"Would you possibly be suggesting that the word "libertarian" existed before the word "liberal", or that "libertarianism" existed before "liberalism"?"
Libertarian was a term taken by extreme free-market liberals sometime in the fifites. Before then it had primarily been used to refer to communists and socialists, ironically enough. That's still the terminology in Europe, although "liberal" also mostly means free market liberal in Europe too.
"I am well aware of the differences between liberalism and libertarianism and they aren't even close in their root foundation. Liberalism is based on a philosophy of the commonwealth of the whole, while libertarianism is based on the concept of the individual."
Liberalism is defined by wikipedia as a philosophy which protects liberty. It is defined by the Encyclopeadia Brittanica as a philosophy which takes the abuse of power, and primarily abuse of power by government, as the main problem with society. Of course, they also talk about abuse of corporate power and aristocratic power. But it is contradictory to give power back to government so that the government can abuse it to get rid of abuse of power by corporations. And no, having a plurality election in arbitrarily drawn districts every four years that decides the primary shape of government doesn't mean government power can't be abused.
"In fact, libertarianism would be more correctly called "individualism" .. but I guess that didn't have the same ring to it and gave away its real core belief. It is in fact, a bastardization of the word "liberty" as it has no thought for the liberty of others or the commomwealth of the nation."
Individualism isn't contradictory with the commonwealth of a nation or a world. Libertarians are obviously the extreme individualist end of the entire liberal movement. Social liberals are may be different. They're both liberals. Both believe that the individual should have freedom of action to a large extent. Socialism is a quite opposite philosophy to liberalism.
Anyway... when did the individual (you, in case you were wondering, are an individual) become such a dirty word? It really doesn't ring offensively in my ears. The government is the thing has most often oppressed, whether it was the aristocrats it gave power to, or the minorities it removed individual rights from. I won't say government has no place, I obviously believe in more government than most libertarians, but the government isn't a cure all either.
"The core values of liberalism and libertarianism don't exist on the same planet. The libertarian would argue FOR chid labor. After all, it is a child's right to work without "force" from the government imposing restrictions, and you can depend on "the market" to do the right thing."
I don't argue for child labour. Do you need any more proof? A libertarian is simply a more than usually free-market supporting liberal. I don't necessarily have to believe that no government labour regulations are in order. I am, after all, and individual.
"Liberals would find such thought demonic. It's a belief in "moral" capitalism, which have never existed and demonstrates no understanding of capitalism. We can thank liberalism and the struggles of workers for the abolition of child labor, not the "wisdom" of the free market, which thrives off of cheap labor, including children."
I think slavery is wrong, which is why I don't believe in child labour. I also believe that we as human beings will always irrationaly put our current goals above our future goals, which is why I believe we need to educate those children.
I'm telling you, you can't just arbitrarily put people into groups like that and define them exactly alike.
"With all due respect, libertarianism exists in an ahistorical bubble of myopic whimsical beliefs, devoid of any memory or knowledge of a long train of abuses by the free market that liberalism and social activism worked to correct. It's a philosophy devoid of any socio-ethical understandings and which bends over and drops its pants to unfettered capitalism."
Adam Smith developed free market beliefs in response to the aristocratic serfdom and mercantilism of the day. John Stuart Mill developed his social liberal beliefs based on the poverty and slavery that unfettered capitalism seemed to create. Some libertarians are stuck on Mr. Smith, who was revolutionary for his day, but which is not applicable to current times. Most libertarians and liberal differ only on the extent to which Mill was correct. Hayek even famously argued that radical social liberalism was a "road to serfdom", by granting all the power back to government to be abused again. I'm not that radical, but it does make you wonder.
"Perhaps you should read Howard Zinn's "The People's History of the United States" or the writings of Einstein on socio-ethical responsibility."
Bah! Populist trash!
I promise you I'll pick up a copy when I can, Black. I've always been interested in the book, honestly. I've never read Einstein's thoughts on "socio-ethical" responsibility, though. Never even heard of them. But I guess they would be available with a quick google.
"Nor do I think you know Tom Paine as well as you think you do. Paine championed worker's rights, CHAMPIONED SOCIAL SECURITY, fought for the abolition of slavery and racial equality, campaigned for women's equality, CHAMPIONED PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT, campaigned against big businessn, and a host of other social reforms. In other words, he had a socio-ethical understanding of society which is absent from the libertarian mind. Perhaps you should read his "Rights of Man" before you go off stating his positions."
Tom Paine is loved by many libertarians though not completely accepted by most of them.
His writing was revolutionary for his time. I never said that he completely agreed with libertarianism. But he was an individualist. He believed that an Land Value Tax should be levied, and it should pay for a guaranteed minimum income for all people, and a government paid pension. He justified it on different grounds, but I really won't go into that currently. I just never really go through "The Rights of Man", honestly. Sorry for my ignorance. I probably shouldn't have mentioned him along with Smith, honestly. They were different.
