By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - Why would conservative and libertarian be considered the same thing?

fighter on 25 August 2013
sc94597 said:
fighter said:
sc94597 said:

 

Anarchism and Classical-Liberalism encompass what is "libertarian."  Liberal-conservatism (what is found in the United States) and Traditional Conservativism encompass "conservative. 

I hope that answers the thread quite well. 

While mostof it looks ok the "Change" section is messed up.

Populism is as much a part of fascim than it is of communist socialism.

Also, most socialisms across the world are social-liberal 

 

Where did you get that crap ?

Populism is a political doctrine where one sides with "the people" against "the elites".While for much of the twentieth century, populism was considered to be a political phenomenon mostly of Latin America and India, since the 1980s populist movements and parties have enjoyed degrees of success in First World democracies such as Canada, Italy, the Netherlands, and Scandinavian countries

Sounds like a plead for change to me. Nationalists are more traditional, and fascists are in between. As for socialism vs. social liberalism, the difference is whether the collective is more important than the individual or vice-verse. 

Not when the elites are in charge of Change, duh

 

Obvious answer is obvious.



Around the Network
fighter on 25 August 2013
fighter said:
sc94597 said:
fighter said:
sc94597 said:

 

Anarchism and Classical-Liberalism encompass what is "libertarian."  Liberal-conservatism (what is found in the United States) and Traditional Conservativism encompass "conservative. 

I hope that answers the thread quite well. 

While mostof it looks ok the "Change" section is messed up.

Populism is as much a part of fascim than it is of communist socialism.

Also, most socialisms across the world are social-liberal 

 

Where did you get that crap ?

Populism is a political doctrine where one sides with "the people" against "the elites".While for much of the twentieth century, populism was considered to be a political phenomenon mostly of Latin America and India, since the 1980s populist movements and parties have enjoyed degrees of success in First World democracies such as Canada, Italy, the Netherlands, and Scandinavian countries

Sounds like a plead for change to me. Nationalists are more traditional, and fascists are in between. As for socialism vs. social liberalism, the difference is whether the collective is more important than the individual or vice-verse. 

Not when the elites are in charge of Change, duh

 

Obvious answer is obvious.

Again, "Where did you get that crap ?"



sc94597 on 25 August 2013
fighter said:

Not when the elites are in charge of Change, duh

 

Obvious answer is obvious.

Except even then it is a plead for change, in which there exists no pandering to an elite. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populist

  • A supporter of Populism, a political philosophy urging social and political system change that favors "the people" over "the elites", or favors the common people over the rich and wealthy business owners.
It is quite "obivious" that populism is a reactionary philosophy to elitism. Of course, it could make a spectrum of its own, possibly. 


fighter on 25 August 2013
sc94597 said:
fighter said:

Not when the elites are in charge of Change, duh

 

Obvious answer is obvious.

Except even then it is a plead for change, in which there exists no pandering to an elite. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populist

  • A supporter of Populism, a political philosophy urging social and political system change that favors "the people" over "the elites", or favors the common people over the rich and wealthy business owners.
It is quite "obivious" that populism is a reactionary philosophy to elitism. Of course, it could make a spectrum of its own, possibly. 


you seem unable to grasp the concept - allow me to illustrate with a little example : Europe

 

So - the European Union is making changes, wether it's the Commissions, the Parliament, the European Council, or the Council of Europe, it is consider the centralized elite that promotes change. Not a populist one. Nor a conservative. But a progressist change.

All populisms in Europe are opposed to the European Union at the moment, wther left wing or right wing.

 

Again and for the last time, where did you get that crap ?



sc94597 on 25 August 2013
fighter said:
sc94597 said:
fighter said:

Not when the elites are in charge of Change, duh

 

Obvious answer is obvious.

Except even then it is a plead for change, in which there exists no pandering to an elite. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populist

  • A supporter of Populism, a political philosophy urging social and political system change that favors "the people" over "the elites", or favors the common people over the rich and wealthy business owners.
It is quite "obivious" that populism is a reactionary philosophy to elitism. Of course, it could make a spectrum of its own, possibly. 


you seem unable to grasp the concept - allow me to illustrate with a little example : Europe

 

So - the European Union is making changes, wether it's the Commissions, the Parliament, the European Council, or the Council of Europe, it is consider the centralized elite that promotes change. Not a populist one. Nor a conservative. But a progressist change.

All populisms in Europe are opposed to the European Union at the moment, wther left wing or right wing.

 

Again and for the last time, where did you get that crap ?

Yet populism doesn't exist without change. There's no such thing as a "traditional populist."  This is not to say that all change is populist, just as not all individualism is anarchism. Look at the graph closely. Populism is right where it belongs. It has tendencies for change from elite-rule to common-rule and it's collectivist in nature. I got it from here, https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=559440050785797&set=a.136475973082209.25390.100001594221961&type=1&theater .



Around the Network
Mr Khan on 25 August 2013
insomniac17 said:
richardhutnik said:

I was agree to some degree with the original video.  Libertarians believe there is a need for at least SOME government, while anarchists want none.  Because of this, the nature of the debate is different and focus.  A major reason for this, is to try to debate whether or not there is a need for any government gets to be pretty lengthy and has more fundamental issues.  And here, it doesn't relate to whether or not Libertarians and Conservatives are the same thing.  That is why I had been trying to position away.  I would say, it is worth discussing, but please start it in another thread.  I definitely would like to see a Libertarian debate an Anarchist, which would put the Libertarian in the big government role in comparison.

The point of my original post was to higlight that libertarians come in many flavors, both minarchist and anarchist. In fact, I would argue that there are more kinds of anarchist libertarianism than minarchist. The original use of libertarianism was associated with anarchy, and the current use of the term to favor minarchy (in the US) has been a very recent development. So the first video was ignoring a large portion of libertarianism, and focusing on the majority of LP libertarians.

Mr Khan said:

The key breach seems to be property. Libertarians believe in private property (whereby any person can own as much property as they can legally obtain), while anarchists believe only in personal property (what you need for your daily life is yours and no more). Anarchists absolutely reject the concept of rents, while libertarians think that rent can be a thing. However, there needs to be a state aparatus to enforce private property contracts, whereas we can see in medieval anarcho-syndicalism that a state apparatus is not needed in, say, a small farmer community where the farmers have their land, their crops, and their tools, and deal them directly to the tradesmen who may make or maintain tools, etc. In a world where you use only what you need, there's no need to have an aparatus to "enforce" the system, only to stop outright theft, which could be enforced through individual and communal action, whereas how could a landlord enforce the rent in an apartment complex without, ultimately, the police to be able to come by and chuck out deadbeat tenants at the end of the day?

Yes. The difference between virtually any political system can be reduced to arguments over property rights. Not just what you should be able to own, but what you can actually own. This is something that, in an anarchist world, could vary from region to region.

However, your explanation is not entirely correct. Again; anarchists are libertarian. Semantics aside, it is very possible for an anarcho-capitalist society to be imagined in a plausible way. David Friedman has done just that in The Machinery of Freedom. There is a key difference between state enforcement and "private enforcement." The difference being that one has a monopoly on justice and force, and the other does not. Now if you're concerned that a "DRO" would evolve into a state... that's possible, but not very likely. For explanations, I'll turn you to The Machinery of Freedom, Part III, Police, Courts, and Laws - on the Market (to avoid derailing the thread further).

A problem with your example of anarcho-syndicalism is something common to literally every possible option for societal organization. You must use force in order to enforce whatever you want. Even the most extreme form of anarchy does not argue against a need for "personal property," and as such, theft of such property would be wrong. If it is not wrong to own "private property," then theft of such property must also be wrong. Saying that the only force used would be to stop theft is somehow different than enforcing some system of rules and laws is fallacious. It is the exact same. An anarcho-capitalist would say that they do the same thing; they only advocate for using force in order to stop outright theft. Now you have to address the property problem; how much property can be legitimately owned, and why is that answer objectively correct?

The difference, i would suspect, is that disputes over personal property tend to directly involve the owner, and so can be hashed out in small-scale arbitration on an individual level, e.g. "my neighbor's new pool runs 20 feet onto my property." As opposed to private property disputes which cannot possibly involve the owner "Dan Jones in Anytown, Maryland pirated Generic Hollywood Blockbuster." How could we guarantee that complex private property issues are being dealt with fairly without a state aparatus to oversee them? Clearly, for instance, we cannot trust the big banks to foreclose on the right home (mistakes have been made), but do you think the wronged homeowner is really going to be able to individually deal with the bank in any enforceable way?



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

sc94597 on 25 August 2013
Mr Khan said:

The difference, i would suspect, is that disputes over personal property tend to directly involve the owner, and so can be hashed out in small-scale arbitration on an individual level, e.g. "my neighbor's new pool runs 20 feet onto my property." As opposed to private property disputes which cannot possibly involve the owner "Dan Jones in Anytown, Maryland pirated Generic Hollywood Blockbuster." How could we guarantee that complex private property issues are being dealt with fairly without a state aparatus to oversee them? Clearly, for instance, we cannot trust the big banks to foreclose on the right home (mistakes have been made), but do you think the wronged homeowner is really going to be able to individually deal with the bank in any enforceable way?

Firstly, a free-market economy will not be based on fiat currency and debt. Consequently, banks would have far less power in terms of loans and mortgages. The power of banks would be far less because there will be : 1. decentralized competing currencies and 2. competition among banks in a market-system (not as it is now with a centralized national bank.) Look at Hong Kong to see how big-banks while numerous, are limited in power because of heavy competition and a developed fiscal system. Also notice that Hong Kong's total debt is 3% of its GDP. The banks are more accountable to the market rules. 

Secondly, any dispute wouldn't be solely that of an individual and a corporation (which don't have special priveleges in a free-market) but between two legal-firms chosen by both individuals/corporations. Possibly both the bank and individuals choose the same legal-firm (out of common interest to both of them) for an easy dispute-resolution (do note that the legal-firms are also subjected to market laws - if they do bad business nobody will trust them.) If not, then it is the responsibility of these legal-firms to meet a common resolution.

Now a bank might get away with harming one person (just as it does today with the state, even moreso because of bailouts and protections), but if it is a common occurence the market and polycentric law will shut it down. Therefore, an incentive exists for the bank to not infringe on the property rights of its customers, and to get things right. That is more than exists today with government bailouts of banks. 



fighter on 25 August 2013
sc94597 said:
fighter said:
sc94597 said:
fighter said:

Not when the elites are in charge of Change, duh

 

Obvious answer is obvious.

Except even then it is a plead for change, in which there exists no pandering to an elite. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populist

  • A supporter of Populism, a political philosophy urging social and political system change that favors "the people" over "the elites", or favors the common people over the rich and wealthy business owners.
It is quite "obivious" that populism is a reactionary philosophy to elitism. Of course, it could make a spectrum of its own, possibly. 


you seem unable to grasp the concept - allow me to illustrate with a little example : Europe

 

So - the European Union is making changes, wether it's the Commissions, the Parliament, the European Council, or the Council of Europe, it is consider the centralized elite that promotes change. Not a populist one. Nor a conservative. But a progressist change.

All populisms in Europe are opposed to the European Union at the moment, wther left wing or right wing.

 

Again and for the last time, where did you get that crap ?

Yet populism doesn't exist without change. There's no such thing as a "traditional populist."  This is not to say that all change is populist, just as not all individualism is anarchism. Look at the graph closely. Populism is right where it belongs. It has tendencies for change from elite-rule to common-rule and it's collectivist in nature. I got it from here, https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=559440050785797&set=a.136475973082209.25390.100001594221961&type=1&theater .


yet, when the Republican party tells their voters to not overthrow the elites in washington and not believe the media is that not populism ?

Ron Paul himself says he is champion of the constitution [traditionalism], to change all current elites in place starting by all those useless secretary of state and institutions for freedom of the people [populism] - is his programme not [change] ?

 

by the way - your picture's source being facebook i guess i wil never be able to tell you how shity it is. No school from kindergarden to harvard would host such crap.



sc94597 on 25 August 2013
fighter said:
sc94597 said:
fighter said:
sc94597 said:
fighter said:

Not when the elites are in charge of Change, duh

 

Obvious answer is obvious.

Except even then it is a plead for change, in which there exists no pandering to an elite. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populist

  • A supporter of Populism, a political philosophy urging social and political system change that favors "the people" over "the elites", or favors the common people over the rich and wealthy business owners.
It is quite "obivious" that populism is a reactionary philosophy to elitism. Of course, it could make a spectrum of its own, possibly. 


you seem unable to grasp the concept - allow me to illustrate with a little example : Europe

 

So - the European Union is making changes, wether it's the Commissions, the Parliament, the European Council, or the Council of Europe, it is consider the centralized elite that promotes change. Not a populist one. Nor a conservative. But a progressist change.

All populisms in Europe are opposed to the European Union at the moment, wther left wing or right wing.

 

Again and for the last time, where did you get that crap ?

Yet populism doesn't exist without change. There's no such thing as a "traditional populist."  This is not to say that all change is populist, just as not all individualism is anarchism. Look at the graph closely. Populism is right where it belongs. It has tendencies for change from elite-rule to common-rule and it's collectivist in nature. I got it from here, https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=559440050785797&set=a.136475973082209.25390.100001594221961&type=1&theater .


yet, when the Republican party tells their voters to not overthrow the elites in washington and not believe the media is that not populism ?

Ron Paul himself says he is champion of the constitution [traditionalism], to change all current elites in place starting by all those useless secretary of state and institutions for freedom of the people [populism] - is his programme not [change] ?

That's certainly populism, yes, but the Republican party isn't 100% conservative. A political party, at least historically, never represents solely one political philosophy. Furthermore, ideology is a matter of primacy. A libertarian can use populist messages, for example, but that doesn't make their ideology populism. Most people aren't 100% one thing.  Ron Paul can be a champion of the constitution (a traditionalist in that regard) and still demand change in another (such as say the education system.) I never made the logical statement populism = change, I said that demand for change is a necessary condition for populism because it's defined as such.  As far as sources go, most people still believe in the right-left paradigm, so I don't think political taxonomy is a topic well developed by anybody, not a person on Facebook nor a person educated at Harvard. 



Kasz216 on 25 August 2013
Mr Khan said:
 

The difference, i would suspect, is that disputes over personal property tend to directly involve the owner, and so can be hashed out in small-scale arbitration on an individual level, e.g. "my neighbor's new pool runs 20 feet onto my property." As opposed to private property disputes which cannot possibly involve the owner "Dan Jones in Anytown, Maryland pirated Generic Hollywood Blockbuster." How could we guarantee that complex private property issues are being dealt with fairly without a state aparatus to oversee them? Clearly, for instance, we cannot trust the big banks to foreclose on the right home (mistakes have been made), but do you think the wronged homeowner is really going to be able to individually deal with the bank in any enforceable way?

I feel you guys sort of overlook one of the biggest reasons a lot of people are libretarians.

 

I think a lot of people end up being libretarians for a while, espiecally a lot of highschool students... simply because it's the eaisest most inellectually honest position you can have.

It's not so much about the position... so much as it's an easy one to state.


The old  "One man's right to extend his fist ends at another man's nose".   Is by far the eaisest and most clean political belief out there.

No other belief is THAT easy to state.  Sure you can put other beliefs in one sentence, but the sentence you use is full of vagueness.  Like something like "Do no harm" You have to actually define what is harm, or "Help the less fortunate" you have to decide what helps the less fortunate.

 

For Libretarinism that sentence is easy to apply to everything... and small government is often just the side effect of that belief.

 

It's just a very simple and clean position.  I imagine that's why it's so popular with people with Mensa level IQs.  (Something like 80% of Mensa memberse are libretarians if i remember correctly.)

 

Practically every political arguement has an answer alerady provided with a good simple reason.


Compare that to Conservatives or Liberals and you've got different arguements for different things and generally it's all a whole lot of resereach to be informed on any issue.


Libretarianism is just a perfect base for people who don't really care to research every political issue... but want to be intellectually consistant.

 

To hold a general or Conservative ideaology you have to take things "on faith" or become a super poltical wonk who looks up a bunch of stuff about each subject.

 

I imagine that's also why so many atheists and scientists are libretarians.