Liberalism in Europe vs Liberalism in America

Arcade22 · 26th December 2009, 03:03 PM

I was wondering why there is a discrepancy in the meaning of Liberalism in Europe and the United States.

For example: In Europe a Liberal is typically someone who believes (depending on how extreme he/she is) that:

The government should have a minimal or nonexistent presence on the market.
That there should be low taxation.
There should be minimal or no Social Welfare.
Strongly supports civil liberties.
etc.

In America this would be antithetical to what the popular conception of what views liberals hold and more closer to the views that Libertarians and some Conservatives hold.
Anyone have a clue why there is such a huge difference between European Liberalism and American Liberalism?

Uzzy · 26th December 2009, 04:46 PM

The British Liberal Democrats certainly don't hold to the first three points. There position seems to be the very definition of Social Liberalism, to a degree. It further seems that you're equating Liberalism with Classical Liberalism, which really hasn't been in vogue in Britain at least since the 19th century. I can't speak for how popular Classical Liberalism is on the continent, but I can't think it'd be that popular.

Francesca R · 30th December 2009, 07:43 AM

Originally Posted by Arcade22

For example: In Europe a Liberal is typically someone who believes

[ . . . ]

In America this would be antithetical to what the popular conception of what views liberals hold and more closer to the views that Libertarians and some Conservatives hold. [ . . . ]

From this, one would infer that a "European liberal" is to the right of an "American liberal".

Not really. More correct, a European conservative is left of an American one. Or do you think the polarity is completely reversed?

Darat · 6th January 2010, 04:05 AM

Originally Posted by Arcade22

I was wondering why there is a discrepancy in the meaning of Liberalism in Europe and the United States.

For example: In Europe a Liberal is typically someone who believes (depending on how extreme he/she is) that:

The government should have a minimal or nonexistent presence on the market.
That there should be low taxation.
There should be minimal or no Social Welfare.
Strongly supports civil liberties.
etc.

In America this would be antithetical to what the popular conception of what views liberals hold and more closer to the views that Libertarians and some Conservatives hold.
Anyone have a clue why there is such a huge difference between European Liberalism and American Liberalism?

Where are you getting your characteristics from? I don't recognise them at all from the political parties I know of in the EU that label themselves as "liberal".

Architect · 6th January 2010, 04:21 AM

Same place he gets info on race relations and the "superiority" of the master race, I suspect.

Praktik · 6th January 2010, 04:53 AM

Its a classic in political science and there's been more work since but the author of the OP should really read Hartz on this.

You're talking about classical liberalism.

Essentially all of America is classically liberal (some might disagree that all the characteristics of your OP apply to a classical liberal), but in modern parlance "liberal" has taken on a new meaning, essentially being a synonym for "left wing".

Darat · 6th January 2010, 04:55 AM

Originally Posted by Praktik

Its a classic in political science and there's been more work since but the author of the OP should really read Hartz on this.

You're talking about classical liberalism.

Essentially all of America is classically liberal (some might disagree that all the characteristics of your OP apply to a classical liberal), but in modern parlance "liberal" has taken on a new meaning, essentially being a synonym for "left wing".

Only in the USA.

Undesired Walrus · 6th January 2010, 04:59 AM

For the last 70 years or so the battle in the UK has essentially been between Conservatism and Socialism with Liberalism dropping off the radar.

Praktik · 6th January 2010, 05:01 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

Only in the USA.

yes, Im sorry that wasnt immediately clear...

Praktik · 6th January 2010, 05:02 AM

Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus

For the last 70 years or so the battle in the UK has essentially been between Conservatism and Socialism with Liberalism dropping off the radar.

ya but your conservatives are different breed too - toryism is a nice refreshing thing when reading too much republican nonsense..

Eddie Dane · 6th January 2010, 05:19 AM

I thought it was just a language thing.

The Dutch VVD party calls itself liberal. they are the pro business party here.
But they do not hold conservative views about homosexuality or push Chistian values.
Mostly, they are about staying out of your wallet and bedroom.

ETA: if that hot black chick is running next time, I'll vote for them.

Francesca R · 6th January 2010, 05:42 AM

Originally Posted by Praktik

in modern parlance "liberal" has taken on a new meaning, essentially being a synonym for "left wing".

Originally Posted by Darat

Only in the USA.

That used to piss of Milton Friedman immensely, who thought liberal should be re-captured (not using coercion of course) by libertarians. Friedrich Hayek also.

Darat · 6th January 2010, 05:50 AM

Originally Posted by Francesca R

That used to piss of Milton Friedman immensely, who thought liberal should be re-captured (not using coercion of course) by libertarians. Friedrich Hayek also.

Which I would say would not be a "re"-capture but a capture - libertarianism (at least that style that is often brought here by predominately USA Members) is not liberal!

Arcade22 · 6th January 2010, 06:10 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

Where are you getting your characteristics from?

From the people who i have discussed with and have identified themselves as being 'Liberal'. For example: most of them would probably vote for McCain instead of Obama.

Arcade22 · 6th January 2010, 06:11 AM

Originally Posted by Architect

Same place he gets info on race relations and the "superiority" of the master race, I suspect.

Master race?

Francesca R · 6th January 2010, 06:13 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

Which I would say would not be a "re"-capture but a capture - libertarianism (at least that style that is often brought here by predominately USA Members) is not liberal!

Huh?

Praktik · 6th January 2010, 06:35 AM

Ya I'm with ya Francesca - I see the Ayn Rand Cult as kind of a fanatical strand of classical liberalism...

and then you have the libertarians that find a way to christianize their ideology - those ones I'd say deviate a bit from the classical liberal bible... substituting portions for the christian bible...

Undesired Walrus · 6th January 2010, 08:07 AM

Originally Posted by Praktik

ya but your conservatives are different breed too - toryism is a nice refreshing thing when reading too much republican nonsense..

Well, Cameron has tried to make the Tories into the kind of person your mum approves of if you bring them round for dinner, but Thatcher made Reagan look like a hippy marxist pot-smoker.

Praktik · 6th January 2010, 08:09 AM

They didn't call her the Iron Lady for nuthin!

Oliver · 6th January 2010, 08:11 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

Where are you getting your characteristics from? I don't recognise them at all from the political parties I know of in the EU that label themselves as "liberal".

Same here. I consider being liberal to have a centered point of view in contrast to the left and the right political POV's.

Francesca R · 6th January 2010, 08:44 AM

Originally Posted by Praktik

Ya I'm with ya Francesca - I see the Ayn Rand Cult as kind of a fanatical strand of classical liberalism...

Liberalism has developed into a very broad church, and like theological churches you get fights over which one really represents liberty. But if you regard political philosophies having a dimension which runs from authoritarian to liberal (IE liberal residing at the extreme), then in that sense folk like Rand, and (even more so) Rothbard are "more liberal" than Rawls and Stuart Mill.

Praktik · 6th January 2010, 08:51 AM

Libertarians: the fundies of liberalism.

Darat · 6th January 2010, 09:08 AM

Originally Posted by Francesca R

Huh?

Originally Posted by Praktik

Ya I'm with ya Francesca - I see the Ayn Rand Cult as kind of a fanatical strand of classical liberalism...

and then you have the libertarians that find a way to christianize their ideology - those ones I'd say deviate a bit from the classical liberal bible... substituting portions for the christian bible...

The libertarianism that is most often promoted here (which often seems to be bastard child of Rand and Adam Smith) lacks one element that I believe is essential for "liberalism" and that is a recognition that an individual's rights need to be protected from other individuals.

Francesca R · 6th January 2010, 09:14 AM

It seems to invariably recognise the need to protect individuals against force and invasion, and their right to contract enforcement and property and choice (that doesn't violate others' rights to the foregoing). What other rights do you have in mind that it does not recognise?

Darat · 6th January 2010, 09:19 AM

Originally Posted by Francesca R

It seems to invariably recognise the need to protect individuals against force and invasion, and their right to contract enforcement and property and choice (that doesn't violate others' rights to the foregoing). What other rights do you have in mind that it does not recognise?

To life for a start.

Francesca R · 6th January 2010, 09:28 AM

I think you mean a positive right (as in right to have life supported by resources if you don't possess them yourself).

Libertarians would protect your right to life from other individuals' attempts to take it away. How is that not a "recognition that an individual's rights need to be protected from other individuals"?

Darat · 6th January 2010, 09:31 AM

Originally Posted by Francesca R

I think you mean a positive right (as in right to have life supported by resources if you don't possess them yourself).

Libertarians would protect your right to life from other individuals' attempts to take it away. How is that not a "recognition that an individual's rights need to be protected from other individuals"?

Which form of libertarianism are you now arguing about? It doesn't seem to match that which I see argued most often here.

Francesca R · 6th January 2010, 09:35 AM

Maybe you can answer my question first

Darat · 6th January 2010, 09:39 AM

Originally Posted by Francesca R

Maybe you can answer my question first

I can't until I know what type of libertarianism you are now arguing for (as it does not seem to be the type that is most often promoted on this Forum).

Francesca R · 6th January 2010, 09:43 AM

The type that protects your right to life from other individuals' attempts to take it away.

How is that not a "recognition that an individual's rights need to be protected from other individuals"?

Darat · 6th January 2010, 09:49 AM

I've been talking about the type that is often promoted here - and I don't recognise your formulation from that type but I am sure there is some school of libertarianism that is in line with what you are saying.

Francesca R · 6th January 2010, 10:00 AM

Can you provide a reference?

Darat · 6th January 2010, 10:04 AM

The most recent one that comes to mind would be that kevin<something> bloke and the thread in which he was saying how all policing and governance should be "private" - drkitten made a lot of good posts about how what he was describing was in effect the mafia/mob. I've had a quick look but can't find it. Older ones would be from our "original libertarian" Shanek.

ETA: I think this may be the thread that stuck in my memory - http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=136113 but it is a huge one and I've not read it again so I may be wrong.

Francesca R · 6th January 2010, 10:10 AM

I think "police and enforcement should be private" is anarchism not libertarianism. Libertarian philosophy (as far as I know) holds that the establishment of a "minimal state" in which one state protects everyone in its borders and does not allow independents to compete in that regard, and requires everyone in its borders to pay for it . . . is morally justified. Just, no more than that.

My reference is this book. Then there's John Locke's stuff.

Per your ETA--An-Cap was a part of that thread; you might be remembering those bits.

26th December 2009, 03:03 PM	#1
Arcade22 Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Västerbotten, Sweden Posts: 1,831	Liberalism in Europe vs Liberalism in America I was wondering why there is a discrepancy in the meaning of Liberalism in Europe and the United States. For example: In Europe a Liberal is typically someone who believes (depending on how extreme he/she is) that: The government should have a minimal or nonexistent presence on the market. That there should be low taxation. There should be minimal or no Social Welfare. Strongly supports civil liberties. etc. In America this would be antithetical to what the popular conception of what views liberals hold and more closer to the views that Libertarians and some Conservatives hold. Anyone have a clue why there is such a huge difference between European Liberalism and American Liberalism?
	__________________ The habit of the religious way of thinking has biased our mind so grievously that we are — terrified at ourselves in our nakedness and naturalness; it has degraded us so that we deem ourselves depraved by nature, born devils. Max Stirner

26th December 2009, 04:46 PM	#2
Uzzy Muse Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Hull, United Kingdom Posts: 922	The British Liberal Democrats certainly don't hold to the first three points. There position seems to be the very definition of Social Liberalism, to a degree. It further seems that you're equating Liberalism with Classical Liberalism, which really hasn't been in vogue in Britain at least since the 19th century. I can't speak for how popular Classical Liberalism is on the continent, but I can't think it'd be that popular.
	__________________ "The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth, whether it's scientific truth or historical truth or personal truth!" Captain Jean-Luc Picard, The First Duty.

6th January 2010, 04:05 AM	#4
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,802	Originally Posted by Arcade22 I was wondering why there is a discrepancy in the meaning of Liberalism in Europe and the United States. For example: In Europe a Liberal is typically someone who believes (depending on how extreme he/she is) that: The government should have a minimal or nonexistent presence on the market. That there should be low taxation. There should be minimal or no Social Welfare. Strongly supports civil liberties. etc. In America this would be antithetical to what the popular conception of what views liberals hold and more closer to the views that Libertarians and some Conservatives hold. Anyone have a clue why there is such a huge difference between European Liberalism and American Liberalism? Where are you getting your characteristics from? I don't recognise them at all from the political parties I know of in the EU that label themselves as "liberal".
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

6th January 2010, 04:21 AM	#5
Architect Chief Punkah Wallah Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: UK Posts: 8,478	Same place he gets info on race relations and the "superiority" of the master race, I suspect.
	__________________ When the men elected to make laws are but a small part of a foreign parliament, that is when all healthy national feeling dies. James Keir Hardie (1856 - 1915): Politician, Founder of Scottish Labour Party

6th January 2010, 04:53 AM	#6
Praktik Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Tee Dot Posts: 4,255	Its a classic in political science and there's been more work since but the author of the OP should really read Hartz on this. You're talking about classical liberalism. Essentially all of America is classically liberal (some might disagree that all the characteristics of your OP apply to a classical liberal), but in modern parlance "liberal" has taken on a new meaning, essentially being a synonym for "left wing".
	__________________ “ it has become my conviction that things mean pretty much what we want them to mean. We’ll pluck significance from the least consequential happenstance if it suits us and happily ignore the most flagrantly obvious symmetry between separate aspects of our lives if it threatens some cherished prejudice or cosily comforting belief" -Iain Banks

30th December 2009, 07:43 AM	#3
Francesca R Girl Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: London EC1 Posts: 11,826	Originally Posted by Arcade22 For example: In Europe a Liberal is typically someone who believes [ . . . ] In America this would be antithetical to what the popular conception of what views liberals hold and more closer to the views that Libertarians and some Conservatives hold. [ . . . ] From this, one would infer that a "European liberal" is to the right of an "American liberal". Not really. More correct, a European conservative is left of an American one. Or do you think the polarity is completely reversed?

6th January 2010, 04:55 AM	#7
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,802	Originally Posted by Praktik Its a classic in political science and there's been more work since but the author of the OP should really read Hartz on this. You're talking about classical liberalism. Essentially all of America is classically liberal (some might disagree that all the characteristics of your OP apply to a classical liberal), but in modern parlance "liberal" has taken on a new meaning, essentially being a synonym for "left wing". Only in the USA.
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

6th January 2010, 04:59 AM	#8
Undesired Walrus Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: London Posts: 10,893	For the last 70 years or so the battle in the UK has essentially been between Conservatism and Socialism with Liberalism dropping off the radar.
	__________________ Man's material discoveries have outpaced his moral progress. - Clement Attlee, 1945

6th January 2010, 05:01 AM	#9
Praktik Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Tee Dot Posts: 4,255	Originally Posted by Darat Only in the USA. yes, Im sorry that wasnt immediately clear...
	__________________ “ it has become my conviction that things mean pretty much what we want them to mean. We’ll pluck significance from the least consequential happenstance if it suits us and happily ignore the most flagrantly obvious symmetry between separate aspects of our lives if it threatens some cherished prejudice or cosily comforting belief" -Iain Banks

6th January 2010, 05:02 AM	#10
Praktik Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Tee Dot Posts: 4,255	Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus For the last 70 years or so the battle in the UK has essentially been between Conservatism and Socialism with Liberalism dropping off the radar. ya but your conservatives are different breed too - toryism is a nice refreshing thing when reading too much republican nonsense..
	__________________ “ it has become my conviction that things mean pretty much what we want them to mean. We’ll pluck significance from the least consequential happenstance if it suits us and happily ignore the most flagrantly obvious symmetry between separate aspects of our lives if it threatens some cherished prejudice or cosily comforting belief" -Iain Banks

6th January 2010, 05:19 AM	#11
Eddie Dane Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 4,432	I thought it was just a language thing. The Dutch VVD party calls itself liberal. they are the pro business party here. But they do not hold conservative views about homosexuality or push Chistian values. Mostly, they are about staying out of your wallet and bedroom. ETA: if that hot black chick is running next time, I'll vote for them.
	Last edited by Eddie Dane; 6th January 2010 at 05:22 AM.

6th January 2010, 05:42 AM	#12
Francesca R Girl Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: London EC1 Posts: 11,826	Originally Posted by Praktik in modern parlance "liberal" has taken on a new meaning, essentially being a synonym for "left wing". Originally Posted by Darat Only in the USA. That used to piss of Milton Friedman immensely, who thought liberal should be re-captured (not using coercion of course) by libertarians. Friedrich Hayek also.

6th January 2010, 05:50 AM	#13
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,802	Originally Posted by Francesca R That used to piss of Milton Friedman immensely, who thought liberal should be re-captured (not using coercion of course) by libertarians. Friedrich Hayek also. Which I would say would not be a "re"-capture but a capture - libertarianism (at least that style that is often brought here by predominately USA Members) is not liberal!
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

6th January 2010, 06:10 AM	#14
Arcade22 Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Västerbotten, Sweden Posts: 1,831	Originally Posted by Darat Where are you getting your characteristics from? From the people who i have discussed with and have identified themselves as being 'Liberal'. For example: most of them would probably vote for McCain instead of Obama.
	__________________ The habit of the religious way of thinking has biased our mind so grievously that we are — terrified at ourselves in our nakedness and naturalness; it has degraded us so that we deem ourselves depraved by nature, born devils. Max Stirner

6th January 2010, 06:11 AM	#15
Arcade22 Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Västerbotten, Sweden Posts: 1,831	Originally Posted by Architect Same place he gets info on race relations and the "superiority" of the master race, I suspect. Master race?
	__________________ The habit of the religious way of thinking has biased our mind so grievously that we are — terrified at ourselves in our nakedness and naturalness; it has degraded us so that we deem ourselves depraved by nature, born devils. Max Stirner

6th January 2010, 06:13 AM	#16
Francesca R Girl Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: London EC1 Posts: 11,826	Originally Posted by Darat Which I would say would not be a "re"-capture but a capture - libertarianism (at least that style that is often brought here by predominately USA Members) is not liberal! Huh?

6th January 2010, 06:35 AM	#17
Praktik Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Tee Dot Posts: 4,255	Ya I'm with ya Francesca - I see the Ayn Rand Cult as kind of a fanatical strand of classical liberalism... and then you have the libertarians that find a way to christianize their ideology - those ones I'd say deviate a bit from the classical liberal bible... substituting portions for the christian bible...
	__________________ “ it has become my conviction that things mean pretty much what we want them to mean. We’ll pluck significance from the least consequential happenstance if it suits us and happily ignore the most flagrantly obvious symmetry between separate aspects of our lives if it threatens some cherished prejudice or cosily comforting belief" -Iain Banks

6th January 2010, 08:07 AM	#18
Undesired Walrus Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: London Posts: 10,893	Originally Posted by Praktik ya but your conservatives are different breed too - toryism is a nice refreshing thing when reading too much republican nonsense.. Well, Cameron has tried to make the Tories into the kind of person your mum approves of if you bring them round for dinner, but Thatcher made Reagan look like a hippy marxist pot-smoker.
	__________________ Man's material discoveries have outpaced his moral progress. - Clement Attlee, 1945

6th January 2010, 08:09 AM	#19
Praktik Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Tee Dot Posts: 4,255	They didn't call her the Iron Lady for nuthin!
	__________________ “ it has become my conviction that things mean pretty much what we want them to mean. We’ll pluck significance from the least consequential happenstance if it suits us and happily ignore the most flagrantly obvious symmetry between separate aspects of our lives if it threatens some cherished prejudice or cosily comforting belief" -Iain Banks

6th January 2010, 08:11 AM	#20
Oliver ~The Rascal~ Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Cologne Posts: 17,369	Originally Posted by Darat Where are you getting your characteristics from? I don't recognise them at all from the political parties I know of in the EU that label themselves as "liberal". Same here. I consider being liberal to have a centered point of view in contrast to the left and the right political POV's.
	__________________

6th January 2010, 08:44 AM	#21
Francesca R Girl Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: London EC1 Posts: 11,826	Originally Posted by Praktik Ya I'm with ya Francesca - I see the Ayn Rand Cult as kind of a fanatical strand of classical liberalism... Liberalism has developed into a very broad church, and like theological churches you get fights over which one really represents liberty. But if you regard political philosophies having a dimension which runs from authoritarian to liberal (IE liberal residing at the extreme), then in that sense folk like Rand, and (even more so) Rothbard are "more liberal" than Rawls and Stuart Mill.

6th January 2010, 08:51 AM	#22
Praktik Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Tee Dot Posts: 4,255	Libertarians: the fundies of liberalism.
	__________________ “ it has become my conviction that things mean pretty much what we want them to mean. We’ll pluck significance from the least consequential happenstance if it suits us and happily ignore the most flagrantly obvious symmetry between separate aspects of our lives if it threatens some cherished prejudice or cosily comforting belief" -Iain Banks

6th January 2010, 09:08 AM	#23
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,802	Originally Posted by Francesca R Huh? Originally Posted by Praktik Ya I'm with ya Francesca - I see the Ayn Rand Cult as kind of a fanatical strand of classical liberalism... and then you have the libertarians that find a way to christianize their ideology - those ones I'd say deviate a bit from the classical liberal bible... substituting portions for the christian bible... The libertarianism that is most often promoted here (which often seems to be bastard child of Rand and Adam Smith) lacks one element that I believe is essential for "liberalism" and that is a recognition that an individual's rights need to be protected from other individuals.
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

6th January 2010, 09:14 AM	#24
Francesca R Girl Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: London EC1 Posts: 11,826	It seems to invariably recognise the need to protect individuals against force and invasion, and their right to contract enforcement and property and choice (that doesn't violate others' rights to the foregoing). What other rights do you have in mind that it does not recognise?

6th January 2010, 09:19 AM	#25
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,802	Originally Posted by Francesca R It seems to invariably recognise the need to protect individuals against force and invasion, and their right to contract enforcement and property and choice (that doesn't violate others' rights to the foregoing). What other rights do you have in mind that it does not recognise? To life for a start.
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

6th January 2010, 09:28 AM	#26
Francesca R Girl Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: London EC1 Posts: 11,826	I think you mean a positive right (as in right to have life supported by resources if you don't possess them yourself). Libertarians would protect your right to life from other individuals' attempts to take it away. How is that not a "recognition that an individual's rights need to be protected from other individuals"?

6th January 2010, 09:31 AM	#27
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,802	Originally Posted by Francesca R I think you mean a positive right (as in right to have life supported by resources if you don't possess them yourself). Libertarians would protect your right to life from other individuals' attempts to take it away. How is that not a "recognition that an individual's rights need to be protected from other individuals"? Which form of libertarianism are you now arguing about? It doesn't seem to match that which I see argued most often here.
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

6th January 2010, 09:35 AM	#28
Francesca R Girl Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: London EC1 Posts: 11,826	Maybe you can answer my question first

6th January 2010, 09:39 AM	#29
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,802	Originally Posted by Francesca R Maybe you can answer my question first I can't until I know what type of libertarianism you are now arguing for (as it does not seem to be the type that is most often promoted on this Forum).
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

6th January 2010, 09:43 AM	#30
Francesca R Girl Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: London EC1 Posts: 11,826	The type that protects your right to life from other individuals' attempts to take it away. How is that not a "recognition that an individual's rights need to be protected from other individuals"?

6th January 2010, 09:49 AM	#31
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,802	I've been talking about the type that is often promoted here - and I don't recognise your formulation from that type but I am sure there is some school of libertarianism that is in line with what you are saying.
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

6th January 2010, 10:00 AM	#32
Francesca R Girl Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: London EC1 Posts: 11,826	Can you provide a reference?

6th January 2010, 10:04 AM	#33
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,802	The most recent one that comes to mind would be that kevin<something> bloke and the thread in which he was saying how all policing and governance should be "private" - drkitten made a lot of good posts about how what he was describing was in effect the mafia/mob. I've had a quick look but can't find it. Older ones would be from our "original libertarian" Shanek. ETA: I think this may be the thread that stuck in my memory - http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=136113 but it is a huge one and I've not read it again so I may be wrong.
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008 Last edited by Darat; 6th January 2010 at 10:06 AM.

6th January 2010, 10:10 AM	#34
Francesca R Girl Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: London EC1 Posts: 11,826	I think "police and enforcement should be private" is anarchism not libertarianism. Libertarian philosophy (as far as I know) holds that the establishment of a "minimal state" in which one state protects everyone in its borders and does not allow independents to compete in that regard, and requires everyone in its borders to pay for it . . . is morally justified. Just, no more than that. My reference is this book. Then there's John Locke's stuff. Per your ETA--An-Cap was a part of that thread; you might be remembering those bits.
	Last edited by Francesca R; 6th January 2010 at 10:12 AM.