• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Libertarian Poll

What Kind of libertarian are you? Libertarian poll only.

  • Anti-Proprietarian (against personal property)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    8

JustinS

Active member
Joined
Nov 23, 2011
Messages
415
Reaction score
140
Location
U.S.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
For the purpose of this thread, the definition of libertarianism will go as follows:

Libertarianism - an ideology that holds liberty to be its core tenet​

What kind of libertarian are you? I am not a libertarian myself, and there are not many libertarians residing in PoFo (my home forum), so I decided to make a survey here. You must choose 3 options, 1 from each category according to you views. Anyway, here are the options:

CATEGORY 1:

Deontological - believe that coercion is unethical regardless of consequences (Argumentation Ethics)
Consequentialist - believe that the consequences of liberty are always better than the results of coercion*

CATEGORY 2:

Pro-Proprietarian - it is legitimate for one to claim private ownership of any resource to the detriment of others
Anti-Proprietarian - it is not legitimate for one to claim private ownership of any resource to the detriment of others

CATEGORY 3:

Statist - in a libertarian society, the state should still exist because it is necessary
Anarchist - in a libertarian society, the state should not exist because it is harmful

Pick one option from each category on the poll, best describing your views. Note that this test includes many of the non-proprietarian left-wing anarchists. In fact, the first person to call himself a libertarian was an anarcho-communist.

Remember, this poll is for LIBERTARIANS ONLY. You MUST choose only one option for each category, and you MUST choose 3 options.

*If you are deontological and consequentialist, pick deontological.




This is the second poll that I posted. The first one lacked a multiple choice button. This one doesn't.
 
Last edited:
there is a contradiction in your first category so I did not answer that
 
Where's the contradiction? Is it that one can be consequentalist and deontological? If so, I put a note at the bottom saying to pick deontological if this is the case.
 
I'm gonna go with:

Consequentialist, semi-proprietarian, statist.

The thing is, I'm a libertarian in the sense that I prefer less government and think that it has done little beyond make very poor decisions in almost all fields. I'm also a believer in reasonable market controls (no monopolies, minor epa, etc) and even social programs as long as they were smaller and looked nothing like the jokes we have now. I also wish we really were a union of states.

The first two, I think are too absolute. There is a gray area. Things have to be measured case-by-case.

My choice of semi-proprietarian is similar. Ownership should be the default, but if you can prove harm to others, then you are infringing on their rights.

Lastly, I'm libertarian, not anarchist. If I wanted no government, I would be anarchist, which is a different belief system all together.

Sorry if I'm not terribly helpful. I'm trying to give straight answers, but being libertarian doesn't necessarily mean a strict belief system. I figure that's why you have the poll :)
 
I am an Deontological, Anti-Proprietarian, Anarchist who can tolerate the state and some progressive policy.

My Anit-Proprietarian views stems from the Lockean Proviso. I believe that man owns himself and has a right to his/her labor. However, natural resources were not created by man and need fair share and appropriation restraints. However, this contradicts my anarchism, since fair share and appropriation restrains would require a government.

I am best described as a geo-libertarian which combines Georgism with libertarianism.

I am also one of the few libertarians who believes in the estate tax until we get our crony capitalism under control. I am not a fan of taxation, but uber rich estates and natural resource use are the best places to tax and fund a limited government.
 
Last edited:
I'm gonna go with:

Consequentialist, semi-proprietarian, statist.

The thing is, I'm a libertarian in the sense that I prefer less government and think that it has done little beyond make very poor decisions in almost all fields. I'm also a believer in reasonable market controls (no monopolies, minor epa, etc) and even social programs as long as they were smaller and looked nothing like the jokes we have now. I also wish we really were a union of states.

The first two, I think are too absolute. There is a gray area. Things have to be measured case-by-case.

My choice of semi-proprietarian is similar. Ownership should be the default, but if you can prove harm to others, then you are infringing on their rights.

Lastly, I'm libertarian, not anarchist. If I wanted no government, I would be anarchist, which is a different belief system all together.

Sorry if I'm not terribly helpful. I'm trying to give straight answers, but being libertarian doesn't necessarily mean a strict belief system. I figure that's why you have the poll :)

I basically agree with this
 
Keridan said:
Lastly, I'm libertarian, not anarchist. If I wanted no government, I would be anarchist, which is a different belief system all together.
I used a very broad definition of libertarianism, as not to leave out anarchists who do value liberty. I remember that the first person to call himself a libertarian was an anarcho-communist. Since then, the term has been used for various right-wing movements with the prior definitions being left out.
 
I am an Deontological, Anti-Proprietarian, Anarchist who can tolerate the state and some progressive policy.

My Anit-Proprietarian views stems from the Lockean Proviso. I believe that man owns himself and has a right to his/her labor. However, natural resources were not created by man and need fair share and appropriation restraints. However, this contradicts my anarchism, since fair share and appropriation restrains would require a government.

I am best described as a geo-libertarian which combines Georgism with libertarianism.

I am also one of the few libertarians who believes in the estate until we get our crony capitalism under control. I am not a fan of taxation, but estates and natural resource use are the best places to tax and fund a limited government.

Interesting. So you are a libertarian leftist then, correct?




Oddly, I have noticed that anarchists tend to fall into one of two economic categories: far-left, and far-right. On the far left are the anarcho-communists, anarcha-feminists, Geolibertarians, etc.. On the far-right are the anarcho-capitalists, and possibly the anarcho-primitivists. It is interesting that I have not yet met a 'pure' anarchist (i.e. anti-coercion) who falls in the middle between these two domains. This might be because all of the middle domain involves at least some form of economic coercion, while the two extremes: communism and pure lasseiz-faire economics, do not. This might be why.
 
Last edited:
I used a very broad definition of libertarianism, as not to leave out anarchists who do value liberty. I remember that the first person to call himself a libertarian was an anarcho-communist. Since then, the term has been used for various right-wing movements with the prior definitions being left out.

I get what you were saying. I should have clarified that I meant in my mind it was a different belief system.
 
I am an Deontological, Anti-Proprietarian, Anarchist who can tolerate the state and some progressive policy.

My Anit-Proprietarian views stems from the Lockean Proviso. I believe that man owns himself and has a right to his/her labor. However, natural resources were not created by man and need fair share and appropriation restraints. However, this contradicts my anarchism, since fair share and appropriation restrains would require a government.

I am best described as a geo-libertarian which combines Georgism with libertarianism.

I am also one of the few libertarians who believes in the estate tax until we get our crony capitalism under control. I am not a fan of taxation, but uber rich estates and natural resource use are the best places to tax and fund a limited government.
Aren't you really a propertarian then? I used to be a Mutualist anarchist or near-anarchist. We were right on the edge between propertarian and non-propertarian. I personally support the Land Value Tax though I'm not libertarian nor do I necessarily see it as the panacea to all social problems some Georgists seem to imply.
 
Aren't you really a propertarian then? I used to be a Mutualist anarchist or near-anarchist. We were right on the edge between propertarian and non-propertarian. I personally support the Land Value Tax though I'm not libertarian nor do I necessarily see it as the panacea to all social problems some Georgists seem to imply.

I would not consider myself a propertarian in regard to natural resource use, but feel fee to elaborate and state your case. In addition, I am not an idealogue nor to I believe that any political philosophy has the panacea to all our problem. Life should not be held captive to ideologues.

Regardless, I gravitate towards geolibertarianism in which I consider anti-propertarian, but perhaps I am misunderstanding something.
 
Last edited:
Antiderivative said:
Regardless, I gravitate towards geolibertarianism in which I consider anti-propertarian, but perhaps I am misunderstanding something.
I don't think that you are. If you were propertarian and anarchist (i.e. property can be obtained even to the detriment of others), then that would instantly force you into the far-right, anacho-capitalist category if I am not mistaken. There seems to be little to no economic 'middle ground' for anarchists (not being used as an insult). What I mean is, an economically center-left/center-right/centrist anarchist would be impossible to find.
 
Last edited:
I would not consider myself a propertarian in regard to natural resource use, but feel fee to elaborate and state your case. In addition, I am not a idealogue nor to I believe that any political philosophy has the panacea to all our problem. Life should not be held captive to ideologues.

Regardless, I gravitate towards geolibertarianism.
I just meant that though geolibertarians are 'less' of propertarians than various Lockeans and the like, they do have a belief in private property, indeed one that extends beyond the personal, occupany and use of Mutualists and obviously quite at odds to the social anarchists. I suppose it depends how you define propertarian though. I would say Mutualists or individualist anarchists, like Proudhon and Tucker, were on the line between the propertarians and non-propertarians.
 
I think that the line between propertarian and non-propertarian should be when one is allowed to obtain property to the detriment of other individuals, i.e. where poverty is technically allowed in an anarchist/libertarian society.
 
Last edited:
I think that the line between propertarian and non-propertarian should be when one is allowed to obtain property to the detriment of other individuals, i.e. where poverty is technically allowed in an anarchist society.
So basically if you accept a strict interpretation of Locke's proviso whereby you can't own property absolutely if it is scare; at least without paying compensation, as in Georgism. That could certainly be another definition of Propertarian.

I used to be a Anti-Propertarian (Mutualist basically though I was never completely set in one position) and at least semi-anarchist ( though, like most left liberatarians I believed in local democracy and that sort of thing, basically). I was neither strictly rights based nor utilitarian.
 
Last edited:
So basically if you accept a strict interpretation of Locke's proviso whereby you can't own property absolutely if it is scare, at least without paying compensation, as in Georgism. That could certainly be another definition of Propertarian.

Can you define anit-propertarian so I have better sense of where you are coming from?
 
I think that the line between propertarian and non-propertarian should be when one is allowed to obtain property to the detriment of other individuals, i.e. where poverty is technically allowed in an anarchist/libertarian society.

failure is always allowed in a proper society because to try to wipe out failure means forcing others who are innocent of causing someone to fail-to have to help remedy it

Likewise I find the term anarcho capitalist (a term a well known leading lefty used to apply to me when we studied together) to be contradictory capitalism requires a system of courts to protect private property
 
Can you define anit-propertarian so I have better sense of where you are coming from?
Anti-propertarian would basically be someone who didn't accept any sort of property not based on direct, personal use and occupancy. So in a sense any sort of absenteeism, not counting going on holiday or such trivial instances as that. So social anarchist and libertarians socialists as well as Mutualists and Individual anarchists.
 
TurtleDude said:
Likewise I find the term anarcho capitalist (a term a well known leading lefty used to apply to me when we studied together) to be contradictory capitalism requires a system of courts to protect private property
If I am not mistaken, Rothbard's ideal system proposes that property disputes be regulated by voluntary corporations. The law would be 'privately run'.
 
Last edited:
failure is always allowed in a proper society because to try to wipe out failure means forcing others who are innocent of causing someone to fail-to have to help remedy it

Likewise I find the term anarcho capitalist (a term a well known leading lefty used to apply to me when we studied together) to be contradictory capitalism requires a system of courts to protect private property
Anarchism is almost always sort of contradictory, unless you were some complete egoist who believed in basically chaos; which very few anarchists actually are. The difference is more that anarchists want a really decentralised and tiny state, whether it is worker's councils, local, consensus democracy or private agencies. There is though only really a change in degree and not kind between these and any other position on the state.
 
I'm not an anarchist any more. I'm a traditionalist conservative Christian. So no I'm not a fan. But I didn't really mean egoist in the strict Steiner-esque sense. More just people who utterly reject all organisation and rules for selfish chaos.

I thought it was a good write up, but as an atheist anarchist, I tend to support the natural law view over Max's egotism.
 
Wessexman said:
I'm not an anarchist any more. I'm a traditionalist conservative Christian.
How does one make such a great ideological transformation? How long did that take?

I have heard of people switch from libertarian to socialist before, but never from anarchist to traditionalist.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom