Is Libertarianism just an American thing?

Or does it have a notable following elsewhere in the world?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#Neo-classical_liberalism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
globaltradealert.org/.
thinkmarkets.wordpress.com/2014/02/05/libertarianism-and-classical-liberalism-is-there-a-difference/
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Libertarianism was born out of Barry Goldwater's 1964 presidential bid and is basically Goldwaterism (a principled, idealistic defense of small government) combined with the zeitgeist of the hippie generation: opposition to foreign interventionism, socially liberal domestic policy, fashionable non-conformity and mistrust of centralized authority.

Ultimately Republicans adopted the southern strategy after Goldwater, making themselves the party of conservatives both economic and social.

Libertarianism remained a minority movement until it found powerful support from a number of powerful, wealthy businessmen, who stood to benefit greatly from Libertarianism's blanket opposition to regulations and taxes, such as Peter Thiel, Eddie Lampert, and the Koch Brothers.

extreme right-wing movements outside of the U.S tend to be more nationalistic and less observant of the sort of ideologically rigorous arguments that Libertarians like to make.

I'm a kraut libertarian.

I can usually find people who'll agree with me on pretty much everything; and five when they talk to someone else they'll be all for regulating and banning whatever they don't like, and paying with taxes for what they do like.

Germans don't make good libertarians.

>Germans don't make good libertarians.
Don't let the internet fool you. Most Americans even "small gubmen" neocon types dismiss libertarianism out of hand the moment it's mentioned.

Libertarianism is literally just "dude lmao weed", mixed with a misunderstanding of how economics works.

Pray tell us how economics work.

all the major parties/movements promote vast oversimplifications of economics that align with their viewpoints, why should the libertarian movement be held to a higher standard?

In the rest of the world they're just called liberals.

Nah there's Classical Liberalism in Europe and that whole "muh original Libertarians were Socialists!"

> misunderstanding of how economics works

Yes that's right, discard the entire history of economic literature because Keynes was a genius!

economics is the abstract expression of the relations of production at a particular stage in history and the history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggles

this nigga knows

Well OP the problem is that in europe the word libertarian has a completely different meaning and it referes to anarchism (Spanish revolution like I mean). In fact this use started in France and is prior to the american one by around 70 years, anarchism was never a thing in the us and in the 60s certain american right-wing tendencies blatantly stole the term.
So libertarianism is an american thing? No
The term libertarianism refers to completely different things in the us than elswhere? Yup

Any human with an IQ above 50 wants freedom.

That's a very complex way of saying you dont understand history or economics

And anyone with a 3 digit IQ knows libertarianism is a failed ideology

(classical) liberalism was the most successful philosophy on government in the history of the world until the spoiled children of capitalism started to dismantle it

...

That's basically just a description of a natural development. It's like I discovered a stone and you come up saying all the stones in the world are influenced by me.

>I consider myself a Classical Liberal™

What of protectionism? It played a part in the growth of the US.

user you're wholly ignorant of history if you think that a government doing nothing but protecting private property rights is a path to freedom for anyone other than the billionaire class that arises from such an arrangement

If you are equal you should all have bread and meat
If you are free you shouldnt have to work like a slave for the land/factoryowners for food and money
Obviously liberalists dont want that but just saying

Libertarianism is NOT classical liberalism. To say otherwise is to engage in ahistorical revisionism that libertarians are so fond of.

>if you think that a government doing nothing but protecting private property rights is a path to freedom for anyone other than the billionaire class that arises from such an arrangement

Well I dont recall advocating that but ok. Most classical liberals allowed a pretty robust roll for government in my opinion

Nazism was the most successful style of government until the indebted state declared war on all it's neighbors and killed a large number of it's own citizens.

Some things follow naturally. If you start with laissez faire capitalism you get trusts and monopolies and suddenly you no longer have all that economic freedom you started with because the market is dominated by a few.

>literally the ideology that all modern western nations are based on
>fedora

Arguably, libertarianism includes classical liberalism, just as it also includes minarchism and anarchism.

It is not the 19th century anymore. To call yourself a classical liberal is anachronistic and disingenuous.

>Nazism was the most succesful form of government
>Lasted for 6 years and only thign that did was lower unemployment by building roads and force conscripting the youths
GG not biased at all m8

The unspoken implication there is that the "natural" solution to this problem was state monopolies, Nationalized regulation (as opposed to local) and wealth redistribution.

>libertarianism includes classical liberalism

According to who?

What would a person of equivalent beliefs now call themselves?

>If you start with laissez faire capitalism you get trusts and monopolies
>doesn't realize that virtually all contemporary and historical monopolies were the result of government action

You have a point, but you're wrong about anarchism not being a thing in the US. Google Haymarket Massacre, Sacco and Vanzetti, Bob Black or John Zerzan. And Hakim Bey.

There's no "equivalent" beliefs now. Politics is ever changing, and to pretend someone in the 21st century can have the same outlook on politics, society, economics, ethics, law, etc as someone in the 19th century is nonsense.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#Neo-classical_liberalism

Neoclassical, if you will

Thanks for undermining your view. Neoclassical is obviously not the same as classical.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

>Classical liberalism is a political ideology and a branch of liberalism which advocates civil liberties and political freedom with representative democracy under the rule of law and emphasizes economic freedoms found in economic liberalism which is also called free market capitalism.

Doesn't sound very anachronistic to me.

>the point
>your head
Yeah, it wasn't successful at all in the end. It's just that it started seemingly close to accomplish what it set out to do: make bank, re-militarize, get land, etc. But it wasn't sustainable.

Epic

If by that you mean that the government protects their property rights, sure.

What? Can't you defend your point?

Thanks for conceding.

Most historical monopolies were the result of monarchical decrees, and most modern ones are the result of excessive/corrupt regulation.

It's difficult to see how a monopoly could come about in a free market, or at least remain for a significant amount of time.

You should finish reading the article. Political ideologies are not atemporal, they exist in a certain historical context.

>government is the only source of market power

Love this meme

My point is only that one could lift the basic ideas out of the ideology and apply them in a modern context.

Most modern political beliefs and movements have their routes in the 19th century. strains of Socialism, and classical liberalism survive today with little changes in their basic assumptions and goals. The only difference is their influence and popularity then vs now

Government is the only source of significant power.

By "applying" them (i.e. reinterpret) in a modern context you are inevitably adding elements as well changing certain elements of the ideology, which is why it's disingenuous to call yourself a classical liberal.

Fuck you cunts are cringy, pseudo-intellectuals with bloated egos only possible on an anonymous Filipino finger painting board.

I hope you know what market power means.

Define "significant"

This goes back to the issue of what warrants a change in terminology. It seems like a bit too minor of a squabbling point to go calling someone disingenuous.

>It's difficult to see how a monopoly could come about in a free market
>you can use capital to acquire means of acquiring more capital
>this doesn't exponentially increase the gap between late-comers and early-birds
>owning land privately is denying usage of that land to someone else but that doesn't limit the economic freedom of others
>owning intelectual property rights can artificially limit production or inflate the cost of commodities like life-saving medication but this isn't agressing on the economic freedom of others

Okay sorry misundertood your point, I thought you were using the nazism was perfect until thouse evil jews/masonic/everythingIhate conspiration intervined and ruined my plans, kind of argument
My bad

the problem with that is that there is a living tradition of classical liberalism in the modern world, in the form of numerous writers and politicians

its no more disingenuous than calling yourself a socialist

>with little changes

No

It's alright. That comes up often here, so it's understandable.

>Fuck you cunts are cringy, pseudo-intellectuals with bloated egos only possible on an anonymous Filipino finger painting board.

Have you ever been on a college campus?

Well you must forgive me for jumping several steps ahead and assuming that you hold the idea that companies have plain power.

Significant we can define as that which warrants our attention, that is, that which it would be worth taking care of.

I'm not sure if Australian University/TAFE grounds are the same, how would you compare it to this shit fest?

It's no minor issue, as it obfuscates what your actual views are, and gives the mistaken impression that libertarianism is an uninterrupted, unquestionable continuation of classical liberalism.

If you want to quibble about little thats fine.

The socialist still want workers to own the products of their labor and the liberals still want a limited representative government that maximizes economic and social liberties.

I am not sure what else they believe that should change that label, heck even neo-liberal applies to various schools of economics rather than the politics of it all

Switzerland used to have a lot of protectionist measures, but now it only has 19 according to this: globaltradealert.org/. Just because certain policies were good for a budding nation doesn't mean they have the same weight now.

>It's difficult to see how a monopoly could come about in a free market
>you can use capital to acquire means of acquiring more capital
>this doesn't exponentially increase the gap between late-comers and early-birds

I'm not sure you know what a monopoly is.

>owning land privately is denying usage of that land to someone else but that doesn't limit the economic freedom of others

Freedom is freedom from coercion. Freedom does not mean the holding of resources.

>owning intelectual property rights can artificially limit production or inflate the cost of commodities like life-saving medication but this isn't agressing on the economic freedom of others

It can. It's not aggressing on people's freedom though, similar to the previous case.

So you just dont like the implication?

of course libertarianism, as a movement has been influenced by a number of sources outside classical liberalism, and indeed many in the libertarian party would consider classical liberals too moderate, and only welcome them on the grounds that they are allied on most issues rather than sharing the same ideal.

I stated clearly the words "market power", so, unless you're an economic illiterate, you should've known immediately what I meant.

What is "plain power"?

And market power certainty warrants our attention, as it produces economic inefficiency, as anyone with basics knowledge of the field understands.

Classical liberalism can be seen as a subcategory of libertarianism. It does not define the whole.

According to who?

Again, I was jumping ahead.

By plain power, I mean power without any modifiers.

And yes, market power warrants our attention, but any (plain) power held by companies does not (now).

thinkmarkets.wordpress.com/2014/02/05/libertarianism-and-classical-liberalism-is-there-a-difference/

Nice source

Kek

>Freedom is freedom from coercion. Freedom does not mean the holding of resources
Yup being forced to work for someone else cause you need to eat and him and his friends own all the resorces is definetely not coercion, eating is not that important anyway

>accredited professor
>not acceptable cause reasons

meanwhile your source is??

Power "without any modifiers" is quite a broad term.

Under most definitions, pretty much every group of humans has a certain degree of power, including corporations, of course.

I simply don't see what point you're trying to make.

My point is that the power held is not significant.

That seems more of an opinion than a statement of fact.

Only a very small percentage of Americans would even be true Libertarians. But I guess the point is at least we have them, though I'm not sure if that is a good or bad thing.

We live in a world of scarcity, everyone is born into poverty, the question is what methods we use to get out of poverty, especially after our parents are done raising us.

The free market way is people cooperating voluntarily for mutual benefit, satisfying your wants and needs by satisfying those of others.

All of these factors lead to the conclusion that one must have the right to exclusive use and control over scarce resources in order to have 1. survival, 2. cooperation and 3. peaceful resolution of the competing use or rivalrousness of resources.

TL:DR You'll grow up eventually.

I don't get my formation in history and political thought from a wordpress blog.

Who is being coerced? Did this someone steal my food? No.

Did anyone create circumstances under which I do not have access to food so as to cause me to take their desired course of action? No.

Also I forgot to mention that there are alternatives to employment, but people respond to incentives.

Well it may be said that ethics are not based in "fact".

So, you're a moral anti-realist, or I'm reading this wrong?

>an autistic libertarian telling people to grow up

Comedy gold

>I'm not sure you know what a monopoly is
One entity has such a great market share (can be total control, but less than that might be sufficient) for one product that other entities cannot compete.

>Freedom is freedom from coercion. Freedom does not mean the holding of resources.
Nature is coercive. You require resources and this necessity forces you to struggle for control of these. Competition arises from limited resources and multiple players.

>It can. It's not aggressing on people's freedom though, similar to the previous case.
It's telling someone they can't do something because someone else claimed to own an idea. If I want to, I need to and am able to, why won't I produce the life-saving medication I need, that someone else patented?

I'm an ethical subjectivist only because I haven't examined the matter far enough.