[theoracle]

Vegard Marthinsen may not have a diagnosis, but he certainly is "weird"

...and emåployed by the state!

[Noumenon]

There are likely some libertarians who hate the poor, but that does not make it a hate ideology. Hatred for the poor is not a prerequisite for being a libertarian, and is likely a result of personal prejudices rather than anything intrinsic in the ideology. I think you would have a better case for saying socialism and communism are hate ideologies, since they seem to require pure hatred for rich capitalists (who in my view contribute greatly to the well-being of society).

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Heh, Nazism caused the death of millions. As did communism in the USSR.

There has never been a libertarian society, yet it is a 'hate' ideology? Especially in comparison with the aforementioned political ideologies?

[Norwegian]

There are likely some libertarians who hate the poor, but that does not make it a hate ideology. Hatred for the poor is not a prerequisite for being a libertarian, and is likely a result of personal prejudices rather than anything intrinsic in the ideology.

If one believe your arguments, you can be a libertarian without being a "hater", but if you do not believe it, then you are a "hater". My impression are, that most of the poor haters in the US are conservative rather than libertarian. Hovewer, objectivism is without a doubt a hate ideology, which is obvious for anyone that have read "Atlas Shrugged". Her description of her enemies shows clear resemblance to the descriptions used by Marx and Hitler to describe their enemies.

The reason that european libertarians are poor haters, is that quite frankly, almost noone in Europe believe that the poor will gain from libertarianism.

I think you would have a better case for saying socialism and communism are hate ideologies, since they seem to require pure hatred for rich capitalists

Yes, marxism is without a doubt a hate ideology, but I do not agree that all forms of socialism is. The "nationalist" version of socialism authored by Edward Bellamy was certainly not a hate ideology, and neither are most other forms of utopian socialism. I would compare marxism and objectivism in this respect, while I could compare people like Murray Rothbard with Edward Bellamy. Utopian socialists actually claimed that even the rich would benefit from their system. If you call socialdemocrats socialists, they are neither a hate ideology, because scandinavian socialdemocrats actually willingly make tax codes that let the rich off easy.

Heh, Nazism caused the death of millions. As did communism in the USSR.

Yes, but communism in Bulgaria did not cause millions of death, and the facsist variant practiced in Italy and pre-nazist Austria did not cause a genoicide.

Also, extremism is often a cause of social dislocation caused by libertarian policies. Even if the russian monarchy were not libertarian as such, the did support a libertarian labour policy. Communism that in turn provoked facsism were also created in a period when society were quite close to libertarianism.

The danger of libertarianism is that it is extremly unfair, and a system that is very unfair will neither have legitimacy. libertarian policies actually legitimate the use of violence, because it`s extreme unfairness loosens the "moral bonds" many people have to society and it`s rules.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Was the 19th/early 20th century close to libertarianism? I don't think so. Not when slavery existed in the 19th century and not when state education and welfare states were being instituted in the late 1800's/early 1900's. Free market labour policies never caused extremism in other states.

[Norwegian]

Slavery only existed in the southers states of the US, and if you define libertarianism so exactly, socialism has neither existed by the same standards. When it comes to the welfare state, it didn`t really get going until the 20th century. Anyhow, the state regulations that existed before 1870 can really be considered the "realistic minimum" on the size of the state. And there have been quite a bit of extremism in many countries, you had quite a bit of anarchism in the US during that period also. The reason it is more quiet today is that socialism is still discredited, but there were a lot of strong communist movement all over the world until they were quelled in blood by CIA sponsored coups during the sixties and seventies.

[Todd D.]

Slavery only existed in the southers states of the US, and if you define libertarianism so exactly, socialism has neither existed by the same standards.

Not true at all. Slavery existed in the North until about 1810 or 1820, and even then it was the climate and nature of the work that discouraged slavery, not the morals of the population. It also existed in the British West Indies until 1840, and was WAY worse there than in the US South.

The difference between Socialism and Libertarian in practice is that there have been attempts at legitimate Socialist states, attempts which have been unequivocable failures. The closest thing you could say was that the early US was an attempt, but that more accurately would be comtemporary classical liberalism, not Libertarianism.

Anyhow, the state regulations that existed before 1870 can really be considered the "realistic minimum" on the size of the state.

Again, not really. The era at the time saw large state interventions into certain sectors that Libertarians would not, central banking being the most obvious.

[Norwegian]

Isn`t classical liberalism and libertarianism roughly the same, or at least have very much in common? Also, the "libertarian era" is said to have taken place between 1830 and 1870, and the slavery you mention mostly took place before that date. Yes, there were interventions, but it is the closest we have came to a libertarian society in our history ever.

When it comes to communism, it wasn`t complete communism in any of the two definitions really, and the reason is that real communism just like real libertarianism may be completely unrealistic. It is all about special interest groups protecting their interests, and social and economic laws coming in to plague the ideologists. When it comes to anarchocommunism, anything remotely like it would propably not function in a society with a large division of labour. The pre-state hunter/gatherer and first agricultural societies come a lot closer to that ideal than the actually existing communist societies. When it comes to libertarianism, interventions protecting big business is invetable, because libertarianism will NEVER in real life come to power without the backing of large portions of the rich, and those groups will then be able to push some of their special interests thru. The same goes for communism, those groups that made the system be created will always get excessive power to shape the system. One reason libertarianism fails here is it`s failure to recognize any social laws that are not part of economics! The concept that you can have equality before the law in a libertarian society is completely utopian for example, the balance of power would just be to even, and noone really believes that a court case between a homeless person and a rich capitalist would be fair in such a society.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Isn`t classical liberalism and libertarianism roughly the same, or at least have very much in common?

Maybe, but libertarianism only started in 1950's America.

[Norwegian]

I would rather claim that libertarianism, classical liberalism and the right wing of american conservatism is just the same shit in different wrapping. Most of the libertarian litterature is really just classical liberalism that is updated a little. The only serious fallacy from classical liberalism that have been corrected is the belied that the working classes would breed like rats if the earned above substinence wages. The rest of the old problems are still there, just as they are with marxism.

Actually, I think that most of the ideologies people believe in today are seriously dated, both the on the right and left.

[Todd D.]

Isn`t classical liberalism and libertarianism roughly the same, or at least have very much in common?

No, not really. Most libertarians regard themselves as NEO-Classical Liberals, not classical liberals. Libertarians recognize the benefits that the rich have, while at the time of classical liberal thinkers, the rich were thought of aristocrats and tyrants. They are closer than, say, libertarians and democrats, but they are not the same thing.

Also, the "libertarian era" is said to have taken place between 1830 and 1870, and the slavery you mention mostly took place before that date. Yes, there were interventions, but it is the closest we have came to a libertarian society in our history ever.

The closest we had to a Libertarian society was probably under the Articles of Confederation, or shortly after the ratification of the Constitution, not durin the mid 19th century. The Civil War is included in the time period that you listed, which was probably the single MOST unlibertarian era of American history.

One reason libertarianism fails here is it`s failure to recognize any social laws that are not part of economics!

I disagree, Libertarians are not anarchists, and do believe in all three branches of government. We just believe in negative liberty, not positive liberty. Freedom from oppression and aggression are the only rights enforceable without infringing upon the rights of others.

I would rather claim that libertarianism, classical liberalism and the right wing of american conservatism is just the same shit in different wrapping.

You could argue that, but it wouldn't be accurate. American Conservatism is based largely on Burke's idea of the social fabric. Classical Liberalism is largely agrarian and, while sharing free market economics with Libertarianism, does not share a modern worldview. That would be like me saying that Democrats, Socialists, and Communists are same shit, different wrapping.

[Norwegian]

No, not really. Most libertarians regard themselves as NEO-Classical Liberals, not classical liberals. Libertarians recognize the benefits that the rich have, while at the time of classical liberal thinkers, the rich were thought of aristocrats and tyrants. They are closer than, say, libertarians and democrats, but they are not the same thing.

No, the classical liberals did not view the rich as tyrants! The reason they thought that the rich of that day were tyrant, was because they had got their riches thru the use of coercion. I have never heard about Adam Smith and his like critizising capitalists though. Libertarianism is a natural development from classical liberalism, and they do share quite a few of the same thinkers, like Bastiat and Herbet Spencer.

The closest we had to a Libertarian society was probably under the Articles of Confederation, or shortly after the ratification of the Constitution, not durin the mid 19th century. The Civil War is included in the time period that you listed, which was probably the single MOST unlibertarian era of American history.

The problem with the first years of the United States is that it was an agrarian society, and the bad sides of libertarianism will not be visible in such a society. For libertarianism to be a system of unfairness and social distress, you need to have a marked division of labour, and not have an economy based on self owning farmers. Actually, the poor and peasantry were kind of libertarian in their view before the advent of industrialisation. Robin Hood can actually be labeled as a libertarian, as he stole back the money the state had taken in taxes.

Most people view the period 1830-1870 in western Europe and 1870-1900 in the US as the most libertarian periods. What is the problem with that? What in those periods were not libertarian?

Also, I often feel that what was "unlibertarian" often is such obscure things, that you could claim that the Soviet Union was capitalist because they had a black market!

I disagree, Libertarians are not anarchists, and do believe in all three branches of government. We just believe in negative liberty, not positive liberty. Freedom from oppression and aggression are the only rights enforceable without infringing upon the rights of others.

As I have stated in several other threads, I think that ignoring the power that are not a result of coercion is naive, or worse a willing omission. Still, this wasn`t about laws of government, but "social science laws" contra "economic science laws".

You could argue that, but it wouldn't be accurate. American Conservatism is based largely on Burke's idea of the social fabric. Classical Liberalism is largely agrarian and, while sharing free market economics with Libertarianism, does not share a modern worldview. That would be like me saying that Democrats, Socialists, and Communists are same shit, different wrapping.

Well, for a european, the differences between american conservatism and libertarianism doesn`t appear to be that different, on the important issues! When it comes to the world view of the libertarians, it is depressingly similar to that of the classical liberals!! The focus on coercion and not general power cleary harks back to the good old days of the agricultural societies. It is actually one of the main fallacies of libertarianism. And sharing free market economics, heck that is not a similarity of little consequence! I would say that it is an extremly important similarity.

When it comes to socialism, socialdemocraty and communists, they certainly share much common ancestry! All of them are really more or less different mixtures between utopian socialism, marxism, anarchism and for socialdemocracy the labour dream of a regulated economy. When it comes to liberalism, some of it harks back to an updated utilitarism with roots from Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. Many other forms of liberalism, is just a mixture between socialdemocracy and other more traditional ideologies.

[Garibaldi]

I think that it has to do with "personal responsibility", the more your culture believe in personal responsibility, the more you hate the poor.

So, I'm a self-hating poor? I absolutly believe in personal responsibility, and yet my house has no hot water. I have to wash up at a basin in my kitchen sink. Not exactly what you expected to hear from a libertarian, huh?

[Norwegian]

So, I'm a self-hating poor? I absolutly believe in personal responsibility, and yet my house has no hot water. I have to wash up at a basin in my kitchen sink. Not exactly what you expected to hear from a libertarian, huh?

Are you a student then? If you are older than 30, you are what I would call a "housenigger".

When it comes to "personal responsibility", that concept is extremly unscientific(if you mean "being responsible" rather than "being kept responsible") concept, that really is a leftover of obsolent mythology.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

So what if libertarians 'hate the poor'?

You haven't even substantiated to a good degree how that is the case.

Actually, the portion of poor hating libertarians is much larger in the US, than the proportion of libertarians in Europe all together.

Are there any figures to back this claim up?

[Norwegian]

Well, I do not know american libertarianism well enough. But I did state that poor hating was more widespread in the american variant of libertarianism labelled "conservatism". Actually, "real libertarians" like Todd D sounds exactly like most of the evil conservatives I see at boards like protestwarrior.com

[nach0king]

Well, I do not know american libertarianism well enough. But I did state that poor hating was more widespread in the american variant of libertarianism labelled "conservatism". Actually, "real libertarians" like Todd D sounds exactly like most of the evil conservatives I see at boards like protestwarrior.com

Take this as ad hominem if you wish, but you quite simply don't know what you're talking about.

It's true, there are quite a few faux-libertarians, i.e. conservative wolves in sheeps' clothing. These tend to be the ones that run a mile when "difficult" questions of social libertarianism express themselves, or questions relating to foreign intervention. But as for the ideology itself, it differs greatly from many aspects of US conservatism. Conservatism, at its core, is still a group-based ideology; libertarianism is individualistic but leaves scope for voluntary group action. Morality, as it were, is privatised as well. Small government actually means small government. And so forth.

The reason it looks the same to you is because you're either taking an extremely superficial look at the economic stances of either ideology, or you're just believing what you want to believe. If it makes it easier for you to class libertarians as hateful when you can place them on the same pantheon as Bushite conservatives, then by all means go ahead, I won't try to stop you. I'll just dismiss your opinions out of hand for the crap that they are.

[Todd D.]

Actually, "real libertarians" like Todd D sounds exactly like most of the evil conservatives I see at boards like protestwarrior.com

Cute little attack on me aside, you really have no idea what you are talking about.

Number 1, you call me an "evil consrvative", yet there is no backing for this. I support drug legalization, very few conservatives do. I support gay marraige, likewise very few conservatives do. I support isolationist foreign policy, and a form of government that does not seek to enforce their morality on any of their citizens. Completely different than any Conservatve I've met, or the ideology currently dominating Conservative thought today.

Number 2, demonizing those that hold different opinions than you is idiotic. Show me one time that I've ever said "Fuck the poor", or show me one time where I said that we should make the poor worse off. Go ahead, I'm sure in 3400 plus posts, you could dig something up if I was such a bad guy. Problem for you is that you can't, because it's not there.

Here are the facts: I don't think bullshit policies like Minimum Wage or "Right to work" laws are the most effective ways to assist the poor out of the situation that they are in, and in most cases, they actually make the situation work. You use emotional arguments that sound good, to the uneducated, but contrasted with sound economics and rational thought, your ideals are revealed as nothing more than smoke and mirrors. I feel that you advocate ideas that will put more people into poverty, put more people out of work, and, on a related note, violates the liberties of all involved. Do I call you evil for this? I haven't yet. Yet you call me evil because I dont advocate policies that I KNOW cause unemployment, or that I KNOW will infringe upon people's rights. nach0king said it best, your opinions are easily dismissed as crap.

[nach0king]

I think the crux of it is the superficial economic aspect. It's terrifically easy for people to say, "Look, libertarians want redistributive policies to end - OBVIOUSLY they want to keep the poor down, don't care that kids are starving, etc." This completely ignores the fact, as you said, that libertarian economic theory sees a free market system as not only better for growth overall, but better for the most efficient way of helping people (who are willing to work, or who are subject to charity) attain wealth. Simply saying that because the government and coerced redistribution is cut out of the equation, Norwegian, we libertarians do not want to see the poor's lot in life improve, is downright incorrect in most cases.

The conservative movement in the US is also known for its dislike of the welfare movement, and its tax cut fetishism. Both believe in private enterprise being a good thing for society, as well as good for the economy. The similarities begin and end there, pretty much: the extent and methodology of how these are to take place is WILDLY different.

In fact, on that last point, I would say that the reasons many conservatives don't wish to pay tax that goes to the poor is more moral than economic. "Why should I help the lazy?" is something that's heard both from libertarians and conservatives, but at the same time, libertarian thought is more solidly grounded in non-governmental economic interference than conservative thought. Conservatives don't refuse to pay tax if it goes towards programs they agree with - many of which go beyond the nightwatchman functions of the state that libertarians in general advocate.

[Norwegian]

Todd D:

Firstly, I did not claim that you had the same opinions as conservatives, but that you used the same kind of rhetoric. There is a difference you know. A prime example of that you managed to post in this thread:

I don't think bullshit policies like Minimum Wage or "Right to work" laws are the most effective ways to assist the poor out of the situation that they are in, and in most cases, they actually make the situation work. You use emotional arguments that sound good, to the uneducated, but contrasted with sound economics and rational thought, your ideals are revealed as nothing more than smoke and mirrors. I feel that you advocate ideas that will put more people into poverty, put more people out of work, and, on a related note, violates the liberties of all involved. Do I call you evil for this? I haven't yet. Yet you call me evil because I dont advocate policies that I KNOW cause unemployment, or that I KNOW will infringe upon people's rights. nach0king said it best, your opinions are easily dismissed as crap

This is the classical conservative "my dick is greater than yours" way of debating. When it comes to "right to work" and "minimum wage", I have stated in several threads that I don`t support those policies, but that I support welfare. In Norway, you can work for a dollar an hour if you really want to, but you do not have to work for such a wage to survive. You see the difference?

So, when you use the experssion "rational thought", that is nothing than an enormous laugh. Libertarian itself is based on the moral stance that "coercion is wrong", and that is about the greatest appeal to emotion in ideological history. That does certainly not sound very rational to me, because you put a "moral principle" above the well being and utility of the populace. Also, your attempts to make people feel sorry for the oppressed rich people that pay some taxes are nothing short of ridicolus! Those who lose the most by having a welfare state, still have a standard of living that is way above that of the poor, so I don`t really feel that sorry for them.

And when it comes to your rant about economics THERE ARE OTHER THINGS IN THIS WORLD THAN MATERIAL LUXURY GOODS.
The extreme libertarian focus on economics just makes libertarianism appear ridiculous to other people than have insighet in any societal subject other than economics. Also, libertarian completely overlooks the effect the distribution of wealth have on the utility it creates, the fact that more wealth may raise expectations and thereby not raising actual satisfaction and that it might cause more stress and insecurity, thereby reducing the total utility gained by the populace. Actually, you do prove that libertarianism is a hate ideology, because you cannot possible believe in those ridiculous arguments you produce yourself here!

Also, unemployment only causes suffering when you don`t have a welfare system. Since I support a welfare system, I do not see the problem of having some unemployment.

I also lack serious replies to several things I have posted, besides the timewasting garbage posted by Futuristic, and he don`t either answer all objections against libertarianism. The only libertarian on this site, and the other board I have been at, that gives good, thoughtfull and quality answers are Noumenon. He can actually answer what I write without presenting crap like "that is to philosophical to answer", "you are irrational" and "my dick is larger than yours".

I must also state that in my opinion, everyone who is a communist or libertarian and is over 30 years old is certainly either evil og stupid. I would support a mixed economy system that would supress evil special interest thought like libertarianism and communism. I rather think that to tolerate such ideologies are some of the greatest evil a individual can do. Tolerating evil is not good.