There are a number of cases- for example in council meetings- where extremist tactics are used to hijack the meeting- feminism, gay-ism, multiculturalism, etc are used as an excuse. There are counter tactics that can be used.

When one of the parties isn't negotiating in good faith then the negotiation needs to be re-evaluated. I believe that it's potentially feasible to negotiate with women- but not with communists- communists only believe in power- the only way to beat them is to dominate them- essentially by the truth- but the path to the truth often requires expenditure. In negotiation there are a number of strategies that can be used to sway the outcome in your favour.

One of the problems with the Libertarian Free Trade philosophy is that according to Ayn Rand's discussion- Libertarian's don't try to tell the people what to believe- effectively ceding ground to those Socialists that do. Ayn Rand sees productivity as defining life sustainability- and says that people are valuable to society according to their productivity. The producers can only produce if the people of the community value their products.

Ayn Rand's Model of Libertarianism is based on some assumptions that are not always true...

1. it is assumed that producers do not use their production and their influence to stop competitors from entering the market

The devils always in the detail.

In principle much what you say has merit in my view- but...

The battle between the left and right "is" the battle between the East and West in many ways.

But the left isn't really left and the right isn't really right- it's always about power.

The battle is stupid but not to stand up for our principles would be more stupid.

Dear Canem Malum,

«Ayn Rand's Model of Libertarianism is based on some assumptions that are not always true...»

Ayn Rand is more of a capitalist than a libertarian.
I cannot blame this girl who was traumatised by the Soviet oppression, but her ideology is more of an emotional reaction rather than a consistent system of philosophy.

A capitalist wants state(s) to protect their wealth, to provide safe trade-routes, to prevent the mob from raiding and looting their stores, to protect their personal assets when their companies crash - but when asked in return to pay taxes and comply with regulations, they cry that their freedom is compromised.

A libertarian in contrast, does not expect any free gifts, only wants to be left alone or with the people they freely choose to associate with.

I remember a leading figure in the libertarian movement said "the libertarian movement wouldn't exist if it wasn't for Ayn Rand".

My understanding of Libertarianism is that it essentially means "Free Trade"- Ayn Rand's philosophy was Objectivism. Capitalism- seems to me to be similar to Libertarianism- but I'm interested in hearing Yuyutsu's perspective.

But the point I was trying to make is Ayn Rand said in Atlas Shrugged- through the character of John Galt and others "we don't try to tell people what they should believe"- and "you shouldn't sell to people that don't believe in the same philosophy that you do". I've heard similar comments from those with Business Ideology and it seems to be a prevalent paradigm in the business community.

Dear Canem Malum,

«My understanding of Libertarianism is that it essentially means "Free Trade"»

Free Trade is a small part of Libertarianism: if you are free to do what you like (so long as you do not hurt others), then trade is just one of the many activities that you are free to do (or not to do, or to do differently).

But if your trade is truly free, then you cannot expect government to unconditionally protect whatever you do to trade, even more so to protect you for free! Some capitalists and self-defined "libertarians" forget that side of the equation.

In theory, democratic countries say "we don't try to tell people what they should believe", but many of them, including Australia, instead try to SELL people what they should believe - only a single-letter difference! Other regimes, and that is not any better, say: "you are free to believe whatever you like, so long as you DO as I tell you".

Allowing business people to lead the world is a great tragedy which creates much havoc. They may be very good at business, but it does not qualify them as wise leaders.

Yuyutsu-

What follows is my understanding of the landscape-

Some of what you are referring to seems to be Liberalism- which basically means freedom- although Libertarianism is sort of "Right Liberalism"- some times they refer to it as "Free Trade".

The other type of Liberalism is Left Liberalism or Free Society.

University of Notre Dame- Patrick Deneen explains it as above- but he may have dumbed it down for the ABC Audience in the Podcast.

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/latenightlive/the-death-of-liberalism/9380788

John Locke (1660's) as you may be aware is considered the father of Liberalism but others such as John Stuart Mill in his book Liberty contributed to the Liberalism paradigm. JSM seemingly invented the concept of negative freedom- that you mentioned (freedom so long as you don't infringe on the freedom of others). Most people seem to only get to halfway of JSM's Liberty because he raises the issue that "everything affects everyone" and therefore negative freedom doesn't work and so there needs to be at least some aspect of Aristotle's positive virtue based freedom from Nicomachean Ethics.

Pretty much all politics from the Left and the Right are Liberal philosophies using the principle of negative freedom but the Left seems to focus on "individual social mobility" whereas the Right seems to focus on "wealth creation" along the lines of Adam Smith.

The US is based loosely on the principles of John Locke- I believe that Thomas Jefferson studied Locke. Locke presented a vision of "man living in nature" as his vision of freedom- free from the arbitrary constructs of society.

Traditionalists see these arbitrary constructs and positive virtue as valuable- and stand somewhat outside the Liberal construct that pervades "modern" politics- though they understand that within sandbox constraints they are useful tools.

Yuyutsu said- Allowing business people to lead the world is a great tragedy which creates much havoc. They may be very good at business, but it does not qualify them as wise leaders.

Answer- I might address this point more at a later time. Ayn Rand essentially believes the elevation of society that comes from letting the producers produce cures other evils. I would disagree- but I think if pushed Ayn Rand would disagree too.