What do you call the opposite of a libertarian?

[Velasco]

I have always thought liberty and libertarianism are different and even opposite things. The opposite of a libertarian may well be a freedom fighter

[YE]

I'm sorta of the opposite of a libertarian (but sort of not) and I consider myself a Communitarian.

[erſatz-york]

#Populift

[courts]

normal

[dead0man]

judging by some of the angry hate filled comments in this thread it's clear that jealousy, hostility and ignorance has to be part of whatever the opposite is.

[dead0man]

I have always thought liberty and libertarianism are different and even opposite things.

can you explain this?  There has been a lot of dumb sh**t said in this thread, as there always is (did you know libertarianism is a made up ideology, unlike every other ideology?  That has seriously been argued here, by posters who are taken seriously....it's all very weird) but this is the stupidest in this thread.

[lfromnj]

I have always thought liberty and libertarianism are different and even opposite things.

can you explain this?  There has been a lot of dumb sh**t said in this thread, as there always is (did you know libertarianism is a made up ideology, unlike every other ideology?  That has seriously been argued here, by posters who are taken seriously....it's all very weird) but this is the stupidest in this thread.

You not funding my abortion =oppression.

[MasterJedi]

I would call them sane.

[parochial boy]

I have always thought liberty and libertarianism are different and even opposite things.

can you explain this?  There has been a lot of dumb sh**t said in this thread, as there always is (did you know libertarianism is a made up ideology, unlike every other ideology?  That has seriously been argued here, by posters who are taken seriously....it's all very weird) but this is the stupidest in this thread.

A fairly straightforward example would be libertarian opposition to the EU. If you are European, EU citizenship makes you "freer" in fairly practical and obvious ways - like the ability to live and travel abroad more easily; the ability to purchase, consume and sell goods and services across borders... Especially for those of us who live near borders it is actually quite dramatic. And yet libertarian opposition to it out of suspicion of "big government" or "International insitutions" or whatever would actually mean making people less free in practical and immediate ways.

And that is before you get into theoretical arguments about positive or negative liberties. Or the fact that my liberty to do "X" can infringe on someone else liberty to do "Y" and that basic anti-government libertarianism struggles to overcome that contradiction. Or indeed the fact that many of us feel that anti-statist libertarianism inherently concentrates power in an unelected market, which is inherently far more repressive than an elected and directly accountable government would be...

I have always thought liberty and libertarianism are different and even opposite things.

can you explain this?  There has been a lot of dumb sh**t said in this thread, as there always is (did you know libertarianism is a made up ideology, unlike every other ideology?  That has seriously been argued here, by posters who are taken seriously....it's all very weird) but this is the stupidest in this thread.

You not funding my abortion =oppression.

This might shock you, but the average European leftist basically never stops to think about abortion laws and acces because 1. We don't have the silly culture wars that you have 2. We don't have the totally broken healthcare system you have

[Karpatsky]

But if I had to come up with a term  ... perhaps "protectivist" ?    That is, expressing an impulse to protect society and individuals from threats  - physical, economic, social, cultural - through active government.

How about 'paternalist'?

[dead0man]

A fairly straightforward example would be libertarian opposition to the EU. If you are European, EU citizenship makes you "freer" in fairly practical and obvious ways - like the ability to live and travel abroad more easily; the ability to purchase, consume and sell goods and services across borders... Especially for those of us who live near borders it is actually quite dramatic. And yet libertarian opposition to it out of suspicion of "big government" or "International insitutions" or whatever would actually mean making people less free in practical and immediate ways.

while I'm sure there is plenty of merit in what you're saying in this one particular instance, another level of govt, making it's own regulations is another level of govt making it's own regulations.

And that is before you get into theoretical arguments about positive or negative liberties. Or the fact that my liberty to do "X" can infringe on someone else liberty to do "Y"

Then you can't do X.  Most libertarians agree with me.  This is not a good argument against whatever flavor libertarian I am.

and that basic anti-government libertarianism struggles to overcome that contradiction. Or indeed the fact that many of us feel that anti-statist libertarianism inherently concentrates power in an unelected market, which is inherently far more repressive than an elected and directly accountable government would be...

which is why most libertarians are libertarians and not anarchists.  We want a functioning govt, we MUST have a functioning govt.  With very strong powers, to protect the poor and weak from the rich and the strong.  We just want them more limited in their scope than they are now.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

The most logical term would be "authoritarian" since authority is more nearly an opposite of liberty than community is.   One may take a libertarian position for communitarian reasons, or have a communitarian account of what a more libertarian society could look like.  One may support an expansive, interventionist government for Hobbesian reasons, rather than any belief in a substantive, organic community. 

I would disagree with this on the grounds that "authoritarian" is usually used to refer to a political system (i.e. "monarchy", "democracy", "dictatorship") rather than a set of political or social positions (abortion, taxes, environment). While the political economy of authoritarian regimes tends to gravitate towards state-led solutions, this is not a necessary component of such. I can see both "collectivist" and "statist" being more appropriate terms (albeit, perhaps more extreme than "communitarian").

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

The most logical term would be "authoritarian" since authority is more nearly an opposite of liberty than community is.   One may take a libertarian position for communitarian reasons, or have a communitarian account of what a more libertarian society could look like.  One may support an expansive, interventionist government for Hobbesian reasons, rather than any belief in a substantive, organic community. 

I would disagree with this on the grounds that "authoritarian" is usually used to refer to a political system (i.e. "monarchy", "democracy", "dictatorship") rather than a set of political or social positions (abortion, taxes, environment). While the political economy of authoritarian regimes tends to gravitate towards state-led solutions, this is not a necessary component of such. I can see both "collectivist" and "statist" being more appropriate terms (albeit, perhaps more extreme than "communitarian").

Yes, I agree with you that "authoritarian" is not an appropriate term here due to the way it is normally used.  I just meant that the root words of "liberty" and "authority" provide a contrast, so one might think merely on that basis they would be opposites, in the absence of other definitions.

[parochial boy]

A fairly straightforward example would be libertarian opposition to the EU. If you are European, EU citizenship makes you "freer" in fairly practical and obvious ways - like the ability to live and travel abroad more easily; the ability to purchase, consume and sell goods and services across borders... Especially for those of us who live near borders it is actually quite dramatic. And yet libertarian opposition to it out of suspicion of "big government" or "International insitutions" or whatever would actually mean making people less free in practical and immediate ways.

while I'm sure there is plenty of merit in what you're saying in this one particular instance, another level of govt, making it's own regulations is another level of govt making it's own regulations.

But that's the thing - another government making it's own regulations with the practical outcome of increasing people's liberties in percetible ways. That already undermines the argument that government, or indeed, regulations must infringe on liberty.

And that is before you get into theoretical arguments about positive or negative liberties. Or the fact that my liberty to do "X" can infringe on someone else liberty to do "Y"

Then you can't do X.  Most libertarians agree with me.  This is not a good argument against whatever flavor libertarian I am.

Except that it is not black and white like that. Libertarians, including on here, regularly call for the types of "X" that do impact on other people's abilities to do the "Y". It's almost always a case of underlying biases with a post-hoc justification to make it about "liberty".

and that basic anti-government libertarianism struggles to overcome that contradiction. Or indeed the fact that many of us feel that anti-statist libertarianism inherently concentrates power in an unelected market, which is inherently far more repressive than an elected and directly accountable government would be...

which is why most libertarians are libertarians and not anarchists.  We want a functioning govt, we MUST have a functioning govt.  With very strong powers, to protect the poor and weak from the rich and the strong.  We just want them more limited in their scope than they are now.

And many of us would perceive that the balance of power is already too far weighted in favour of the rich and powerful - and that further deregulation (of the sort that those rich and powerful push for) will only push the balance of power further in their direction - restricting the level of control and autonomy that the rest of us hove over our lives.

[dead0man]

And that is before you get into theoretical arguments about positive or negative liberties. Or the fact that my liberty to do "X" can infringe on someone else liberty to do "Y"

Then you can't do X.  Most libertarians agree with me.  This is not a good argument against whatever flavor libertarian I am.

Except that it is not black and white like that. Libertarians, including on here, regularly call for the types of "X" that do impact on other people's abilities to do the "Y". It's almost always a case of underlying biases with a post-hoc justification to make it about "liberty".

can I get an example?

and that basic anti-government libertarianism struggles to overcome that contradiction. Or indeed the fact that many of us feel that anti-statist libertarianism inherently concentrates power in an unelected market, which is inherently far more repressive than an elected and directly accountable government would be...

which is why most libertarians are libertarians and not anarchists.  We want a functioning govt, we MUST have a functioning govt.  With very strong powers, to protect the poor and weak from the rich and the strong.  We just want them more limited in their scope than they are now.

And many of us would perceive that the balance of power is already too far weighted in favour of the rich and powerful - and that further deregulation (of the sort that those rich and powerful push for) will only push the balance of power further in their direction - restricting the level of control and autonomy that the rest of us hove over our lives.

can I get an example of this too?  Libertarians are big at hating civil asset forfeiture, certainly one of the biggest issues currently at libertarian places.....how does stopping that help the rich and powerful or restrict the level of control and autonomy the rest of us have?  Maybe I'm biased...lets look at the current stories at Reason....
1.anti bad cop story
2.a story about how conservatives are bad at the 1st Amendment
3.a "cancel culture" story about a Labor Dept official quitting over an anti-Semitic Facebook post that wasn't actually anti-Semitic
4.a story about that Catholic school in Nashville that banned Harry Potter books
5.a story about a kid getting banned from school for going shooting with his mother
6.something about free trade and how it's good (or rather how trade wars are bad)
7.a bit about CA passing state wide rent control (libertarians don't like that...maybe this is an example of something you think helps the "rich and powerful"?)
8.a story about how Americans like school choice, perhaps this is another one?
9.a story about the most recent Andy Ngo story and how the video doesn't show what the antifa defenders in the press says it does
10.a story about how ignorant the youth is in it's resurgent love affair with socialism
11.a story about Trump wanting it to be easier to use the death penalty on mass shooters



If one really stretches and doesn't understand libertarians they could make a (bad) argument that libertarians are defending the rich and powerful in 2 of those 11.  But again, maybe my biases are blinding me to some truth you can see that I can't.

[parochial boy]

And that is before you get into theoretical arguments about positive or negative liberties. Or the fact that my liberty to do "X" can infringe on someone else liberty to do "Y"

Then you can't do X.  Most libertarians agree with me.  This is not a good argument against whatever flavor libertarian I am.

Except that it is not black and white like that. Libertarians, including on here, regularly call for the types of "X" that do impact on other people's abilities to do the "Y". It's almost always a case of underlying biases with a post-hoc justification to make it about "liberty".

can I get an example?

See the EU example as a starter. My freedom from, I dunno, the highgly authoritarian conformité européenne on what chemicals I can put in a children's toy vs someone else's ability to move abroad for work.

Or the "should facebook/google/bla bla... be allowed to censore their users/content". There's an argument to be made in both directions ("freedom = private companies should be able to do what they want with their own property vs facebook or google censoring their content restricts people's access to have their voices heard), and the fact that people who identify themselves as libertarian actually do argue in both directions is a recongition of sorts that the case is ambiguous.

can I get an example of this too?  Libertarians are big at hating civil asset forfeiture, certainly one of the biggest issues currently at libertarian places.....how does stopping that help the rich and powerful or restrict the level of control and autonomy the rest of us have?  Maybe I'm biased...lets look at the current stories at Reason....
1.anti bad cop story
2.a story about how conservatives are bad at the 1st Amendment
3.a "cancel culture" story about a Labor Dept official quitting over an anti-Semitic Facebook post that wasn't actually anti-Semitic
4.a story about that Catholic school in Nashville that banned Harry Potter books
5.a story about a kid getting banned from school for going shooting with his mother
6.something about free trade and how it's good (or rather how trade wars are bad)
7.a bit about CA passing state wide rent control (libertarians don't like that...maybe this is an example of something you think helps the "rich and powerful"?)
8.a story about how Americans like school choice, perhaps this is another one?
9.a story about the most recent Andy Ngo story and how the video doesn't show what the antifa defenders in the press says it does
10.a story about how ignorant the youth is in it's resurgent love affair with socialism
11.a story about Trump wanting it to be easier to use the death penalty on mass shooters



If one really stretches and doesn't understand libertarians they could make a (bad) argument that libertarians are defending the rich and powerful in 2 of those 11.  But again, maybe my biases are blinding me to some truth you can see that I can't.

Well for a start, I am not really thinking in terms of culture wars bla-bla and catfights; but you could start with the argument about google above. Google has become hegemonic enough that if it removes someone or something from it's search results - it does massively restrict that things ability to be heard.

Or if you want, then yes it's the same with the school choice thing, or allowing private schools to exist, which allow the rich to buy their children a better level of education; with the effect of removing their incentive to ensure the public schools are adequately good; which turn means people's life opportunities are determined by their social class. In so much, unless you actually allow everyone to have an equal quality of education, then that is a far bigger attack on liberty than whether you can buy a gun or not, let's be honest Or with the Andy Ngo thing, how should you regulate the "journalism" profession against grifters like him passing themselves off as genuine journalists; or against deliberately misleading or false stories full stop, seeing as liberty, and democracy, rely on people actually having access to accurate information. (and with the free trade, I refer you to the EU point - seeing as a massive part of free trade agreements, probably the most important part, is the question of aligning regulations, which is always "adding a level of government" in practice).

But on a more "traditional" line, a major corporation entering into a contract with a small supplier (or employee) has a much stronger hand to play, ability to dictate terms and so on... which undermines the argument that there is a genuine "freedom of contract" in those circumstances. So in that respect, deregulation does very much allow major corporations to force smaller parties to abide by their pricing/payment terms or whatever, all the more so in industries that are concentrated amongst a small number of big-players; where the supplier essentially winds up with the "choice" of doing what they are told or going out of business.

Or not regulating campaign finance, which lets "the rich and powerful" have a disproportionate influence on policy - made all the worse by a failure to regulate the power of think tanks - which undermines people's ability to influence the policies that affect their lives.

I mean, this is all positive vs negative liberties stuff; but it explains perfectly well why people would make the argument that libertarianism as an ideology is distinctly authoritarian in its results.

[dead0man]

which ideology can you not make an "it's authoritarian in it's results" argument for?

[RINO Tom]

I’m a huge opponent of calling someone a *Libertarian* based on a set of views, as if it’s the answer to an equation or the result of that Harry Potter sorting hat or whatever.  You are a Libertarian if you register as one or choose to identify as one.

As for the TYPICAL views of those most diametrically opposed to your TYPICAL Libertarian, I would imagine a lot of people like that would be comfortable with the term “Communitarian.”

[TDAS04]

Socialifascist.

In all seriousness, I voted communitarian.

[John Dule]

The opposite of a libertarian is someone who wants to micromanage how you conduct your personal life, all while taxing you for the privilege. So the semantics of it don't really matter; the opposite of a libertarian is just a bad person.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

The opposite of a libertarian is someone who wants to micromanage how you conduct your personal life, all while taxing you for the privilege. So the semantics of it don't really matter; the opposite of a libertarian is just a bad person.

Nah.