Libertarian/Capitalist group

meh.

Liche wrote:

modern libertarians: STOLE THERE NAME

Exactly. Seriously, the laissez-faire right seems to be fairly unoriginal. They stole 'libertarianism' from the anarchists, and even 'anarchism' ('anarcho'-capitalism).

im against of capitalism BUT im undecided, in one side we have the right of expression in other side I have my own ideas about the capitalism or better, im AGAINST capitalism, half of me want to agree, part of me want to desagree, so, convice me and i will think about it.
=D

*their

Doesn't really matter it's not like it was a vicious assault on the anarchs or something. It's sorta like how the Democrats and Republicans used to be Democratic Republicans.

You're getting sidetracked. Who cares where the name came from?

I do.

But I also agree there should be a new rightist group.

Why don't we just call it the "capitalist" group? Does that solve all problems?

nillerz wrote:

Why don't we just call it the "capitalist" group? Does that solve all problems?

Because, assumingly, a capitalist could join one of the groups we all ready have. There could be maybe a capitalist erghm whats it called? guild?

nillerz wrote:

Ah, okay. The right wingers are sorely underrepresented. I mean, you have social democrats and liberal democrats, but the definition of "democrat" is pretty much "liberal" and "liberal" is pretty much the same as "social" so what gives there?

Social democrats=/=Democrats, Nillerz. Social democrats favor a light form of socialism, and are not associated with the Democratic Party. Think Labour Party.

There are lots of right wing parties here:

Liberal Democrats, Liberal Republicans, Conservative Republicans, Authoritarian Right, what else do you want?

'Libertarians' could just join 'authoritarian right'.

Stos wrote:

'Libertarians' could just join 'authoritarian right'.

Let them think they're not authoritarian.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

There are lots of right wing parties here:

Liberal Democrats, Liberal Republicans, Conservative Republicans, Authoritarian Right, what else do you want?

those are all not anything even remotely similar to anything like anything.

Liberal democrats are NOT right wing, at all
Liberal republican is an oxymoron
Conservative republicans are bible-thumping idiots, anti gay rights, anti abortion, anti "not christian"
Authoritarian right implies authoritarianism, and I'mnot an authoritarian

See the problem? It's not like my views are particularly far off or anything.

Also, the poll currently shows 7 for, 3 against, 1 other. Isn't that enough to get it?

I'll be fine with "Classical republican".

nillerz wrote:

those are all not anything even remotely similar to anything like anything.

Liberal democrats are NOT right wing, at all

According to the surrealistic USA's political scheme, which according to an objective political scheme just includes right wing options, ie Democrats are right wing, just more moderate.

nillerz wrote:

Liberal republican is an oxymoron

Meaning that "republicanism" stands for conservatism? Not according to ethymology, though.

nillerz wrote:

Conservative republicans are bible-thumping idiots, anti gay rights, anti abortion, anti "not christian"

Which makes them part of the moderately authoritarian right.

nillerz wrote:

Authoritarian right implies authoritarianism, and I'mnot an authoritarian

Basically all right wing except the oxymoronic "anarcho"-capitalists are authoritarian.

nillerz wrote:

See the problem? It's not like my views are particularly far off or anything.

Could be.

nillerz wrote:

Also, the poll currently shows 7 for, 3 against, 1 other. Isn't that enough to get it?

No arguements backing up those votes though.

nillerz wrote:

I'll be fine with "Classical republican".

Define "Classical Republican".

Liberal republican is how republicans first where.

nillerz wrote:

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

There are lots of right wing parties here:

Liberal Democrats, Liberal Republicans, Conservative Republicans, Authoritarian Right, what else do you want?

those are all not anything even remotely similar to anything like anything.

Liberal democrats are NOT right wing, at all

Ah, we'll let you go on thinking that.

You guys just don't know politics at all. You've got all these bizarre theories and categories but you don't actually know anything about politics.

FACTS:

-liberal = left
Liberal means "Liberal use of government" or in the USA, "Liberal use of the elastic clause"

-Conservative = right
Conservative means "Conservative use of government" or in the USA, "Conservative use of the elastic clause".

that means LIBERAL = LARGE GOV'T and CONSERVATIVE = SMALL GOVERNMENT.

Capitalism is, essentially, default. If you take away government, for the most part, people will operate capitalistically. People will trade services for product, Liberals want this trade controlled, LIBERALLY, and conservatives want them controlled CONSERVATIVELY, ie, only when absolutely necessary.

Communism negates capitalism, it takes away the whole "normal operation of how things worked for thousands of years" and replaces it with a single giant monopoly, essentially a controlled economy absolutely. Communism is as far left as you can get.

Anachy is a total lack of control of the economy. It is far right, past where most conservatives find safe.

Then there's authoritarian versus libertarian

Statists believe in total control over your life. Communists are statist whether or not they want to accept this fact.

Socialism is close to statism but preserves some elements of freedom

Then there are moderates, reasonable amount of control

Then there are libertarians, low level of control

Finally, anarchists, no control.

Why do you guys find this system so hard?

nillerz wrote:

You guys just don't know politics at all. You've got all these bizarre theories and categories but you don't actually know anything about politics.

We just use an exounitedstatian political scale.

There's a biaxial graphic. The X (horizontal) axis is economics' axis and the Y (vertical) axis is the libertarian/authoritarian axis.

In the axis X the closer to the right the more individualist the economy is. That is, private ownership of the means of production, individuals means of subsistance, market, etc. The closer ro left the more collectivist the economy is, that is less to no private property over means of production, collective means of subsistance.

This horizontal axis is divided in Two main sections: Socialist and Capitalist/Marketist economies. Socialist is left and Capitalist/Marketist is right.

These two sections have subdivisions as well.

The Capitalist side is divided in two: Right and Left wing capitalisms.

A right wing capitalism would be a capitalism in which the economy is predominantly individualist and the means of production can be owned by individuals. The economy is focused towards the satisfaction of the owners' of the means of production interests and their benefit. The main target of this economy is individual profit instead of collective wellbeing. Examples of this are the USA, Japan, EU, Russia, Mexico, etc.

A left wing capitalism implies a more centralized economy in which private ownership of the means of production is more limited or doesn't exist whatsoever. The economy's target is mainly collective social welfare instead of profit. Examples of this would be USSR, Cuba, NK etc.

Both economies are run by capital and market with the difference that one is centrally planned in order to theoretically suffice societal needs and distribute economic profit as evenly as possible while the other is focused towards the satisfaction of the owners' of the means of prodction interests.

Left wing capitalisms, when too extreme, are oo regultaed to substain themselves and are often very unstable and tend to copletely collapse during crisis.


The Socialist economic side, for pragmatic uses, can be divided in Socialist and Communist when the later means just a "perefctioned" version of the former. In this economic model there is no state, nor market, nor trade. The economy is entirely run by the workers in a democratic fashion and the production is set to suffice all societal needs.

The Y axis determines wether a system is authoritarian or not. The upper it is located the more authoritarian. Totalitarian systems would go up while more liberal systems woulr go down being anarchism in the extreme low.

The more liberal the less coercion enforced the more authoritarian the more coercion a certain group excerts over other.

In the case of socialist economics the theoretical authoritarian forms of socialism would imply large minorities having the ability to support a state to enforce the most efficient possible socialist economy on all of the society. The system would follow a socialist economy but would be authoritarian. Once again, this is just a theoretical system.

In case of the previous kind of theoretical socialist economy being taken into account, the whole Socialist side of the axis X becomes solely horizontal and the right wing becomes authoritarian while the left wing are the libertarians.

nillerz wrote:

Communism negates capitalism, it takes away the whole "normal operation of how things worked for thousands of years" and replaces it with a single giant monopoly, essentially a controlled economy absolutely. Communism is as far left as you can get.

A monopoly of all the workers which means everyone rules the economy collectively.

nillerz wrote:

Anachy is a total lack of control of the economy. It is far right, past where most conservatives find safe.

This is wrong as many anarchist comrades will point out.

nillerz wrote:

Then there's authoritarian versus libertarian

Statists believe in total control over your life. Communists are statist whether or not they want to accept this fact.

Being this false as communism implies democratic olective self rule. That is no one gives a shit about what doesn't affect other parties but yourself.

nillerz wrote:

Socialism is close to statism but preserves some elements of freedom

Defining socialism as...?

nillerz wrote:

Then there are moderates, reasonable amount of control

"Reasonable" is a fairly subjective term.

nillerz wrote:

Finally, anarchists, no control.

Unless you're talking about Bakuninists or crimethinc, who definitely do not compose the backbone nor the largest ammount of anarchists, you're wrong.

Most Anarchists would definitely be in favour of a collective control of economy and regulation of things like murder, rape, destruction of infrastructure and so on.

nillerz wrote:

Why do you guys find this system so hard?

Not hard, simply absolutely non workable.

nillerz wrote:

liberal = left

You lost me here. I am a Leftist, and most people here are Leftists. None of us are Liberals, and we'd be offended if you called us that.

Liberalism, in a classical sense, has always emphasized individualism. Individualism has always been, unquestionably, right-wing. The right-wing has always put its cultural emphasis on the individual, whereas the left-wing has always put its cultural emphasis on the community at large.

Liberalism has always supported the protection of private property and the free market. It always has. These are core elements of right-wing economics.

Milton Friedman was a "Liberal".
Friedrich Hayek was a "Liberal".
Malthus was a "Liberal".
I mean, really. Even Adam Smith was a Liberal. Is Adam Smith a leftist? Are any of these guys?

The thing about it is that Conservatism is really just the retarded younger cousin of Liberalism. Both of them are right-wing in that support markets. Where they differ is that Liberalism tends to be more Libertarian and Conservatism tends to be more Authoritarian.

Think of Thomas Hobbes as a classical Conservative and Adam Smith as a classical Liberal. Both supported free markets and free enterprise; where they differed is the role of government in peoples' lives.

---

As an aside, Anarchism absolutely does not imply lack of control in economic affairs, and to suggest that makes me think that you're just trying to troll us. Anarchists are classically Libertarian in that we respect the sovereignty of the individual. This much is consistent in every branch of Anarchism. Where some - if not most - Anarchists differ is that we support a series of decentralized economic planning. Economic planning is the back-bone of left-wing economics. That is why some strands of Anarchism - Anarchocommunism, Anarchosyndicalism, Libertarian Socialism - are left-wing, and that is why Liberalism is right-wing, since Liberalism inherently implies lack of control over the markets.

Right-wing = no economic control.
Left-wing = economic control.

This is shit you can find on Wikipedia in like two seconds.

And he calls us clueless...before saying an utter load of crap.

no. LIBERAL = Liberal government. Liberal means LOTS. Words man, words! Conservative = Conservative government. Less government, government only where needed. This is simple stuff, folks.

btw I tldr'd most of your stuff I can't read that much bs, I'm sorry I have my limits. You don't know what words mean. You guys just dont. I tried explaining it. You just don't get it. You are clueless. Completely clueless. You are fine examples of how public schooling has failed. Liberal isn't a complicated word. It means plenty. If you apply liberal amounts of ketchup to a burger you are adding alot of ketchup. If you apply ketchup conservatively, you add a little but not too much. Also why are we this far off-topic?

The fact is that people think this is a good idea, the polls indicate it's supported, they don't need to post about it. Should votes only be given to the biggest loudmouths? The quiet ones can have opinions too, you know.

nillerz wrote:

no. LIBERAL = Liberal government. Liberal means LOTS. Words man, words! Conservative = Conservative government. Less government, government only where needed. This is simple stuff, folks.

btw I tldr'd most of your stuff I can't read that much bs, I'm sorry I have my limits. You don't know what words mean. You guys just dont. I tried explaining it. You just don't get it. You are clueless. Completely clueless. You are fine examples of how public schooling has failed. Liberal isn't a complicated word. It means plenty. If you apply liberal amounts of ketchup to a burger you are adding alot of ketchup. If you apply ketchup conservatively, you add a little but not too much. Also why are we this far off-topic?

The fact is that people think this is a good idea, the polls indicate it's supported, they don't need to post about it. Should votes only be given to the biggest loudmouths? The quiet ones can have opinions too, you know.

I lol'd.

Nillerz is talking about the word Liberal. Not the political expression.

Liberal didn't always mean "Support female and minority rights". Affirmative action programs intrude on business owners rights to run their business however they like. It's LIBERAL use of government. That's why dems cater to feminist and black rights groups.

nillerz wrote:

no. LIBERAL = Liberal government. Liberal means LOTS. Words man, words! Conservative = Conservative government. Less government, government only where needed. This is simple stuff, folks.

btw I tldr'd most of your stuff I can't read that much bs, I'm sorry I have my limits. You don't know what words mean. You guys just dont. I tried explaining it. You just don't get it. You are clueless. Completely clueless. You are fine examples of how public schooling has failed. Liberal isn't a complicated word. It means plenty. If you apply liberal amounts of ketchup to a burger you are adding alot of ketchup. If you apply ketchup conservatively, you add a little but not too much. Also why are we this far off-topic?

The fact is that people think this is a good idea, the polls indicate it's supported, they don't need to post about it. Should votes only be given to the biggest loudmouths? The quiet ones can have opinions too, you know.

You're thinking of this in completely the wrong mindset. American liberalism=/=liberalism.

Liberalism, traditionally, is generally best personified by what you're describing conservatism as. The typical US-centric political spectrum is not universal. Deal with it.

I'm talking English. Do you speak it? Liberal means "Liberal". In the US it also means "Rights for minorities and women". This doesn't mean it's about freedom, it's not about freedom anywhere, really.