What political ideology are you and why?

[Larry of the Lawn]

Yeah, I found it, eventually

It's just that, between the title and YT blocking it in Canada it seemed that Hogan and Google had teamed up to wave a giant middle finger in front of my face.

Everyone looks out for The Hulkster's intellectual property, even the Maple Syrup Consortium.

[Athias]

Libertarians are minarchists, not anarchists. Anarchism, as a utopian ideal which is unworkable and which naturally progresses through that unworkability to communism, which is even more unworkable, is an anti-libertarian ideal.

Libertarians can be minarchists, just like Libertarians can be anarchists. Libertarianism isn't a modal derivative of pragmatism

I'm not saying libertarianism is being used colloquially to denote political libertarianism, I'm saying that's the dominant usage of the word today. There are actual politicians, pundits, and political parties using the word to describe themselves and they don't mean it to be what you take it to mean. That doesn't mean you can't use it your way (though you should expect people to take your meaning to be political libertarianism unless you offer further explanation), but it does mean it's ridiculous to tell people who are quite sensibly referring to extreme or moderate libertarianism (as the word is dominantly used) that they're wrong because in your version it's either adherence or not.

I'm not speaking to linguistic malleability, only the word Libertarian or Libertarianism as a functional descriptor of the philosphy I've referenced. If Libertarianism could be qualified by degree, then everyone would be a Libertarian--Democrats, Republicans, Dictators, Communists, Socialists, Anarchists, Minarchists, Neo-Boethian Reconstructionists (:laugh:) etc. Degree would based on which liberties one holds true and those which they do not. The basis of Libertarianism as a philosophy is not distinguished by the scope of government (that's anarchism vs. minarchism vs. statism) but the maintenance of liberty as a general rule or standard. The freedom to finance a politician's campaign vs the freedom to enter a legal union--sexuality notwithstanding--doesn't determine "what type" of Libertarian one is. Your argument from consensus--or dominant usage as you put it--doesn't change that Libertarianism is a philosophy with a principal objective. Words are malleable and subject to change--I don't deny that--but it doesn't change that deviance from Libertarian objective--liberty as the highest moral good--means deviance from the philosophy. And as I understand it, the word Libertarianism is the most accurate index of that phiosophy. And for what you've described, they're are other indeces I've mentioned that are more accurate.

You want at once to say these people are not libertarians and also tethered to a specific definition of libertarianism that patently, and even by your insistence, they do not hold to! This is just bizarre straw manning, accusing them of somehow someway holding to your definition when they do not, so you can say that they do not in fact hold to your definition.

I've never made such an insistence. Read what I wrote:

If one's going to don the label "extreme libertarian" or "moderate libertarian," then it has to be by libertarianism's own standard. Otherwise the modifiers extreme and moderate are just qualifications independent of libertarianism. In my opinion, libertarians who seek to modify their libertarianism want to maintain their notions of liberty while silmutaneously maintaining notions that would contradict them.

Their notion of liberty are what leads them to believe they're Libertarians but they also maintain notions that contradict them. The inconsistency is what causes the deviation, not that they don't adhere to my definition, which it isn't. Libertarianism, again, is a philosophy that holds [moral] liberty as its prinicpal objective. (moral precedes to clarify that their notion of liberty is subverted by a moralist permutation.)

And then one has to define liberty.

Which is why I semi-jockingly self-defined as a libertarian in Bank's Culture. Liberty itself is meaningless when it can not be expressed. And in general it takes limiting liberties for everyone to optimize actual liberty for anyone.

In my experience, when liberty is referenced, it's usually delineated as an unecumbered exercise of one's will. If one were to maintain this notion at least as a subjective standard, it would necessitate one's extensive control over one's environment: even the physics. I find this surreal; or it, at least, requires a penchant for metaphysics that I don't have. The liberty which i'm arguing is the moralist permuation Libertarians have put it through. "Absolute" freedom is a moot point since (to borrow OAR's criticism) Libertarians don't claim it as their objective principle.

[Seli]

....

In my experience, when liberty is referenced, it's usually delineated as an unecumbered exercise of one's will. If one were to maintain this notion at least as a subjective standard, it would necessitate one's extensive control over one's environment: even the physics. I find this surreal; or it, at least, requires a penchant for metaphysics that I don't have. The liberty which i'm arguing is the moralist permuation Libertarians have put it through. "Absolute" freedom is a moot point since (to borrow OAR's criticism) Libertarians don't claim it as their objective principle.

Yes. And in the practical real world that is an impossibility for anyone but the most privileged. Mostly due to lack of resources and security. Which is why libertarian philosophy defeats itself, it makes it impossible to achieve its own stated goal for the vast majority of the population. For a true practical approach to that liberty for everyone not just some select few liberty and the resources and safety that allow for it have to be shared around.

[Athias]

Yes. And in the practical real world that is an impossibility for anyone but the most privileged. Mostly due to lack of resources and security. Which is why libertarian philosophy defeats itself, it makes it impossible to achieve its own stated goal for the vast majority of the population. For a true practical approach to that liberty for everyone not just some select few liberty and the resources and safety that allow for it have to be shared around.

That may have made sense if Libertarianism was sustained by utilitarian objectives. It doesn't presume a goal for a vast majority. It presumes that for all individuals liberty is the highest good. And in pursuit of this liberty, safety would be maximized.

[dornishscorpion]

Social Liberal, i believe in individual freedom and that everyone should be free to do whatever he chooses to do in his personal and professional life, but also that the state should work to guarantee a system where each individual has the same chances to achieve his full potential mainly through widely accessible high quality education and healthcare

[sologdin]

'unencumbered exercise of one's will' doesn't signify. good idea to scrap it.

[The Killer Snark]

And even though sologdin is at the opposite end of the spectrum from me, they are exactly right on this one. If some sociopathic personality decided it was his rightful 'unencumbered will' to go around beating up old ladies, would it be an infringement on that person's natural rights to suppose that for the pragmatic moral greater good such behaviour should be against the law?

[SayGen]

I'm an Imperialist.

As a fan of Darwin, and his fundamental understanding of the strong replacing the weak, it only makes sense that the world we build in should reflect our inner nature instead of trying to oppose it.

On a small scale, I'm actually a commie- I will provide for my family at an unequal ratio at personal expense without being able to provide logical justification for my actions. Purely an emotional rationale.

On the middle scale, I'm a republican, small government, maximum personal freedom.

On the large scale, and perhaps the most important scale, I'm an Imperialist. As a former soldier who has 'been there and done that' I can only come to the conclusion that empowering the 'not so fortunate' is really just prolonging conflict. But allowing the strong to rise and not be opposed by weaker forces you ensure peace and prosperity for longer. Civil wars happen when the strong don't crush the weak and instead give them a means/chance to fight back. If the strong oppress the weak and keep them oppressed then there is peace.

It is moral? No. Does it conflict with my own personal Christian believes, yes it does. Would fewer people die, starve, and waste their lives fighting--yes.

The strong are going to win anyways, why let more destruction occur than needed.

The real catch to imperialism though, is determining who is strong, and who is weak.

Choose wrongly and you are part of the problem.

[Shadow Queen Medea]

New here. Call me a socialist and I'll slap on my Che Guevara beret. That's my ideology.

[James Arryn]

New here. Call me a socialist and I'll slap on my Che Guevara beret. That's my ideology.

In the end, all political idealogies can be boiled down to different kinds of hats.

[Shadow Queen Medea]

In the end, all political idealogies can be boiled down to different kinds of hats.

Yep, especially asshats. No one likes asshats. lol

[The Viper Higgins]

Proud Nationalist.

[James Arryn]

Yep, especially asshats. No one likes asshats. lol

Imperialists might.

[Larry of the Lawn]

So what does my hat made out of a lobster and a stick make me, politically speaking?

[Durckad]

Crustaceo Derby Enthusiast

[all swedes are racist]

So what does my hat made out of a lobster and a stick make me, politically speaking?

A monster!

[Elder Sister]

Lobstertarian of the church of Scientology.

[Seli]

I'm an Imperialist.

As a fan of Darwin, and his fundamental understanding of the strong replacing the weak, it only makes sense that the world we build in should reflect our inner nature instead of trying to oppose it.

That is so not the argument and point of Darwin.

[Gears of the Beast]

That is so not the argument and point of Darwin.

Right. It is an is-ought fallacy.

[Horza]

Poor old Darwin, always getting Spencer's words put in his mouth.