I’ll be frank. I think you still think like a conservative, which stops you from properly interpreting the history and implications of libertarianism. You frame everything in terms of anti-leftism and are willingly ignorant and intolerant of anything that might disrupt your conception of libertarianism as some sort of radical version of conservatism that is entirely detached from anarchist tradition. I’m trying to resolve the conflict between the different factions (which is the entire point of my pluralist concept of anarchism), while you contribute to it by being ridiculously sectarian and biased towards “the right”.
You display the exact same intolerance and ignorance that I recieve from anarcho-syndicalists and anarcho-communists, only from the opposite perspective. I find it rather strange, as when I present this perspective I am attack by both people like you are diehard socialists at the same time. If the “leftists” mischaracterize you as a “rightist” and the “rightists” mischaracterize you as a “leftist”, you’re probably a libertarian! I would think actual libertarians wouldn’t participate in the exact same false characterization that they are often prone to themselves.
I already responded to Ego’s quote from its original thread and clarified that he’s making a mischaracterization by accusing me of trying to defend contemporary “leftist” statists. I advocate allying with anyone who supports voluntary interpersonal relations, wether they call themselves “leftists”, “socialists”, “capitalists” or purple people eaters.
You two are excellent at arguing against points with which I disagree. I’ve always said that we should side with anyone who is in favor of shrinking the state! Look at my first reply in this thread!
And then this:
However, Nicky and Brainpolice take a sinister position.
There are several more quotes like this in this thread alone.
Nicky and Brainpolice are either
…creating a strawman. No one in this board has ever said they are opposed to people practicing voluntary “socialism”, and I don’t think anyone ever will.
Implying that we should ally with the “anarchist” left. In other threads, you’ve stated your alliance with libertarian socialists. A quick google search will show that libertarian socialists are opposed to property.
While I’d normally be inclined to believe you’re just trying to create a strawman, Nicky’s constant glorification of the left (in fact, he’s admitted that he thinks state oppressors should not stop; it’s the responsibility of the oppressed to escape) and Brainpolice’s constant support of Nicky leads me to believe that you both really do support the left.
I’m not going to go through the headache of reading what you think qualifies as intelligent writing, so I’ll keep it short and sweet.
Libertarian socialists oppose property in the sense that they see it as exploitative. Currently, the way governments use property is exploitative. I cannot deny that the LS are correct if that is what they mean, however, if that is not what they mean I believe that they can be converted to Mutualism rather quickly or at least Anarcho-Syndicalism.
It isn’t about responsibility to escape, it’s about the fact that the only way it will stop is if the state is taken head on. It’s about rejecting the premise of the state as an illusory one - one that no libertarian will follow.
As far as “left” goes. You’re still making the mistake of defining it outside of libertarianism. Libertarianism is left. Get over it.
You know, I don’t generally agree with Niccolo, but this is simply a mischaracterization of his position, and is so far afield that I have trouble seeing it as a legitimate mistake.
But your post does serve the purpose of inspiring me to lay my cards on the table. I don’t know about Brainpolice and Niccolo, but I do support the left in the short term. In the long run, I see libertarianism prevailing, but I simply see no prospect of that happening in the day-to-day political struggles. What I think will best promote long-term freedom is for the left to prevail in the short run.
Part of this is a subjective choice - I prefer the prospect of a ruined economy to that of Bush’s police state. Yes, I understand your objection that Kucinich, too, will jail those who don’t pay taxes. At least, though, Kucinich will insist that people be charged with tax evasion, that they be found guilty in a real trial, that the prosecutors not abuse their power, and that the people not be tortured into confessing. Maybe these differences don’t matter to you, but they do to me. So long as there is a state, and in the short-run that seems unavoidable, I sure as heck want a state that abides by the rule of law.
Part of it, though, is a prioritization of threats. I judge the priority of threats on two grounds - first, what is presently happening, and next, the mood of the people. The mood of the people is intense fear, and the people are not likely to object to the warfare state or the security state, at least not very loudly. This means that the right, if put in power, can accomplish more than the left can. On the basis of what is happening, well, medicare prescription drugs is far from the most serious threat to liberty put in place during the Bush years.
You always tell us that rightist actions can be more easily reversed. I have already responded that, in fact, right wing actions develop their own inertia too, and even if the left opposes them at first, the left will generally oppose roling them back later. Take the TSA, for instance. To roll it back now would be to return a function to the market - even the left will object to that.
I simply don’t consider it true that it’s easier to, for instance, restore habeas corpus, or reverse a cultural change that leads to acceptance of torture, than to stop paying for prescription drugs. If anything, I hold that the reverse is true. Besides, again, there is more to consider than the ease of rolling something back. There is also the question of how bad the policy is in the first place, and how fundamental a social change it is. Right-wing actions in the last few years have broken hundreds of years of tradition - fragile traditions that are hard to repair.
Now, on your claim that Niccolo should be purged or something because he said that libertarianism is leftist - will you also purge Murray Rothbard for having written Left and Right? How about Roderick Long for his speech 50 Years Later? Kevin Carson? Brad Spangler? Me? Are none of us libertarian? If I had to pick a side of this dilemma, I’d take these folks over someone who strikes me as pretty much a conservative with many libertarian leanings.
I think he was sarcastically adopting Nicky’s own rhetoric, of “Agorism running wild on you!” (the reformists). In fact, he wants to purge you too. Darn Kucinich supporters… [;)]
I thought that libertarians did not sympathize with either left or right. I do think that a ‘rightist’ police state is the worst of all options. But to think that an alliance with voluntarists who also oppose private property can accomplish anything sounds mostly like wishful thinking to me.
The definition game is getting a bit silly also. Let’s say that anarcho-communists are leftists ? So are anarcho-syndicalists ? And so are libertarians ? And we all can live under the same economic system ? I don’t think so.
I think that Ego should read Rothbard’s “Left and Right: The Prospects For Liberty”, as well as Roderick Long’s speech in retrospective of it, and let it sink in real good.
“Libertarians of the present day are accustomed to think of socialism as the polar opposite of the libertarian creed. But this is a grave mistake, responsible for a severe ideological disorientation of libertarians in the present world. As we have seen, Conservatism was the polar opposite of liberty; and socialism, while to the “left” of conservatism, was essentially a confused, middle-of-the road movement. It was, and still is, middle-of-the road because it tries to achieve Liberal ends by the use of Conservative means.”
“We are now in a position to apply our analysis to the American scene. Here we encounter a contrasting myth about recent American history which has been propagated by current conservatives and adopted by most American libertarians. The myth goes approximately as follows: America was, more or less, a haven of laissez-faire until the New Deal; then Roosevelt, influenced by Felix Frankfurter, the Intercollegiate Socialist Society, and other “Fabian” and Communist “conspirators,” engineered a revolution which set America on the path to Socialism, and, further on, beyond the horizon, to Communism. The present-day libertarian who adopts this or a similar view of the American experience, tends to think of himself as an “extreme right-winger”; slightly to the left of him, then, lies the Conservative, to the left of that the middle-of-the road, and then leftward to Socialism and Communism. Hence, the enormous temptation for some libertarians to red-bait; for, since they see America as drifting inexorably leftward to Socialism and therefore to Communism, the great temptation is for them to overlook the intermediary stages and tar all of their opposition with the hated Red brush.”