I think maybe rightists
To say this question is broad is a colossal understatement. Left and right have dozens of meanings politically across the world, from Marxist militarist parties to Christian Democrats to reformist communists to socialists to communists to Stalinists to anarchists on the left, from Christian Democrats to social conservatives to fiscal conservatives to fascists to establishment communists to Stalinists to National Socialists to neoconservatives to libertarians to monarchists on the right.
feel free to equivocate then.
Well he has a point. I actually define anarchism as leftist. [ I was sway by Rothbard “Left & Right” article ] Some think it is rightist.
Leftists for sure. Leftists are the ones coming up with absurd conspiracy theories constantly. e.g. Sarah Palin’s baby isn’t really her own, Bush/Cheney planned the 9/11 attacks, Bush stole the 2004 elections via electoral machine fraud, that Bush stole the 2000 elections unfairly (when in reality it was Gore and the Florida Supreme Court which were breaking election law). Of course, I live in a center-right country so I cannot speak for the rest of the world.
Depends on the average person.
so far in my debates, the average person has called me an “extreme libertarian” or “radical libertarian”, and they go on to call me “anti-social” and “uncompromises”
i tell them: i am not the one advocating violence to get what they want. i dont advocate pointing the gun at someone to help the poor. violence=anti-social. i am all about peace and liberty, i advocate a voluntary way of living, not a coercive way.
i tell them: i don’t compromise with evil and violence. any compromise with evil and violence leads to more evil and violence. and compromise leads to socialism.
i call them extreme for advocating violence. their reactions are amusing.
as for leftist and rightist.. both are the same. i dont see either being more extreme than the other. they both advocate for violence. if you advocate violence, that seems extreme and anti-social to me.
I would call it rightist mainly because we necessarily and logically must share values with the right and no values with any other political wing namely, that inequality, business, and less regulation is a good thing and a totally free market society is also valuable.
True, one can be a cultural liberal or conservative and still be libertarian and its true that one can even be a minarchist or a mutualist yet, we all believe in some variant of markets without equivocating on that idea too much.
This as opposed to the left wing which necessarily must like common property, and be against business in the libertarian sense.
A certain branch of state-leftism is more or less the official religion of our age, so yes. But I would claim that the criticisms of the voluntaryist ‘left’ are more radical and thoroughgoing than the propertarian ‘right’.
But could you support such a claim?
I think much of the propertarian right has a tendency to ignore social and historical factors that are reciprocally reinforcng features of the political society; such as the nature of familial paternalism, cultural and ethnic atavism and state propertarianism. Treating 19th century ‘neutral’ property ‘protection’ as though it were real property protection is akin to treating a voluntary commune as Soviet Socialism. They are simply two different animals. Likewise, I do not think that much of bourgeoisie culture is either a result of or healthy for a free society of free minds; it is instead generated from and for the politicization and control of individuals against their freely developed self-interest.
Htut, if you could get to where you are through the left (or by taking it to its logical conclusions), I’m much more optimistic about the left. In fact, the rest of us here might want to pay attention. We traditionally seem to view rightist conservatives as much closer to our position than leftists, and see leftists as nearly beyond hope. You seem to show the exact opposite. Some of your posts today have indeed been thoroughgoing criticisms of the state that we seem to often overlook here, or that I’ve noticed are conspicuously under-commented on. I almost want to say you’re out-Austrianning the Austrians.
What constitutes much, and the propertarian right?
A tendency that is the result of? Propertarianism?
What is bourgeois culture?
But if that culture (whatever it is) emerges voluntarily would be fine, n’est pas, despite your disdain for it?
What constitutes much, and the propertarian right?
Most of the libertarian and conservative free marketers I have encountered, including anarchists.
A tendency that is the result of? Propertarianism?
A tendency that results from the overlooking the full implications of the irrelevance of state property enforcement in regards to the question of justice. There is simply no evidence that the property holders under the state actually have any right to their property, not only in large cases you would agree with (emiment domain) but in the endless small cases that result from the epistemic, moral and economic ability of the state to correctly gauge and enforce any property claims or specific bounds. It results, in effect, with confusing state-propertarianism with stateless propertarianism.
What is bourgeois culture?
The typical west european cultural taboos, religion, localism and family; and by this I am careful to exclude those which are clearly the result of state-socialism; put simply the european cultural norms, religious establishments, localistic atavism and ‘normal’ familial structures are in many ways unhealthy but would still be defended by people such as Lew Rockwell. I view this as an error widespread in bourgeois culture that stem from its birth in the propertarian-state.
But if that culture (whatever it is) emerges voluntarily would be fine, n’est pas, despite your disdain for it?
I do not propose to prevent people physically from holding these values, but I do hold that it is proper to oppose many of these norms as being unhealthy for and contrary to libertarianism and free thought themselves.
I think in general people hate the extremes. Leftism seems kind of kiddy and hippy dippy. And rightism seems like old grizzled grandpa stuff.
Though, maybe leftism seems less extreme because they’re usually less about concrete solutions; easier to project stuff onto them and kind forget they say dumb stuff at times. They also hide the gun in the room in their rhetoric. While rightists come right and tell you they want to nuke, shoot, taze, and torture everything in site.
Ok, so not much of us then, seeing as how you have just engaged us. Whew. I didn’t want to get into a situation where I am pre-judged by some arbitrary label, where I post, or a particular position I have.
On an individual basis, I don’t know that it is possible to determine that people are overlooking something as a soft rule. They might just have different values.
Right. This is actually a strawman I have seen from a few left-anarchists and promoted about Austrians and ancaps/voluntaryists. That somehow if we appreciate Walmart hiring people or offering low prices, we’re somehow ignoring or validating the crimes of the state. Obviously it is fallacious, but that’s the nature of movements. They have to create something to struggle against, even if there is no there, there.
Being half asian, I am aware of numerous east asian cultural taboos, religion, localism and family cultural norms, which are many factors stronger and more oppressive than west European cultural norms (if we can say there is such a thing as a cultural norm across so many languages and peoples).
Would you say west european culture is more oppressive than east asian, south america, or african culture?
If they are voluntary, isn’t that just a personal value preference you’re expressing?
So you’re saying that the state is a result of these cultural norms, but also that the state created these norms? Which came first?
I think you’ll find there is both more and less of that confusion here than you might expect. If that seems paradoxical, you’ve understood my meaning correctly (I seem to have a minority opinion on this, though).
Would you agree that if there were no state this culture would fade away? Might we then be able to say that such criticisms of the culture you call bourgeois would be irrelevant or unneeded outside the statist context?
Right, but if you believe they are unhealthy, and contrary to libertarianism, then they must be violating some libertarian values, yes?