Thank you

[Bradylama]

I think the socialist model in Social Anarchy is enforced by the community rather than the state. In other words, society determines what you can or cannot have instead of the state. It worked for the anarchist labor unions in Spain for a little while.

 

[Sander]

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

Socialist Nazism is logically inconsistent, because Socialism insists on dividing everything equally, while Nazism is a form of Fascism, which requires a leader figure placed above the rest, and the superiority of the Arian race over the Jews, hence it is logically inconsistent.
As is Stalinism, for instance.
Political Philosophies can be logically inconsistent, and I don't see why they can't be besides someone's desire to make everything make sense.

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.

That's called Utopism, and both Socialism and Communism have worked from that perspective, so you are, quite simply wrong.

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?

Because not all forms of libertarianism are as radical as anarchism. Anarchism is, more or less, an extremely radical form of libertarianism.

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."

I am not propgating it, and I haven't been throughout this thread, but what I am doing is explaining why this is a form of libertarianism, even though it may (or may not) be logically inconsistent.

Also note that this operates from the "everybody has equal freedoms" lemma.

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

No, it has nothing to do with the modern Libertarian Party movement, but, as you would know if you weren't so focused on the American, by far not every libertarian philosophy adheres to that model.

 

[King of Creation]

Sander, despite your stubborn narrowminded views concerning this topic, saying Social-Libertarianism and Libertarianism are the same thing is like saying that Socialism and Democracy are the same thing. TRUE LIBERTARIAN PHILOSOPHY, in the modern day sense of the word (which is what we ARE talking about, because we don't live in the past) is everything that I have explained before, and I don't want to repeat myself AGAIN so I'll have you go back in the thread and read it if you haven't bothered to, which it appears you haven't, or you can go and reread it if it hasn't sunk in.

Now, once again, pertaining to Social-Libertarianism. THIS IS NOT LIBERTARIANISM. Libertarians do NOT want an anarchisitc system. They want a system of Liassez-faire, with the government ONLY coming into economic play to enforce contracts. As I've said before(i don't know if you've had a chance to read it), what you believe Libertarianism to be is wrong, and it is due to DECADES OF MISTRANSLATION that you think social-libertarianism (which uses the same word, because of mistranslations, but HAS A DIFFERENT MEANING AND PHILOSOPHY behind it) is Libertarianism.

Now please, don't post more until you've reread everything, and finally understand that what you've been saying is wrong.

 

[Phil the Nuka-Cola Dude]

*snip*It seems to me that every argument/discussion on TO nowadays just ends up with everyone being defensive about their religion/country/field of study etc.. why is it that everyone believes his "THING" is the best thing...couldn't we all accept that there's a lot of different "things" that all co-exist and are all useful, hard, good whatever??*snip*

Seems that way in GD also.

 

[Sander]

Now please, don't post more until you've reread everything, and finally understand that what you've been saying is wrong.

COnsidering the fact that I have read everything and do understand everything that is said here (trust me, I do), I find that what I am about to post is not breaking this rule you just put forward (which I have put forward many times in this and other discussions, yet has had no effect).

Look, I'll explain this very simply, yet again:
From the point on where I first posted in this thread, I have been contending that the Libertarianism used by the Libertarian Party is not the only form of Libertarianism. You keep on slapping me with the remark that we are talking about Americna Libertarianism, while I was the one who initiated the discussion, and I know best what I was first talking about. The fact that you have thereafter shifted what I was talking about to another thing has nothing to do with my point.
Because my point is solely that both Social-Libertarianism and American-Libertarianism are forms of Libertarianism in general. This has nothing to do with the validity of either philosophy, this has nothing to do with the fact that the Libertarian party was established in 1971, nor does it have anything to do with the fact that you keep saying that the Libertarian Party's form of libertarianism is the "true" form of libertarianism. This is simply arrogant, since it dismisses the simple fact that the words used by such groups as the Paris Commune translate to Libertarianism. You say that this is a mistranslation, but it isn't. And I'll explain again why this isn't a mistranslation:
The word Libertarianism in the form you talk about came into widespread use during the 1950s, and the Libertarian Party was established in 1971, and as such, you hold that they have established the meaning of the word Libertarianism.
However, before the 1950s, the words used by the Paris Commune and others were already being translated to Libertarianism, and therefore, the translation is correct, and the meaning given it before the 1950s was the meaning the Paris Commune used.

Now, as for the fact that you contend that Anarchism isn't Libertarianism, you probably missed what I posted in the post just before yours: anarchism is an extreme form of libertarianism, in that it takes the goals of libertarianism (the government having little to do with the world) and extends them further, towards the complete abolishment of the government.
From that it is easy to come to the conclusion that social-libertarianism is a more moderate form of social-anarchism. As such, social-libertarianism is a philosophy with the philosophy of social-democrats (the moderate form of socialists), that wealth should be spread equally, combined with the philosophy of the libertarians, that the government should have a laissez-faire policy. Whether or not this is logically inconsistent is completely beside the point, because this form of philosophy does exist, the D66-party here is one exponent of it.

 

[Per]

Political Philosophies can be logically inconsistent, and I don't see why they can't be besides someone's desire to make everything make sense.

Of course we cannot stop people from following nonsensical ideals, but it doesn't mean we should go along with their preferred terminology. If someone wants to preach freedom through restrictions I'm just saying we might not want to acknowledge this as libertarianism, especially as there is a radically different philosophy with that name which actually is about freedom, no matter who hogged the word to begin with.

 

[Bradylama]

anarchism is an extreme form of libertarianism, in that it takes the goals of libertarianism (the government having little to do with the world) and extends them further, towards the complete abolishment of the government.

That's like saying Patricide is taking moving out of your parent's house to the extreme.

From that it is easy to come to the conclusion that social-libertarianism is a more moderate form of social-anarchism. As such, social-libertarianism is a philosophy with the philosophy of social-democrats (the moderate form of socialists), that wealth should be spread equally, combined with the philosophy of the libertarians, that the government should have a laissez-faire policy. Whether or not this is logically inconsistent is completely beside the point, because this form of philosophy does exist, the D66-party here is one exponent of it.

You claimed that Social-Libertarians wanted to abolish the government, not that they wanted a free social clime with a government controlled socialist economy.

 

[Sander]

Per:
I disagree with you in this case, mainly because I feel it is still about freedom, but then about freedom in every sense but the economic one.
Basically, the ideal would be that a government (or the society, in the case of the most extreme form) would only redistribute wealth and that that would be everything it does.

That's like saying Patricide is taking moving out of your parent's house to the extreme.

No, it isn't. That's a completely senseless comparison. Mainly because, again, this implies violence and murder, which is not part of anarchism.

Look, I'll say it again:
Libertarianism means trying to get the government to stay out of most things.
Anarchism is trying to get the government to stay out of everything.
Therefore, anarchism is an extreme form of libertarianism.

You claimed that Social-Libertarians wanted to abolish the government, not that they wanted a free social clime with a government controlled socialist economy.

I did? Well, then I was wrong, for which I apologize. Or rather, I was wrong to suggest that every socialist-libertarian, or even the majority, would want that.

 

[Bradylama]

No, it isn't. That's a completely senseless comparison. Mainly because, again, this implies violence and murder, which is not part of anarchism.

Well, I guess you could say that they are "murdering" the State, which is kinda how my analogy factors into the whole thing.

 

[Per]

Per:
I disagree with you in this case, mainly because I feel it is still about freedom, but then about freedom in every sense but the economic one.
Basically, the ideal would be that a government (or the society, in the case of the most extreme form) would only redistribute wealth and that that would be everything it does.

I'm sort of with Robert Nozick when he demonstrates that redistribution of wealth is directly opposed to freedom, since its entire point is to undo the continual disruption of the original wealth distribution caused by people's free actions. This argument should not be taken to its extreme, though.

I should perhaps point out that I'm not, in practice, a libertarian myself, I'm sort of a lily-livered social liberal. Although I find the ideals of libertarianism very appealing.

 

[King of Creation]

Look, I'll say it again:
Libertarianism means trying to get the government to stay out of most things.
Anarchism is trying to get the government to stay out of everything.
Therefore, anarchism is an extreme form of libertarianism.

Doesn't Anarchism advocate society completely without government? I don't know much about anarchism, but what I have learned tends to suggest this.

 

[Sander]

I'm sort of with Robert Nozick when he demonstrates that redistribution of wealth is directly opposed to freedom, since its entire point is to undo the continual disruption of the original wealth distribution caused by people's free actions. This argument should not be taken to its extreme, though.

I should perhaps point out that I'm not, in practice, a libertarian myself, I'm sort of a lily-livered social liberal. Although I find the ideals of libertarianism very appealing.

That's your own opinion, but I doubt it's right to deny the libertarian-socialists the right to call themselves searchers of freedom when they, in their eyes at least, really are doing that.

Doesn't Anarchism advocate society completely without government? I don't know much about anarchism, but what I have learned tends to suggest this.

Yes, I just rephrased into the government stays out of everything, because the effect is exactly the same.

 

[quietfanatic]

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.

Agreed. America is not the centre of the universe. In Australia, the 'Liberal' party is on the right, closely allied to Bush and agreeing much more with most of the Republican's policies than the parties on the left.

It is just about definitions.

Sander, it appears that you are using the term Libertarianism in a very pure, unqualified way as your premise, then dividing it into sub categories. That seems to make sense to me for categorization. e.g. A German Sheppard (social-libertarian) is a dog, but a dog is not a German Sheppard. The 'mistranslation' is that the yanks call a German Sheppard a dog; They are the same thing to them. But they are not, so that doesn't make any sense to you obviously.

However, language is defined by those with power and numbers, and to communicate you must try to speak the same language as other people. Unfortunately in this case, America is the centre of the universe and if they want to call a German Sheppard, 'dog' then they can. You are using a system to sort out different groups that koc doesn't understand. Just because everyone watches Fox News and can't speak English doesn't mean you have to though. I'll try to translate your simple argument again. Firstly, let's introduce another variable for anarchism and call it poodle.

So I'll rephrase this into Sander language:

Now, once again, pertaining to Social-Libertarianism. THIS IS NOT LIBERTARIANISM. Libertarians do NOT want an anarchisitc system.

Translating into 'Sander'.......

Now, once again, pertaining to GERMAN SHEPPARD. THIS IS NOT DOG. DOG's do NOT want a POODLE system.

But poodles are dogs and so are German Sheppards in Sander-language, which is what you would probably use to categorise different groups. So this argument doesn't make sense.

So koc, how would you categorise these different groups? (please tell) I would assume you would do exactly the same sort of thing, just with different names, like Labrador. It is just abstraction as a means of organisation and communication.

Remember that anarchism still has organisation, and that everything is not neccessarily shared equally, you get what you work for. The same problem happens here because that description is close to Anarchosyndicalism, which is a specific subcategory of anarchism. So you do have to be careful with what words you use.

For the purpose of logic, I would tend to keep Sander's system and just remember that Libertarianism in the form of the party, is just using the same word as the umbrella term, when it is a sub category. I am trying to think taxonomically here. But to be honest, broad terms do not do anything justice but without such organisation, we would not be able to make sense of the world.

Is my waffling correct?

 

[Wooz]

Firstly, let's introduce another variable for anarchism and call it poodle.

Poodle?

*takes out machete*

 

[quietfanatic]

What do you have against poodles? It might be better to use a golden retreiver to represent anarchism but it is just an abstract term, so it doesn't matter. You get the point.

 

[Tannhauser]

I think a poodle makes a great anarchist image!

 

[Phil the Nuka-Cola Dude]

 

[Per]

I have seen Wooz and now I'm blind.

 

[pennyliu123]

Freedom...

It's hard to be free, both your body and your mind...

 

[King of Creation]

A bunch of bullshit that poorly rehashes what we've already talked about using stupid metaphors, which clearly show that he doesn't understand the topic. At least Sander knows something.

Thank you for wasting our time.