American political practice and philosophy...libertarianism wasn't a legitimate politcal practice until it was instituted in 1971), does it resemble socialism, as you said it does. (remember, I was the one that actually brought up libertarian-socialism. I mistakenly thought that was what you were talking about, and just attributed it to a translation misunderstanding. However, you were just talking aboutt pure socialism.)

And the reason why I bring up the Libertarian party's goals is because those are the goals of modern day Libertarians. Plain and simple.


Now, please, don't make me repeat myself.

 

[Sander]

Yeah, but if you actually bothered to read the articles, or what I wrote before, you would know that

And I did read that, as well as what you had written before, and I new that for a much longer time. As well as that, the point only reinforces my case, in that it implies that there are multiple forms of libertarianism, which I have been saying all along.

which is originally an American political practice and philosophy...libertarianism wasn't a legitimate politcal practice until it was instituted in 1971

A political practice doesn't need to be legal to have a term associated with it, nor does the fact that a certain form of that political practice becomes legal and uses that term mean that that was the 'original' meaning of that term, because, as you have noted yourself, the term was first by the Paris commune. Which means that is anyone is misusing it, it is the Libertarian Party for using it in a second meaning which was not the meaning in which it was first used. But as they have used in that meaning, there are now, at least, two forms of libertarianism.

(remember, I was the one that actually brought up libertarian-socialism. I mistakenly thought that was what you were talking about, and just attributed it to a translation misunderstanding.

Actually, I was talking about Libertarian-Socialism as a second form of Libertarianism.

However, you were just talking aboutt pure socialism.)

I'm sorry, but this really pisses me off. I was not talking about pure socialism, because pure socialism is an economic model, and not a political one.

And the reason why I bring up the Libertarian party's goals is because those are the goals of modern day Libertarians. Plain and simple.

Yes, in the United States of America, but those aren't the sole goals outside of the United States of America, and can therefore not be named as the sole goals of Libertarianism as a whole.

 

[King of Creation]

the term was first by the Paris commune.

I'm repeating myself again:

However, there is still confusion because in Europe, the French word libertaire, the Spanish word libertario, etc., which are usually translated into English as libertarian, traditionally referred to a kind of socialist anarchism.

MISTRANSLATIONS

However, you were just talking aboutt pure socialism.

I'm sorry, but this really pisses me off. I was not talking about pure socialism, because pure socialism is an economic model, and not a political one.

Ok....did you forget or something?:

while libertarian leaves the economical preference (socialist, for instance) completely undisturbed, for people who think this isn't true, you should realise that a libertarian insists on freedom in it's many forms, but this can also mean that the libertarian either wants a socialist economical model,

Yes, in the United States of America, but those aren't the sole goals outside of the United States of America, and can therefore not be named as the sole goals of Libertarianism as a whole.

Once again, I'm repeating myself. When the Libertarian politcal philosophy was instituted, these were the goals. They are still the goals of true Libertarians, no matter where they live.


Now I feel so damn dirty, using your belittling method of picking apart arguments like that. I hate it so much.

 

[Sander]

MISTRANSLATIONS

No, that's not what it says, it says that it is translated into libertarianism, but that the American definition of Libertarianism differs from the European one. It says nothing about whether or not the translation was correct.
And since the words have existed longer than the party and the use in American English, I'd say that it is NOT due to a mistranslation, but rather due to a new use of the word libertarianism in American English.

Ok....did you forget or something?:

No, and I don't know what you are referring to. You have taken a quote where I say that socialism is an economic model, and then a quote where I again say that socialism is an economic model. Thanks for bringing that up so I didn't need to show that I had said that before, but I don't see at all what this has to do with your point.

Once again, I'm repeating myself. When the Libertarian politcal philosophy was instituted, these were the goals. They are still the goals of true Libertarians, no matter where they live.

No, they are the goals of American libertarians and their equivalents in other countries. But they are not the goals of all libertarians quite simply because there are two forms of libertarianism.

 

[King of Creation]

MISTRANSLATIONS

No, that's not what it says, it says that it is translated into libertarianism, but that the American definition of Libertarianism differs from the European one. It says nothing about whether or not the translation was correct.
And since the words have existed longer than the party and the use in American English, I'd say that it is NOT due to a mistranslation, but rather due to a new use of the word libertarianism in American English.

They don't mean the same thing. Its like a homonym.

No, they are the goals of American libertarians and their equivalents in other countries. But they are not the goals of all libertarians quite simply because there are two forms of libertarianism.

Ok..on one hand, we have what we'll call "Right Libertarianism" and on the other hand, we'll have what we'll called "Left Libertarianism." Right Libertarianism is what is the TRUE Libertarian political theory is based upon, what I've been talking about the whole time.
LEFT Libertarianism is SOCIAL-Libertarianism, which is MUCH different from, and at odds with, the views of true Libertarianism. As a result, it is not really Libertarian in nature, just in name.

 

[Sander]

They don't mean the same thing. Its like a homonym.

I agree that they don't mean the same thing, but they both refer to a subset of libertarianism, one to the "right" libertarianism and the other to "left libertarianism".

Ok..on one hand, we have what we'll call "Right Libertarianism" and on the other hand, we'll have what we'll called "Left Libertarianism."

Up till here, I fully agree

Right Libertarianism is what is the TRUE Libertarian political theory is based upon, what I've been talking about the whole time.

And I consider this to be simply arrogant, because this means you completely dismiss the meaning of libertarianism as it was used by the Parisian commune, and as it was used before the 1950s in the USA itself.
Naming the form that has become dominant within the USA, because it has monopolized on Libertarianism, the true form, means that you dismiss the history of the word libertarianism and that you dismiss the origins of the other form.

LEFT Libertarianism is SOCIAL-Libertarianism, which is MUCH different from, and at odds with, the views of true Libertarianism.

Yes, it is. But this doesn't mean that both can't be a subset of the same thing.
Let's take communism, for instance. Communism has several subsets, and several of them are at odds with eachother, Stalinism, for instance, is very much at odds with Trotskyism, yet they both are a form of communism.

 

[The Commissar]

Blah blah blah Trotskyism ...

Trotsky was a political whore! Where's my ice pick?

 

[Bradylama]

I'm sorry, Sander, if you didn't realize that we weren't talking about the Libertarian movement in Europe.

If Social Libertarians wanted to set up here, they'd call themselves Social Anarchists. There is much less confusion that way, and it is a more accurate term.

Social Libertarianism and "Right" Libertarianism are at direct odds with each other, because "Right" Libertarianism believes in a minimalist state, while "Left" Libertarianism believes in no state.

Unless I'm ignorant of the European Libertarians, and the "Right" Libertarians don't believe in a state either, in which case they'd be pure Anarchists.

 

[Claw]

Basically you're only allowing certain freedoms over others, which isn't Libertarianism.

That's an integral element of any form of government save Totalitarianism however.
So unless Libertarians are actually Anarchists, "only allowing certain freedoms over others" is Libertarianism.

 

[John Uskglass]

(which is originally an American political practice and philosophy.

I (unlike some other 17 year olds) don't pretend to know that much about Economics rather then a rather negative gut reaction to both Socialists and Objectivist-level Libertarianism, thought that the Austrian School of Economics was pretty much the founder of modern Libertarianism, or at least got Neoliberal (ie Libertarian) economic ideas into European politics?

 

[King of Creation]

http://www.lp.org/organization/history/

 

[Per]

People should learn to use non-ambiguous terms.

Agreed! Which is why I find it strange that you would write:

libertarian leaves the economical preference (socialist, for instance) completely undisturbed, for people who think this isn't true, you should realise that a libertarian insists on freedom in it's many forms, but this can also mean that the libertarian either wants a socialist economical model

You're confused if you think economical freedom is something that can be switched on or off independently of everything else. Since economical freedom follows from personal freedom, it follows that absence of economical freedom implies absence of personal freedom. The juxtaposition of libertarianism with socialism seems to me like a form of doublespeak: "Sure you're free, that's the whole point. Of course, you can't do this, or this, or this. We had to set it up like that so that you'd be free to do this over here. Now get to it."

In Sweden, libertarianism is usually considered to be on the far right of the political scale and is not truly represented in the parliament, although the largest right-wing party contains a small libertarian subset. What you call libertarian socialism in this discussion is probably what we call syndicalism, which isn't represented in the parliament either. The two are sometimes referred to as "right-wing anarchism" and "left-wing anarchism", both of which I personally consider misnomers.

There, now repeat yourself again for our amusement.

http://www.lp.org/organization/history/

Heh, this wasn't the brightest way to phrase it:

"The Libertarian Party clawed its way out of a $400,000 debt helped along by the recession and the aftermath of the September 11 terror attacks"

 

[The Vault Dweller]

PEOPLE DIXIE REBEL SPECIFICALLY SAID HE WANTED TO SAY "THANK YOU" AND NOT START A DISCUSSION!!!!

However if its of your own accord I guess its okay.

Come on guys...there's a European Libertarian and American Libertarian...there's one thats a textbook definition and one thats its own definition...this is all just lost in translation.

By the way the reason I thanked Dixie Rebel is cause Im voting Libertarian. I think Bradylama told me a little about it before though.

Sincerely,
The Vault Dweller

 

[Sander]

You're confused if you think economical freedom is something that can be switched on or off independently of everything else. Since economical freedom follows from personal freedom, it follows that absence of economical freedom implies absence of personal freedom. The juxtaposition of libertarianism with socialism seems to me like a form of doublespeak: "Sure you're free, that's the whole point. Of course, you can't do this, or this, or this. We had to set it up like that so that you'd be free to do this over here. Now get to it."

Okay, I'll explain to you some thoughts behing a socialist form of libertaranism:
Libertarianism would strive for complete freedom, but complete freedom can only be obtained if you are able to do what you want. As such, there should be a socialist economic model in place to allow everyone to do what they want, without actually giving anyone an advantage in the form of monetary funds.
That's one justification of Socialist-Libertarianism and there are several, and whether or not you AGREE with those political and economic philosophies has nothing to do with whether or not they are valid political philosophies.
For instance, I think Socialist-Nazism is a stupid, hypocritical and dumb political philosophy (and yes, I think that of Nazism as well, but for partly other reasons), but that doesn't mean that that movement can't be a form of Nazism.

In Sweden, libertarianism is usually considered to be on the far right of the political scale and is not truly represented in the parliament, although the largest right-wing party contains a small libertarian subset. What you call libertarian socialism in this discussion is probably what we call syndicalism, which isn't represented in the parliament either. The two are sometimes referred to as "right-wing anarchism" and "left-wing anarchism", both of which I personally consider misnomers.

I'm sorry, Sander, if you didn't realize that we weren't talking about the Libertarian movement in Europe.

Oh, but I did, Bradylama. I'm sorry that you still don't realize, after I've already said it twice, that that had nothing whatsoever to do with what I was talking about.

If Social Libertarians wanted to set up here, they'd call themselves Social Anarchists. There is much less confusion that way, and it is a more accurate term.

No, it isn't, because Anarchism has the rather annoying connotation of violence and mob rule.
Libertarianism would be a more accurate term because that focuses on the term freedom, and doesn't have a negative connotation.

Social Libertarianism and "Right" Libertarianism are at direct odds with each other, because "Right" Libertarianism believes in a minimalist state, while "Left" Libertarianism believes in no state.

Unless I'm ignorant of the European Libertarians, and the "Right" Libertarians don't believe in a state either, in which case they'd be pure Anarchists.

Note that I had not only admitted that, but had explained why this is no problem.

Koc:
Thanks for dropping by and, for instance, explaining why you aren't continuing the discussion.
Also note that linking to the history of the Libertarian Party is not the same as explaining the history of Libertarianism in itself, it's explaining the history of the Libertarian Party.

Come on guys...there's a European Libertarian and American Libertarian...there's one thats a textbook definition and one thats its own definition...this is all just lost in translation.

Well guess what this discussion is about.

 

[Wooz]

No, it isn't, because Anarchism has the rather annoying connotation of violence and mob rule.

*sighs*

 

[Sander]

Connotation, Wooz, not meaning.

 

[Bradylama]

Right, so it doesn't matter. Then why insist that it should be called Libertarianism (which is an admittedly less accurate term) rather than anarchism?

As such, there should be a socialist economic model in place to allow everyone to do what they want, without actually giving anyone an advantage in the form of monetary funds.

This isn't allowing everyone to do what they want, though.

"I want to buy a bigger house."
"No no, you cannot buy a bigger house, everybody has the same house."

Freedom my ass. This is Social Anarchy, which has nothing to do with the modern Libertarian movement.

 

[Per]

A political philosophy can be stupid or offensive, but it cannot be logically inconsistent.

As such, there should be a socialist economic model in place to allow everyone to do what they want

This makes no sense; it doesn't work; it cannot work; it's obvious that it cannot work. "Let's build a perpetuum mobile and work from there" is not a valid political program.