The Trouble With Libertarians

[KitemanSA]

I would argue that Nolan's Chart is labeled in a misleading fashion then. The extreme top is supposed to be those that favor absolute abolition of government control, much as the very bottom favors absolute government control. If Anarchy falls anywhere on the chart, it is exactly where the label "Libertarian" is placed.

It would seem that you aregue from a statist perspective, that "no government control" equals "no control" and thus you mischaracterize the Nolan chart. What the top most point represents is individuals who believe in 100% SELF control, not NO control. Autarchists, not anarchists. Learn the difference please!

[Betruger]

It's a bad chart because it doesn't discern between those two. Between autarchists and anarchists.

[KitemanSA]

The 'Libertarian' term was first coined by Joseph Déjacque, an Anarchist. You seem quite opposed to connecting the two. The only thing that's changed since then though is that enough people have since misused the word to describe something different, and you seem inclined to hold to the new and changed definition instead. Seems a bit unfair to call me out for pointing out that there are still an awful lot of anarchists claiming the libertarian flag.

I am not conversant with this individual, though wikipedia makes the same claim you do, i.e., that he was the first to use the term "libertarian" for political purposes. What the article DOESN'T say is that he applied it to himself. Do you have any such reference?

If it IS the case that he applied it to himself, might it also be that he was like Bill Clinton calling himself "libertarian"? He may have been the first to use it "polotically" but what was the general "non-political" understanding of the word at the time? Did he pervert a general term or has the meaning of the word changed with time? TBD.

[bcglorf]

I would argue that Nolan's Chart is labeled in a misleading fashion then. The extreme top is supposed to be those that favor absolute abolition of government control, much as the very bottom favors absolute government control. If Anarchy falls anywhere on the chart, it is exactly where the label "Libertarian" is placed.

It would seem that you aregue from a statist perspective, that "no government control" equals "no control" and thus you mischaracterize the Nolan chart. What the top most point represents is individuals who believe in 100% SELF control, not NO control. Autarchists, not anarchists. Learn the difference please!

As Bertruger said, the difference is NOT articulated by the chart. The way I read it, the corners of the chart are reserved for the fundies of each group. The top for Anarchists, the bottom for dictators, left and right for the fanatics on either end of that spectrum.

If you've got a different reading I'd be glad to hear it. Particularly on where to place the anarchists, unless they are off the chart altogether.

[Betruger]

Joseph Dejacque the Anarchist not applying "Libertarian" to himself: Why does it matter? This is what Wikipedia presents Libertarianism as:

4 Libertarian philosophies
4.1 Individualism
4.2 Libertarian conservatism
4.3 Left-libertarianism
4.4 Anarchism
4.5 Libertarian socialism
4.6 Anarcho-capitalism
4.7 Minarchism
4.8 Geolibertarianism

And:

Libertarian schools of thought may vary significantly in their details. One significant variable between the various strains is the degree to which the state should be reduced, with minarchists advocating reduction to just state protection from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud, and anarchists advocating complete elimination of the state. Another difference is in groups who are supportive of private property rights in the ownership of land and natural resources and those who are opposed to such rights

Sources:
Carlos Peregrín Otero (2003). "Introduction to Chomsky's Social Theory". In Carlos Peregrín Otero (Editor). Radical priorities. Noam Chomsky (Book Author) (Expanded 3rd ed.). Oakland, California, USA: AK Press. pp. 9–48.
and
Vallentyne, Peter (September 5, 2002). "Libertarianism". In Edward N. Zalta. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2009 ed.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University.


Then, the US Libertarian party platform:

Libertarians support maximum liberty in both personal and economic matters. They advocate a much smaller government; one that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence. Libertarians tend to embrace individual responsibility, oppose government bureaucracy and taxes, promote private charity, tolerate diverse lifestyles, support the free market, and defend civil liberties."

Where it clearly says a tendency for minimal, not absence of government.

[Betruger]

As Bertruger said, the difference is NOT articulated by the chart.
[...]
If you've got a different reading I'd be glad to hear it. Particularly on where to place the anarchists, unless they are off the chart altogether.

That chart (or more precisely, the chart and the questionnaire that controls it) is just a bad device for this purpose. It's convenient but it's not comprehensive enough. Not when it outputs minimalists as identical to anarchists!

[KitemanSA]

It's a bad chart because it doesn't discern between those two. Between autarchists and anarchists.

Invent a new one. Make it better and provide questions/answers so that the two can be distinguished.

It serves its purpose. It identifies libertarians.

By the way, avowed anarchists often wind up scoring authoritarian because they answer "no" where a libertaian will answer yes. They do it because the choices to answer the questions are not radical enough to contain their opinions.

When questioning someone I considered fairly libertarian about his answers to the quiz he said he answered no to the question "should the US Military stop policing the world" because there should be NO US Military at all! Ok. Wow! not so libertarian as I had thought!

So I guess if you see someone who you think approximates libertarian but scores authoritarian, that person may be an anarchist.

[Betruger]

IIRC previous versions of this Nolan chart-er had a more comprehensive questionnaire. I suspect it was changed to this more compact form to more readily bring out people's awareness of their libertarianism.

[KitemanSA]

IIRC previous versions of this Nolan chart-er had a more comprehensive questionnaire. I suspect it was changed to this more compact form to more readily bring out people's awareness of their libertarianism.

There are MANY v ersions of the questionaire and the Advocate's version (the World's Smallest Political Quiz) has evolved over the decades too. The "California Quiz" has(d?) 10 questions on each side. Milstead's quiz has a response driven set of sub-questions. Take your pick. Have fun.

The WSPQ is the most widely used and serves its purpose, to identify libertarians.

[Betruger]

You coulda shown these more precise variants in the first place. Do those accurately distinguish those variants of Libertarians? E.G. Clear difference between Anarchists and Autarchists.

Anyway I'm done procrastinating, back to work.

[bcglorf]

It's a bad chart because it doesn't discern between those two. Between autarchists and anarchists.

Invent a new one. Make it better and provide questions/answers so that the two can be distinguished.

It serves its purpose. It identifies libertarians.

By the way, avowed anarchists often wind up scoring authoritarian because they answer "no" where a libertaian will answer yes. They do it because the choices to answer the questions are not radical enough to contain their opinions.

When questioning someone I considered fairly libertarian about his answers to the quiz he said he answered no to the question "should the US Military stop policing the world" because there should be NO US Military at all! Ok. Wow! not so libertarian as I had thought!

So I guess if you see someone who you think approximates libertarian but scores authoritarian, that person may be an anarchist.

I would have expected someone wanting to remove the military altogether would more often answer "no" than "yes" when asked about the military not policing the world.

More over, if you added the additional question "Should the military be eliminated altogether?", which way should the answer push someone?

It seems from you above suggestion that saying yes to eliminating the military altogether should push you to the statist/totalitarian end of the spectrum??? That doesn't make any sense to me.

[KitemanSA]

(1) I would have expected someone wanting to remove the military altogether would more often answer "no" than "yes" when asked about the military not policing the world.

(2) More over, if you added the additional question "Should the military be eliminated altogether?", which way should the answer push someone?

(3) It seems from you above suggestion that saying yes to eliminating the military altogether should push you to the statist/totalitarian end of the spectrum??? That doesn't make any sense to me. {numbers added, ed.}

Re: (1), Well, they guy I talked to did, but one out of one is not statistically significant !
the quest read something like "Should the US stop policing the World?" The libertairian answer is yes, typically. Answering "no" would tend to mean the person thinks the US shouold CONTINUE to police the world. but that wasn't what the guy ment. Hmmm.

Re: (2), Perhaps along a different axis? Make the map three dimensional?

Re: (3), Only because some anarchists answer the question oddly. That is the problem with simple questions. The nuances are lost. Perhaps it just proves that anarchists are a tad silly?

[bcglorf]

(1) I would have expected someone wanting to remove the military altogether would more often answer "no" than "yes" when asked about the military not policing the world.

(2) More over, if you added the additional question "Should the military be eliminated altogether?", which way should the answer push someone?

(3) It seems from you above suggestion that saying yes to eliminating the military altogether should push you to the statist/totalitarian end of the spectrum??? That doesn't make any sense to me. {numbers added, ed.}

Re: (1), Well, they guy I talked to did, but one out of one is not statistically significant !
the quest read something like "Should the US stop policing the World?" The libertairian answer is yes, typically. Answering "no" would tend to mean the person thinks the US shouold CONTINUE to police the world. but that wasn't what the guy ment. Hmmm.

Re: (2), Perhaps along a different axis? Make the map three dimensional?

Re: (3), Only because some anarchists answer the question oddly. That is the problem with simple questions. The nuances are lost. Perhaps it just proves that anarchists are a tad silly?

I dunno, with the existing chart, no matter how good the questions, it still comes out that the more one answers in favor of removing things from government control, the more Libertarian it classes a person. My only problem with that as a definition is no that it is generally vague, but that it is specifically vague about the difference between anarchist and libertarian views. Presumably, an anarchist will answer no to as much government interference as possible, but the chart will place them as the strongest Libertarian out there. Basically, it marks Libertarianism as synonymous with Anarchism, which is my whole problem where hordes of Anarchists line up to claim Libertarian leanings as proof they aren't complete nutters. The above definition of course makes it impossible to argue that the anarchists aren't correct in claiming Libertarian roots. Which leaves me trashing "Libertarian" ideals like the abolition of the military or police in their entirety.

[palladin9479]

Hello all, first time poster but very long time lurker. I decided to create an actual account to post just on this topic as I feel strongly about libertarianism. People often make the mistake of judging an entire concept by the few extremists that are the most vocal. Extreme's of anything is bad and should be avoided.


Please do not mistake libertarianism to be anarchism, less government does not mean no government. At its core libertarianism seeks to reduce government to only doing its intended purpose with minimal interference with the local population. The purpose of a central government is to provide for the common security of its people, the website tries to use more poetic words but they don't work so well.

This breaks down to

External Security => Security from foreign invaders, a Military is required for this and should be of sufficient strength to deter foreign aggression or interference.

Internal Security => Security from theft / assault / vandalism. A law enforcement and judicial system is required for this. Fire departments and disaster response units can fall into here.

Economic Security => Security that business dealings will be honest and transparent, ensure open free-trade is maintained. Without economic security a people would be incapable of trading or creating enterprise. A government regulatory system is required to ensure people are being fair.

A government should provide no more or less then the above three things with the exact nuts and bolts being debatable and subject to disagreement. The big point is to limit the government to only what is required and not any excess. To always see a free-market open solution to problems before resorting to government control. And if a government control is required, to make it open, easy to understand and adhere to the KISS standard. And above all else to respect an individuals privacy and right to make decisions, even stupid ones. People have a right to be stupid, you can not legislate stupidity away. People have a right to be rude a$$holes, you can not legislate manors or civil behavior. People have a right to be immoral, unethical bastards, you can not legislate morality. People have a right to say what they want to say, you can not legislate silence. People have a right to express themselves anyway they wish, you can not legislate expressions.

The golden rule is you can do whatever you want on your own property provided your not attempting theft / vandalism / rape / assault. Its pretty common sense to understand this, and the only time it breaks down is when people deliberately engineer stupid situations.

[IntLibber]

I would argue that Nolan's Chart is labeled in a misleading fashion then. The extreme top is supposed to be those that favor absolute abolition of government control, much as the very bottom favors absolute government control. If Anarchy falls anywhere on the chart, it is exactly where the label "Libertarian" is placed.

It would seem that you aregue from a statist perspective, that "no government control" equals "no control" and thus you mischaracterize the Nolan chart. What the top most point represents is individuals who believe in 100% SELF control, not NO control. Autarchists, not anarchists. Learn the difference please!

As Bertruger said, the difference is NOT articulated by the chart. The way I read it, the corners of the chart are reserved for the fundies of each group. The top for Anarchists, the bottom for dictators, left and right for the fanatics on either end of that spectrum.

If you've got a different reading I'd be glad to hear it. Particularly on where to place the anarchists, unless they are off the chart altogether.

The extreme top of the chart are anarcho-capitalists, an absolutist form of libertarianism but not necessarily stubborn about it. I score in the very tippy top when I answer the questions according to my ideals, but when I take into consideration pragmatic issues. For instance, I dont believe in open borders with countries full of people who do not share the same heritage of individual liberty and are prone to export their criminals to us, nor do I believe in open borders while our government has this massive bait called the welfare state and other entitlements attracting people to come her to live off the dole.

Regular anarchists of the european style are more accurately called anarcho-socialists and they do not believe in 100% economic freedom so they dont belong at the top of the chart. Alternatively known as anarcho-syndicalists or anarcho-communists (there are various degrees of difference between these, but they are all leftist movements).

Where the poster is confused is a common misunderstanding, where governments have long taught people that anarchy = chaos, which is simply false but is the common misperception. Nobody but criminals and psychopaths love chaos, but anarchy is a completely different animal and involves a lack of top down structure imposed without consent. Alternatively known as hyperdemocracy, the idea is that if one person doesnt consent to a law, it doesnt go into action or doesnt apply to them. One man, one veto rather than one man, one vote.

People can still organize voluntary associations and if someone is invested in an association financially, like in a communal factory, and the group decides to do something that that person doesnt agree with, they have to either buy that person out or else not do that thing.

Rather than have one police agency, you would have multiple competing police agencies that would have to compete for your business, and would often be a subsidiary of your insurance company. In fact, in an anarcho-capitalist society, the closest thing to a government would be a mutual insurance association, but you would still be free to leave one association and join another without being forced to sell your home and leave the area you live in.

And I doubt very much that anybody would accuse your insurance agent of being in favor of chaos. It's simply bad for business.