A quick question...

Dr. Baltar

Assuming that Libertarianism can be loosely defined as absolute freedom of the markets and absolute freedom of the individual (or am I being confused with anarchism?) how would you define someone who believes that:

a) Victimless Crimes should not be Punished
b) A Human Being should have Maximum Personal Freedom (Can Take Drugs, Commit Suicide, Can essentially do anything so long as it does not harm another person)
c) Believes in a very free market but:

i) believes it is the government who should provide Education & Basic Health
ii) The government's responsibilty to protect the state
iii) the government's responisibilty to protect the people from themselves (police)

How would you define this political philosphy as it is socially libertarian, yet economically less so?

Hazlittle

Neo-liberal. Milton Friedman is your man. If you support the golden standard or free banking you might get away with calling yourself a classic liberal.

Dr. Baltar

Hazlittle wrote: »

Neo-liberal. Milton Friedman is your man. If you support the golden standard or free banking you might get away with calling yourself a classic liberal.

Thanks!

EDIT: Another Question if you will. (And I am sorry I've only recently began getting into Political Theory).
It is always been my understanding that giving more rights to people is socially liberal and that freeing the market is economically conservative.

Is that correct?

I assume this because being "liberal" is being "left wing" and "left wing" usually means more social freedom but less economic freedom and conservative (right-wing) is the opposite of this?

Hazlittle

Dr. Baltar wrote: »

Thanks!

EDIT: Another Question if you will. (And I am sorry I've only recently began getting into Political Theory).
It is always been my understanding that giving more rights to people is socially liberal and that freeing the market is economically conservative.

Is that correct?

I assume this because being "liberal" is being "left wing" and "left wing" usually means more social freedom but less economic freedom and conservative (right-wing) is the opposite of this?

Political terminology got confusing over the Twentieth century.

Classic liberals would be right-wing, modern liberals would be left-wing. Applying words like liberal or conservative to economics to me is just confusing. Americans usually blonk the word liberal to left-wing leaning people. But in Europe liberals tend to be more right-wing.

Mjollnir

Dr. Baltar wrote: »

Assuming that Libertarianism can be loosely defined as absolute freedom of the markets and absolute freedom of the individual (or am I being confused with anarchism?) how would you define someone who believes that:

a) Victimless Crimes should not be Punished
b) A Human Being should have Maximum Personal Freedom (Can Take Drugs, Commit Suicide, Can essentially do anything so long as it does not harm another person)
c) Believes in a very free market but:

i) believes it is the government who should provide Education & Basic Health
ii) The government's responsibilty to protect the state
iii) the government's responisibilty to protect the people from themselves (police)

How would you define this political philosphy as it is socially libertarian, yet economically less so?

Two quick things:

A. Capital L Libertarianism represents the Libertarian Party and their policies. Small L libertarianism is the philosophy.
B. Libertarianism cannot be defined that way, because one is not absolutely free in that one is constrained from engaged in activities that violate the rights of others and/or equate to fraud.

Sorry, I don't mean to come across as nitpicky, but I see confusion about the above all the time.

Dr. Baltar

It's strange... having done more delving into neo-liberalism I find that that philosphy is too economic in it's views. There seems to be no social aspect whatsoever to neoliberalism.

Hazlittle

Dr. Baltar wrote: »

It's strange... having done more delving into neo-liberalism I find that that philosphy is too economic in it's views. There seems to be no social aspect whatsoever to neoliberalism.

I'd argue that it is too social!


If I could sumarise, some of us do not believe it is the role of the state to manage society.

Denerick

Dr. Baltar wrote: »

It's strange... having done more delving into neo-liberalism I find that that philosphy is too economic in it's views. There seems to be no social aspect whatsoever to neoliberalism.

Neoliberalism is primarily an economic philosophy. The reason that it is sometimes equated with social liberalism is because Milton Friedman was rather permissive.

I would say that NeoLiberalism is neutral on social issues. However, you are probably a small L Libertarian in that you want a tiny state, but not so small that you cannot see it.