[jango1985]

Second, I look at an ideology's foundation. The main issue is how well it fits in with our knowledge of evolved human behavior, both at the individual and social levels.

Libertarianism fails the second filter. It does recognize human tendencies towards autonomy, but it fails to effectively deal with human social organization. Human social behavior does not arise from free interaction of individuals. Period. Hierarchical social organization and collective action are hardwired.

The Manichean individualist/statist worldview is philosophically idealist, and untenable.

Edit: Libertarianism is not a Economic system nor a form of Social Organization, baring the exception of a formalized lack of one being considered one.


Logical thought: Groups - Individuals = 0, Individuals - Groups=Individuals, ergo: Individuals > Groups. Libertarianism is not a social organization except in the broadest sense of the word, the entire idea is your not a group. Can I dedicate twenty percent of my day living in Socialism and seventy percent being a Communist and ten percent being a Capitalist and not contradiction myself. I might even call myself a a Communist Socialist Capitalist just to mess with people who get caught on the labels. Libertarianism doesn't require you to live deep in the Mountains by yourself with no other people for forty miles. You can love peace eighty percent of the time and then enter a fighting ring the other twenty percent and love both things. A person can have an individual identity as well as a social identity.

[quetzalcoatl]

Edit: Libertarianism is not a Economic system nor a form of Social Organization, baring the exception of a formalized lack of one being considered one.


Logical thought: Groups - Individuals = 0, Individuals - Groups=Individuals, ergo: Individuals > Groups. Libertarianism is not a social organization except in the broadest sense of the word, the entire idea is your not a group. Can I dedicate twenty percent of my day living in Socialism and seventy percent being a Communist and ten percent being a Capitalist and not contradiction myself. I might even call myself a a Communist Socialist Capitalist just to mess with people who get caught on the labels. Libertarianism doesn't require you to live deep in the Mountains by yourself with no other people for forty miles. You can love peace eighty percent of the time and then enter a fighting ring the other twenty percent and love both things. A person can have an individual identity as well as a social identity.

Nevertheless, a structure will emerge. Individuals exist in relation to a group and groups exist in relation to individuals. This is not a philosophical concept, just an observation regarding evolved human behavior.

The group structure that emerges will be hierarchical in nature. First pick of food and mates will go to leaders. Scale this up and you have government. Capitalism is not an -ism it is just a naturalistic description of human economic behavior. It has no theoretical basis, nor the need for one. Freedom is not a consideration.

From these principles we can deduce that there is no ideal size of government. It assumes its natural size to accommodate the demands placed on it. That government which governs least, governs least. That government which governs best, governs best. There is no intrinsic relation.

[jango1985]

It assumes its natural size to accommodate the demands placed on it. That government which governs least, governs least. That government which governs best, governs best. There is no intrinsic relation.

A small house is still much bigger than a small car but both of these things are described as small; the same principles apply in politics; you have to have a context. What is good government is going to be based on how humans are built, our needs, wants, motivations. Most people are not conjoined twins and even they have separate identities, goals and desires. Groups can't truly exist if you put them over the individual, because groups are made of individuals. You cannot deducted the individuals from a group and have a group, it is a derivative of individuals in the purest sense of the word.

Even your idea of hierarchy has "individuals" at the top, not the "group." You breath for yourself, you consume your food for yourself, your heart pumps for you alone, any of those things stop you die; you can survive without a group. Every role in society is going to be sectioned into individual sized chunks, every great work has to be made up of the sum of its parts, each role in the chain has to be no bigger than a single person. The fact the entire structure of society has to be built around respect for our individual needs and function is outright proof the individual outranks the group. First world economies using skilled labor, all role provisioning to make that skilled labor's job no bigger than that person, it wouldn't even work otherwise. But a group is nothing but a collection of individuals, so usually when someone attacks a "group" they attacked multiple individuals losing the advantage. Even if they did figure out a way to lose themselves into a bigger whole that new being would be considered a single entity and therefor individualistic, even if it is more powerful than me that does not contradict my logic.

[Truth To Power]

Libertarianism is not an economic system!

But it has economic implications.

By forcing an economic model your breaking both rules of Libertarianism one of them twice.

Wrong. It's not "forcing an economic model" to note the economic implications of a political model.

You stopped being individualistic you did economics with other people,

Libertarianism is not social atomism. The liberty to "do economics" with other people is a central tenet of libertarianism.

you stopped being individualistic when you made other people share your economics values, and you forced other people.

Garbage. True libertarians (i.e., not the typical feudal "libertarians" who believe in landed property) don't try to make others share their economic values, and it's absurd, self-contradictory and anti-logical to claim that requiring respect for a principle of "no force" is forcing that principle on others.

Once you start trying to put your money values onto other people and stop minding your own business you cease being a Libertarian and start being aggressive economist.

How have I "put my money values onto other people"?

This is a Survey for your own use only.

a. Pick your preferred solution(s) for violence: Fascism, Anarchy, Libertarianism, Pacifist.

Libertarianism -- if that means a government that secures people's rights to life, liberty, and property in the fruits of their labor against violence.

b. Pick your Economics: Capitalism, Mixed Economy, Socialism, Communism.

Geoism.

c. Pick your Governance: Common law, Civil law, Anarchy, Democracy.

Democracy.

I think each is worthy of its place in political science and is worthy of a place in humanity.

But in most cases, not a place I want to be.

Capitalism is not an -ism it is just a naturalistic description of human economic behavior. It has no theoretical basis, nor the need for one. Freedom is not a consideration.

No, capitalism is based on very specific Lockean theories of rights to life, liberty and property.

[jango1985]

But it has economic implications.

Staying out of economics completely has economic implications, maternity leave has economic implications but I don't always think about them like that, but an economist might.

Wrong. It's not "forcing an economic model" to note the economic implications of a political model.

I didn't mean to imply that being a libertarian required you to force your economic values on people, that is the point I am trying to make; to me that is what is unlibertarian.

Libertarianism is not social atomism. The liberty to "do economics" with other people is a central tenet of libertarianism.

Actually now that I look up social atomism that is a significant chunk of what libertarianism is to me. My interpretation is "Liberty" is a central tenet of libertarianism, economics is just a byproduct.

Garbage. True libertarians (i.e., not the typical feudal "libertarians" who believe in landed property) don't try to make others share their economic values, and it's absurd, self-contradictory and anti-logical to claim that requiring respect for a principle of "no force" is forcing that principle on others.

I don't know what your trying to say here but I would state that to some people self defense is an exception to the "no force" rule.

Once you start trying to put your money values onto other people and stop minding your own business you cease being a Libertarian and start being aggressive economist.
How have I "put my money values onto other people"?

The stereotype that gets pushed onto Libertarianism by everyone else is what I was referencing and I was trying to explain its more like neglect or avoiding that issue than agreeing with such and such economic system.

Libertarianism -- if that means a government that secures people's rights to life, liberty, and property in the fruits of their labor against violence.

Your next answer is a great example of how this could get incredible complicated, do you share a common belief of property with your neighbors who you want protection from, if your in conflict with them the odds of this just went down. A commune to to be for or against them are very hive like and would consider a lot of your things their things, etc if someone came in and said this is mine because you haven't claimed it and restricts everyone from using it, wouldn't they want protection from this "aggression".

Geoism.

Assuming you were allowed your definition of property not being land which system would you pick. I don't think these words are very definitive in a way more like vague descriptions of how large groups of people sort of do things.

Democracy.

What about the fact that society tends to job specialize and by that logic implies that the general population lacks higher qualifications for this. Not to say that sometimes if society just decides one day to stop polluting and applies social pressure, assuming a majority, to people who didn't isn't without its value. After thinking about it a bit it is kind of a trick question and that those are sources of law not replacements to each other.

But in most cases, not a place I want to be.

I have no arguments with this, I don't see a single big name government out there I truly believe in.

[Truth To Power]

But it has economic implications.

Staying out of economics completely has economic implications, maternity leave has economic implications but I don't always think about them like that, but an economist might.

ISTM a well-rounded perspective includes both.

Wrong. It's not "forcing an economic model" to note the economic implications of a political model.

I didn't mean to imply that being a libertarian required you to force your economic values on people, that is the point I am trying to make; to me that is what is unlibertarian.

OK.

Libertarianism is not social atomism. The liberty to "do economics" with other people is a central tenet of libertarianism.

Actually now that I look up social atomism that is a significant chunk of what libertarianism is to me. My interpretation is "Liberty" is a central tenet of libertarianism, economics is just a byproduct.

I agree that economics is not the core of liberty. But IMO it is much or most of the fruit.

True libertarians (i.e., not the typical feudal "libertarians" who believe in landed property) don't try to make others share their economic values, and it's absurd, self-contradictory and anti-logical to claim that requiring respect for a principle of "no force" is forcing that principle on others.

I don't know what your trying to say here but I would state that to some people self defense is an exception to the "no force" rule.

AFAIK, almost all libertarians interpret "no force" as "no initiation of force." Pacifism is different.

How have I "put my money values onto other people"?

The stereotype that gets pushed onto Libertarianism by everyone else is what I was referencing and I was trying to explain its more like neglect or avoiding that issue than agreeing with such and such economic system.

But IMO the stereotype is generally justified, as most soi-disant libertarians are actually feudalists who want government to help landowners enslave everyone else.

Libertarianism -- if that means a government that secures people's rights to life, liberty, and property in the fruits of their labor against violence.

Your next answer is a great example of how this could get incredible complicated, do you share a common belief of property with your neighbors who you want protection from, if your in conflict with them the odds of this just went down. A commune to to be for or against them are very hive like and would consider a lot of your things their things, etc if someone came in and said this is mine because you haven't claimed it and restricts everyone from using it, wouldn't they want protection from this "aggression".

You have identified a key problem with feudal libertarians: is claiming ownership of something no one else has claimed a valid basis for ownership?

Geoism.

Assuming you were allowed your definition of property not being land which system would you pick. I don't think these words are very definitive in a way more like vague descriptions of how large groups of people sort of do things.

IMO a "capitalism" characterized by free markets and property in the fruits of labor but not land (natural resources) or knowledge and ideas (i.e., no patents or copyrights) would be a good first cut at optimum liberty, justice and prosperity.

Democracy.

What about the fact that society tends to job specialize and by that logic implies that the general population lacks higher qualifications for this. Not to say that sometimes if society just decides one day to stop polluting and applies social pressure, assuming a majority, to people who didn't isn't without its value. After thinking about it a bit it is kind of a trick question and that those are sources of law not replacements to each other.

I don't interpret democracy as being like Athenian democracy, but more like a referendum-bureaucracy where society's legal structure would be decided by referendum, and top officials chosen by election, but most day-to-day decisions would be taken by public employees ("bureaucrats") with expertise in specialized fields.

I don't see a single big name government out there I truly believe in.

Right. Even the best -- Canada, Switzerland, Singapore, etc. -- are pretty far from anything I would consider ideal.

[Dr House]

Ironically, I was not quite libertarian when I left four years ago. I am now though, and I carry with me all the data and reasoning that convinced me.

[Dandelion]

I remain very much an individual with strongly nationalist leanings within the context of a belief that humans need communities and a sense of identity beyond the mere species label.

When I joined this forum yesterday, I saw a few subject fields on the profile for Political Compass scores, so I went and did this test once again. I have done it a few times and always come out with the same score. So I thought I would do it again. The questions seem a little more focused this time on practical expectations of the opinions and beliefs of ordinary people. Rather than the hobby horse obsessions of fundamentalists and ideological extremists. Have they tweaked the questions a bit lately?

I always scored in the Libertarian square and this time I scored in the centre of this square on both economic and social axes.

So I am, to all intents and purposes, Libertarian as so many repeats of this test reveal constancy of opinion.

But, I am a strong believer in the nation state and the Independence of that social and economic structure. So I always thought of myself as strongly "nationalist", which I am. This doesn't mesh with the variations of "nationalist" I have come across on the internet.

The result has been that I have been accused of being a spy, a nutcase, a devious plotter and a "lefty" by those who believe strongly, and often obsessively, that nationalism has to mean racism, protectionism on steroids and living in a bubble of derision for everything and everyone not from some ideal of Aryan magnificence that has no bearing on the oddballs who propound this theory as though they all stepped down from a spaceship from the Planet Ultra Fabulous in the galaxy of Myopia Major.

I spent long years wondering why they were nasty to me and finally figured out that it is because I am a Libertarian in worldview. I have come across a good many who describe themselves as "right leaning Libertarians" who were chased off by angry "nationalists" with the same venomous spittle sticking to their retreating backs, plus a few daggers, and so I have finally decided to call myself basically Libertarian based on the scores I keep getting on the Political Compass test.

[Sava Urosevic]

If i may ask, define "Self Identified Libertarian".

Searching, i have discovered only this meaning.

self-i·den·ti·fied

ADJECTIVE

having somebody or something particular as the focus of a sense of self
having voluntarily acknowledged your true identity without coercion