One of the main differences between liberals and libertarians

One of the main differences between liberals and libertarians is that liberals think it is ok to take money from people who have earned it through honest work and give half of what is taken to beuracrats and the other half to someone else.  A libertarian thinks it is always wrong to take from someone who has earned their money through honest work and give it to someone else.

I would say the difference is this:  they think they know what "honest work" is and do not have anything similar to non-aggression axiom on which to base this estimation of "honesty" on.  So they are so bold as to call this or that "honest" -- like you have done -- but it's based on nothing but their own fancy.  The difference between libertarianism and anything is always that non-aggression axiom.  The conservatives don't oppose taxation or wealth distribution really either.  And have different views of "honest work" that also surprise, surprise do not take into account any sort of standard.  Is Michelle Obama's criticism of "profit based work" any different than McCain's call for all people to join the military or government or whatever he recently called "the greater good"?  Not really.

I think the biggest difference is that liberals believe they can use government force to create the perfect socialist man whereas libertarians believe you are fine just the way you are.  Just don't screw with anyone.

Spideynw:

One of the main differences between liberals and libertarians is that liberals think it is ok to take money from people who have earned it through honest work and give half of what is taken to beuracrats and the other half to someone else.  A libertarian thinks it is always wrong to take from someone who has earned their money through honest work and give it to someone else.

This is true. It's also equally true of conservatives only with a different context.

Well there are ways to rescue the more left-leaning non-libertarian positions without committing oneself to an absurd stance.  For example, one could claim that we have a duty to help others and to promote the general good, and that using force against someone who violates this duty is permissible.  That's not a position that is obviously unacceptable to some people (though admittedly, many would not be willing to accept many of the conclusions it leads to), and could be effectively defended by someone who had thought their position through well enough.  Alternatively, one could accept the government's claim to ownership of its territory as legitimate, and argue that because we reside in that territory, we must abide by the contract (the constitution) that details the relationship between the government and its citizens.  Again, I'm not advancing either of those positions, but taking either one would permit someone to be a liberal without committing to an absurdity.

Brainpolice:

Spideynw:

One of the main differences between liberals and libertarians is that liberals think it is ok to take money from people who have earned it through honest work and give half of what is taken to beuracrats and the other half to someone else.  A libertarian thinks it is always wrong to take from someone who has earned their money through honest work and give it to someone else.

 

This is true. It's also equally true of conservatives only with a different context.

I'm far more concerned with idea of Statism itself, and as of late, have been viewing the combating of the "flavors" of Statism (Liberalism, Conservatism) as a distraction from the big picture, except for maybe in a one-on-one conversation with one you are trying to convince and/or argue with. 

I would even dare to say combating the flavors of Statism in public discourse add's some legitimacy to Statism via the knee-jerk reactions via mis-conceptions & ignorance of Statism's supporters.  When one speaks in riddles, do you counter with more riddles, or de-construct the use of said riddles?

When it boils down to it, if Statism were to be proven throughly illegitimate, you would still have disagreements within the political & apolitical arena.  It would just not be strictly regulated & monopolized by the Statist philosophy & perceived legitimacy.

You're right that ultimately the distinctions between statist ideologies are fairly irrelevant. One must strike at the root.

Brainpolice:

One must strike at the root.

Heyo!

kingmonkey:

I think the biggest difference is that liberals believe they can use government force to create the perfect socialist man whereas libertarians believe you are fine just the way you are.  Just don't screw with anyone.

 

 In all it's simplicity thats pretty darn poetic kingmonkey!

Liberals support the political process (legalized aggression) for accomplishing their desired ends. Libertarians reject aggression altogether. That's all you need to know.

Libertarian is a boring aesthetic title, liberal is so much better. Mises knew it, and I know it. Of course, that's all subjective feelings.

Or you could accept the "entitlement theorist" label a la Cohen

Telpeurion:

Libertarian is a boring aesthetic title, liberal is so much better. Mises knew it, and I know it. Of course, that's all subjective feelings.

I know. Anything that has the suffix "tarian", sounds to me on first hearing, like some wacko cult

The big difference between liberals and libertarians is the spelling

Well, if there had been more libiterians up north before the war of northern aggression a lot of lives could have been saved and it is possible that the articles of constitution would still be in place without the need for the 12th and 14th amendments or centralized banking.

Progressives don't understand basic economics.

That's the difference.