What is Libertarianism?

[Angra Mainyu]

I'm just waiting for the irate ranters to finish before we get to productive discussion.

Hopefully the haters will run of steam before too long and we can get to it. Also hopefully the sight of productive discussion doesn't renew their vigor.

On the issue of productive discussion, I would strongly recommend that you address Bomb#20's latest reply to you.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

How long should I chase your goalposts?

See, people on the left, real people on the left, not Democrats in office, think of democracy as the cornerstone of human freedom. But they mean a real functioning bottom up democracy. Not the phony top-down democracies that primarily exist in the world.

How exactly does one promote liberty and not also promote democracy? Real functioning bottom-up democracy.

Democracy allows the majority to strip the minority of their rights, in a statement I made that you snipped. Democracy can allow atrocities as long as 50%+1 approve of it. That is why we are far less concerned with form and much more concerned with function. We oppose people being oppressed, whether it is the monarch or the mob doing the oppression. Apparently only one of those two concerns you.

How would a libertarian society cut down on oppression? Can you provide specifics?

 

[skepticalbip]

How long should I chase your goalposts?



Democracy allows the majority to strip the minority of their rights, in a statement I made that you snipped. Democracy can allow atrocities as long as 50%+1 approve of it. That is why we are far less concerned with form and much more concerned with function. We oppose people being oppressed, whether it is the monarch or the mob doing the oppression. Apparently only one of those two concerns you.

How would a libertarian society cut down on oppression? Can you provide specifics?

Think of an example of what you think of as oppressive legislation. Now if the powers that were specifically granted to the government did not give them the authority then under libertarianism they would have been denied the power to pass it.

Republicans and Democrats seem to believe that the government has any power that it wants to assume unless that power was specifically denied to it.

Libertarians believe that all powers not specifically granted to government are denied to it.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

How would a libertarian society cut down on oppression? Can you provide specifics?

Think of an example of what you think of as oppressive legislation. Now if the powers that were specifically granted to the government did not give them the authority then under libertarianism they would be denied the power to do it.

Republicans and Democrats seem to believe that the government has any power that it wants to assume unless that power was specifically denied to it.

Libertarians believe that all powers not specifically granted to government are denied to it.

But how does that cut down on oppression? The govt is not the only institution capable of oppressing people. How would libertarianism deal with these other institutions? How would it deal with cabals? Syndicates? Cartels?

 

[skepticalbip]

Think of an example of what you think of as oppressive legislation. Now if the powers that were specifically granted to the government did not give them the authority then under libertarianism they would be denied the power to do it.

Republicans and Democrats seem to believe that the government has any power that it wants to assume unless that power was specifically denied to it.

Libertarians believe that all powers not specifically granted to government are denied to it.

But how does that cut down on oppression?

By not allowing the government to assume power that had not been granted to them and passing arbitrary and oppressive laws to exercise that assumed power. (like, for example, a great deal of the provisions in the Patriot Act., a bill almost unanimously passed by both Dems and Repubs)

The govt is not the only institution capable of oppressing people. How would libertarianism deal with these other institutions? How would it deal with cabals? Syndicates? Cartels?

The cornerstone of libertarianism is individual freedom. Under libertarianism, one of the focuses would be legislation that protects citizens from force, fraud, or abuse (just as today). However, if those "cabals? Syndicates? Cartels?" are not posing a threat to other individuals then why the fuck should anyone care. People should be free to form societies or associations with others of like mind even if you disagree with their beliefs as long as they don't include force, fraud, or abuse of any other individuals (just as today).

You seem to be skirting the fringes of a strawman. Libertarianism isn't about a utopian society. It is about limiting abuse and control of individuals by both government, other individuals and groups, Eliminating "evil" and everyone happy and cared for is the kind of pie in the sky dreamland promoted by socialists. In the real world, there will always be suffering and conflict because humans are.... human.

 

[untermensche]

When I say "left" only a blind and ignorant man thinks "Democrat".

How long should I chase your goalposts?

To me the left means increasing democratic control. That goalpost hasn't moved in a long time.

What do you mean by it?

See, people on the left, real people on the left, not Democrats in office, think of democracy as the cornerstone of human freedom. But they mean a real functioning bottom up democracy. Not the phony top-down democracies that primarily exist in the world.

How exactly does one promote liberty and not also promote democracy? Real functioning bottom-up democracy.

Democracy allows the majority to strip the minority of their rights, in a statement I made that you snipped. Democracy can allow atrocities as long as 50%+1 approve of it. That is why we are far less concerned with form and much more concerned with function. We oppose people being oppressed, whether it is the monarch or the mob doing the oppression. Apparently only one of those two concerns you.

What exactly do you think we have when we don't have democracy?

All we ever end up with is power in the hands of a few who dictate to the majority.

And the way you protect rights is through Amendments.

You don't protect rights by limiting democracy.

You cannot have liberty without democracy.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

But how does that cut down on oppression?

By not allowing the government to assume power that had not been granted to them and passing arbitrary and oppressive laws to exercise that assumed power. (like, for example, a great deal of the provisions in the Patriot Act., a bill almost unanimously passed by both Dems and Repubs)

The govt is not the only institution capable of oppressing people. How would libertarianism deal with these other institutions? How would it deal with cabals? Syndicates? Cartels?

The cornerstone of libertarianism is individual freedom. Under libertarianism, one of the focuses would be legislation that protects citizens from force, fraud, or abuse (just as today). However, if those "cabals? Syndicates? Cartels?" are not posing a threat to other individuals then why the fuck should anyone care. People should be free to form societies or associations with others of like mind even if you disagree with their beliefs as long as they don't include force, fraud, or abuse of any other individuals (just as today).

You seem to be skirting the fringes of a strawman. Libertarianism isn't about a utopian society. It is about limiting abuse and control of individuals by both government, other individuals and groups, Eliminating "evil" and everyone happy and cared for is the kind of pie in the sky dreamland promoted by socialists. In the real world, there will always be suffering and conflict because humans are.... human.

But what if those syndicates, cartels, and cabals are bent on using force? What in the tenets of libertarianism protects the individual from the oppressions of non-governments entities?

 

[Harry Bosch]

How long should I chase your goalposts?

To me the left means increasing democratic control. That goalpost hasn't moved in a long time.

What do you mean by it?

See, people on the left, real people on the left, not Democrats in office, think of democracy as the cornerstone of human freedom. But they mean a real functioning bottom up democracy. Not the phony top-down democracies that primarily exist in the world.

How exactly does one promote liberty and not also promote democracy? Real functioning bottom-up democracy.

Democracy allows the majority to strip the minority of their rights, in a statement I made that you snipped. Democracy can allow atrocities as long as 50%+1 approve of it. That is why we are far less concerned with form and much more concerned with function. We oppose people being oppressed, whether it is the monarch or the mob doing the oppression. Apparently only one of those two concerns you.

What exactly do you think we have when we don't have democracy?

All we ever end up with is power in the hands of a few who dictate to the majority.

And the way you protect rights is through Amendments.

You don't protect rights by limiting democracy.

You cannot have liberty without democracy.

However your version of "democracy" would deny people the right to sell their labor. "Democracy is always in the eye of the beholder".

 

[skepticalbip]

By not allowing the government to assume power that had not been granted to them and passing arbitrary and oppressive laws to exercise that assumed power. (like, for example, a great deal of the provisions in the Patriot Act., a bill almost unanimously passed by both Dems and Repubs)

The govt is not the only institution capable of oppressing people. How would libertarianism deal with these other institutions? How would it deal with cabals? Syndicates? Cartels?

The cornerstone of libertarianism is individual freedom. Under libertarianism, one of the focuses would be legislation that protects citizens from force, fraud, or abuse (just as today). However, if those "cabals? Syndicates? Cartels?" are not posing a threat to other individuals then why the fuck should anyone care. People should be free to form societies or associations with others of like mind even if you disagree with their beliefs as long as they don't include force, fraud, or abuse of any other individuals (just as today).

You seem to be skirting the fringes of a strawman. Libertarianism isn't about a utopian society. It is about limiting abuse and control of individuals by both government, other individuals and groups, Eliminating "evil" and everyone happy and cared for is the kind of pie in the sky dreamland promoted by socialists. In the real world, there will always be suffering and conflict because humans are.... human.

But what if those syndicates, cartels, and cabals are bent on using force? What in the tenets of libertarianism protects the individual from the oppressions of non-governments entities?

You really need to practice your reading comprehension skills.

 

[untermensche]

However your version of "democracy" would deny people the right to sell their labor. "Democracy is always in the eye of the beholder".

My version is that if people actually had the choice between being reduced to a tool of another or working with others for a common goal, people would not choose the former.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

By not allowing the government to assume power that had not been granted to them and passing arbitrary and oppressive laws to exercise that assumed power. (like, for example, a great deal of the provisions in the Patriot Act., a bill almost unanimously passed by both Dems and Repubs)

The govt is not the only institution capable of oppressing people. How would libertarianism deal with these other institutions? How would it deal with cabals? Syndicates? Cartels?

The cornerstone of libertarianism is individual freedom. Under libertarianism, one of the focuses would be legislation that protects citizens from force, fraud, or abuse (just as today). However, if those "cabals? Syndicates? Cartels?" are not posing a threat to other individuals then why the fuck should anyone care. People should be free to form societies or associations with others of like mind even if you disagree with their beliefs as long as they don't include force, fraud, or abuse of any other individuals (just as today).

You seem to be skirting the fringes of a strawman. Libertarianism isn't about a utopian society. It is about limiting abuse and control of individuals by both government, other individuals and groups, Eliminating "evil" and everyone happy and cared for is the kind of pie in the sky dreamland promoted by socialists. In the real world, there will always be suffering and conflict because humans are.... human.

But what if those syndicates, cartels, and cabals are bent on using force? What in the tenets of libertarianism protects the individual from the oppressions of non-governments entities?

You really need to practice your reading comprehension skills.

You pass legicslation. Then what? And how much time, talent, and treasure would a libertarian society dedicate to ensuring that Force, fraud and abuse were not perpetrated or minimized as much as possible? How would force, fraud, and abuse be defined in a libertarian society? How would restitution in the events of force, fraud, and abuse be made; and the decisions of courts enforced?

 

[skepticalbip]

By not allowing the government to assume power that had not been granted to them and passing arbitrary and oppressive laws to exercise that assumed power. (like, for example, a great deal of the provisions in the Patriot Act., a bill almost unanimously passed by both Dems and Repubs)

The govt is not the only institution capable of oppressing people. How would libertarianism deal with these other institutions? How would it deal with cabals? Syndicates? Cartels?

The cornerstone of libertarianism is individual freedom. Under libertarianism, one of the focuses would be legislation that protects citizens from force, fraud, or abuse (just as today). However, if those "cabals? Syndicates? Cartels?" are not posing a threat to other individuals then why the fuck should anyone care. People should be free to form societies or associations with others of like mind even if you disagree with their beliefs as long as they don't include force, fraud, or abuse of any other individuals (just as today).

You seem to be skirting the fringes of a strawman. Libertarianism isn't about a utopian society. It is about limiting abuse and control of individuals by both government, other individuals and groups, Eliminating "evil" and everyone happy and cared for is the kind of pie in the sky dreamland promoted by socialists. In the real world, there will always be suffering and conflict because humans are.... human.

But what if those syndicates, cartels, and cabals are bent on using force? What in the tenets of libertarianism protects the individual from the oppressions of non-governments entities?

You really need to practice your reading comprehension skills.

You pass legicslation. Then what? And how much time, talent, and treasure would a libertarian society dedicate to ensuring that Force, fraud and abuse were not perpetrated or minimized as much as possible? How would force, fraud, and abuse be defined in a libertarian society? How would restitution in the events of force, fraud, and abuse be made; and the decisions of courts enforced?

Is it the phrase "just as today" that you are having so much trouble understanding?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

 Libertarian socialism (sometimes called social anarchism,[1][2] left-libertarianism[3][4] and socialist libertarianism[5]) is a group of political philosophies within the socialist movement that reject the view of socialism as state ownership or command of the means of production[6] within a more general criticism of the state form itself[7][8] as well as of wage labour relationships within the workplace.[9] Instead it emphasizes workers' self management of the workplace[10] and decentralized structures of political organization[11] asserting that a society based on freedom and equality can be achieved through abolishing authoritarian institutions that control certain means of production and subordinate the majority to an owning class or political and economic elite.[12] A decentralized means of direct democracy and federal or confederal associations are used to politically organize[13] such as libertarian municipalism, citizens' assemblies, trade unions, and workers' councils.[14][15] All of this is generally done within a general call for libertarian[16] and voluntary human relationships[17] through the identification, criticism, and practical dismantling of illegitimate authority in all aspects of human life.

Is this a truly libertarian political philosophy?

- - - Updated - - -

By not allowing the government to assume power that had not been granted to them and passing arbitrary and oppressive laws to exercise that assumed power. (like, for example, a great deal of the provisions in the Patriot Act., a bill almost unanimously passed by both Dems and Repubs)

The govt is not the only institution capable of oppressing people. How would libertarianism deal with these other institutions? How would it deal with cabals? Syndicates? Cartels?

The cornerstone of libertarianism is individual freedom. Under libertarianism, one of the focuses would be legislation that protects citizens from force, fraud, or abuse (just as today). However, if those "cabals? Syndicates? Cartels?" are not posing a threat to other individuals then why the fuck should anyone care. People should be free to form societies or associations with others of like mind even if you disagree with their beliefs as long as they don't include force, fraud, or abuse of any other individuals (just as today).

You seem to be skirting the fringes of a strawman. Libertarianism isn't about a utopian society. It is about limiting abuse and control of individuals by both government, other individuals and groups, Eliminating "evil" and everyone happy and cared for is the kind of pie in the sky dreamland promoted by socialists. In the real world, there will always be suffering and conflict because humans are.... human.

But what if those syndicates, cartels, and cabals are bent on using force? What in the tenets of libertarianism protects the individual from the oppressions of non-governments entities?

You really need to practice your reading comprehension skills.

You pass legicslation. Then what? And how much time, talent, and treasure would a libertarian society dedicate to ensuring that Force, fraud and abuse were not perpetrated or minimized as much as possible? How would force, fraud, and abuse be defined in a libertarian society? How would restitution in the events of force, fraud, and abuse be made; and the decisions of courts enforced?

Is it the phrase "just as today" that you are having so much trouble understanding?

Are you saying we now live in a libertarian society?

 

[skepticalbip]

 Libertarian socialism (sometimes called social anarchism,[1][2] left-libertarianism[3][4] and socialist libertarianism[5]) is a group of political philosophies within the socialist movement that reject the view of socialism as state ownership or command of the means of production[6] within a more general criticism of the state form itself[7][8] as well as of wage labour relationships within the workplace.[9] Instead it emphasizes workers' self management of the workplace[10] and decentralized structures of political organization[11] asserting that a society based on freedom and equality can be achieved through abolishing authoritarian institutions that control certain means of production and subordinate the majority to an owning class or political and economic elite.[12] A decentralized means of direct democracy and federal or confederal associations are used to politically organize[13] such as libertarian municipalism, citizens' assemblies, trade unions, and workers' councils.[14][15] All of this is generally done within a general call for libertarian[16] and voluntary human relationships[17] through the identification, criticism, and practical dismantling of illegitimate authority in all aspects of human life.

Is this a truly libertarian political philosophy?

- - - Updated - - -

By not allowing the government to assume power that had not been granted to them and passing arbitrary and oppressive laws to exercise that assumed power. (like, for example, a great deal of the provisions in the Patriot Act., a bill almost unanimously passed by both Dems and Repubs)

The govt is not the only institution capable of oppressing people. How would libertarianism deal with these other institutions? How would it deal with cabals? Syndicates? Cartels?

The cornerstone of libertarianism is individual freedom. Under libertarianism, one of the focuses would be legislation that protects citizens from force, fraud, or abuse (just as today). However, if those "cabals? Syndicates? Cartels?" are not posing a threat to other individuals then why the fuck should anyone care. People should be free to form societies or associations with others of like mind even if you disagree with their beliefs as long as they don't include force, fraud, or abuse of any other individuals (just as today).

You seem to be skirting the fringes of a strawman. Libertarianism isn't about a utopian society. It is about limiting abuse and control of individuals by both government, other individuals and groups, Eliminating "evil" and everyone happy and cared for is the kind of pie in the sky dreamland promoted by socialists. In the real world, there will always be suffering and conflict because humans are.... human.

But what if those syndicates, cartels, and cabals are bent on using force? What in the tenets of libertarianism protects the individual from the oppressions of non-governments entities?

You really need to practice your reading comprehension skills.

You pass legicslation. Then what? And how much time, talent, and treasure would a libertarian society dedicate to ensuring that Force, fraud and abuse were not perpetrated or minimized as much as possible? How would force, fraud, and abuse be defined in a libertarian society? How would restitution in the events of force, fraud, and abuse be made; and the decisions of courts enforced?

Is it the phrase "just as today" that you are having so much trouble understanding?

Are you saying we now live in a libertarian society?

The Constitution was a document based on libertarian principles. Our government is established by that document. Article I Section VIII of the Constitution and later amendments list the specific powers that the people granted to that government. The problem is that with time any government expands its powers beyond its foundations. Ours did so by ignoring a provision in the Bill of Rights (the tenth amendment) that was an attempt to stem such arbitrary assumption of powers but which has pretty much been ignored by our legislators in their quest for more and more power - an example is the Patriot Act.

So yes. Our society is basically set up on libertarian principles except that the federal government now ignores its Constitutional limitations.

 

[untermensche]

Myopia is not reporting what is seen.

???? Where did you learn English?

My mind. Where did you?

Your have a single minded obsession.

I have a consistent position.

You can only recognize abusive authoritarian government as an oligarchy. Open your fucking eyes. People, average working class people, can be and are corrupted given power, some much more than others. It is an extremely rare person who isn't corrupted some by power.

I'm not inclined to disagree with you here except that my focus is on the people doing the most harm, not the victims. The people doing the most harm are these people with all this power their wealth gives them.

Or is it that you don't understand the meaning of the word oligarchy as you don't understand myopic? Do you think that if someone has a position of power it means that they are an oligarch - that it is a synonym for government official?

My position is simple. Money = Power. Lack of money = lack of power. That is the real world.

As far as the government I want it under democratic control, not control of the rich, which is oligarchy.

Bottom up control is always better than top down. All interests are heard with bottom up control (democratic control).

This I agree with depending on what you mean by "democratic control". However, if you mean by "democratic control" a system where majority rules in any and all decisions then I think you are being myopic again. A majority rules in all cases system allows the majority to inflect any oppressive regulations or abuse on the minority they wish. My preference is a system where there is built in protection of the minority from the whims of the majority even if that minority is only one individual.

Democratic control does not mean you can't have representative government.

But democratic control means the people tell the representatives what they want and good representatives must decide which direction is best for all concerns.

Right now we have mostly representatives who listen to the interests of a few rich people or rich corporations and decide which rich interest will prevail. The vast majority have absolutely no ability to have their concerns represented.

And this is because of the money involved in gaining and holding public office. And because of all the money the media gets in covering these absurd spectacles called elections.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

 Libertarian socialism (sometimes called social anarchism,[1][2] left-libertarianism[3][4] and socialist libertarianism[5]) is a group of political philosophies within the socialist movement that reject the view of socialism as state ownership or command of the means of production[6] within a more general criticism of the state form itself[7][8] as well as of wage labour relationships within the workplace.[9] Instead it emphasizes workers' self management of the workplace[10] and decentralized structures of political organization[11] asserting that a society based on freedom and equality can be achieved through abolishing authoritarian institutions that control certain means of production and subordinate the majority to an owning class or political and economic elite.[12] A decentralized means of direct democracy and federal or confederal associations are used to politically organize[13] such as libertarian municipalism, citizens' assemblies, trade unions, and workers' councils.[14][15] All of this is generally done within a general call for libertarian[16] and voluntary human relationships[17] through the identification, criticism, and practical dismantling of illegitimate authority in all aspects of human life.

Is this a truly libertarian political philosophy?

- - - Updated - - -

By not allowing the government to assume power that had not been granted to them and passing arbitrary and oppressive laws to exercise that assumed power. (like, for example, a great deal of the provisions in the Patriot Act., a bill almost unanimously passed by both Dems and Repubs)

The govt is not the only institution capable of oppressing people. How would libertarianism deal with these other institutions? How would it deal with cabals? Syndicates? Cartels?

The cornerstone of libertarianism is individual freedom. Under libertarianism, one of the focuses would be legislation that protects citizens from force, fraud, or abuse (just as today). However, if those "cabals? Syndicates? Cartels?" are not posing a threat to other individuals then why the fuck should anyone care. People should be free to form societies or associations with others of like mind even if you disagree with their beliefs as long as they don't include force, fraud, or abuse of any other individuals (just as today).

You seem to be skirting the fringes of a strawman. Libertarianism isn't about a utopian society. It is about limiting abuse and control of individuals by both government, other individuals and groups, Eliminating "evil" and everyone happy and cared for is the kind of pie in the sky dreamland promoted by socialists. In the real world, there will always be suffering and conflict because humans are.... human.

But what if those syndicates, cartels, and cabals are bent on using force? What in the tenets of libertarianism protects the individual from the oppressions of non-governments entities?

You really need to practice your reading comprehension skills.

You pass legicslation. Then what? And how much time, talent, and treasure would a libertarian society dedicate to ensuring that Force, fraud and abuse were not perpetrated or minimized as much as possible? How would force, fraud, and abuse be defined in a libertarian society? How would restitution in the events of force, fraud, and abuse be made; and the decisions of courts enforced?

Is it the phrase "just as today" that you are having so much trouble understanding?

Are you saying we now live in a libertarian society?

The Constitution was a document based on libertarian principles. Our government is established by that document. Article I Section VIII of the Constitution and later amendments list the specific powers granted to that government. The problem is that with time any government expands its powers beyond its foundations. Ours did so by ignoring a provision in the Bill of Rights (the tenth amendment) that was an attempt to stem such arbitrary assumption of powers but which has pretty much been ignored by our legislators in their quest for more and more power - an example is the Patriot Act.

So yes. Our society is basically set up on libertarian principles except that the federal government now ignores its Constitutional limitations.

So libertarianism pre-dates the Constitution?

 

[skepticalbip]

So libertarianism pre-dates the Constitution?

Absolutely. You may want to read some on John Locke who died 72 years before the American Revolution(1632-1704)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke

 

[AthenaAwakened]

So libertarianism pre-dates the Constitution?

Absolutely. You may want to read some on John Locke who died 72 years before the American Revolution(1632-1704)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke

Did John Locke consider himself a libertarian or do modern day libertarians consider JL a libertarian?

 

[skepticalbip]

???? Where did you learn English?

My mind. Where did you?

Your have a single minded obsession.

I have a consistent position.

You can only recognize abusive authoritarian government as an oligarchy. Open your fucking eyes. People, average working class people, can be and are corrupted given power, some much more than others. It is an extremely rare person who isn't corrupted some by power.

I'm not inclined to disagree with you here except that my focus is on the people doing the most harm, not the victims. The people doing the most harm are these people with all this power their wealth gives them.

Or is it that you don't understand the meaning of the word oligarchy as you don't understand myopic? Do you think that if someone has a position of power it means that they are an oligarch - that it is a synonym for government official?

My position is simple. Money = Power. Lack of money = lack of power. That is the real world.

As far as the government I want it under democratic control, not control of the rich, which is oligarchy.

Bottom up control is always better than top down. All interests are heard with bottom up control (democratic control).

This I agree with depending on what you mean by "democratic control". However, if you mean by "democratic control" a system where majority rules in any and all decisions then I think you are being myopic again. A majority rules in all cases system allows the majority to inflect any oppressive regulations or abuse on the minority they wish. My preference is a system where there is built in protection of the minority from the whims of the majority even if that minority is only one individual.

Democratic control does not mean you can't have representative government.

But democratic control means the people tell the representatives what they want and good representatives must decide which direction is best for all concerns.

Right now we have mostly representatives who listen to the interests of a few rich people or rich corporations and decide which rich interest will prevail. The vast majority have absolutely no ability to have their concerns represented.

And this is because of the money involved in gaining and holding public office. And because of all the money the media gets in covering these absurd spectacles called elections.

What a load of bullshit. Certainly some rich people use their wealth to acquire power. However a hell of a lot of people who are not wealthy acquire power for the purpose of forcing their ideals on others, some non wealthy acquire power for the purpose of gaining wealth.

Pol Pot certainly wasn't wealthy. "The little corporeal", Adolph wasn't wealthy, Stalin, Fidel Castro, Mao, etc. None of these used their wealth to gain power because they didn't have wealth.

 

[skepticalbip]

Absolutely. You may want to read some on John Locke who died 72 years before the American Revolution(1632-1704)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke

Did John Locke consider himself a libertarian or do modern day libertarians consider JL a libertarian?

Why the fuck do you think a label is more important than the philosophy that the label signifies?

Even if Locke didn't call himself a libertarian (and I don't know because I was more interested in his philosophy than what he called himself), saying that he wasn't is like saying that Karl Marx wasn't a Marxist because that isn't what he called himself.