Leftist/ rightist?

[Theobalt]

The problem you have with the word libertarian is an exclusively american one. Elsewhere in the world, it works fine.

[Din]

[color=green]The problem you have with the word libertarian is an exclusively american one. Elsewhere in the world, it works fine.</font color=green> <br> <br>Huh? I'm not American nor anyone near the country. The semantical confusion between Libertarian and Liberalism occurs only in the USA. In other parts of the world, including Europe and South America, the term Libertarian still indicates a left-wing anarchistic perspective - which would make any description of capitalists as libertarian nothing short of oxymoronic in nature. So, actually, your usage of the term Libertarian works fine only in the USA.

[Theobalt]

which would make any description of capitalists as libertarian nothing short of oxymoronic in nature <br> <br>Like I said, it doesn't matter if we think it is oxymoronic, what truly matters when placing libertarian capitalist on the plane is how they describe themselves. They are for capitalism, they are for a maximal personal freedom, so we can describe them as libertarian capitalists. Of course, when one knows how capitalism works, one understands the oxymoronic nature of the ideology. This is why libertarianism is automatically linked to anti-capitalism by default (except in the US), althought libertarian only means pro-individual freedom.

[Din]

[color=green]Like I said, it doesn't matter if we think it is oxymoronic, what truly matters when placing libertarian capitalist on the plane is how they describe themselves</font color=green> <br> <br>So it is okay for capitalists to call themselves anarchists as well? <br> <br>[color=green]They are for capitalism, they are for a maximal personal freedom, so we can describe them as libertarian capitalists. Of course, when one knows how capitalism works, one understands the oxymoronic nature of the ideology.</font color=green> <br> <br>No. What I mean is that the term Libertarian is itself used and identified as a left-wing perspective in favor of a socialist economy. It is not the ideas behind "libertarian capitalism" that is oxymoronic. The term "libertarian capitalism" is oxymoronic - as much so as "anarcho-capitalism". <br> <br>libertarian capitalism = Liberalism <br>liberal socialism = Libertarian <br> <br>There is no difference between "right-libertarian" and liberalism. Libertarian without Socialism is Liberalism.

[Man]

An F? <br> <br>I'm going to hum through your next class.

[Man]

Call yourself a cheese-monger. Who cares what 'our' label is? It doesn't matter. The truth will out.

[Din]

[color=green]Call yourself a cheese-monger. Who cares what 'our' label is? It doesn't matter. The truth will out.</font color=green> <br> <br>Who cares? Apparently, a lot. That is the problem. A fetish for labels mean that people are easily confused - mistaking the ideas of one for the ideas of another. It is all fine to play with apathy and not care about labels - but I doubt you or most other people would wish to be called a fascist or be associated in any other way with someone like Adolf Hitler - or just about any other person or ideas that you dislike. The problem hardly have anything to do with the arrangement of seven particular letters into forming the word fascist. Obviously, it is about the ideas underneath the label. That is what labels are used for - to indicate a similarity between certain group of people. <br> <br>If everybody disregard labels, then that's great. Until then, though, be prepared to wade through the muddle that is semantics. Whether or not you wish to label yourself, others will label you. And that is not a good thing... <br> <br>Personally, I can abandon the A-word. <br> <br>The Fictional Entity Known as The Truth is a Label.

[Man]

I don't care if someone associates me with Nazism. Whatever. <br> <br>I refuse to proliferate labels, though, again, I appreciate your sentiment. I can't be arsed with muddling through semantics. That's for dullards.

[Din]

[color=green]I don't care if someone associates me with Nazism. Whatever. </font color=green> <br> <br>You blithering fascist pig! [img]/wwwthreads/images/icons/tongue.gif[/img] <br> <br>[color=green]I refuse to proliferate labels, though, again, I appreciate your sentiment.</font color=green> <br> <br>Hey, thanks. Now, you got a distinction in the class.

[Morpheus]

Language is power. If you alter the language so that there is no word for rebellion then formenting rebellion becomes much harder. If you redefine anarchy so it means choas or capitalism then achieving anarchy becomes much more difficult. You might read the book '1984' by George Orwell, the concept of newspeak very much applies to this.

[bongo]

i fucking LOVE YOU <br>for that thing about 'the People's stick'

[Man]

Language is also in the listening. I know people are manipulating words (normally because of fear) and have been since the year dot, but a sensitive, truly listening ear can tell when someone is telling the truth or using manipulative tricks. Personally, I don't agree with Orwell on this or rather he doesn't go far enough. I think people choose to be tricked by language because this seems far easier and more comfortable than having an open-mind. <br> <br>The only people that cannot hear what you are saying are people who have already pre-judged what a word means without listening or reading your context. This happens on this board too. <br> <br>Some people really are scared that an anarchistic society would be chaos. They don't realise that is what we already have, so they choose to say anarchy is chaos. <br> <br>Prejudice and fear. Huh!

[Theobalt]

If we want to stick to the exact meaning of words, libertarian means pro-personal freedom. It doesn't talk about capitalism or socialism. Of course, through logic, one usually understand that capitalism and libertarianism can't go together. But, misunderstanding is a reality. So, libertarian capitalism can "exist", at least as an utopia. <br> <br>Now, if we consider the word anarchist, then the definition clearly include an opposition to capitalism, since the first one who used this word to label himself was opposed to capitalism. <br> <br>I understand you point of view, and of course most people who define themselves as libertarians are anarchists. But, I think that a libertarian vs authoritarian axis as much wider consequences then minimal state/maximal state, since a society can be very authoritarian while having a minimal state (kind of conservative perfect world). Of course, this means that I do not use libertarian as a noun, meaning anarchists, but as an adjective, meaning the leaning of a person toward personal freedom.

[Din]

[color=green]If we want to stick to the exact meaning of words, libertarian means pro-personal freedom.</font color=green> <br> <br>No, no, no. That's just the definition being used today in the USA to appease all the right-wingers that have co-opted the term mid-way through the 20th-century. <br> <br>[color=green]It doesn't talk about capitalism or socialism.</font color=green> <br> <br>It does, it does. Liberalism, which can also be taken to mean "pro-personal freedom", is free market capitalism. Libertarian, as the term was originally used, indicated a socialist alternative to liberalism. On the one side, there was liberals who advocate a minimal state position of free market capitalism. On the other side were the libertarians who advocate a minimal state position of socialism. The anti-state liberals and the anarchists push the minimal state position to the extreme of eliminating the state. <br> <br>[color=green]Now, if we consider the word anarchist, then the definition clearly include an opposition to capitalism, since the first one who used this word to label himself was opposed to capitalism.</font color=green> <br> <br>Again, the term libertarian as originally used indicated an opposition to capitalism. By your own statement then, the "definition" of libertarianism should similarly indicate an opposition to capitalism. <br> <br>Name me a single pro-capitalist libertarian from the 19th century or early 20th century. There is none! It was only during the 1930s onwards that the Old Right (i.e. liberals) in the US started adopting the name libertarian. Oscar Wilde was a libertarian. Charles Fourier was a libertarian. Bertrand Russell was a libertarian. George Orwell was a libertarian. Walt Whitman was a libertarian. And the list goes on. None of them advocated or supported capitalism. Anarchists identified themselves consistently as libertarians. Many anarchist groups carried the term libertarian. It was always a left-wing term until the right-wing in the USA - and only in the USA - co-opted the term. Unfortunately, it has now been decades that the term libertarian has been used in the USA to identify a right-wing position - so much so that many in the USA would actually deny that the term could be used for left-wingers! <br> <br>[color=green]I think that a libertarian vs authoritarian axis as much wider consequences then minimal state/maximal state since a society can be very authoritarian while having a minimal state (kind of conservative perfect world).</font color=green> <br> <br>Exactly. A so-called anarcho-capitalist society (re: anti-state liberalism) is authoritarian. But according to your libertarian/authoritarian axis, such a society would be libertarian instead of authoritarian! After all, if it is possible for a libertarian capitalism to exist, then you will have to concede that capitalism is not necessarily authoritarian. <br> <br>By using the less appealing but more descriptive terms of minimal and maximal states, we need not be troubled by such polemics. The terms minimal and maximal state does not, in itself, connote any positive or negative image. The terms libertarian and authoritarian clearly does. Most people, aside from the assorted fascist and bolshevik crowd, would not wish to call themselves authoritarian. In the end, the question of freedom is a matter of perception. Even fascists can describe themselves as being in favor of personal freedom.