Here is a question for all those in the Left-Libertarian/Right-Libertarian “turf war”[Y]. Whose side is Justin Raimondo on and why? He publishes in paleo/minarchist outlets (takimag.com and Chronicles Magazine namely) and he publishes paleos/minarchists at AntiWar.com. But he also fits several characteristics that would appear to make him a LL: he’ a practicioner of an “alternate lifestyle”, namely he’s a homosexual. On top of that, he publishes lefties on AntiWar.com too. So which one of you [LLs & RLs] claim him? Can neither of you [LLs & RLs] touch him? Do you do an article count at antiwar.com?
Noncombatants are free to answer too, it’s just the LL v. RL thing that got me thinking of it.
Left libertarianism has nothing to do with lifestyle. Leftism in this sense simply means “radical”, as in the Left Wing of the old French parliament. It refers to the tendency of many libertarians to shun conventional (within the establishment and therefore “right”) strategies toward attaining liberty in favor of market activism (such as civil disobedience and economic secession). Ideologically, however, left-libertarians are anarchists. So I don’t think Raimondo would qualify.
I think your usage of the term is different from others usage. Hoppe, for example, supported the secession of small unimportant areas from the central state as a strategy for liberty. The article he wrote on this was the basis for that whole “microsecessionism” thread. But he is obviously not a “left-libertarian” under any rubric. Granted he was in favor of the Ron Paul candidacy, but Long has also been complementary to Paul as a politician, for example:
So by your rubric LLs would only include agorism and a few fellow travelers, no? That’s not the common definition which tends to be much more loosely used: cultural leftists who tend to be more favorably predisposed to expressing distaste for commerce.
It’s not really “another one of these threads”. All I want to know is what do all those who are using these words think about what appears to be an emminent exception to both sides of their coin. That’s all. Just because I enjoy busting chops, although it was intended to do so for those primarily involved in those debates.
I only meant to point out that he seems not to be hostile to the left-libertarian belief that alternate lifestyles will not be outcompeted so to speak by traditional ones. But if alliances with paleos/minarchists define the libertarian right in large part and alliances with “hard” lefties define the libertarian right what about people who mix and match with both sides.
Lew Rockwell and Hans Hoppe are more radical than left appeasers like Long and Carson. I don’t buy that left libertarianism is radical, implying that right libertarianism is not.
I will say this, left libertarians spend a lot more time bitching about right libertarians than the other way around. So-called right libertarians seem to spend a lot of time confronting the state. Peter Schiff has done more to challenge the state than Rod Long, and he’s an Austrian minarchist. While Long might be much more intellectually consistent, like Konkin, preaching to the choir is still preaching to the choir.
Dare I say, in action Ron Paul is much more radical than any left libertarian from the last century I have heard of (admittedly there may be some I do not know).
I don’t think that’s what very many people mean why they distinguish between “right” and “left” libertarians. For example, while I would consider myself a “right libertarian” due to my stances on various issues of contention within the liberty movement, I think that agorism, civil disobedience, and secession are probably the best ways to fight the State.
Indeed. My sexual preferences run the same way as Raimondo’s, yet that implies about next to nothing about where my politics should lie (to the right of Long and to the left of Hoppe.) But he is a right-libertarian, there’s little doubt about that. He’s radically anti-state. I think a lot of people for whatever reason think your personal lifestyle must dictate your politics. Rockwell is a bit more unclear. He seems to have gone silent on the topic of immigration. Regarding the whole left/right divide, both sides are radically anti-state, and in that sense “left”. I don’t think the terms make much sense in that way, so they must be understood in terms of cultural preferences.
As a word of warning to all, if this thread devolves into another intellectual foodfight over the virtues of left/right libertarianism, I will close this thread and temporarily ban any participants.
On top of what you mentioned he also at least twice now endorsed Ralph Nader for election. But no he is never a left-libertarian. After all he wrote Reclaiming the American Right, was part of Young Americans for Freedom and so on. Just browse through his archive on taki mag and you will not fail to notice he is actually quite fond of conservativism.
But even in terms of cultural preferences it’s not clear what left and right mean. What’s a cultural preference anyway ? Hamburgers over caviar ? Beethoven over jazz ? Traditionalism over free-thinking…?
For example on issues like traditional firm organization versus worker-owned firms &c. That’s about as much validity as I see the “left” and “right” labels having these days, unless applied to anarchists on the one hand (in which case all are “left”) and statists of all stripes on the other (“right”.)
A strategy that consistently opposes political processes is inherently more radical than one that promotes a political solution. Left = market based; right = political based.
You quite obviously don’t know very many. Also, it’s absurd to say that Roderick Long has done little to oppose the state. He is an educator, and he shares in the credit for bringing many people to liberty - myself included. He does not preach to the choir. He preaches to intellectuals. Just because you didn’t come to your understanding through that route does not mean it is invalid. I am proof that it is.
Anti-political libertarians. That limits the definition to anarchists, but especially favors those who advocate market-based strategies for opposing the state. Agorists, “gulchers”, civil disobedients, people like Sam from the Obscured Truth Network (which isn’t exactly civil disobedience, but it involves challenging the legitimacy of the government in court), microsecessionists, seasteaders (or their like in the Liberty Colony model), and others in similar viens. It excludes partyarchs and others who believe that the system can be changed through the system.
I know of some so-called “civil libertarians” who dislike commerce, but all of the self-described left-libertarians I know personally (myself included) are market anarchists.
It is true that many LLs are cultural leftists. You certainly don’t find many cultural leftists simultaneously embracing the free market and political solutions. But it does not follow that a left-libertarian must be a cultural leftist. I am a left-libertarian, but I am also a Christian with fairly conservative personal morals.
exactly. who is a more of a rightist? a tribe in the amazon who pull their women from their hair but want to preceive their communistic lifestyle (hence conserve) or a pro-gay rights statist.