Now this question is not intended to enrage anyone cause I know there are also a substantial number of left-libertarians here like BrainPolice but I really don’t understand why libertarians would call themselves right or left. And especially ‘left’ since left gives the impression that you support equality and democracy, which are the basis for the total state. Although I myself am convinced that a stateless society would produce much less inequality, I think libertarians should have an impartial attitude towards equality(and utter distaste for democracy and its god-state).
Also, what is in left-libertarianism that isn’t already in libertarianism?
Because whenever I hear a left-libertarian say anything, it’s just like “don’t apologize for the current market”… but that’s not anything different from libertarian philosophy.
Long was an Old Right pro-war hawk in the 80’s; he’s said that after he became an anarchist he became more and more attracted to cultural leftism, and now he’s a left-libertarian market anarchist.
And especially ‘left’ since left gives the impression that you support equality and democracy, which are the basis for the total state.
Well, on one interpretation you get that conclusion. On another interpretation they are the basis for anarchism.
Also, what is in left-libertarianism that isn’t already in libertarianism?
See Long’s interview here.
This is a quest in of itself to list, honestly.
Interesting… I just dugg into Benjamin Tucker’s wiki (because of Long’s interview mentioning him), and it looks like I misjudged him before (and not including him with the voluntaryists ).
He was against intellectual property (unlike Spooner).
He was in favor of the liberty to engage in lender interest (even though he thought it was immoral), unlike the mutualists.
“The end, he declared, could never justify the means, if the means were intrinsically immoral — and force, by whomsoever used, was immoral except as a means of preventing or punishing aggression.”
..looks like a straight-up anarcho-capitalist gangsta!
Based on what I just read in that interview, left-libertarianism is exactly libertarianism, but some other concerns thrown in. I don’t see how this can cause anything but confusion and weakens the movement.
As I see it, the left-right paradigm is born in the state and should be entirely rejected.
“left-libertarianism is exactly libertarianism, but some other concerns thrown in.”
…but that’s just the thing, those other concerns are already part of libertarianism.
As I see it, the left-right paradigm is born in the state and should be entirely rejected.
I disagree, Niels. I would say that leftism and rightism are both channeled into certain areas by the rise of the modern state and totaltiarian democratism. That being so, I would argue that the ‘right’ is generally the alignment of traditionalism, order, security and ‘minding-one’s-own-business’ whereas the left is the alignment of egalitarianism, communitarianism, anti-heirarchy and minding-your-neighbour’s-business’. The ‘statist’ branches of both these movements are especially retarded and murderous, though statist or stateless I would say that the ‘right’ has the edge in terms of realistic sociology and aims, whereas the left is basically a revolt against civilization and reality. In fact I would say that most of the failures of the ‘right’ are from not being right-wing enough. The Reactionary is the epitome of civilization.
“The right is right and the left is wrong.” - Erik von Kunnelt-Leddihn
Yes, but only implicitly. Certainly they are part of the libertarian movement. But apparently all that is not enough.
It still looks to me that at best, the right is a throwback to the traditionalist order of private slavery (monarchy). And order itself is not what we want, we don’t want orderly extortion. We want a voluntary order.
And order itself is not what we want, we don’t want orderly extortion.
I would say that there are inherent tendencies for and toward order that the left is opposed to. I agree that monarchism, feudalism, etc. are not ideal. In fact I would say they are, from a ‘right’ or ‘reactionary’ point of view inconsistent - because the traditional norms and customary dispute resolution involved in ‘reaction’ are inconsistent in not being opposed to the arbitrariness of the monarch and his apparatus of governance. But while this is a problem with most of the really existing ‘right’, there are elements of the traditionalist (Robert Nisbet) and ‘nihilistic’ right (Oakshott) that come incredibly close to full customary propertarianism. This is something which, when found on the left, always appears incongruouse and forced, because the Sine qua non of leftism is egalitarianism (correlatively) anti-heirarchalism. Property, whatever one says for or against it, is heirarchical to the extreme: some people are allowed, others are not, and there is only a monarchy or oligarchy of people who can alter this status, and they are free to do so arbitrarily and without the approval or even consideration of ‘public opinion’.
And, all things considered, orderly extortion is better than disorderly extortion.
orderly extortion is better than disorderly extortion.
better at extortion or better for fans of Mussolini?
better at extortion or better for fans of Mussolini?
It’s a better business model, it’s better for the well-being of the people being extorted, and it would probably appeal to certain elements of Mussolini’s fanbase.
you say the strangest things.
“In fact I would say that most of the failures of the ‘right’ are from not being right-wing enough. The Reactionary is the epitome of civilization.”
Libertarianism is a revolutionary ideal not a reactionary one…
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard33.html
As for Libertarians being left-wing or right-wing, I personally think we’re neither. We’re correct-wing!
Libertarianism is a revolutionary ideal not a reactionary one…
You’re right. Of course, I’m not a libertarian. I’m an amoralist with a preference for traditionalist or customary property orders who defend themselves with extreme prejudice and absolute ruthlessness. Libertarians are nothing but the antiquated branch of the Progressive movements, which is to say one of the many splinter groups from Atheistic Calvinism born in the American Revolution. Revolution is chaos.
lol
Oh boy! Oh boy! Oh boy!
Oh boy! Oh boy! Oh boy!
I forgot how goofy he looked in that outfit.
You can say one thing about the fascists. They weren’t Bolsheviks.
I don’t think I share your sympathy for the fascists /nazis but it is true that they are the lesser of two evils than Bolsheviks and Maoists.
This gives them two (and only two) advantages in life
-
It really pisses off left libertarians when you bring this fact up (“let’s just say they are both bad”, this works with monarchy vs democracy as well)
-
they have awesome uniforms, this is just a fact