Libertarian and Liberal

[Spandex]

The trouble with trying to pin one meaning to 'liberal' (or 'conservative' or 'socalist') is that in the 250ish year history of the words they have been applied to and used by so many different groups of people with so many different ideologies that they all have a range of meanings that are sometimes contradictory. To understand the meanings you need to understand the historical perspective to their use.

That Keywords book that Butchers refers to is pretty good for putting words in that context.

Liberalism was orginally applied to people who, in a time when authoritarian monarchy was the normal set up for states, wanted those states to leave them alone. These days it is often applied to people who want more intervention from the state, to 'protect' them from this, that or the other. When one word can have such opposing meanings it's usefulness is pretty limited.

Anyway, trying to sum up a person's whole ideology in one word is always going to lead to misunderstandings; it might be a useful shorthand to identify roughly where people are coming from (you can't write an essay every time someone wants to know what you're politics are), but when eveyone has a different understanding of the words involved it can lead to as much confusion as clarity.

 

[Gmart]

Liberalism - based on individualist theories of man and society, based around possessive individualism
Liberal - socially permissive attitudes.

I just don't see this huge difference which BA and others are going on about.

despite people pointing out some very important differences

BA says this but what is he going on about. No one has stated any huge differences. Indeed I am struggling to find even minor ones. Yet even he doesn't define libertarian from his book and seems keen to give me grief for not accepting that there is no difference.

Of course in true BA style he is wary of actually stating his position, so I won't hold my breath for a decent response.

So far we seem to have a consensus that both Libertarians and Liberals are in favour of free trade and a small government. Maybe Libertarians believe more in liberty than liberals? Some suggest here that Liberals are Conservatives (small c, big c??) now. Implying that the old Liberal/Conservative split is no more.

Yet I feel that Liberals would get rid of many licences and empower people to make their own choices.

After all, why should someone need a licence to trade in the street for example?? Who is this protecting?? Needless red tape and cutting thru it is what liberals are all about, or is that libertarians???

I don't think that the suggestion that Liberals are Anarchists is particularly useful either. I can see the similarity in localising power, and having a smaller government and thus less rules, licences etc to constrain the individual; yet Anarchists often envisage the smashing of the existing systems wholesale as I understand it.

I always bear in mind that it was the Anarchists of Spain which smashed up the original drawings of the Sagrada Familial in Barcelona, and by that rationale I dismiss them as to extreme.

Liberals (or Libertarians) seem to accept compromise maybe a bit more.

 

[butchersapron]

Ones a definte political doctine, one's a social attiude compatible with any number of political doctines.

Who is 'he'?

I cannot see any consenus on this thread "that both Libertarians and Liberals are in favour of free trade and a small government".

No one is suggesting that liberals are anarchists. Lots of people have suggested that outside of the US 'liberatarian' is a synonym for anarchism due to sustained historical and contemporary usage.

As for the last bit - you might want to bear in mind that it was the anarchists who stopped 'the people' destroying far more of the authoritarian cultural manifestations of the power of the church and state once their foot were temporarily removed from their neck.

Just a big ball of confusion

 

[Gmart]

Ones a definite political doctrine, one's a social attitude compatible with any number of political doctrines.

You see, classic Butcher post this. He wants to say something, but refuses to actually state anything, and so ends up stating nothing.

So am I supposed to guess which is which?

What are the principles of the political doctrine?

What's the difference between a social attitude and a political doctrine?

 

[kyser_soze]

Gmart - the difference has been explained with extraordinary clarity, both in terms of it's European usage, AND contemporary US use, and you still don't get it. Much like your failure to understand the problems with the rational actor model and it's failings.

Seriously - you need to read people's answers, because you've had the difference explained to you at least 3 times in different ways.

 

[Gmart]

Gmart - the difference has been explained with extraordinary clarity, both in terms of it's European usage, AND contemporary US use, and you still don't get it. Much like your failure to understand the problems with the rational actor model and it's failings.

Seriously - you need to read people's answers, because you've had the difference explained to you at least 3 times in different ways.

Which posts do you consider to be so clear then. I challenge you to quote them.

 

[kyser_soze]

Which posts do you consider to be so clear then. I challenge you to quote them.

On the European use of the word 'libertarian':

1. A synonym for anarchist.

Libertarianism is a synonym for anarchism. Which is why anarchists have used it as a synonym for anarchism since the mid 19th century.

On the US use of the word 'libertarian':

2. Of a 'minimal state' variety of pro-capitalist ideology, full-on consistent economic liberals

On liberalism and liberals:

Economic definition:

Liberal means a whole range of things. Economical liberalism means the classical free market economics of Adam Smith et al.

Social definition:

Liberalism was orginally applied to people who, in a time when authoritarian monarchy was the normal set up for states, wanted those states to leave them alone. These days it is often applied to people who want more intervention from the state, to 'protect' them from this, that or the other. When one word can have such opposing meanings it's usefulness is pretty limited.

The most useful thing on the word 'liberal' has been mentioned many times - it's almost useless as a summation of a specific set of political and/or social ideas because it's used so often. For example, 'liberal' is used as a term if insult by both far-left AND far right commentators - as has been pointed out to you, the author of this blog is a Randist and an American, for whom 'liberal' means anyone who wants more government spending or involvement in people's lives AND who also is a supporter of things like equal rights policies that involves government intervention or spending.

JHEs sums it up best, but BA and DLR had both answered your questions in their initial posts.

 

[butchersapron]

You see, classic Butcher post this. He wants to say something, but refuses to actually state anything, and so ends up stating nothing.

So am I supposed to guess which is which?

What are the principles of the political doctrine?

What's the difference between a social attitude and a political doctrine?

My first point was a reply was a reply to the first point in your post. The second, a reply to your second and so on.

I'll make it explicit though. You quoted me pointing out two conceptions of liberal (in order to ask you to clarify what sense you were using the terms in your posts - a point that you miised)

Liberalism - based on individualist theories of man and society, based around possessive individualism
Liberal - socially permissive attitudes.

To whoch you replied that you

I just don't see this huge difference which BA and others are going on about.

I pointed out the pretty bloody major difference in the two examples of mine that you chose to quote:

Ones a definite political doctrine, one's a social attitude compatible with any number of political doctrines.

(I've bolded the important bit so you can't miss it)

Kyser is right. You rweally do need to read the replies you've getting - here and elsewhere.

 

[kyser_soze]

Thing is Gmart, you didn't even bother checking what perspective the blogger was writing from, that his suggestions to read Rand, not to mention his overall viewpoint, are essentially those of a US neo-conservative. Your failure to even put his words into context before starting this thread says more than your constant 'Well, that's just wishy washy and no answer' stuff in reply to a perfectly clear statement about libertarianism (for example)

You even seem to be having difficulty with the notion that the words mean different things in the US and European contexts FFS.

 

[rogue_lettuce]

Or to be more precise, it means that in modern American usage; in European usage it still means what it always did.

You may be right there, most of my contact with the word in modern sources comes from America...

 

[danny la rouge]

You may be right there, most of my contact with the word in modern sources comes from America...

That's the trouble.

 

[Fledgling]

I always bear in mind that it was the Anarchists of Spain which smashed up the original drawings of the Sagrada Familial in Barcelona, and by that rationale I dismiss them as to extreme.

Liberals (or Libertarians) seem to accept compromise maybe a bit more.

Bit off-topic but how did this get into your post? Massive tangent to go off on. I won't, all I will say is be careful about generalising about anarchist events in Spain, especially atrocities/cultural desecration. Similarly you can't extrapolate a definition of anarchism from the actions of various bands in a civil revolution infused with massive local historical issues.

Anyway...... returning to the thread. Have to agree with Spandex about the negative/positive liberty point. Libertarians are very concerned with negative liberty and perhaps come close to early "classic" liberals whereas the word "liberal" seems to have evolved into a badge of honour or insult according to your ideological bent. Having spent time in the US I can vouch that the term means somethng different there, although that particular meaning is spreading across the pond.

Neither liberal or libertarian have a single definition though, I've been reading a book by a libertarian who has marked conservative tendencies and admits to being a reactionary. It's a confusing position sometimes, he calls on anarchists and conservatives to rally around a cause. This led me to believe there are several types of libertarian and anarchist. (book is by Sean Gabb if anyone's interested- provocative but exciting stuff).

 

[nino_savatte]

Saw this blog apparently stating the difference, but it seemed to descend into describing the Liberal as what I recognise as a simple, authoritarian conservative.

So what is the difference? Surely it would be impossible to be anything other than conservative if you fail to believe in people??

Oh please, not this again!

 

[ViolentPanda]

JHEs sums it up best, but BA and DLR had both answered your questions in their initial posts.

The mistake being made here is assuming that GMarthews actually wanted an answer, rather than a springboard to showcase their own intellectual pretensions.

 

[inflatable jesus]

This led me to believe there are several types of libertarian and anarchist.

Yeah. Some on the libertarian right use the term 'anarchism' to describe their ideology but as far as I can tell most anarchists think that it's stretching the definition a little too far.

 

[Gmart]

his suggestions to read Rand, not to mention his overall viewpoint, are essentially those of a US neo-conservative.

I get the impression that his recommendation to read Rand for you nullifies any other point he wishes to make.

I would suggest that this is slightly simplistic. I have read some Rand, and it was interesting, but I would never consider myself to be a neo-con. This fact suggests that you are wrong to lump all people who express such an interest into the bin.

Rand has some interesting points to make, that you clearly have no wish to go into - in fact the only time she is mentioned is to pour scorn on a completely unrelated topic which I am trying to discuss.

Still I appreciate the clarity on the difference between these words - I can see why they are rarely used in precise conversation.

I doubt if BA ever said anything so clearly, but I'll take yr word for it...

 

[nino_savatte]

Rand has some interesting points to make, that you clearly have no wish to go into - in fact the only time she is mentioned is to pour scorn on a completely unrelated topic which I am trying to discuss.

Has she really got "some interesting points"? I don't think she has.

 

[Al Kahul]

This discussion is useful in some many ways as words constantly change and pigeonholing can be very misinforming.

I use libertarianism in the US sense but note the huge discrepency between "right libertarians" who are often anti abortion pro militarists (Ron Paul is one) to Minarchists (ie the night wathcman state ) to anarcho capitalists and then "leftwards" to Left libertarians (such as Samual Konkin III) who are very strongly anti war ,intervention and dismmissive of authorityand are often known as Agorists. This group is marched with Randists (or Objectivists as they call themselves) on the "right" and Geo Anarchists on the "left".
I identify with the Agorist/Geo Anarchist edge.

 

[Al Kahul]

Has she really got "some interesting points"? I don't think she has.

I think she has many interesting points . I find interesting points in most political theories .being a member of a tiny political grouping means that almost all of them will be of someone else's persuasion.

 

[nino_savatte]

I think she has many interesting points . I find interesting points in most political theories .being a member of a tiny political grouping means that almost all of them will be of someone else's persuasion.

Okay, what was so interesting about Rand? Her use of amphetamines? Her chain-smoking?

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Oh I don't know, it's all quite interesting in a "wtf people really believe this" way.

 

[Al Kahul]

Okay, what was so interesting about Rand? Her use of amphetamines? Her chain-smoking?

Opposition to faith on the basis that it was the antitheses of reason.

her view on race thus "Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism ... [the notion] that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors,"


I am certainly sympathetic to the idea that man is should follow happiness ,self fulfillment and reason.

This does not mean I am a Randist or that you can infer support for any of he other Ideas but these Ideas I found interesting

 

[Al Kahul]

Oh I don't know, it's all quite interesting in a "wtf people really believe this" way.

also true:

I have little respect for the ideologue who does not even spare a moment to examine the motivations and theories behind those of his political enemies and resorts to crudity and invective as a substitute.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I think she has many interesting points . I find interesting points in most political theories .being a member of a tiny political grouping means that almost all of them will be of someone else's persuasion.

Hmm, are we talking of "interesting" as meaning "crazy but intriguingly so", or as meaning "intellectually worthy"?

I'd go along with the former as regards Rand, but have never been able to find much of the latter in her output.

 

[Al Kahul]

Hmm, are we talking of "interesting" as meaning "crazy but intriguingly so", or as meaning "intellectually worthy"?

I'd go along with the former as regards Rand, but have never been able to find much of the latter in her output.

fine .your opinion, but what is the need to descend into invective on this site once someone suggests a thinker or ideology that you don't like.

 

[butchersapron]

Because they really don't like her or where her ideas lead and so want to make their disgust clear, to emphasisie it. You may not like the way they choose to express themselves about this, but that's not your choice - just what sort of liberatarian are you?

 

[Gmart]

fine .your opinion, but what is the need to descend into invective on this site once someone suggests a thinker or ideology that you don't like.

Par for the course with these two sadly. That's why I have them both on ignore

 

[Al Kahul]

Because they really don't like her or where her ideas lead and so want to make their disgust clear, to emphasisie it. You may not like the way they choose to express themselves about this, but that's not your choice - just what sort of liberatarian are you?

It is not my choice to stop you from communicating your opinions .That would be an authoritarian act that would be antithetical to my beliefs.It is appropriate ,on a board such as this,(imho) to debate the appropriateness of condemning a writer or thinker without actually being aware of the essential points.

What sort of Libertarian am I ? Within the world of libertarianism I inhabit the area known as 'left libertarianism' where my ideas march with Ideas like Geo Anarchism.i.e. it is at the opposite end of the Libertarian spectrum with objectivists and right libertarians. I like Konkin but disagree with his opposition to intellectual property.

 

[danny la rouge]

It is not my choice to stop you from communicating your opinions .That would be an authoritarian act that would be antithetical to my beliefs.It is appropriate ,on a board such as this,(imho) to debate the appropriateness of condemning a writer or thinker without actually being aware of the essential points.

What sort of Libertarian am I ? Within the world of libertarianism I inhabit the area known as 'left libertarianism' where my ideas march with Ideas like Geo Anarchism.i.e. it is at the opposite end of the Libertarian spectrum with objectivists and right libertarians. I like Konkin but disagree with his opposition to intellectual property.

You're an agorist, are you? (We'll get round to that shortly. ).

In the meantime, why are you calling me an orthodox socialist over in UK P&P?

 

[kyser_soze]

You're an agorist, are you?

In all these years you've never once called me that, and it's the closest I've seen a label come to my general position...