Libertarians-A Question

[amrchaos]

First and foremost--Anarchy is really a social concept. Left and right are for economics.

For instance, Anarcho-communist, liberals and Libertarians could be considered anarchists. They believe too much in the "Good" in all men. Lax social restrictions, secularism, Civil Rights and a so called "Live and lets Live" attitude that at times, annoy me!!

The ACLU is their pride and joy, and yes, they would even fight for the right of Terrorists to have a fair trial.

The non-violent ones are basically idealistic good guys that may need to be put into asylums from time to time.

Pure Anarchists want no regulations--Socially nor economically. American Libertarians are closely associated to this group. Not many Anarcho-commies these days. Most of them live on small communes and behave something like a religious order but there is no religion.

 

[Agnapostate]

Liberals possess no similarity whatsoever to anarchists, nor to socialists, for that matter. Indeed, the liberal is the greater opponent of the socialist than the free marketer, because the liberal's ideology is not pervaded by the air of unreality and will be mendaciously depicted as "progressive."

 

[Indiana Oracle]

The average voter has very little idea what all these ideological classifications mean, care what they mean, or wants to. That is not to say that they have no intrinsic importance. Such concepts inform policy makers and public debate.

When an average person contemplates such larger matters I believe it comes down to, as was said previously, how he understands the social model and the economic model pertaining to the issue. If they juncture in some cases, fine.

In trying to influence people to back one cause, party or ideology versus another, labels are often used to define camps. It works when we recognize the label - for better or worse.

Frankly, I think a lot of people have pretty much had it with how our current social and economic models are being implemented. I do not believe they want them changed outright.

Because of a broad dissatisfaction with government (in general) and their recent failure to curb excesses of greed in the financial markets, which causes French Revolution-type thinking, many people are looking for new lights to follow - within a zone they are comfortable with (Obama makes high art of this).

The political group (anybody's) that causes the average person to prosper, to see a good possibility that he can advance on his own steam, and that social services are reasonable and compassionate, that governmental corruption is under control (there are others), will win the day and hold office as long as it remains faithful to its first principles.

 

[Paulie]

I prefer not to call myself a libertarian anymore. I want to reclaim the title of "Liberal" in its true meaning and not the bastardized definition it now has thanks to the Dimocratic party.

What Is Classical*Liberalism?

Exactly. If you want to know what "kind" of libertarian I am, refer to classical liberalism. That's about as close as it gets.

Or you could just listen to red dawn's ad hominem explanation of all things libertarian. Hell, I'm sure as shit you wanted to know how the term was defined by internet message board patronization