Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact
  • Hi Guest,
    We have now moved the boards to the new server hardware.
    Search will be impaired while it re-indexes the posts.
    See the thread in the Feedback forum for updates and feedback.
    Lazy Llama

Libertarian Party Uk

3095867339_37884fed18_m.jpg


I see UKIP have also made sure they have kept the loon quota up.
 
As you say, it worked, which is what counts with language. "Anarchy" also means "chaos", which is no more accurate, but widely used. (More widely that the proper meaning, if anything.)

Personally I think "libertarian" should apply to a general love of liberty: it's a pain to prefix it with "civil" every time I use it.

This is the problem when you try and use dictionary definitions of words to explain politics and history. It doesn't work.

I'm not quite sure how you can have liberty when supporting a system which restricts access to resources to the few, but there you go. Maybe I'm fick or summat.
 
3406994114_c3335b7f0d.jpg


- I love these guys, they're the gift that just keeps on giving. They'd make good characters in an Enid Blyton novel: the Free Market Four, the Fredrich von Hayek four? Fighting shifty looking socialists with the help of lashings of Ayn Rand!
 
JSM made his pro-hanging speech after the Offences Against the Person Act, 1861, so the only things you could be hanged for were treason, murder, piracy, and, bizarrely, arson in the royal dockyards. (The last was probably unnoticed. It was quietly abolished in the 1960s when someone found it.)


Thanks for that, if I'm honest never come across it, (only did philosophy for A Level and that was a while ago), finding the speech from the unreferenced quote, lead me to find everything you said was true. But it does need its context not quite the 180 contradiction but I see how he got the utilitarian label.


Photo : Who turns up at a Facebook organised protest in favor of Capitalism on 01/04/2009 in the City of London (wearing schoolboy knot:mad:):mad:
 
But it does need its context not quite the 180 contradiction but I see how he got the utilitarian label.
I don't see how supporting capital punishment for murderers is inherently utilitarian. (Mill was of course a utilitarian, but that's by the by.) I support it, and I can't stand utilitarianism!
 
3406994114_c3335b7f0d.jpg


- I love these guys, they're the gift that just keeps on giving. They'd make good characters in an Enid Blyton novel: the Free Market Four, the Fredrich von Hayek four? Fighting shifty looking socialists with the help of lashings of Ayn Rand!

Maybe the black bloc have found a new disguise ...
 
I don't see how supporting capital punishment for murderers is inherently utilitarian. (Mill was of course a utilitarian, but that's by the by.) I support it, and I can't stand utilitarianism!

How can anybody else be inhertiantly JS Mills? It was his own previous action, that made his own change of direction consequential, especially as he did so whilst still endearing his previous actions.
 
3406994114_c3335b7f0d.jpg


- I love these guys, they're the gift that just keeps on giving. They'd make good characters in an Enid Blyton novel: the Free Market Four, the Fredrich von Hayek four? Fighting shifty looking socialists with the help of lashings of Ayn Rand!

Oh yeah! From left to right: Tarquin, Quentin, Rupert and Tristram. :D
 
He he, they look like a bunch of little monkeys!!

Altho the argument over 'ownership' of the word libertarian, coming from anarchists and others who have some interesting things to say about the concept of ownership, is extremely funny too.
 
He he, they look like a bunch of little monkeys!!

Altho the argument over 'ownership' of the word libertarian, coming from anarchists and others who have some interesting things to say about the concept of ownership, is extremely funny too.

*facepalm*

I didn't think you were quite this stupid kyser.
 
I just find it funny that you all get so uppity about it, is all. I've said on a number of occassions that thinking you can own language is idiocy of the highest order, and this constant 'Libertarianism is actually about anarchism not about some r/wing low-tax, no welfare wet dream' thing is just old. Anyone can, and does, appropriate language for their own ends, the idea that you can somehow ringfence a term and expect it to only stay meaning one thing, within your own subjective terms of reference for it's meaning, is foolish.
 
Anyone can, and does, appropriate language for their own ends [...]
Exactly. "Libertarian" works just as well for "someone who promotes liberty", without the free market or anarchist connotations. I can see why the laissez faire brigade want to use it, mind: now "liberal" is becoming synonymous with social democrats, you need a word to replace "liberal" in its old classical liberal, minimal-government, free market sense.

And no, not a monosyllabic one.
 
3100846183_05b4517d9b.jpg


Do you think he has noticed the sniper rifle silencer next to his head :D?

What disturbs me about this chap is that he has the same surname and looks very like a teacher at my secondary school who was imprisoned for having sex with under-age boys! ;eek:
 
I just find it funny that you all get so uppity about it, is all. I've said on a number of occassions that thinking you can own language is idiocy of the highest order, and this constant 'Libertarianism is actually about anarchism not about some r/wing low-tax, no welfare wet dream' thing is just old. Anyone can, and does, appropriate language for their own ends, the idea that you can somehow ringfence a term and expect it to only stay meaning one thing, within your own subjective terms of reference for it's meaning, is foolish.

You're very naively missing the point. Which is - the term has been taken by these people and the meaning has been so distorted, in an Orwellian doublespeak way, to mean the opposite of what it originally meant and which has over 150 years of history behind it! It's this rewriting of history that annoys me.
 
Exactly. "Libertarian" works just as well for "someone who promotes liberty", without the free market or anarchist connotations. I can see why the laissez faire brigade want to use it, mind: now "liberal" is becoming synonymous with social democrats, you need a word to replace "liberal" in its old classical liberal, minimal-government, free market sense.

And no, not a monosyllabic one.

If you can explain to me how you can promote liberty whilst promoting a system which restricts access to resources to the privileged few, I'm all ears.
 
You're very naively missing the point. Which is - the term has been taken by these people and the meaning has been so distorted, in an Orwellian doublespeak way, to mean the opposite of what it originally meant and which has over 150 years of history behind it! It's this rewriting of history that annoys me.

No, you're basically saying that because a term has '150 years of history behind it' that it can't be used in any other context by anyone else - i.e. you believe that by dint of history that the word is 'owned' by one specific group of people, and that it's meaning or those using it should be what - allowed to take it and change it? That certain rules apply over who can and can't use specific bits of terminology that you feel your beliefs give you some kind of ownership over?

I'm not naively missing the point. I'm aware of what has happened and I'm aware of the difference between the two meanings of the word; what I find interesting is your seeming desire to have ownership over a word.
 
If you can explain to me how you can promote liberty whilst promoting a system which restricts access to resources to the privileged few, I'm all ears.
All in the definition you choose. I'm in the negative liberty camp; you're in the positive liberty camp.

But it's all good; "liberty" is a flexible enough a word to take it.
 
No, you're basically saying that because a term has '150 years of history behind it' that it can't be used in any other context by anyone else - i.e. you believe that by dint of history that the word is 'owned' by one specific group of people, and that it's meaning or those using it should be what - allowed to take it and change it? That certain rules apply over who can and can't use specific bits of terminology that you feel your beliefs give you some kind of ownership over?

I'm not naively missing the point. I'm aware of what has happened and I'm aware of the difference between the two meanings of the word; what I find interesting is your seeming desire to have ownership over a word.

What I'm saying is what I said - not what you said. Words just can't mean whatever people want them to mean, ignoring history. Unless your name is Humpty Dumpty.
 
All in the definition you choose. I'm in the negative liberty camp; you're in the positive liberty camp.

But it's all good; "liberty" is a flexible enough a word to take it.

I'm on the -ve and +ve liberty camp. I can't see how it can be defined any other way.
 
I'm on the -ve and +ve liberty camp. I can't see how it can be defined any other way.
I believe attempts at communal distribution of resources lead to tyranny, so I support the maximum of liberty I consider practical.
 
et7g568y

I was often told a lot of stories about this Tim Aker fellow when at uni as he was there at the same time. Apparently his friends would affectionately call him "Nazi Tim".
 
Because someone had to decide who gets what, people decide they don't want to hand over their goods, and badness ensues.

Anarchists of course disagree. But my line on liberty is consistent with the above.
 
Words just can't mean whatever people want them to mean, ignoring history.

A history based around association, not specifying that 'libertarian=anarchism'. Type 'define:libertarian' into Google and you get a huge spread of meanings. The wiki entry first line reads:

Libertarianism is a term used by a broad spectrum[1] of political philosophies which seek to maximize individual liberty[2] and minimize or abolish the state.[3] There are a number of libertarian view points, ranging from anarchist to small government, and from anti-property to pro-property

And from what I've read, the word itself has batted between anti- and pro-private property types since then - this idea that it specifically refers only to no-property (left) anarchism is wrong. And people can ignore history, and do frequently, in their use of words.

By trying to impose a rule on how words are used, you are seeking to place ownership over the word. You seek to limit the words usage by those think are using the word ahistorically (which they aren't), mainly because the way they choose to use it is diametrically opposed to the way you use it.
 
Back
Top Bottom