Daily Anarchist Forum
April 21, 2014, 09:42:24 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome to the Daily Anarchist Forum!
 
   Home   Help Search Members Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Please educate me on liberalism  (Read 602 times)
123Berc
Newbie
*
Posts: 11


View Profile
« on: February 13, 2013, 03:06:33 PM »

So I have always been against taxes and have always supported the free market, its the most effective way there is and the concept of it can be used to make anything very effective. And its very natural, because we have a choose from the nature. Like partners in relationships, etc.

I do have confusion with liberalism thought. I think the problem might be that I don't really understand what it is. I'm not from USA, so this term is not being used here too much. How I view it is that people can be people in liberalism. People can use drugs (I don't use any drugs myself), people can rob and murder (because people are people, they will do it). Obviously anarcho capitalists are against such things. Yet anarcho capitalists are also liberals. So I guess my understanding of liberalism is wrong.

Also, because of my huge dislike for anything to do with taxes, I'm against people smoking weed and making it legal. Even if 1% of weed users go to heroin, that's expense's for the state (prison's, etc). Means more taxes.


Also, some general questions about anarcho capitalism views-
How is death penalty viewed in anarcho capitalism?
What is globalization from anarcho cap. view? 
Logged
macsnafu
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 358


Situation Normal--all fouled up!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1 on: February 13, 2013, 03:45:29 PM »

Well, first of all, "classical liberalism" is the general historical view of liberalism, where things like liberty and individual rights really started to matter, leading to liberal democratic governments.  But that's taking the broad view.

Modern American liberalism can be contrasted against modern American conservatism.  Liberals tend to be liberty-oriented on social issues like religion, free speech, drug use, etc., but not very liberal on economic issues, whereas modern American conservatives tend to be more liberty-oriented on economic issues, but much more restrictive on social issues. 

That's still pretty general, and there are certainly exceptions, such as the gun control issue, but it may be good enough for a start.

Ancap is clearly part of, and derived from, the classical liberal tradition, but is still quite distinct from the modern liberal and conservative views, as we favor freedom on both social and economic issues.  And, of course, as anarchists, we oppose the state, while most liberals and conservatives tend to be pro-government.

Globalization is only an issue where there are political borders, and governmental regulations on trading across borders, things like tariffs and trading agreements and such.  In ancap, anyone has the right to voluntarily trade with anyone else, so there is no concern about tariffs, and trading agreements are between private individuals and companies, as there are no governments. 

The death penalty is again an issue that is closely related to the current legal system.  As there is no government in ancap, the legal system would be more of a private common or customary law type of system.   As such, the death penalty isn't much of an issue to ancaps, as most people are freaked out enough by the idea of a private legal system.  Try and find out more about that, and then you can consider where the death penalty would fit into it.
Logged

"I love mankind.  It's people I can't stand!"
Syock
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2192



View Profile WWW
« Reply #2 on: February 13, 2013, 03:50:15 PM »

How liberal (and conservative) sells itself is very different from reality.  They are both in favor of big government.  They just claim to have different things they want to use the tax dollars on.  In reality, they only ever live up to the continual growth of the government.  They don't even pull funding from something they claim to disagree with.

Unfortunately, any other claimed distinction is all marketing hype.  

Libertarians in the USA are a whole different species.  Anarchocapitalists are usually lumped in with libertarians, not liberals.  In reality anarchocapitalists distinction from libertarians is a pretty big leap for most people, from small government to no government.  

The death penalty in ancap is divided.  How a variety of issues will be handled is generally up for endless discussion, as only trial and error in the free market will ultimately sort it out.  

Globalization is used two very different ways.  I don't think ancap defines it differently from two two common usages.   Some people see globalization as bringing countries together under international/global governance, such as the EU. Other people see globalization as something the free market could do easily without governments being involved, through truly free trade (not through free-trade agreements aka managed trade) and a lack of border controls.  I've seen both definitions used without clarification before, so context is important.  
Logged

"I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant".
123Berc
Newbie
*
Posts: 11


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: February 13, 2013, 04:20:29 PM »

About the death penalty, I was thinking more about the ethic's of it.

I thought there is no moral argument against death penalty. Because if you are going to seriously mess things up in a certain system that made it possible for you to live, then that system has the right to take your life. The reason why I ask is, because I'm not sure if this moral argument that I have had still stands if we look at it from ancap view. If the government had nothing to do with creating the system for the convict to live in, it has no right to take the convicts life.

So whats the moral view on death penalty in ancap? If there is a global anarco capitalism then the person is alive thanks to anarcho capitalism. So, if we think about it from that view, is execution-murder made by more than 1 different parties (individual entrepreneurs or companies) morally justified in ancap? And I don't think such things would happen a lot in ancap, your security agency would arrest him and private court between your agency and other agency would happen.
Logged
State-God
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 670



View Profile
« Reply #4 on: February 13, 2013, 04:43:46 PM »

I think the other guys got mostly everything.

Talking about the death penalty, anarcho-capitalism is -not- a moral system. There are numerous things that I, personally, don't like, but I don't try and get such things made illegal.

Generally speaking, the death penalty's usage in an anarchic society would depend mostly on the consumers morality, i.e. if consumers wanted defense contractors that used the death penalty against repeated criminals, they would appear on the market.

Also, personally speaking, I'm not a huge fan of the death penalty, the main reason being that if you execute somebody, and find out later that they were innocent, you can't exactly backtrack. If you keep somebody alive, though, there's always the opportunity of them being proved innocent. Again, my own personal beliefs.

I would also remind you that the biggest thing you need to remember about Liberalism is that while it's still generally used with the old definition in Europe (at least I'm pretty sure it is), Liberals in the U.S. are -nothing- like that.

I'm assuming you're European or Australian, so the Liberals in the U.S. would be more akin to the Labor or Democratic-Socialist Party there.



Logged

"[In a Socialist Commonwealth] the wheels will turn, but will run to no effect." - Ludwig von Mises
macsnafu
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 358


Situation Normal--all fouled up!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #5 on: February 13, 2013, 05:24:01 PM »

Okay, okay, I'll try to cover the death penalty under ancap.  But first, you have to know about the NAP, the non-aggression principle.  When it comes to the use of force, there is the initiation of force, defensive force in response to an initiation of force, and retaliatory force.

Obviously, if someone is trying to murder someone else, the second person has the right to defend themselves, up to and including killing the attacker, if that's necessary to stop them.  But of course, that's not generally considered a 'death penalty'.  A death penalty is when someone convicted of a crime is sentenced to death.

Under ancap, any sentencing would most likely come under retaliatory force.  Retaliatory force occurs after a crime has occurred.  While anyone might be justified in carrying out retaliatory force, there are good reasons for having a public process, such as a trial, to show that a crime was committed, to identify the criminal, and last but not least, to propose an appropriate remedy for the crime.  In cases of robbery, for example, the appropriate remedy is normally restitution--to return or replace stolen property.  If the death penalty is appropriate it would only be for murder.  And it is here where the question of justice applies.  Killing a murderer obviously stops them from killing again, but there may be cases where simply killing him isn't the best remedy.  If the victim was the breadwinner of a surviving family, perhaps it would be more appropriate for the murderer to financially support the family.  

So, in short, it really depends upon the circumstances of the specific crime, and the customs of the community.  There is one other possibility where a criminal could be killed, although technically, it's not a death penalty, per se.  If a criminal tries to avoid trial or the sentence imposed upon them, then they could be branded an outlaw, outside the protection of the legal system.  Once outlawed, such a person would never be able to use the legal system for their own purposes.  People could commit crimes against the outlaw with legal impunity, up to and including killing the outlaw.

Under ancap and the NAP, every issue has to be considered or reconsidered from a perspective far different from the mainstream political view.  Hope that helps answer your question.  
Logged

"I love mankind.  It's people I can't stand!"
Tear-Down-the-Wall
Mr. Edgar Friendly
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 423


Mother should I trust the government?


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: February 13, 2013, 05:33:54 PM »

Want to know liberals? Go to Reddit and read on the /r/politics page for a while.

Report back to us on what you find.
Logged

This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back.

You take the blue pill- the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe.

You take the red pill- you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.
MAM
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2276


Life is Sacred


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: February 13, 2013, 07:14:34 PM »

You're probably having difficulty understanding what liberalism is because there are so many different "kinds" and then there are the people who claim to be liberals and are not.

The world liberal is etymologically descended from the Latin LIBERTAS which loosely translated means "free from coercion".

Classical Liberalism refers to the original usage of the word liberal. Meaning one who believes in freedom.

Modern Liberalism At some point in the history of the United States, probably around the time of the hippies (1960's) Statists usurped the word liberal for themselves. Thus making it necessary for actual real liberals to append the "classical" onto the discription of themselves inorder to differentiate themselves from the more socialist and in general statist modern liberals.

Today modern "liberals" are not liberal at all. Their propaganda states that they favor freedom in social issues whilst wanting to control the market. The reality is like all Statists the "liberals" only care about power. One example I can give concerns the issue of gay marriage. "Liberals" claim to be in favor of this yet while in power they don't do anything about it.

President Obama claims to be a "liberal" yet his actions identify him as a more authoritarian version of President George W. Bush.

In short there is nothing liberal about modern "liberals" they are simply Statists to conservative to progress...

Libertarianism Libertarian can refer to two different things. First the Libertarian Party in the United States which was minarchistic organization originally but now resembles a generic Statist political party more than anything else. The second thing libertarian can refer to is people who follow in the tradition of real liberals like Mises.

Murray Rothbard also used the term Libertarian to describe anarcho capitalists.


Logged

"A stone is heavy and the sand is weighty but a fool's wrath is heavier than them both"-Tuek

"Knowledge is power, and it's light weight. The more you know the less you need."-Cody Lundin

"Hey... it's a haiku

Democracy is
Two Zombies and a Sheriff
Deciding on Lunch."-Davi Barker
macsnafu
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 358


Situation Normal--all fouled up!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #8 on: February 13, 2013, 08:01:08 PM »



Modern Liberalism At some point in the history of the United States, probably around the time of the hippies (1960's) Statists usurped the word liberal for themselves. Thus making it necessary for actual real liberals to append the "classical" onto the discription of themselves inorder to differentiate themselves from the more socialist and in general statist modern liberals.

I'd say that "modern liberalism" started long before the 1960's.  Rather, it really grew in the late 19th and early 20th century, in the Progressive era fighting against the alleged Robber Barons, anti-trust, the labor movement, increasing federal regulations such as what became the FDA and the FCC, and culminating with FDR's administration and his New Deal programs. By the time Lyndon Johnson and his Great Society programs came along in the 1960s, modern liberalism was already an echo, a mere shadow of their previous great strides.
Logged

"I love mankind.  It's people I can't stand!"
MAM
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2276


Life is Sacred


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: February 13, 2013, 08:20:22 PM »



Modern Liberalism At some point in the history of the United States, probably around the time of the hippies (1960's) Statists usurped the word liberal for themselves. Thus making it necessary for actual real liberals to append the "classical" onto the discription of themselves inorder to differentiate themselves from the more socialist and in general statist modern liberals.

I'd say that "modern liberalism" started long before the 1960's.  Rather, it really grew in the late 19th and early 20th century, in the Progressive era fighting against the alleged Robber Barons, anti-trust, the labor movement, increasing federal regulations such as what became the FDA and the FCC, and culminating with FDR's administration and his New Deal programs. By the time Lyndon Johnson and his Great Society programs came along in the 1960s, modern liberalism was already an echo, a mere shadow of their previous great strides.


Good point! I hadn't even thought about that.
Logged

"A stone is heavy and the sand is weighty but a fool's wrath is heavier than them both"-Tuek

"Knowledge is power, and it's light weight. The more you know the less you need."-Cody Lundin

"Hey... it's a haiku

Democracy is
Two Zombies and a Sheriff
Deciding on Lunch."-Davi Barker
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!