Libertarianism, in its purest theoretical form, takes the idea of liberalism to its individualist extreme, making the abolition of all authority (especially state authority) the ideal. But in practice, most libertarians will focus on economic 'rights' (mostly ownership rights), and in my experience most would favor a quite militant rump State: one focusing on police (mostly against immigrants...) and wars. (But anti-war libertarians are very strongy against that too.)
Neoliberalism, which started with just the one Milton Friedman our libertarian troll keeps giving links on, doesn't differ that much in its desired utopistic end state from the libertarian 'practical' state - but the difference is in the way to achieve it. Neoliberalism thinks economic 'freedoms' should come first - and to achieve that, the (dictatoral) powers of the State can be used. (Friedman and cohorts of the Chicago school took this quite literally: they were flown in to act as economic advisors for military dictator Augusto Pinochet in Chile, shortly after the CIA-sponsored coup.)
Again in practice, neoliberalism boils down to much less, especially freedom-wise: the economic 'freedoms' created are the freedoms of entrepreneurs and investors, while the freedoms of others are curtained. The neoliberal policies are to constrain workers' rights, lower taxes for economic activity, privatise state holdings and services, and to seek to find a market-based solution to every problem (with emphasis on stock markets).
Now, whether this is right-from-the-centre or centrist etc., depends on the actual makeup of the political landscape in a country. In the USA, given that the DLC subscribes to it while both the neocons and part of the paleocons in the Republican Party are more extreme, this may actually be left-of-centre... in Germany, all parties except the Left Party adopted elements of it to varying degrees since 1998, so it may count as right-of-centre to centre. In South America, it increasingly looks like turning into a centre-right to far-right position. I'd hope it will turn that in Europe too (and lost hope that it could in the USA anytime soon). *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
1. theoretical form
(a) The libertarian party is a down-to-earth political party, rathrer than an academic institution engaged in abstract ideas. Further, it has practical solutions, not theorical essays.
(b) the abolition of all authority (especially state authority) the ideal. Nobody calls for "abolition" of the state. In fact, the state is vital, important and must play its role. However, the state is small and infringes as little as possible to an individual's rights and freedoms.
2. Neoliberalism, which started with just the one Milton Friedman
(a) If you mean "neoliberalims" as libertarian economic theory, then you are mistaken. Libertarian economic theory started with and/or include Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Ludwid von Mises (Austria), F. Hayek (Austria), Bastiat (French), etc. (b) Milton Friedman's name is prominent, in part, because (i) he is a Nobel-Prize winner, (ii) he was Ronald Reagan's economic adviser.
(c) In 10 years, starting from 1973, Chile abolished the minimum wage, privatized the pension system, state industries, and banks, and abolished tax on wealth and profits. As a result, you had a very large middle class, compared to other Latin American nations. As a result, when people get economic rights, they also demand political rights, which they eventually got. However, Pinochet did not fully implement the libertarian plan.
(In fact, John F. Kennedy (Dem), and Ronald Reagan (Rep) both cut income taxes, as a way to stimulate the economy, create more jobs, raise the standard of living. I doubt Kennedy was right-wing.)
(d) Chileans have a choice to invest in their pension plans, and their pension plans are 141 times sounder that the German pension system (or 23 times more than American system). Instead of government run investment system (Social Security gives you 1-2% return - hahaha -funny and sad), they use a private-investment run system (so much better).
(e) Chile has free trade with a few countries, esp. with the USA. That rises the standard of living of the Chileans, esp. the poor. Chile is in top 10-20 economically developed and/or economically competitive and/or economically free nations.
(f) Chile is # 11 in the economic Freedom Index. Germany is # 18. France is # 44
(g) You somehow blamed Gen. Pinochet. China also follows some libertarian principles. Should we blame China or the Communist authoritarian bloody regime for doing that?
5. Again, you try to divide political spectrum into a 2-dimension - Left and right. (a) There are no libertarian parties in Europe, so your analysis is not sound. (b) The libertarian party calls for legalization of (i) drugs (ii) prostitution (iii) homosexual marriage (overall, because there is a dispute about that in the party though and its also an obscure issue, when the state's rights are diminished) (iv) open borders and more immigraton (yet you talk about xenophobia)
--- The rationale is that the state should not be involved in such matters, but rather the adult and consenting individuals should make these decisions.
None of these positions are right or far right or extreme right or right of the center or right-of-Venus or right-of-Mars. (c) There is one libertarian in the US Cogress, Ron Paul, who is also a Republican (d) There is a Libertarian Caucus in the Rep. Party and the Dem. Party.
6. CLARITY IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN AGREEMENT.
You think the best way to provide jobs, to increase the standard of living, to stimulate the economy is through the state and the bureaucrats. *There are millions of people who think like you). I think, the free market and the individuals are better at it. That's it.
None of these positions are right or far right or extreme right or right of the center or right-of-Venus or right-of-Mars.
(b) The prior post erroneoulsy argued that the "Libertarians are right or right-of-the-center or far-right" or whatever the label you want to use. I pointed out that the Libertarians and the liberals or the Left share the following positions - legalization of drugs, prostitution, homosexual marriage, or open borders and more immigraton. These are not right wing positions by any stretch of imagination.
2. I apologize, but I didn't follow your point.
(a) How does advocating the legalization of drugs, prostitution, homosexual marriage, or open borders and more immigraton "allow extreme righteous and racist policies to flourish?" Can you give several specific examples?
(b) The same reasoning will say that "The Left allows extreme righteous and racist policies to flourish."
For example, in a thread on education in a global comparison, he posted the usual crap about bad public schools in the USA: a US leftie would have to point out that public schools weren't always as run-down as now and that the present situation is a result of underfunding and the creationists' march through schoolboards, but for a European in countries with working and strong public school systems and Scandinavian countries as the example to follow it's just so absurd it's not even worth to ridicule. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Depends on what "know the US political spectrum of parties well" means, I guess. Those who know it really well are obviously well aware.
I myself know American Libertarianism, like you, only from debates with US libertarians on the web. They were present on an international Usenet newsgroup I frequented then, but for some strange reason, "outed" themselves only with Bush's election in 2000. (The result was a permanent war in a previously harmonic forum.) I met several of this type on other forums since (be them the Guardian's forums or other blogs).
However, in the run-up to the Iraq war, I discovered the www.antiwar.com site, run by anti-war libertarians - who I must admit impressed me, even as our economic views differed. Via reading an anti-war libertarian blog, later I even discovered the Mutualist school of libertarians, who put emphasis on their rejection of corporatism too - some agreement with leftists on economic matters, from a quite different ideological basis!
But I suspect most Europeans haven't even heard of American Libertarianism, not to speak of confronting its representatives. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
