If you notice, I didn’t ask “how different”…I asked how is it different. Simply claiming it’s a small difference doesn’t address the issue. What is this difference you speak of?
Defending the free choices of indviduals is not not-libertarian just because better options have been eliminated by state intervention. It sounds like you’re saying a “left-libertarian” would oppose “sweatshops” or “working conditions during the industrial revolution”, meaning that they would argue such things should be outlawed.
If that’s the case, that is not libertarian. If it is not the case, then please explain what you’re saying, and what exactly these “left-libertarians” say about (and more importantly, prescribe) for such situations. (And of course, explain how it’s different from “regular” libertarians).
That’s an interesting piece, as it attempts to shed light on a complex issue, but unfortunately I feel that author does an incredibly poor job. But that’s neither here nor there.
If the only difference between “left-libertarians” and “libertarians” is their being “thick”, then why not say “thick”? Or some other kind of term that more accurately describes the attribute that makes a difference…as opposed to one that implies a degree of socialism, as “left” does. Shoving those two words together is contradictory and nonsensical, and therefore, as I said, does nothing to help further understanding or explanation of the political spectrum and where people fall in it. It is not unlike the equally (or perhaps more so) idiotic terms “libertarian socialist,” and “free market anti-capitalist”, which incidentally, the description in this playlist actually uses.
As far as I can tell (and maybe someone can show me I’m wrong) those terms are purposefully contradictory so as to confuse any would-be critic or political opponent into a state of paralyzing befuddlement, as they have no way to codify what you actually believe, so they have no real way to form an assessment of your philosophy and either accept or reject (and possibly challenge) it. I think terms like that exist because people are either insecure in their philosophy (which usually means they don’t really have one, and that their beliefs are very inchoate and contradictory, and not suited for any serious consideration or challenge), or that they they are insecure in themselves (i.e. have low-self esteem) and cannot withstand any sort of criticism or challenge…so they create a barrior from criticism by surrounding their intellectual identity in a cloak of confusion and ambiguity which no one can really penetrate because there is really no way to clearly attack something that doesn’t even seem to make sense.
It’s not unlike the whole obsession with being “moderate”. Like I was saying here, there is a common exaltation for a Goldie Locks “not too this, not too that, juuuuuust right in the middle” mentality.
It’s one of the most callow assessments perpetuated today. They’re able to take advantage of the flawed way the majority of people understand the ideological spectrum where being “in the middle” is the most appropriate because that means you’re not a “crazy extremist” (i.e. a “left-winger” or a “right-winger”). It makes people feel safe in that they are “moderate” and that they incorporate views from “both sides” to find a nice balance…as if they incorporate the “best of both worlds.” This is just short of being complete nonsense. Most of the self-proclaimed “moderates” have no idea why they believe more than half the things they do. The policies and ideas they advocate are not rooted in any sort of principle they are simply a product of almost baseless “feelings” and are determined more than anything else not by actual results or deep philosophical study, but by simple interest in not being scapegoated as a “winger.”
And while it may be true that many types of so-called extremists choose to ignore the facts, this does not automatically mean that self-proclaimed moderates have somehow reached “moderate” conclusions because of more intense study or careful consideration of information.
And this is extremely similar to the people (whom I would largely consider morons) who insist on using idiotic terms like “libertarian socialist”. Except these guys take it a step farther. Instead of simply trying to maintain an aire of balance, these people go all out with terms that mean completely opposite things, to a point at which their self label makes so little sense than no one even bothers to challenge them on it.
Plus it makes them feel cool. Like they’re in this exclusive club that most people don’t even understand. This is basically what the Venus people do too, except they’ve taken it to an even greater extreme. They’re not “moderate”. They’re not even both ends of the spectrum simultaneously. They are apolitical and think the entire notion of “money” is evil, and think we should move to a “resource-based economy”. Sounds technical doesn’t it? That’s how they like it. They get to feel smarter than other people because they’re able to act like they have the answer…and no one else has even heard it before.
That is my sense of terms like “left-libertarian”.
Go ahead and tell me if I’m wrong.