General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumswhat is left leaning libertarianism?
What I do not get is how the left leaning Libs expect corporations to be held in check, or prevent a mob from stomping all over the rights of minorities. If Dixie could have slavery back, there would be slave kennels at wal-Mart.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)... of social liberalism. That would definitely include reining in corporations.
(IMHO)
LWolf
(46,179 posts)whether you think the American Libertarian party defines libertarianism, the American Democratic Party defines liberalism, or the American Republican part defines conservatism.
They don't.
The libertarian left explained:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Particularly when corporate power is combined with government power. See how the USA is run for an example.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)do you reconcile a small state with defense from corporations?
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Anarchism isn't a form of government. Nor is it ever likely to become one. The purpose is to get people to recognize their own power and act as individuals who take their responsibilities to be their "brother's keeper" to heart and oppose injustice and inequality brought on by the powerful.
Gandhi (who was heavily influenced by anarchism) relied on non-cooperation and civil disobedience.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_India
Gandhi and anarchism
The local conditions were pertinent to the development of the heavily anarchic Satyagraha movement in India. George Woodcock claimed Mohandas Gandhi self-identified as an anarchist.[10] Anarchism in India finds its first well-known expression with a statement by Gandhi: The state evil is not the cause but the effect of social evil, just as the sea-waves are the effect not the cause of the storm. The only way of curing the disease is by removing the cause itself.
In Gandhi's view, violence is the source of social problems, and the state is the manifestation of this violence. Hence he concluded that "[t]hat state is perfect and non-violent where the people are governed the least. The nearest approach to purest anarchy would be a democracy based on nonviolence."[1] For Gandhi, the way to achieve such a state of total nonviolence (ahimsa) was changing of the people's minds rather than changing the state which governs people. Self-governance (swaraj) is the principle behind his theory of satyagraha. This swaraj starts from the individual, then moves outward to the village level, and then to the national level; the basic principle is the moral autonomy of the individual is above all other considerations.[1]
Gandhis admiration for collective liberation started from the very anarchic notion of individualism. According to Gandhi, the conscience of the individual is the only legitimate form of government. Gandhi averred that "Swaraj will be an absurdity if individuals have to surrender their judgment to a majority." He opined that a single good opinion is far better and beneficial than that of the majority of the population if the majority opinion is unsound. Due to this swaraj individualism, he rejected both parliamentary politics and their instrument of legitimization, political parties. According to swaraj individualism the notion that the individual exists for the good of the larger organization had to be discarded in favor of the notion that the larger organization exists for the good of the individual, and one must always be free to leave and to dissent.[1] Gandhi also considered Leo Tolstoy's book, The Kingdom of God is Within You, a book about practical anarchist organization, as the text to have the most influence in his life ]
Hope that helps.
Xithras
(16,191 posts)Government is a necessary evil, but it's still an evil. It has a role to play, but that role should be limited to those things that are necessary to empower a liberal society.
And, for what it's worth, "corporations" are a government invention and are a clear example of the sort of things that left libertarians DONT want to see our government supporting. The argument that we need government protection to shield us from the governments own abuses is appalling.
In general though, left libertarianism is simply about individual rights. Government has no right to tell you how to live your own life, so long as you aren't causing harm to others. That's why we see things like the insurance mandate as being so offensive.
"Anti authoritarian liberalism
Government is a necessary evil, but it's still an evil. It has a role to play, but that role should be limited to those things that are necessary to empower a liberal society.
And, for what it's worth, "corporations" are a government invention and are a clear example of the sort of things that left libertarians DONT want to see our government supporting. The argument that we need government protection to shield us from the governments own abuses is appalling."
...such a person support Citizens United?
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Xithras
(16,191 posts)In fact, this isn't even a left-libertarian/right-libertarian thing. Pretty much ALL libertarians oppose corporate personhood, though for different reasons. In fact, if you see a "libertarian" defending corporate personhood, it's a dead giveaway that they're either shilling for something or are clueless as to what "libertarian" really means.
FWIW, left-libertarians oppose corporate personhood because it's really nothing more than the government granting additional power to some citizens that is denied to other citizens. It's a government sponsored power-imbalance and is antithetical to freedom. Many right-libertarians oppose it for the same reason, though they tend to pile on other things like "foreign interference with our government" and "imbalanced taxation" as well. Overall, this is one of the areas where "left" and "right" libertarians tend to agree.
billh58
(6,635 posts)limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)n2doc
(47,953 posts)People who want freedom to buy any drug. I suppose that also includes those who want to buy medicines and set-medicate.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)most people here on DU would be considered left-libertarian because most advocate socially liberal positions along with social democracy.
imo, it's the most consistent position for anyone who claims to be liberal because liberals don't think govt. should be used to tell people how to conduct their private lives and don't think that victimless crimes should be crimes in the first place.
you can take the political compass test yourself to see where you fall on their scale.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/test
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)Fire up the Wayback Machine and see, for instance, how many DUers supported Mikey Bloomberg's nanny-state soda ban.
I didn't take part in or read any of those threads b/c the entire idea is, while well-meaning, absurd to me. But Bloomberg demonstrates that "nanny staters" are not on one side of the aisle.
The first woman to win a Nobel prize in economics did studies on self-organizing entities and found that we don't need over-nannies for big important issues, or small ones, to best manage the commons of our lives (b/c, unlike right libertarians, left recognize the commons as part of the organization of life.)
Specifically, her work looked at management of natural resources, or "the commons" by groups.
Her work aligns with "small govt" to the extent that multiple entities in close proximity to the issue at hand do a better job of managing resources than do distant, "overlord" entities. This is also an argument against allowing big multi-nationals to decide the fates of others.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"what is left leaning libertarianism?"
A rationalization fit inside of a justification wrapped in affirmation with a bow made from self-validation.
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)Are you not a civil and social libertarian yourself?