Emotion has no place in determining the logistics of mapping political ideology. Your argument is subjective, and mine is scientific. You’re using your opinions to redefine other’s opinions to fit your narrative.
There is a reason scholars in political science do not use the system you are clinging to by manipulating data into conformity.
How is the origin and basis of libertarianism subjective. And again how are Western political Scholars authoritative. Capitalism literally existed back when libertarianism was created. They specifically chose to create an ideology outside it.
Calling unfettered capitalism libertarianism in no way reflects libertarianism as it was created. Claiming that the freedom of capital is equivalent to actual freedom is an absurdity. If you have access to a freedom that others do not. Due to anything like capital or resources that’s not a freedom. That’s a privilege and should not be protected.
Likewise, the non aggression principle. Capitalists or any other group claiming to abide it’s definition of private property can’t also unhypocritically claim to abide the non-aggression principle. Private property demands aggression and violence to enforce it.
If a homeless starving man walked into or broke into a wealthy person’s second, third house, or yacht. Knowing that this season or time of year they would not be there. And took a tchotchke in order to be able to afford to feed themselves. What would the response be? Would it be understanding and assistance? Or would they be chased down by armed men and most likely locked up and deprived of freedom for a considerable amount of time? Better yet would a wealthy person face remotely the same response stealing from poorer people?
Remember post ex parte appeals to Authority can always be overridden by just pointing to the origins of the ideology and the fact that for a century there were no accepted right wing Libertarians.
In its day the remotely closest thing to what we would consider a modern libertarian were those like Friedrich Hayek. Who was then considered an outsider and Fringe group to what was recognized libertarianism. Not to mention if I’m not mistaken came along well after the establishment of the ideology. Simply seeking to repurpose it. If he was considered Fringe and outside the mainstream. How then can his viewpoints be considered what was always intended for libertarianism? Not revisionism but main stream. Clearly it wasn’t. But maybe you have some writing and evidence from the ideologies origins. Writings that aren’t Hayek’s or his acolytes Rothbard or Friedman.
Rothbard considered the modern founder of rightwing libertarianism. Again almost a century after the ideologies founding. Openly just rebranded classic liberalism. Which again, wasn’t libertarianism. But a separate incompatible ideology. Though claiming to have similar goals via different policy. The claims have never been proven however.
So if were gonna debate let’s debate. What actual support for your claims do you have?
I never suggested that the origin or basis of libertarianism was subjective. I simply said that the ideology is currently defined as supporting high civil liberty and supporting low economic social systems, and because of these qualities, is difficult to map on the same axis as liberal and conservative. It’s really quite simple, and doesn’t justify a wall of text to counter.
You have yet to explain how the aforementioned fascist fits on your line. Do they go on the left for supporting high economic social systems or on the right for support of highly restrictive social legislation? Whichever you choose determines if your line is preferential to economic or social system definition, which in itself is biased. Some individuals vote more heavily on social issues, and others economic. Just food for thought.
What part of using terms like libertarian and libertarianism as they were designed is subjective? Isn’t trying to redefine terms to mean something they were not designed to mean, actually the subjective thing?
I justified calling them fascist because they fit several of the markers of fascism. Nationalism in terms of Christian nationalism being one big glaring one. There are plenty of Christians who aren’t nationalists. Odd that you chose to try to justify Christian nationalists. And again I point you towards Hitler’s government. He had high economic social support for his chosen people. Yet they were a right wing fascist government. In much the same way fundamentalist Christian nationalist social support only extends to proselytizing and no further. No actual support or Solutions for people in need.
Worse. These so-called Christian nationalist destroyed and gutted much more effective and cost efficient programs. In order for less effective use of proselytizing through the government. That said. Again, decent people get roped into these horrific schemes thinking that they’re doing good. They are doing evil in the Christian and atheistic sense of the word. But they can still be decent people despite their actions. But only because of their misguided intent.
What question did I dodge? I answered that. Wait. You think there are left wing fascists? I mean it would fit with redefining left-wing Libertarians to be right wing I suppose. So I shouldn’t be shocked. Even though fascism is defined and accepted as being a right wing ideology.
I don’t think they’re either. Fascists fall under the bottom left quadrant of the Nolan Chart for supporting liberal economic and conservative social systems. Libertarians are placed opposite them on the top right. Left wing on the top left for liberal social and liberal economic, and right wing on the bottom right for conservative social and conservative economic.
My point is if you place them on the right of a straight line, you’re defining your line to weigh on social policy over economic policy. Therefore you must place Libertarians on the far left, despite their staunch objection to tax generated social systems. A line simply doesn’t work.
So first things first. Nolan was a liberal, despite calling himself libertarian. Liberal == economic freedom, libertarian == social freedom. Always has been. Always will be. Second I was not aware that the Nazis were liberal and supported economic freedom. Honestly everything I’ve seen historically screamed the opposite. You know, the whole if you aren’t with us we kill you. Not a socially or economically “liberal” vibe. But I’d be interested to see what your justification for the claim is.
Why would you not weight social Freedom over economic freedom? Society is the basis of the economy. Who in their right mind would prioritize economic freedom over social freedom? Who would want prioritize being the wealthiest inmate in a concentration camp for instance. over being free but having wealth similar to everyone else?
Let’s put this in better perspective. The transition from mercantilism to capitalism. Capitalism provided zero new economic freedom. There were immensely wealthy non royals that owned trading companies. But they were socially segregated from the royals and could never become them outside of marriage which was also segregated. Capitalism offered new social freedom, now us low born could become the equivalent of the royals based largely on dumb luck and chance. The change was strictly about social freedom. As surpurfluous and damaging as that particular freedom was.
Finally there is no meaningful economic freedom without social freedom. Without social Freedom you will be permanently segregated from economic success. Black people and minorities for example in the United States technically have access to economic freedom. And yet it is always such a noteworthy thing anytime one of them actually becomes economically successful. Because they generally do not have the social freedom.
Liberal economic policy means they support high tax socialization. Hitler socialized much of Germany’s industry, and is responsible for the creation of Volkswagen. Conservative economics support low tax socialization.
As far as weight of social freedom vs. economic support goes, that’s entirely up to the individual. Plenty of people cast their votes with economic priorities- the elderly, Conservatives (not MAGA or far-right), and people on social programs such as Section 8, Medicaid, or SNAP to name a few.
Capitalism is a form of economy that in no way dictates social legislation. We base social legislation (liberty or restrictions on acceptable behavior) on The Constitution and its Amendments. The policies are independent of one another.
Read up on the Political Compass if you don’t like the Nolan chart. They accomplish the same goal of identifying independence of social and economic systems in relation to political ideology.
Economic policy is on a spectrum from liberal (high tax socialization) to conservative (low tax socialization). High taxation with low socialization falls under conservative.
Social policy is on a spectrum from libertarian (freedom from socially restrictive legislation) to authoritarian (oppressive socially restrictive legislation).
The use of the term libertarian here is not to be confused with the Libertarian ideology or party, as it’s being used to exclusively define social liberty, and does not include economic policy definition. The same is true of the use of liberal vs Liberal in regards to economic policy.
Emotion has no place in determining the logistics of mapping political ideology. Your argument is subjective, and mine is scientific. You’re using your opinions to redefine other’s opinions to fit your narrative.
There is a reason scholars in political science do not use the system you are clinging to by manipulating data into conformity.
How is the origin and basis of libertarianism subjective. And again how are Western political Scholars authoritative. Capitalism literally existed back when libertarianism was created. They specifically chose to create an ideology outside it.
Calling unfettered capitalism libertarianism in no way reflects libertarianism as it was created. Claiming that the freedom of capital is equivalent to actual freedom is an absurdity. If you have access to a freedom that others do not. Due to anything like capital or resources that’s not a freedom. That’s a privilege and should not be protected.
Likewise, the non aggression principle. Capitalists or any other group claiming to abide it’s definition of private property can’t also unhypocritically claim to abide the non-aggression principle. Private property demands aggression and violence to enforce it.
If a homeless starving man walked into or broke into a wealthy person’s second, third house, or yacht. Knowing that this season or time of year they would not be there. And took a tchotchke in order to be able to afford to feed themselves. What would the response be? Would it be understanding and assistance? Or would they be chased down by armed men and most likely locked up and deprived of freedom for a considerable amount of time? Better yet would a wealthy person face remotely the same response stealing from poorer people?
Remember post ex parte appeals to Authority can always be overridden by just pointing to the origins of the ideology and the fact that for a century there were no accepted right wing Libertarians.
In its day the remotely closest thing to what we would consider a modern libertarian were those like Friedrich Hayek. Who was then considered an outsider and Fringe group to what was recognized libertarianism. Not to mention if I’m not mistaken came along well after the establishment of the ideology. Simply seeking to repurpose it. If he was considered Fringe and outside the mainstream. How then can his viewpoints be considered what was always intended for libertarianism? Not revisionism but main stream. Clearly it wasn’t. But maybe you have some writing and evidence from the ideologies origins. Writings that aren’t Hayek’s or his acolytes Rothbard or Friedman.
Rothbard considered the modern founder of rightwing libertarianism. Again almost a century after the ideologies founding. Openly just rebranded classic liberalism. Which again, wasn’t libertarianism. But a separate incompatible ideology. Though claiming to have similar goals via different policy. The claims have never been proven however.
So if were gonna debate let’s debate. What actual support for your claims do you have?
I never suggested that the origin or basis of libertarianism was subjective. I simply said that the ideology is currently defined as supporting high civil liberty and supporting low economic social systems, and because of these qualities, is difficult to map on the same axis as liberal and conservative. It’s really quite simple, and doesn’t justify a wall of text to counter.
You have yet to explain how the aforementioned fascist fits on your line. Do they go on the left for supporting high economic social systems or on the right for support of highly restrictive social legislation? Whichever you choose determines if your line is preferential to economic or social system definition, which in itself is biased. Some individuals vote more heavily on social issues, and others economic. Just food for thought.
What part of using terms like libertarian and libertarianism as they were designed is subjective? Isn’t trying to redefine terms to mean something they were not designed to mean, actually the subjective thing?
I justified calling them fascist because they fit several of the markers of fascism. Nationalism in terms of Christian nationalism being one big glaring one. There are plenty of Christians who aren’t nationalists. Odd that you chose to try to justify Christian nationalists. And again I point you towards Hitler’s government. He had high economic social support for his chosen people. Yet they were a right wing fascist government. In much the same way fundamentalist Christian nationalist social support only extends to proselytizing and no further. No actual support or Solutions for people in need.
Worse. These so-called Christian nationalist destroyed and gutted much more effective and cost efficient programs. In order for less effective use of proselytizing through the government. That said. Again, decent people get roped into these horrific schemes thinking that they’re doing good. They are doing evil in the Christian and atheistic sense of the word. But they can still be decent people despite their actions. But only because of their misguided intent.
You’re dodging the question. Where do the Christian Nationalists that support economic social support systems go on a line? Left or right?
What question did I dodge? I answered that. Wait. You think there are left wing fascists? I mean it would fit with redefining left-wing Libertarians to be right wing I suppose. So I shouldn’t be shocked. Even though fascism is defined and accepted as being a right wing ideology.
I don’t think they’re either. Fascists fall under the bottom left quadrant of the Nolan Chart for supporting liberal economic and conservative social systems. Libertarians are placed opposite them on the top right. Left wing on the top left for liberal social and liberal economic, and right wing on the bottom right for conservative social and conservative economic.
My point is if you place them on the right of a straight line, you’re defining your line to weigh on social policy over economic policy. Therefore you must place Libertarians on the far left, despite their staunch objection to tax generated social systems. A line simply doesn’t work.
So first things first. Nolan was a liberal, despite calling himself libertarian. Liberal == economic freedom, libertarian == social freedom. Always has been. Always will be. Second I was not aware that the Nazis were liberal and supported economic freedom. Honestly everything I’ve seen historically screamed the opposite. You know, the whole if you aren’t with us we kill you. Not a socially or economically “liberal” vibe. But I’d be interested to see what your justification for the claim is.
Why would you not weight social Freedom over economic freedom? Society is the basis of the economy. Who in their right mind would prioritize economic freedom over social freedom? Who would want prioritize being the wealthiest inmate in a concentration camp for instance. over being free but having wealth similar to everyone else?
Let’s put this in better perspective. The transition from mercantilism to capitalism. Capitalism provided zero new economic freedom. There were immensely wealthy non royals that owned trading companies. But they were socially segregated from the royals and could never become them outside of marriage which was also segregated. Capitalism offered new social freedom, now us low born could become the equivalent of the royals based largely on dumb luck and chance. The change was strictly about social freedom. As surpurfluous and damaging as that particular freedom was.
Finally there is no meaningful economic freedom without social freedom. Without social Freedom you will be permanently segregated from economic success. Black people and minorities for example in the United States technically have access to economic freedom. And yet it is always such a noteworthy thing anytime one of them actually becomes economically successful. Because they generally do not have the social freedom.
Liberal economic policy means they support high tax socialization. Hitler socialized much of Germany’s industry, and is responsible for the creation of Volkswagen. Conservative economics support low tax socialization.
As far as weight of social freedom vs. economic support goes, that’s entirely up to the individual. Plenty of people cast their votes with economic priorities- the elderly, Conservatives (not MAGA or far-right), and people on social programs such as Section 8, Medicaid, or SNAP to name a few.
Capitalism is a form of economy that in no way dictates social legislation. We base social legislation (liberty or restrictions on acceptable behavior) on The Constitution and its Amendments. The policies are independent of one another.
Read up on the Political Compass if you don’t like the Nolan chart. They accomplish the same goal of identifying independence of social and economic systems in relation to political ideology.
Economic policy is on a spectrum from liberal (high tax socialization) to conservative (low tax socialization). High taxation with low socialization falls under conservative.
Social policy is on a spectrum from libertarian (freedom from socially restrictive legislation) to authoritarian (oppressive socially restrictive legislation).
The use of the term libertarian here is not to be confused with the Libertarian ideology or party, as it’s being used to exclusively define social liberty, and does not include economic policy definition. The same is true of the use of liberal vs Liberal in regards to economic policy.