Misplaced Pages

List of libertarian political parties: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:36, 15 January 2012 editRJFF (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers24,873 edits Undid revision 471572365 by Sevendust62 (talk): The US Director of the faction is not a neutral, third-party, reliable source.← Previous edit Revision as of 22:18, 16 January 2012 edit undoSevendust62 (talk | contribs)342 edits Undid revision 471573281 by RJFF (talk) --- The director of a political party IS a reliable source on the political party's own platformNext edit →
Line 46: Line 46:
===Israel=== ===Israel===
* Independence (] and ]) * Independence (] and ])
* Has no current libertarian ''party'', but the ] ''faction'' of the ] ''party'', led by ], is libertarian.<ref>Feiglin has never called himself or his ''faction'' "libertarian", but libertarian principles clearly underlie his platform. For example, in , he wrote, <blockquote>What is not clear is why the funds that the Ultra-Orthodox get is called 'extortion', while what the Broadcasting Authority or the theatre get from our taxes is called 'democracy at its finest'. As a rule, I would be pleased if the state would pay no one. A community that would like theatre should allocate funds for theatre. A community that would like full-time Torah study should allocate money for Torah students. A community that would like both should fund both. I am a proponent of minimal state intervention in every area except for security and justice. Until that goal is accomplished, though, we have to live with Big Brother and the regime that is still tainted with socialism from the days of Mapai.</blockquote> Here, Feiglin explicitly says he is a "proponent of minimal state intervention in every area except for security and justice", which is a textbook case of ] libertarianism.

<br><br>

In , he wrote, <blockquote>The solution for our problem with capitalism is not to institute socialism. Socialism is simply a sophisticated form of robbery that makes everybody poor. An ideology that rejects the sanctity of one's possessions will ultimately lead to a complete contempt for the sanctity of life. It is no coincidence that Stalin and Mao were the greatest murderers in the history of mankind. For some reason, we also seem to have forgotten that "Nazism" is a shortened version of "National Socialism." Socialism is the last thing we need.</blockquote> His statement that respect for property is a prerequisite for respect for human life is highly capitalistic in nature, and almost (not completely) certainly libertarian in nature, but what is even more striking is that his equation of Nazism and socialism is usually one confined to radically libertarian adherents of the ] of economics who, regarding Nazism, follow ]'s book ], which equates Nazism and socialism; cf. George Reisman, : <blockquote>The identification of Nazi Germany as a socialist state was one of the many great contributions of Ludwig von Mises. When one remembers that the word 'Nazi' was an abbreviation for "der Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiters Partei — in English translation: the National Socialist German Workers' Party — Mises's identification might not appear all that noteworthy. For what should one expect the economic system of a country ruled by a party with 'socialist' in its name to be but socialism? Nevertheless, apart from Mises and his readers, practically no one thinks of Nazi Germany as a socialist state. It is far more common to believe that it represented a form of capitalism, which is what the Communists and all other Marxists have claimed.</blockquote> Thus, for Feiglin to classify Nazism as socialistic, which almost nobody but followers of Mises does, is quite significant.

<br><br> Finally, Rob Muchnick, US Director of Manhigut Yehudit, has explicitly referred to Feiglin as a libertarian, saying, in a to Bernie Quigley's "Ron Paul and Moshe Feiglin",<blockquote>
To Michael Makovi,<br>
Hi Mike, I would say that Moshe is a "Jewish libertarian", as opposed to a ]. Rothbard was unfortunately viciously anti-Israel. He had no room for the existence of Israel, and this is where Moshe obviously differs from him in a huge way.If Paul is to be believed, then he will not interfere with Israel as president. This would be considered by Moshe to be a wonderful policy emanating from the White House.<br>
I think that Moshe takes the libertarian economic and self-reliance principles and adds Judaism to them to come up with his own mix.<br>
All the best,<br>
Rob<br>
www.mflikud.com</blockquote>

</ref>


===Italy=== ===Italy===

Revision as of 22:18, 16 January 2012

This article possibly contains original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed. (November 2011) (Learn how and when to remove this message)
Part of a series on
Libertarianism
Concepts
Issues
Philosophers
Politicians
National variants
Historical background
Related topics

Many countries and subnational political entities have libertarian political parties. Although these parties may describe themselves as "libertarian," their ideologies differ considerably and not all of them support all elements of the libertarian agenda.

By country

Argentina

Australia

Belgium

Brazil

Canada

Czech Republic

Denmark

Ecuador

  • Movimiento Libertario

France

Hong Kong

Iceland

Israel

Italy

Japan

Netherlands

New Zealand

Norway

Poland

Russia

Slovakia

Spain

United Kingdom

United States

See also: List of state Libertarian Parties in the United States

See also

Footnotes

  1. Feiglin has never called himself or his faction "libertarian", but libertarian principles clearly underlie his platform. For example, in "Open Hunting Season on the Ultra-Orthodox", he wrote,

    What is not clear is why the funds that the Ultra-Orthodox get is called 'extortion', while what the Broadcasting Authority or the theatre get from our taxes is called 'democracy at its finest'. As a rule, I would be pleased if the state would pay no one. A community that would like theatre should allocate funds for theatre. A community that would like full-time Torah study should allocate money for Torah students. A community that would like both should fund both. I am a proponent of minimal state intervention in every area except for security and justice. Until that goal is accomplished, though, we have to live with Big Brother and the regime that is still tainted with socialism from the days of Mapai.

    Here, Feiglin explicitly says he is a "proponent of minimal state intervention in every area except for security and justice", which is a textbook case of minarchist libertarianism.



    In "Thou Shall Not Steal: Not Even from Rich Oil Tycoons", he wrote,

    The solution for our problem with capitalism is not to institute socialism. Socialism is simply a sophisticated form of robbery that makes everybody poor. An ideology that rejects the sanctity of one's possessions will ultimately lead to a complete contempt for the sanctity of life. It is no coincidence that Stalin and Mao were the greatest murderers in the history of mankind. For some reason, we also seem to have forgotten that "Nazism" is a shortened version of "National Socialism." Socialism is the last thing we need.

    His statement that respect for property is a prerequisite for respect for human life is highly capitalistic in nature, and almost (not completely) certainly libertarian in nature, but what is even more striking is that his equation of Nazism and socialism is usually one confined to radically libertarian adherents of the Austrian School of economics who, regarding Nazism, follow Ludwig von Mises's book Omnipotent Government, which equates Nazism and socialism; cf. George Reisman, Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian:

    The identification of Nazi Germany as a socialist state was one of the many great contributions of Ludwig von Mises. When one remembers that the word 'Nazi' was an abbreviation for "der Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiters Partei — in English translation: the National Socialist German Workers' Party — Mises's identification might not appear all that noteworthy. For what should one expect the economic system of a country ruled by a party with 'socialist' in its name to be but socialism? Nevertheless, apart from Mises and his readers, practically no one thinks of Nazi Germany as a socialist state. It is far more common to believe that it represented a form of capitalism, which is what the Communists and all other Marxists have claimed.

    Thus, for Feiglin to classify Nazism as socialistic, which almost nobody but followers of Mises does, is quite significant.

    Finally, Rob Muchnick, US Director of Manhigut Yehudit, has explicitly referred to Feiglin as a libertarian, saying, in a comment to Bernie Quigley's "Ron Paul and Moshe Feiglin",

    To Michael Makovi,
    Hi Mike, I would say that Moshe is a "Jewish libertarian", as opposed to a Rothbardian. Rothbard was unfortunately viciously anti-Israel. He had no room for the existence of Israel, and this is where Moshe obviously differs from him in a huge way.If Paul is to be believed, then he will not interfere with Israel as president. This would be considered by Moshe to be a wonderful policy emanating from the White House.
    I think that Moshe takes the libertarian economic and self-reliance principles and adds Judaism to them to come up with his own mix.
    All the best,
    Rob

    www.mflikud.com

Categories: