What's liberalism? What's conservatism?

After reading all these new to me definitions of libertarian I've decided that I'll have to change to something else. The answer to this thread is "Whatever one wants them to be."

I'm thinking of starting a new train of thought and call it "anti-statist," but I can see already some socialists would run to claim the label. Now that I think about it that might be fun.....

Maybe someone already did this, but from Merriam-Webster, libertarian, ": a person who believes that people should be allowed to do and say what they want without any interference from the government." I would say that's me accept that I would have government have deterrents to what breaks my leg or or picks my pocket. But seeing so many people who are more interested in controlling and limiting freedom than maintaining it I', thinking of alternatives to that.

I've changed back from "other." I'm a non re-defined libertarian. Should we start a new kind of libertarian?

Stoney said:

Merriam-Webster, libertarian, ": a person who believes that people should be allowed to do and say what they want without any interference from the government."

Click to expand...

If one can "do what they want," can they murder? I'm sorry, but Webster failed miserably.

The best definition I've seen is Jefferson's, "Freedom, limited only by other's equal freedom." And the corollary, "One is never free to not be free." (Can't sell oneself into enslavement.)

This is the proper abbreviated definition of Libertarianism.

Respecthelect said:

If one can "do what they want," can they murder? I'm sorry, but Webster failed miserably.

The best definition I've seen is Jefferson's, "Freedom, limited only by other's equal freedom." And the corollary, "One is never free to not be free." (Can't sell oneself into enslavement.)

This is the proper abbreviated definition of Libertarianism.

Click to expand...

Maybe you didn't see the next sentence, "I would say that's me accept that I would have government have deterrents to what breaks my leg or or picks my pocket." paraphrased from Jefferson.

I'm not as fond of the other limitations, particularly making liberty a relevant thing. My liberty should not depend on the way someone else might define it except where harm is concerned and then when harm is simply defined.

You'll note, my criticisms were aimed at Webster, not at you. You rightly raised the issue, so I quoted to give you credit.

Another way to put it is a moral person who believes that people should be allowed to do and say what they want without any interference from the government.

Trying to differentiate libertarian from socialist. I never dreamed it would be a problem.

That's why Jefferson's definition is so strong, because it doesn't rely on the morality of others. As long as society is based on the principle of intrinsic individual liberty, limited only by equal freedoms of others, it will withstand amoral liberals. Until and unless the principle is violated. Today, liberal's spit on Jefferson's great creation and despite so many insults, that is why America held up through so many "liberalisms." But, now that the left is trashing the constitution to such an extent that individual freedom is no longer even a consideration when liberals make and break law, the Republic is in grave peril.

Respecthelect said:

That's why Jefferson's definition is so strong, because it doesn't rely on the morality of others. As long as society is based on the principle of intrinsic individual liberty, limited only by equal freedoms of others, it will withstand amoral liberals. Until and unless the principle is violated. Today, liberal's spit on Jefferson's great creation and despite so many insults, that is why America held up through so many "liberalisms." But, now that the left is trashing the constitution to such an extent that individual freedom is no longer even a consideration when liberals make and break law, the Republic is in grave peril.

Click to expand...

I don't think I'll ever understand why the moderators of this forum think it's acceptable to insult, lie about and abuse whole segments of the population, but start handing out violations if one particular person is shown for the low-down weasly liar they are.

Respecthelect said:

There are plenty of good parents for every child in America. Adoption is wide-open for babies. Older children, not as much, but there is essentially an unlimited supply of adoptive parents for babies.

Click to expand...

Do you have a source for that claim? Total adoptions in the United States (1999-2013) average less than 20,000 per year.
Statistics | Intercountry Adoption

There are some 100,000 children in US foster homes awaiting adoption.
Facts and Statistics

Apparently there are over 1 million abortions every year in the United States.
Facts About Abortion: U.S. Abortion Statistics

Of the roughly 160 million people aged 20-60 in the United States, if half of those were in stable relationships (40 million couples) and a quarter of those wanted to adopt a baby (gross overestimate, but never mind), you'd run out of adoptive parents in less than ten years.

Mithrae said:

for the low-down weasly liar they are.

Click to expand...

Nice to see you resort to name-calling again. Lacking a cogent position leaves one with little other recourse.
________


Zero healthy babies go unadopted. Older foster-children may have difficulty, but couples pay big dollars to adopt babies. Most, if not all, of those foreign adoptions cost the parents big-bucks and they only went overseas, because they couldn't afford U.S. babies (of any race or color), which were even more expensive.