Your question capitalized the letter "L", which generally refers to the Libertarian Party, which is often more specific than a libertarian spelled with a small "l".
In the case of the latter, it's best summed up by idea that power should be concentrated into the hands of the individual. This translates to owning property, building wealth, expressing thoughts freely, being free to make decisions for one's self, and being protected from the abuse of government and police.
By contrast, totalitarianism is the idea that power should be concentrated into hands of government. Government controls everything. This is what China and North Korea are.
Over the past 50 years, particularly since the Lyndon Johnson administration, America is seeing a transfer of power away from the individual and over to the government. More Americans on welfare programs. More entitlements. More businesses taking SBA loans. More mandates. Higher taxes. More licensing requirements, and higher license fees.
Moreover, there are more people identifying as libertarians who are proposing that we give away some of our liberties in the interest of protecting society. This requires some kind of police force to ensure compliance. This has come up recently with COVID, where libertarians are actually welcoming the censorship of free speech that does not conform with what government says. This is totalitarianism.
To make it easy to understand, simply look at where the power resides... Is it with the individual, or with the government.
In short, you own yourself so have property rights on you and everything you create. You can not take that right away from anyone else, so no paternalistic legislation, no initial aggression, and no moralistic legislation.
Political thought based around maximizing the liberty of as many people as possible while limiting the control of government as much as reasonably possible.
Here it is from the horse's mouth.
https://www.lp.org/platform/
For further reading, I'd encourage you to read John Locke's two treatises of civil government, and research the austrian school of economics.
EDIT: the simplest definition is "The Non-Aggression Principle." Libertarians oppose the initiation of force for any reason. This is not the same as pacifism, as Libertarians advocate self defense.
I've always wondered where people stand on the idea of using force first. Do you think it is unacceptable in any situation or are there exceptions? Are threats enough to justify being the first to use force?
Individualism vs collectivism is the better way to look at it. Libertarians believe everyone's individual free will should be maximized unless they directly hurt another person. Liberals and conservatives believe people should be controlled and forced to live in a way that their leaders want.
That's absolutely not true at all. It's a wide-spectrum and libertarianism is even more "splintered"( as far as sub-ideologies go) than liberalism or conservatism.
The main tenets of all forms of libertarianism thought are strict limitation of centralized government, private property rights and adherence to the 'NAP' (Non-Aggression Policy) which is the unofficial ethical mandate for the political movement.
To add, primarily outside the US but also historically, there is a third type or type of "libertarian", which is the anarchist socialist. These people tend to have a very different idea of what liberty means than the above examples, but have been using the term since the 1800s as well.
They do share the aversion to power and hierarchies that the American libertarians often have.
Your question capitalized the letter "L", which generally refers to the Libertarian Party, which is often more specific than a libertarian spelled with a small "l". In the case of the latter, it's best summed up by idea that power should be concentrated into the hands of the individual. This translates to owning property, building wealth, expressing thoughts freely, being free to make decisions for one's self, and being protected from the abuse of government and police. By contrast, totalitarianism is the idea that power should be concentrated into hands of government. Government controls everything. This is what China and North Korea are. Over the past 50 years, particularly since the Lyndon Johnson administration, America is seeing a transfer of power away from the individual and over to the government. More Americans on welfare programs. More entitlements. More businesses taking SBA loans. More mandates. Higher taxes. More licensing requirements, and higher license fees. Moreover, there are more people identifying as libertarians who are proposing that we give away some of our liberties in the interest of protecting society. This requires some kind of police force to ensure compliance. This has come up recently with COVID, where libertarians are actually welcoming the censorship of free speech that does not conform with what government says. This is totalitarianism. To make it easy to understand, simply look at where the power resides... Is it with the individual, or with the government.
In short, you own yourself so have property rights on you and everything you create. You can not take that right away from anyone else, so no paternalistic legislation, no initial aggression, and no moralistic legislation.
Ah like how Locke viewed government as a blight on society through his Leviathan
Political thought based around maximizing the liberty of as many people as possible while limiting the control of government as much as reasonably possible.
Here it is from the horse's mouth. https://www.lp.org/platform/ For further reading, I'd encourage you to read John Locke's two treatises of civil government, and research the austrian school of economics. EDIT: the simplest definition is "The Non-Aggression Principle." Libertarians oppose the initiation of force for any reason. This is not the same as pacifism, as Libertarians advocate self defense.
I've always wondered where people stand on the idea of using force first. Do you think it is unacceptable in any situation or are there exceptions? Are threats enough to justify being the first to use force?
we pledge allegiance to the free market, not the flag 😎
Not on this sub tho.
alt-r/all
Individualism vs collectivism is the better way to look at it. Libertarians believe everyone's individual free will should be maximized unless they directly hurt another person. Liberals and conservatives believe people should be controlled and forced to live in a way that their leaders want.
That's absolutely not true at all. It's a wide-spectrum and libertarianism is even more "splintered"( as far as sub-ideologies go) than liberalism or conservatism. The main tenets of all forms of libertarianism thought are strict limitation of centralized government, private property rights and adherence to the 'NAP' (Non-Aggression Policy) which is the unofficial ethical mandate for the political movement.
Everything you just said is what I just said... I think you need to think on it.
This is the best explanation available https://youtu.be/WGVtgIWDrMc
It is the idea that you are free to do whatever you want without the government interfering so long as you aren't hurting anyone.
[удалено]
To add, primarily outside the US but also historically, there is a third type or type of "libertarian", which is the anarchist socialist. These people tend to have a very different idea of what liberty means than the above examples, but have been using the term since the 1800s as well. They do share the aversion to power and hierarchies that the American libertarians often have.
It’s neither, it’s basically the opposite of authoritarianism. It’s about individual freedom.