Forums / Discussion / Serious Debate

In the wake of the Rand Paul page it is time I ask you why you think Libertarianism is good or bad, and to defend your stance as civil as possible

The problem with that is the inherent vagueness of the term itself. Despite being seven syllables long, it only contains one truly meaningful root:liber, meaning "free". Not much. I'll let Wikipedia take it from here:
Rather than embodying a singular, rigid systematic theory or ideology, libertarianism has been applied as an umbrella term to a wide range of sometimes discordant political ideas through modern history.
So… do I think government should be kept to a manageable size and, above all else, defend individual's civil and political rights? Yes. Do I think government should be abolished? Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.
No.

To add on to what 0.9999…=1 said, different schools of libertarian thought have their own differing takes on what the term "freedom" means.. American/capitalist libertarians tend to believe that taxation is theft and that ownership of private property is an inalienable right, and so on. Classical/socialist libertarians believe that capitalism is inherently coercive and only possible because of the support of the state, et cetera.

Unless you want to turn this into a debate focused more on philosophy than politics ("what is freedom?"), then you'll probably want to ensure that it's clear from the get-go which school of thought you're referring to specifically.

If what you and 0.9999=1 say is true then it might be best to either debate the schools if libertarianism and the philosophy as well

So Now I;m asking the forum goers to answer this question: What does freedom mean to you or specifically; what freedoms do you think should not be infringed

Just what I've thought of as freedom based on my experiences, by no means an educated or literal description:

>Freedom of movement

• You cannot restrict a person from leaving their current location and traveling by some means to another within their legal right. A person cannot be detained without proper legal processes.

>Freedom of thought

• A person has the right to believe and and formulate any thoughts without fear of repercussion (like "thought-crime" in 1984.) This includes religion, political beliefs, philosophical beliefs, etc.

>Freedom from harm

• A person has the right to defend themselves and others from unlawful harm.

>Right of privacy

• A person's home cannot be intruded upon without proper legal justification. A person cannot be forced to reveal personal information about themselves or others.

>Labor Freedoms

• A person cannot be indentured into a profession or be forced into a job against their will.

>Freedom of relations

• A person is allowed to associate with anyone they wish and cannot be legally segregated from a community. A person is allowed to have romantic relations with anyone else of legal age regardless of sex, race, or social status

>Economic freedom

• A person may spend their money any legal thing they wish (items, business, sevices, etc.).

>Freedom of expresion

• People are allowed to say or do anything within legality that does not physically harm others.

EDIT: PLz be kind Particle Mare (^:

@Lord Starscream

Let's not forget Roosevelt's Four Freedoms, which along with freedom of speech/expression and freedom of religion (technically included under thought and expression), includes freedom from fear and freedom from want.

Freedom from fear is closely related to freedom from harm, but the two are not identical. The idea is that not only should a person have the freedom to defend themselves, but they should not have to live in fear of needing to exercise that particular freedom. A refugee in an active war-zone is a good example of someone lacking in freedom from fear.

Freedom from want (better phrased as need, IMO) simply means freedom from starvation, homelessness, the threat of total economic desolation, etc.

Freedom to is referred as positive liberty. Freedom from is referred to as negative liberty.

The Four Freedoms are interesting because they potentially reconcile libertarianism and statism. In an ideal capitalist libertarian (perhaps Objectivist, even) society, there would be no guaranteed freedom from want; short of replacing capitalism altogether, such a freedom can only be granted by a welfare state, which requires taxation to fund. Since the definition of libertarianism does not necessarily exclude negative liberty, however, it is in fact possible to argue that welfare plus taxation is not a lack of libertarianism, simply libertarianism expressed in a different manner.

From my experience, libertarianism is just a fancy word for the Tea Party. Considering you all know how I feel about them… no, I can't say I care much for it. The ones who want government abolished are just stupid. We all know just how great a lack of government worked for Somalia.

Libertarianism right now strikes me as being irrelevant enough to not be worth discussing.

Maybe in 10 years…