The Mises Institute promotes a particular type of pro-property libertarianism. However on Wikipedia, numerous other types of libertarianism are listed:
Thus far, I am only familiar with minarchism (Milton Friedman) and anarcho-capitalism (Murray Rothbard, David Friedman).
What about Georgists? What about the other types? Who holds the title of being a real libertarian?
Libertarian conservatism is the predominant ideology on Mises and LRC, and holds that the best approach to promoting liberty is alliances with those of a paleoconservative bent towards the end of secession, seeing a common cause in opposition to government as an intruder into matters traditionally delegated to nongovernmental authority figures like parents and priests. Libertarian conservatives tend to be culturally conservative, and view modern day values such as casual and recreational sex, drug use and commercialism as the products of government interference in the natural order of society.
Left libertarianism is a form of libertarianism that incorporates elements of left-anarchist and particularily Proudhonian thinking into the libertarian ideology, often leading to arguments that modern day hierarchical large scale business operations would not be sustainable in a libertarian society, and instead are the result of government social engineering on behalf of large business owners and particularily landed gentry.
Left libertarianism argues that alliances with left-anarchists and unions (particularily those striking against pseudoprivate entities like General Motors or AIG) are more fruitful and productive to the libertarian cause than alliances with paleoconservatives like Pat Buchanan. Left libertarians posit a “bottom up” method of revolution whereby unions, minorities and other “oppressed” groups rise up and secede from government. Some also adhere to the ideology of agorism, which puts a heavy focus on self reliance in the production of essential goods, living “off the grid” and grey/black market trading. Most left libertarians are also “thick” libertarians, in as much as they dispute Block’s “plumbline” definition of libertarianism as belief and adherence to the non-aggression principle, stating that libertarianism is a larger cultural ideology with greater root in Aristotlian eudaimonism and counter-culture.
Libertarian transhumanism would presumably be either a variant of transhumanism with the same ends but libertarian means, or those who hold that transhumanism is the best hope for liberty, allowing each individual equal footing in terms of power and status in a post (technological) singularity world.
Geolibertarianism, also referred to as Georgism (after one of it’s primary proponents and theorists, Henry George) holds that all land is naturally granted to all men by God, to be held in common, and that exclusive ownership of land, as “stealing” from the community, ought to be remedied with a singular tax on the value of land. Geolibertarians tend either to be left libertarians (who justify their beliefs on Marxist rather than theist grounds) or born again Christians.
left libertarians.
You’re a libertarian if you accept the Non Aggression (initiation) Principle.
If you openly reject the principle on some issue, it is no longer the libertarian position. Hence, following it to its logical conclusion you get the “pure” or 100% position of anarcho-capitalism.
Minarchism tries to apply the NAP, but obviously fails to apply it to the ‘night-watchmen state’ as well.
Left-libertarianism, Libertarian conservatism, Libertarian transhumanism and Geolibertarianism are an absolute joke. These defunk conceptions are the remnants of the false left / right paradigm or falliciously trying to apply an adjective (eg. left or thick) to a noun (libertarianism), in an effort to influence what it means… except the attempt is bogus & violates what libertarianism actually is. When a person speaks of things (outside the realm of political philosophy) they do not do so as a libertarian. Hence, libertarian qua libertarian has nothing to say on those matters. It is left over baggage people still possess. Their earlier positions failed under scruitiny, so the individual undertook an investigation into libertarianism but has not yet succeeded in riding themselves of a tainted ideology. Libertarianism is unique, it is neither left or right. Thick or thin… etc etc.
In “Big-Government Libertarians,” MNR:
“Libertarianism is logically consistent with almost any attitude toward culture, society, religion, or moral principle. In strict logic, libertarian political doctrine can be severed from all other considerations; logically one can be - and indeed most libertarians in fact are: hedonists, libertines, immoralists, militant enemies of religion in general and Christianity in particular - and still be consistent adherents of libertarian politics. In fact, in strict logic, one can be a consistent devotee of property rights politically and be a moocher, a scamster, and a petty crook and racketeer in practice, as all too many libertarians turn out to be. Strictly logically, one can do these things, but psychologically, sociologically, and in practice, it simply doesn’t work that way.”
Every label that tries to add onto what “type” of libertarian they are, reeks of divide & conquer.
When the “left” libertarian, goes up against the “conservative” libertarian, where they go back & forth about what a the true libertarian society would look like (and consequently, what values should be promoted to thus get us there via the revolution) it is a discussion amongst fools.
"Under total privatization [..] With every locale and neighborhood owned by private firms, corporations, or contractual communities, true diversity would reign, in accordance with the preferences of each community. Some neighborhoods would be ethnically or economically diverse, while others would be ethnically or economically homogeneous. Some localities would permit pornography or prostitution or drugs or abortions, others would prohibit any or all of them. The prohibitions would not be state imposed, but would simply be requirements for residence or use of some person’s or community’s land area.
While statists who have the itch to impose their values on everyone else would be disappointed, every group or interest would at least have the satisfaction of living in neighborhoods of people who share its values and preferences. While neighborhood ownership would not provide Utopia or a panacea for all conflicts, it would at least provide a “second best” solution that most people might be willing to live with."
20M. N. ROTHBARD, Nations by Consent: Decomposing the Nation State, in <>, vol. 11, n.1, Fall 1994, p. 7
According to left anarchists/libertarians, we aren’t even libertarians/anarchists.
According to left anarchists/libertarians, we aren’t even libertarians/anarchists.
Hey, if they want to define ‘libertarian’ as ‘socialist’ and ‘anarchist’ as ‘stupid’, they can go right ahead.
Conza: I don’t think many right-libertarians aside from some of the more starry-eyed Hoppe fans actually contend that the free market would be dominated by supercorporations running massive industrial plants. They are generally just pointing out that left-libertarians would probably turn socialist if this were true, since what they hate is not government per se but inegalitarian capitalism.
I tend to think the righties are correct on the general outline, I’m not saying there would be no mutual aid societies and whatnot but as a sizeable sector of the economy there are many real-world (if not a priori) reasons to believe they would tend to be uncompetitive.
“left libertarians.”
I’ve got to hand it to them. They’re pretty good at intellectually smacking down Kinsella.
Using “libertarian” in a modern day American context, I am starting believe there is a “square-circleness” quality to this term.
I agree, despite their attempts to claim him as a forefather it’s really not applicable to people like Spooner or Tucker; and only just barely to Proudhon (who was an ultraconservative religious nut and blatant anti-Jew).
They’re pretty good at intellectually smacking down Kinsella.
I disagree. [MOD EDIT: DO NOT INSULT LvMI SCHOLARS], but their arguments against him are goofy. Kinsella is usually somewhat correct, he just goes to cranky extremes.
@ Vichy Army:
“I don’t think many right-libertarians aside from some of the more starry-eyed Hoppe fans actually contend that the free market would be dominated by supercorporations running massive industrial plants.”
Has Hoppe ever said anything to this effect?
Left-Libertarians see the government and capitalism as intertwined, to them, if the state disintegrated, corporations would become the new state.
Has Hoppe ever said anything to this effect?
No, but many of his acolytes seem to hold this view.
“I disagree. Kinsella is basically a well-funded troll”
I’ll elaborate what I meant. Kinsella has a history of charging into the fray with ideological blinders, and labeling all strands of LL as marxism. He sets himself up for failure the moment that knee starts jerking without the faintest clue at what it’s kicking at. But I agree with your claim of him being a troll. Just a trip to the No-Treason blog archives is all the verification one needs.
Oh, yeah, he gets wacky. I know he hates me 
“Oh, yeah, he gets wacky. I know he hates me :P”
Nonsense! I’m sure Brainpolice holds you dear to his heart.
Left-Libertarians see the government and capitalism as intertwined, to them, if the state disintegrated, corporations would become the new state.
I don’t know what they see, other than ghosts. Something about the word “left wing” and “must impose intellectual* thought on things well beyond one’s actual power” that can not be seperated. Probably being more “intellectually inclined” they tend to over value and over feed the beast of reason, which is only predictable. Annoying, but expected.
That and they seem to hold no concept of effeciency in relationship to common law and the elasticity of homsteading laws; and also the fetish of social equality (that is “social currency”) more than material wealth maximization.
*that is defined as the use of communication while bearing little to no responsability for the results
You’re correct about the left being overly involved in ‘intellectual’ conceptions of society which leads them to discount biology, historical accident, and even substantive self-interest. This is also why they share the ‘deliberative’ conceit of Democrats; they’re what Hitler called ‘idle talkers’; they don’t comprehend the more relevant and realist sorts of agreements people come to in pursuing self-interested customary legal norms without any real external constraining concepts of ‘propriety’. They are unwilling to accept the basic fact of customary law that what is ‘right’ is whatever works for the parties at hand. Someone is always being ‘exploited’.
My favourite left-libertarian on libertarianism: