Gyroscopic Investing

doodle wrote: I would be curious about the etymology of the terms "liberal" and "libertarian". Both seem to stem from the word "liberty". Yet, I think they have slightly different ideas on what constitutes liberty. So i guess you must define liberty before you can define either of these two terms. Noam chomsky is a socialist, (libertarian - socialist to be exact). Socialism is used synonymously with "liberal" by many people, yet he is also one of the most ardent and outspoken libertarians you will find. In that case, you could say he is a liberal libertarian? The term liberal has undergone a large definition shift in the popular vernacular thanks in large part to Fox News. It carries a great deal of subjective emotional meaning, but what does it really mean other than a term that you use to label a person you disagree with?

Simonjester wrote: Classical liberalism is a political ideology, a branch of liberalism which advocates civil liberties and political freedom with limited government under the rule of law and generally promotes a laissez-faire economic policy.

modern liberalism or social liberalism differs from classical liberalism in that it believes the legitimate role of the state includes addressing economic and social issues such as welfare, health care, and education while simultaneously expanding civil and political rights. Under social liberalism, the good of the community is viewed as harmonious with the freedom of the individual

Progressive is a general political philosophy advocating or favoring gradual social, political, and economic reform over revolutionary social, political, and economic reform (often promoted by communism)

Libertarianism is the group of political philosophies which advocate minimizing coercion and emphasize freedom, liberty, and voluntary association. Libertarians generally advocate a society with significantly less state control and authority compared to most present day societies

libertarian and classical liberal are different shades of the same thing as each other.
progressive and modern liberal are different shades of the same thing as each other as well.

libertarian and classical liberal tend to be limited government - liberal (or modern liberal) and progressive tend to be statist,

the article (i have only skimmed apology's if i am wrong) seems to be saying something i have believed for a long time ... tyranny and totalitarian states no matter what utopian ideology is behind it Communist or fascist or socialist or nationalist (or any other) all act the same way toward the people
(BADLY)

doodle wrote: The issue that I see with libertarianism in the United States is that it has aligned itself with a corporate capitalistic economic model which is based on a state sanctioned entity called "the corporation" that are built with a hierarchical command structure. Both of these seem to contradict the basic tenets of libertarianism.

Pointedstick wrote:

doodle wrote: The issue that I see with libertarianism in the United States is that it has aligned itself with a corporate capitalistic economic model which is based on a state sanctioned entity called "the corporation" that are built with a hierarchical command structure. Both of these seem to contradict the basic tenets of libertarianism.

You just love to make gross generalizations, don't you? I'm a libertarian who believes that the limited-liability corporate shell is a product of government, and in a free society it would not exist. I believe that corporations collude with government to pollute public resources and pawn their externalities off on someone else, with the individual perpetrators avoiding liability.

Not wanting the government to coerce market participants doesn't preclude us from wanting it to stop conferring special treatment on groups of them, either. Without the latter half, what you have is corporatism, not libertarianism.

doodle wrote: A traditional libertarian-socialist would be anti-capitalist whereas most "American libertarians" are fervently supportive of the capitalistic system. I didn't think you thought that way.

Although you will never hear this at a Libertarian Tea Party rally, many of our founding fathers such as Jefferson, Paine, and Adams were anti-capitalist.

Simonjester wrote:
religous freedom is amendment #1 "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." we don't have an official religion, many on one side of the political spectrum claim the country was founded on judeo christian values, that religion was an important part of the lives of the early Americans and there is plenty of evidence for the claim, but they still opposed establishing a state religion.
part of what you describe as ultraliberalisem sounds like crony capitalism and corporatism and that is something that has infected both of our political parties, not necessarily in what they say to get elected, both sides make ideological claims to get votes, but in what they do when in power.

Simonjester wrote:

k9 wrote: Corporatism is the word I was looking for. In France, being liberal means being capitalist+corporatist and is a purely economic policy concept.

Simonjester wrote: religous freedom is amendment #1 "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

When I'm talking about official religion, that does not mean it's the only one allowed. Maybe I'm not picking the right terms, English is not my main language. I was thinking about the "in god we trust" motto, among other things. It is far from neutral and probably has influences on the way people think, I guess.

i am always impressed and a bit envious of how well people do in English when its a second or third language, i cant even begin to communicate in any other...

how neutral it is depends on perspective, i think to most religious people such motto's are neutral enough to be speaking to their idea of god, to most of the non religious it is little more than a tradition and holds no offense or exclusion, the only ones who tend to be put out by such things are the dedicated atheists, putting the ten commandments out on government property's a bit more controversial because they are more specific to abrahamic religions, but even that will generally be perceived in the same way by each group as mentioned above..

doodle wrote: So, you do or don't favor corporate capitalism? In other words the creation of state sanctioned, limited liability, hierarchical, bureaucratic organizations. Do you favor government giving special benefits to capital and those with capital a.k.a.....corporations? If not, then you are really proposing a complete dismantling of the present economic system.

Pointedstick wrote:

doodle wrote: So, you do or don't favor corporate capitalism? In other words the creation of state sanctioned, limited liability, hierarchical, bureaucratic organizations. Do you favor government giving special benefits to capital and those with capital a.k.a.....corporations? If not, then you are really proposing a complete dismantling of the present economic system.

Perhaps I've confused you. What I support at a fundamental level is free association. Sometimes this manifests itself as capitalism, i.e. the freedom of producers and consumers to freely associate with one another in the exchange of money for goods, goods for goods, money for another form of money, or whatever. Sometimes this manifests itself as the formation of collective enterprises, i.e. organizations of people deciding to work together for a common purpose, such as businesses, churches, or charities. I support this regardless of whatever internal form they take, be they egalitarian, hierarchical, bureaucratic, meritocratic, democratic, ecclesiastical, or otherwise. The beauty of free association is that if you don't like the structure of an organization you're affiliated with, you're free to cease your association with them and find a better one that suits your preferences, or form one yourself.

What I do not support is the government (a hierarchical, bureaucratic collective entity that restricts others' free association using violence or the threat of it) granting businesses protected limited liability status, thereby incentivizing individuals behind the LLC shield to misbehave while avoiding the consequences. I do not support the government granting other types special favors to certain market participants either, or support the government's efforts to harm disfavored market participants, regardless of the reason. The government is made up of people every bit as fallible as the ones they regulate. You might as well ask Coca-cola to regulate Sears.

I think it's quite telling that you jumped immediately from my statement of principles to the assumption that I'm proposing a "complete dismantling of the present economic system." I'm not proposing anything, just stating what I believe. It's completely unworkable to radically re-architect society according to new principles. That's why Communism failed! Change has to come gradually and organically, from the bottom up. These are principles I try to follow and uphold, and when possible, I try to live my own life according to those principles. To that effect, my business is organized as a sole proprietorship rather than an LLC, for example.

Does that make more sense now?

doodle wrote: I have no issues with free association between people.

[...]

I don't think that dismantling all regulation, government, social redistribution etc. is going to lead to a freer, more meritocratic, just, and prosperous society.

doodle wrote: But when we use terms like "capitalism" they are loose and hardly monolithic. There are many forms of capitalism. Hell, Communism as it existed in the Soviet Union was just "State Capitalism"

doodle wrote: The problem with American Libertarianism of the Cato Institute, Von Mises, Ayn Rand variety is that it appears to advocate preserving government protection of the corporate big-firm capitalist structure, while at the same time removing any social or organizational protection for citizens and workers.

doodle wrote: You might want to throw this into the mix as it seems to blend a variety of the camps that you outlined. According to Chomsky, this is the original and legitimate form of Libertarianism.

Pointedstick wrote:

doodle wrote: The problem with American Libertarianism of the Cato Institute, Von Mises, Ayn Rand variety is that it appears to advocate preserving government protection of the corporate big-firm capitalist structure, while at the same time removing any social or organizational protection for citizens and workers.

These three organizations/people are very diverse and have differing views. Ayn Rand supported government-enforced intellectual property. The Cato Institute is basically a mouthpiece for right-wing corporatism. The Mises institute is an anarchist organization that I imagine would therefore not support corporate limited liability, given that it's a government-granted benefit. Again, you paint libertarians with the same brush and ignore the multiplicity of viewpoints on these complicated issues. Ayn Rand was not a libertarian, for example. In fact, she accused the Libertarian party of stealing her views and infringing on her intellectual property.

edsanville wrote:

Pointedstick wrote:

doodle wrote: The problem with American Libertarianism of the Cato Institute, Von Mises, Ayn Rand variety is that it appears to advocate preserving government protection of the corporate big-firm capitalist structure, while at the same time removing any social or organizational protection for citizens and workers.

These three organizations/people are very diverse and have differing views. Ayn Rand supported government-enforced intellectual property. The Cato Institute is basically a mouthpiece for right-wing corporatism. The Mises institute is an anarchist organization that I imagine would therefore not support corporate limited liability, given that it's a government-granted benefit. Again, you paint libertarians with the same brush and ignore the multiplicity of viewpoints on these complicated issues. Ayn Rand was not a libertarian, for example. In fact, she accused the Libertarian party of stealing her views and infringing on her intellectual property.

Well said.  Libertarianism does not equal corporatism.  I'm not sure why so many people get this association.  For example, I can't think of a single libertarian friend who supported the bank bailouts, or the auto bailouts, or any other bailout for that matter.  The bailouts were a prime example of corporatism, which makes libertarians shudder.

doodle wrote: That is fine. Then a true libertarian would advocate the abolishment of the corporate capitalistic model which affords certain governmental protections to corporations which it doesn't afford to individuals. If that is what you are advocating, then I can stand behind that as it is at least consistent. So, is that what you advocate for the American economic model? Should we abolish corporations?