Libertarian Left and Right

[The Last Spartan]

Alright, for those of who do not know, Libertarianism is where government has less control over its citizens, vice an authoritarian state which has more control. On the political spectrum libertarianism and authoritarianism are on the exact opposite sides. The left wing of politics, seeks to abolish classes and social hierarchies whereas the political right either supports or acknowledges socio-economic hiearchies.

Now, here is what I would like to discuss, would a left wing libertarian state truly be free? What about right wing libertarianism? Would the "far right bottom corner" of the so called political spectrum be the most free?

Personally, I think the middle way is the best. The government should not encroach on basic human rights and what not, and people should take more responsibility for their own lives and become more self reliant, however, the community must remain strong as a whole as well. If people are always being helped, they don't allow themselves to adapt and grow stronger, whereas if people don't look out for each other, there is no community cohesion.

[Phier]

The only people who call themselves Libertarian Left, are people who don't understand Libertarianism and like to smoke pot. There is no "Libertarian Left" or for that matter "Libertarian Right" as the right left political spectrum fails utterly.

As a side note Libertarianism and Libertarians help people, they just don't think that the state should be the agency to do it.

[Wilder]

The only people who call themselves Libertarian Left, are people who don't understand Libertarianism and like to smoke pot.

Hey I've never smoked pot...

[Enemy of the State]

There is only one libertarianism, based upon the non-aggression principle. What a free society would look like we can only speculate. Libertarianism is unique that it doesn't have a real plan. It is a philosophy of means, not of ends. There will be no board of commissars that decides how everything will work.

[clone]

There is only one libertarianism, based upon the non-aggression principle. What a free society would look like we can only speculate. Libertarianism is unique that it doesn't have a real plan. It is a philosophy of means, not of ends. There will be no board of commissars that decides how everything will work.

yeas sure we live in a democratic utopia.last time i checked the bankers are much more worst than communist commissars

[Muizer]

Those who thrive in society naturally use the power this gives them to consolidate and expand their position. I've not yet heard a convincing libertarian argument about how this could be prevented. So, it seems like a pipe-dream to me.

[Savoyard]

Those who thrive in society naturally use the power this gives them to consolidate and expand their position. I've not yet heard a convincing libertarian argument about how this could be prevented. So, it seems like a pipe-dream to me.

You act as though that doesn't happen everywhere, no matter the government.

Humans have two overriding and valid instincts: Safety and Freedom. Political thought is on the axis of these two poles. Libertarians and Anarchists near the Freedom end and Communists, Socialists, and Fascists on the Safety end.

[Muizer]

You act as though that doesn't happen everywhere, no matter the government.

Democracy is the exercise of organising an effective common defense against the excesses of individuals. The problem with most modern democracies is that they have fallen victim to the mantra of economic liberalism that the market, given free reign, will magically sort everything out. I believe in private enterprise as a driving force in society, but I do have a problem with zealots who put ideology above reason.

[OCWife]

Democracy is the exercise of organising an effective common defense against the excesses of individuals.

I'm glad I don't live in your "democracy," where you and other strangers force upon me your arbitrary standards of "excess."

[Squiggle]

Those who thrive in society naturally use the power this gives them to consolidate and expand their position. I've not yet heard a convincing libertarian argument about how this could be prevented. So, it seems like a pipe-dream to me.

How would they manage it outside of the use of force? Market competition ensures any power growth is limited and transitory, a state with rigid constitutional controls impeding it from economic intervention cant help those who want to expand their position.

I agree that a libertarian anarchist position is untenable though.

[hellheaven1987]

I always think Libertarianism is just group of anarchists who scare what would happen if government does not exist at all, but in the same time dislike the existence of government.

[Col. Tartleton]

I always think Libertarianism is just group of anarchists who scare what would happen if government does not exist at all, but in the same time dislike the existence of government.

I'd say we like having laws but we don't like legislators, but I can't speak for everyone.



As I said in a different thread, everyone civilized values freedom, but the debate is what does freedom mean. The "Right" believes in freedom to do things as we like. The "Left" believes in freedom from negative outcomes.

So when a Libertarian is talking about freedom, he means freedom of speech, freedom of religious practices, gun ownership, eating a ton of fast food, pornography, etc. These are negative liberties.

When a Liberal is talking about freedom, he means freedom from poverty, from disease, from loss. Frankly freedom from reality. The way they seek to do is because of the constraints of reality, are diametrically opposed to negative liberties.

Liberals are actually anti-freedom, but they can call it freedom because they define the word differently. They want freedom from nature, which frankly seems unrealistic to me.

Ultimately I consider this right vs left or free vs anti-free debate to be so incompatible as to be different competing cultures in the larger "Free World". I mean we can look at the same situation and see totally different things going on because we're both ideologues with conflicting ideas. I mean if I think their freedom is tyranny for one set of reasons and they think my freedom is tyranny for a whole other set of reasons... It's difficult to communicate ideas. We can't debate, we can only conflict.

This Left-Right thing I'm using is not the traditional Conservative - Liberal divide, because frankly that isn't the issue. I'm not sure modern conservatives are conservative because of some traditionalist slant towards old ideas, but the conclusion that those old ideas are better expressions of their own values than those of more modern, less enlightened ideologies. I don't think people like Classical Liberalism because old white people came up with it a fairly long time ago. Just like we don't dislike liberalism because old white people came up with it a fairly long time ago.

[Matthias]

Libertarianism is a very naive and simplisitic ideology, even more so than Marxism in many ways.

It is mostly based on economic theories rather than political philosophy, economic theories of very dubious quality, kinda like Marxism. It also envisions a utopian society that could never exist in the real world.

As some libertarians here have already pointed out, there is no real plan. It's not practical or real in any way and is just as fanciful as many of the utopian worldviews put forth by Occupy Wall Street.

A lot of libertarians will describe themselves as socially liberal and economically conservative to describe where they are on the left-right spectrum, that is if they are consistent, many aren't though.

[The spartan]

Libertarianism is a very naive and simplisitic ideology, even more so than Marxism in many ways.

It is mostly based on economic theories rather than political philosophy, economic theories of very dubious quality, kinda like Marxism. It also envisions a utopian society that could never exist in the real world.

As some libertarians here have already pointed out, there is no real plan. It's not practical or real in any way and is just as fanciful as many of the utopian worldviews put forth by Occupy Wall Street.

A lot of libertarians will describe themselves as socially liberal and economically conservative to describe where they are on the left-right spectrum, that is if they are consistent, many aren't though.

This. All too often Libertarians act against their own ideals and cover corporations' asses. They love to limit government and kinda ignore the part about corporate wrong-doings...

[Admiral Piett]

This. All too often Libertarians act against their own ideals and cover corporations' asses. They love to limit government and kinda ignore the part about corporate wrong-doings...

That's a blanket statement which describes the anarcho-capitalist leanings of the Libertarian Party and so-called libertarians in the Republican Party.

But this most certainly has no form of accuracy when referring to either moderate libertarians or liberal libertarians like myself.

[Muizer]

This. All too often Libertarians act against their own ideals and cover corporations' asses. They love to limit government and kinda ignore the part about corporate wrong-doings...

I think ideologically they believe both government and corporate power are wrong when they impinge on individual freedoms. However they think that getting rid of one evil (government) is a step towards more freedom. It can be, in societies where government is the dominant concentration of power. I don't think that's currently the case in the western democracies though. In societies where the market is dominant, reducing government power only means more corporate power. On the whole "power" and "freedom" are better viewed as constants. The goal cannot be to have more or less of it, but to distribute it evenly.

[justicar5]

I'd say we like having laws but we don't like legislators, but I can't speak for everyone.



As I said in a different thread, everyone civilized values freedom, but the debate is what does freedom mean. The "Right" believes in freedom to do things as we like. The "Left" believes in freedom from negative outcomes.

So when a Libertarian is talking about freedom, he means freedom of speech, freedom of religious practices, gun ownership, eating a ton of fast food, pornography, etc. These are negative liberties.

When a Liberal is talking about freedom, he means freedom from poverty, from disease, from loss. Frankly freedom from reality. The way they seek to do is because of the constraints of reality, are diametrically opposed to negative liberties.

Liberals are actually anti-freedom, but they can call it freedom because they define the word differently. They want freedom from nature, which frankly seems unrealistic to me.

Ultimately I consider this right vs left or free vs anti-free debate to be so incompatible as to be different competing cultures in the larger "Free World". I mean we can look at the same situation and see totally different things going on because we're both ideologues with conflicting ideas. I mean if I think their freedom is tyranny for one set of reasons and they think my freedom is tyranny for a whole other set of reasons... It's difficult to communicate ideas. We can't debate, we can only conflict.

This Left-Right thing I'm using is not the traditional Conservative - Liberal divide, because frankly that isn't the issue. I'm not sure modern conservatives are conservative because of some traditionalist slant towards old ideas, but the conclusion that those old ideas are better expressions of their own values than those of more modern, less enlightened ideologies. I don't think people like Classical Liberalism because old white people came up with it a fairly long time ago. Just like we don't dislike liberalism because old white people came up with it a fairly long time ago.

So why is it the right that constantly calls for censorship, compulsory religious indoctrination and ever more restrictive laws in the interests of 'national security' then?

[The Last Spartan]

So why is it the right that constantly calls for censorship, compulsory religious indoctrination and ever more restrictive laws in the interests of 'national security' then?

And the Left doesn't? They're both wrong for taking away rights from other people. In fact, both sides give and take for all the wrong reasons. Most Liberals are Pro-Choice Abortion (to my understanding, at least), which I personally agree with because it's not the state's responsibility to choose what a mother does with her seed. Now, I noticed most Conservatives are Pro-Life, because they feel regardless of whether it is a fetus or not, scientifically, it is not a womans right to take away a "life", because it is one of "God's creatures". This I hear frequently from religious political advocates. I personally feel that it is irresponsible and foolhardy to bring religion into politics, because now you take away both the factors of credibility based on proven facts and accountability (after all, how can you hold someone who "hears God speak to them" accountable for something they believe but don't even know for a fact exists). Now, whether a fetus counts as a living being or not, is a moral and scientific debate.

If you take a look at the facts, their really isn't much difference to Liberals or Conservatives. They are both wrong for taking away rights for all the wrong reasons and both promote dependence on the government and subservience to corporations. While the suits in the corporations are just in it for the money, the suits in the government are trying to secure their place in power. That's why people like Barrack Obama, and Vladimir Putin use the mass media among other things to shape public opinion to suit their agenda. Which is why all we see on the news is (to put it nicely) biased opinions instead of facts.

somalia^

I haven't really been keeping up with Somalia, so some elaboration is required, please.

[King Gambrinus]

Anarchism can be left or right. The "right" of Anarchism is free market idealists who are too proud or too arrogant to help others (because they claim any form of state is evil no matter what). They call themselves "Libertarians".


Leftist anarchists like myself believe in a small period of anarchy to destroy the ruling oppressors, and eventually set up an egalitarian society with what is left. It's widely linked to Hegellian philosophy instead of Marxist. Eventually a new civilization will form etc etc... Haters gonna hate!

[Col. Tartleton]

Alright, for those of who do not know, Libertarianism is where government has less control over its citizens, vice an authoritarian state which has more control. On the political spectrum libertarianism and authoritarianism are on the exact opposite sides. The left wing of politics, seeks to abolish classes and social hierarchies whereas the political right either supports or acknowledges socio-economic hiearchies.

Now, here is what I would like to discuss, would a left wing libertarian state truly be free? What about right wing libertarianism? Would the "far right bottom corner" of the so called political spectrum be the most free?

Personally, I think the middle way is the best. The government should not encroach on basic human rights and what not, and people should take more responsibility for their own lives and become more self reliant, however, the community must remain strong as a whole as well. If people are always being helped, they don't allow themselves to adapt and grow stronger, whereas if people don't look out for each other, there is no community cohesion.

I don't think a libertarian can come to the conclusion that there shouldn't be meritocratic or even plutocratic social classes. The accumulation of wealth is tied to productivity or at least luck, and as a result there will be stratification.

I believe in community as a net sum of the mutually beneficial interpersonal relationships we form as human beings for cooperation and individual welfare. I don't believe the community is more than how people interact with each other. A city is not made of steel girders and concrete edifices. A city is a community, that is the net sum of human relationships in a specific area.

Good relationships are critical to good individual happiness and prosperity. Social capital is as important to capitalism as individual human capital and financial capital. If all the individuals have the opportunity to better themselves then society improves because it is the net sum of the individuals. If the individuals lack opportunity to better themselves then society worsens.

Libertarianism is a very naive and simplisitic ideology, even more so than Marxism in many ways.

It is mostly based on economic theories rather than political philosophy, economic theories of very dubious quality, kinda like Marxism. It also envisions a utopian society that could never exist in the real world.

As some libertarians here have already pointed out, there is no real plan. It's not practical or real in any way and is just as fanciful as many of the utopian worldviews put forth by Occupy Wall Street.

A lot of libertarians will describe themselves as socially liberal and economically conservative to describe where they are on the left-right spectrum, that is if they are consistent, many aren't though.

See you're describing Anarcho-Capitalism and thinking that means liberalism.

Anarchism can be left or right. The "right" of Anarchism is free market idealists who are too proud or too arrogant to help others (because they claim any form of state is evil no matter what). They call themselves "Libertarians".

Except we aren't anarchists or they aren't libertarians. I believe I should be in charge of me, you should be in charge of you, and we should be subject to a non aggression pact and our word when given should be binding by and large. Making the non aggression pact is very much the duty of government. Anarchy would be too expensive and impractical for the individual to administer self defense and commerce, and it would be too chaotic.

Libertarians or Liberal Conservatives believe in a strictly limited government, not the lack of government.

Leftist anarchists like myself believe in a small period of anarchy to destroy the ruling oppressors, and eventually set up an egalitarian society with what is left. It's widely linked to Hegellian philosophy instead of Marxist. Eventually a new civilization will form etc etc... Haters gonna hate!

With all due respect, that's incredibly childish and dangerous.