Stu Levitan wrote:You're saying John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham were libertarians? (Not exactly sure what a "minarchist" is). I think this pretty well justifies our not taking you very seriously as a political observer or analyst.
I don't think the term "libertarian" existed back then. There was no need for it. "Liberal" (generally translated from Latin as "A free man") served perfectly well. Until, as Hayek says, it was hijacked to mean almost the complete opposite.
So Mill was not a libertarian but was a liberal. As such, his views were pretty compatible with what many call libertarian today.
Bentham more or less the same but he was somewhat more complex. We can talk about him separately if you like.
As for minarchist, I would have thought a bright fellow like you could figure it out. "Min" as in minimal "archist" government. Or you could look it up.
I view libertarian, liberal, classic liberal and minarchist as all roughly synonymous. Strong belief in maximizing personal liberty, very minimal government limited mainly to police, military and related protective functions. It is a pretty big tent, though, with a whole range of opinions and ideas around that central tenet.
As for taking me seriously, meh. I don't take you seriously, why should I care whether you take me seriously or not?
I came for the comedy, I stay for the silliness.