Libertarians - liberal?

I saw an interesting journal article the other day while researching some papers I am working on for some graduate political theory courses. The name of the article was Why Libertarianism Is Not a Liberal View. Then it ocurred to me, its not a democratic view either, in fact, I don't even know if it is human its certainly not a social view, and should probably not be tolerated in a civil society.

If you believe republicans have hearts.

The party calling itself Republican nowadays wouldn't dream of letting them lead today's Republicans. Not a chance.

I have been on a Teddy reading kick for the last few months and I wish Republicans of his ike still lived. I would weep tears of joy to have an opposition I disagreed with but knew also had the best intentions for the nation and its people in their hearts.

splendid little war now and again - felt it was good for the American character.

He was willing to fight for he believed in and fought in the Spanish-American war. And all four of his sons fought in WWI. (Two were wounded and a third died in France.) He also negotiated peace between Japan and Russia. (Winning the Nobel Peace Prize.) Reading through his presidency, I've found he prevented more conflict then then he started.

Yeah, he did think it was good for the American character, it wasn't about oil, greed or resources. Disagree or not, you have to admit, he wasn't speaking or acting out of malice.

maybe they are more like the cowardly lion.

when they decry nanny state government trying to abolish sin. They're right that it's never worked except as an excuse to abolish civil liberties.

It's only on economics and government that they go all loony tunes and head out into some sort of unregulated fantasy land where the free market fairies and the ghost of Ayn Rand will order society and make us all prosperous. Their claim that the Federal government exists only to manage our defense is special lunacy in that it was already tried in the early years after the Revolution and failed miserably.

"Republicans who smoke dope" is still a good label for them, in other words.

and when put into practice, their policies lead to something akin to Feudalism- which is odd, because that would seem to be the last sort of system that they'd want to live under.

What it boils down to is a lack of maturity- like spoiled children, they want to do what ever they want, whenever they want, regardless of the consequences to themselves or others.

You obviously have a very very narrow view of libertarianism.

i had an idea that they were sort of liberal.

but when i got to know libertarians well, and when i read a pile of libertarian political theory (and for libertariansism, it's ALL theory as there has never been a successful libertarian society)...

i learned that the pot-smoking cliche was all too true, and that they completely lack a social conscience.

sorry Hugh... but it's true, the only thing "liberal" about them is that they want pot and prostitution legalized. otherwise, they're a very ugly breed of the I Got Mine, Now Naff Off repuke monster.

Are you serious?

I've never met a liberal libertarian that believes either - where did you get that BS? Next you're going to tell me that all Asian people look alike! :eyes:

i speak from much experience.

and do not appreciate the nasty aspersion of racism, either.

but it was quite.. um... libertarian of you to do so. i'm familiar with that tactic:

when confronted by uncomfortable facts from a true liberal, attempt to paint the liberal with some non-liberal aspersion.

ta ta.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

That's exactly how I would characterize them. "I'm all right jack" is their creed.

One could make the argument that the Gilded Age was a time during which Libertarian principles were politically put into play.

though it was successful only for those in the in crowd.

read William Dean Howell's "Traveler from Altruria"The political economists, businessman, and manufacturer in that novella sound exactly like they could be sitting around ta table at the Cato Institute.

So many on this forum seem to think that left libertarianism is the crap that Ann Rand spouted off about. Yet, I'd wager the majority of the folks who post on these forums would classify as left libertarians.

I mean... the ACLU. Hello? :eyes:

There has been no greater group than those on the libertarian left who have worked to safeguard the civil liberties and freedoms of Americans.

Wow, this is extremely embarrassing. This is DU? Sounds like Free Republic ... or worse!

when confronted by uncomfortable facts from a true liberal, attempt to paint the liberal with some non-liberal aspersion.

i've lived amongst the Randians, the Von Miseans, and the Friedmanians for quite some time, and have learned all of the tactics.

IMO you need to pass DU and turn right at Lew Rockwell.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

the "libertarian left" from just the "left".

just because the ACLU has "liberty" (actually liberties) in its name does not mean it is libertarian.

Libertarianism stands in opposition to authoritarianism.

To give an example:

A member of the authoritarian left may believe that those who commit a hate crime should be put to death. They'd seek to use the power of the state to kill people.

A member of the libertarian left would stand in opposition to that view, believing that the state should not hold the right to kill people, even if they agree that an individual should be punished for a hate crime.

A member of the authoritarian left may seek to silence the political views of their rivals, and use the government as means to accomplish this, just as members of the authoritarian right seek to use the government to silence the views of the left. (A good example of this on the right: The Christian Right.)

A member of the libertarian left would stand in opposition to this, because when the government is used to silence the beliefs or political philosophy of one group, it then has the power to expand it to others.

A member of the authoritarian left is likely to find themselves in opposition to democracy, a good example of this is Hugo Chavez.

A member of the libertarian left believes that in order for freedoms to be maintained, a strong, educated and well-informed public is necessary. When an authoritarian takes control of the government, it is likely to expand and then oppress the people. The people always require a voice in their government, because if they do not, it will become authoritarian sooner or later.

A libertarian leftist believes that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, thus the authoritarian leftist is doomed to become a tyrant, no matter how noble the goals.

i appreciate the explanation.

but you're painting the extreme picture of "the authoritarian left", that libertarians just love to parade out as an example of why they are libertarians.

it's an exaggerated, false cartoon of leftism.

A member of the libertarian left ***IS*** a leftist.

Stalin, for example, was a member of the authoritarian left. If you consider left and right to be economic views, and libertarian and authoritarian to be the views of the role of government.

It is why I have said in previous posts, that I find this ridiculous, because just about everyone here on DU qualifies as a libertarian leftist. I would not say there are many true authoritarian leftists here in the United States, at least none that hold real power. Libertarianism is very strong in the United States, especially on the left, whereas the right tends to be much more authoritarian. However, that does not mean the left cannot be equally authoritarian. The United States was ***FOUNDED*** on libertarian views of personal freedom.

Your view of libertarianism is highly corrupted. You are confusing the Ann Rand folks as libertarians, when in reality I'd consider them corporate anarchists. An anarchist seeks to abolish government in all its forms. The Ann Rand folks seek to do exactly that when it comes to capitalism, which as we all know - as anyone with two brain cells realizes - this is a bad thing. It leads to monopolies, corruption in government, and all sorts of oppression.

A libertarian does not seek to abolish government, but rather keep government in check. A libertarian stands guard against authoritarian forms of government, that diminish or suppress the rights of its citizens.

the blame is on those who have corrupted the concept of "libertarianism" into a nightmarish Darwinian stench.

i'd actually like to believe that.

but the Ron Paul crazies seem to have appropriated the "libertarian" name.

and i just did a brief review of the Capital L Libertarian Party site, and i note that their beliefs are of the "legalize pot and hookers, and Don't Tax Me Bro" mindset that i so despise.

if the left wants to take back libertarianism... is it worth it? or is there a new path that leaves the selfish behind to gnash their teeth and whine about taxes and gubmint?

Just as I don't take all those who call themselves Christian as being necessarily Christian.

But here's the chart:



And here's the site: http://www.politicalcompass.org/test

Why don't you take the test and tell us where you end up?

Just curious.

:shrug:

i don't accept the basic premise of the quiz.

i don't see fascism, neoliberalism, communism and anarchism as the sole compass points of political philosophy, and i don't see authoritarianism and libertarianism as the two sides of political philosophy. so i don't find the test premises to be valid.

but i was to the left of the Dalai Lama.

:rofl:

Positive values would plonk you down somewhere aroudn Thatcher or worse. ;)

:rofl:

Of course they would seek to define it.:rofl:

Wikipedia, where the graphic comes from (let's face it, Wikipedia is pretty neutral on things, because of the massive number of editors)
Or Political Compass, a British site, where no-one calls themselves Big L Libertarian, and which has, for instance, defined the middle of their left/right spectrum to the left of all 3 current large British political parties, and to the left of mainstream Democrats too? Either way, I'd like to know why you consider either site Libertarian.

It is a left-wing British website. They do not go into detail about whom they support, but they are probably closest to the (British) Green Party.

The wonders of Capitalism!:crazy:

and how far right the spectrum had moved since 1972, and implying that all three main parties were too right of centre.

Maybe the people who discuss US elections on it are different from those who discuss the UK elections; but I haven't noticed any endorsements of the American Libertarian party.

Don't you understand?

The Ron Paul folks are right libertarians. They are not the same as left libertarians. Sure, there may be occasional agreements, but in the end there are just as many disagreements with them as with the authoritarian left.

You also seem to confuse anarchism with libertarianism. As I said elsewhere, anarchism is an extreme view of libertarianism, in the same way tyranny is an extreme view of authoritarianism. They are not the same.

The Ann Rand folks, and many of Ron Paul's views when it comes to economics is anarchist. When it comes to economics Ron Paul seeks to abolish the government entirely.

you made a good case for a concept of leftist libertarianism, that i had thought had come to be invalid at this point in time.

in that way i say, should the left take back the good ideas that can be considered leftist libertarianism, instead of letting the Randians, the Pauloids, and the Austrian Economist Fan Club run with the dark side of libertarianism as their mantle?

and re anarchism, as the libertarians of the Randian sort want NO government and NO taxes and NO social support structure, what is there left but anarchy?

i'm agreeing with you, dude.... you've reminded me of what i thought libertarianism was in the beginning, you know, like back in 1971. before the libertarians who were tired of being idealistic and principled decided they wanted some power and some win, and would cast their lot with the Repukes. you know, the "Republican Liberty Caucus"?

However, libertarianism is hugely diverse.

When you use the word "libertarian" it is no different than using the word "authoritarian." People use the word libertarian to mean a single thing, as if they were saying liberal or conservative. No one uses authoritarian that way, and if they did we'd look at them like they grew two heads. Authoritarianism and libertarianism are just opposing points of view.

What matters, what is central to that point of view, is if they are on the right or the left. That determines so much about how it shapes the libertarian point of view. For example, a right libertarian would not believe in something like egalitarianism, a view that would be abhorrent to -anyone- on the left be they authoritarian or libertarian.

I think the issue many people have is that they see things in black and white terms. It is much more complicated. When Ron Paul talks about abolishing public education for example, proclaiming that the government should have no right to oversee the education of its citizens (in part due to fear of filling them with propaganda), that is a libertarian point of view. However, what is important to understand is that it is a RIGHT libertarian point of view, and not something that is necessarily going to be agreed upon by a LEFT libertarian.

That doesn't mean the two points of view are irreconcilable, because both sides would agree that the government must not use public education to propagandize its citizens. On the other hand, the LEFT libertarian's goal is to ensure that all citizens have an equal right to education. An education is required to better ones life, and ensure that society is placed on an equal playing field. This is where the left and the right libertarians clash. The right libertarian proclaims that it is foolish to believe that all people are equal, or will ever be equal, and that it is not the governments job to lift "lesser citizens" (for lack of a better term) up to the same height as the general population.

The right libertarian might even take it a step further, and proclaim that the left libertarians actions will inevitably lead to harming those born with more "privilege." The argument made on the behalf of privilege by the RIGHT libertarian is that when a child's parents work hard in order to provide a better opportunity for their children, their children therefore deserve a better opportunity.

The LEFT libertarian disagrees with this point of view. While a left libertarian would acknowledge that it does somewhat erode the advantages given to the child born with privilege, the child is ultimately a separate individual that must stand on its own two feet. Thus, his or her opportunities should be based off their own actions and not the actions of their parents. Additionally, the left libertarian would point to the additional advantages built into society based on privilege, advantages that cannot be taken away without resulting in authoritarianism.

Thus, the child born without privilege must attend public schooling, while the child born to privilege can receive the best education that money can buy. What is important, then, is that depth of knowledge and raw talent of both children be measured. If the privileged child does not apply themselves, and makes poor grades even when provided with the best education, this should be held against him, whereas if the child without privilege makes good grades, this should be used in his favor. The wealth and influence of the families involved should be minimized, and if the child without privilege proves himself capable he should be able to attend an ivy league school – even if the government must be used to pay for it. On the other hand, the child born with privilege who did poorly, should not be allowed to use wealth or influenced gained from his privilege to get into the ivy league school.

Now, take the authoritarian left and libertarian left stance on the same issue. They will both agree on the same goal, which is to ensure equal opportunities for all children regardless of privilege. However, when the authoritarian leftist looks at the situation, they are more likely to say something like: Because public schools are not as good as many private schools, I will outlaw private schools and force the wealthy to send their children to public schools. This will, in turn, cause the public school system to become better as the wealthy will demand it.

The libertarian leftist would oppose such a move, even if they agree with the goal, simply because it restricts an individuals freedom of choice. An individual has the right to send their child to whatever school they wish, even if that DOES result in certain advantages based on privilege, and further simply sending wealthy children to public schools may or may not have the intended result.

As I am trying to explain here, things are not black and white at all, but many shades of gray. As a general rule of thumb left and right libertarians most often clash on points of rights vs privileges, and virtually anything when it comes to equality. On the opposite side of the coin, both the left and right libertarians more often than not oppose the efforts of the authoritarian leftists, but for different reasons. A libertarian leftist will often find themselves agreeing with the goals of an authoritarian leftist, even as they oppose the methods in which they try and achieve them, whereas a right libertarian will oppose both the goals and methods.

:yourock:

"A libertarian leftist believes that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, thus the authoritarian leftist is doomed to become a tyrant, no matter how noble the goals."

Exactly. Authoritarianism is like the One Ring in The Lord of the Rings, it is tempting to use it for good purposes, but it only corrupts, and thus it must be destroyed.

:hide: :rofl:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6204299

Another thread here on DU, with Chavez continuing his crusade against free speech.

This is why the libertarian left is in conflict with the authoritarian left.

And don't like him all that much.

I brought up Chavez because he is the most well known and most popular figure around these parts. He also has some supporters here on DU.

Chavez is squarely on the left when it comes to most of his agenda: combating disease, illiteracy, malnutrition, poverty, and other social ills, etc.

Yet, at the same time he is undeniably authoritarian.

While his agenda is something anyone on the left can support, his methods of achieving them bring conflict. Thus, there is a need to differentiate between the left authoritarians and left libertarians.

Spend some quality time reading some Libertarian writing, most of which you will find in the National Review and the American Conservative.

I would differentiate the label Libertarian as that theory espoused by "classic" Libertarians like Robert Nozick, David Scaefer, Epstein, Sobran, Ann Coulter, and other Cato Institute followers from "libertarian" as you use it.

Yes, I agree with you that there are a lot of "liberal libertarians" here in the sense that you have used it.

There is no "public" there's only me and you ... and I'm not so sure about you.

Libertarian theory is all about markets and greed - anything else is subordinate to that and does not survive that.

You just know a few nut-jobs and have stereotyped. :eyes:

Empathy is the thing that differentiates human's from .... well, psychopaths.

That statement in my OP was tongue in cheek, however.

as a general rule.

I identify myself as a member of the Libertarian Left. I can only assume that you have no idea what libertarianism means or stands for, and for those on the left it is nothing like the libertarianism on the right - which is highly Darwinian in its views.

A good example of the Libertarian Left is the ACLU. Someone who belongs to the Libertarian Left believes in as much personal freedom as possible, and as little government interference in the private lives of its citizens as possible. It is opposed to the Authoritarian Left, which believes that certain things such as free speech must be curbed for the greater good. (For example: Outlaw hate speech.) While both individuals may agree that hate speech is wrong, and such individuals must be opposed, the methods in which they seek to accomplish such a goal are radically different. An authoritarian seeks to use the government to oppress such individuals, while the libertarian leftist believes that if the government is given the power to silence one individual it could eventually expand that power to silence more. Thus, the silencing of anyone by the government is bad – government control, power and influence must always be placed in check.

The libertarian left naturally opposes such things as the Patriot Act, and due to the leftist leanings and social views of those on the libertarian left, also are highly egalitarian in their views, believing all humans are equal regardless of sex, race, class, gender identification, sexual orientation, religion or ethnic group.

I'd consider the following individuals to be famous members of the libertarian left (as their views highly align with such beliefs): Martin Luther King Jr., Thomas Pain, and Gandhi.

with Libertarians on both sides adhering to an absolutist ideology. Believing in absolute freedom of speech or absolute personal freedoms in all situations is no different than believing in the ideological fantasy of absolutely free markets. The difference between what you define as the "Libertarian Left" and the Libertarian right is merely the difference between people who are social but not economic libertarians vs. people who are both social and economic libertarians.

In my opinion, the reasonable (i.e. liberal) approach toward both the social and the economic side of things is to acknowledge that there is some social value in having some government regulation of both the economy and private behavior. For example, hate crime legislation, restricting gun ownership, outlawing child pornography, making it illegal to talk about assassinating the president, etc.

I believe that all drugs should be legalized, and that capital punishment should be abolished, but not because of any kind of concept of absolute freedom but because there are many quite practical and even economic reasons why those positions make sense.

Yes, the libertarian left tends to focus much more on social issues than economic issues. However, I'd argue that those on the libertarian right, who adhere to the view of Ann Rand and other such folks, are corporate anarchists. A libertarian does not view the government as something that should be abolished. The Ann Rand folks do not believe the government should have ANY say what-so-ever in the free market, which leads to horrible things - things that the libertarian left naturally opposes due to its moral views. Anarchists, on the other hand, shun government and thus I think the term "corporate anarchists" is most fitting for them.

A libertarian does not completely seek to do away with government, but views it as a necessary evil that must be kept in check and guarded against. Not something that should be abolished. A government is required to protect individual freedoms and rights, which is somewhat ironic but true.

I believe drugs should be legalized, because I believe individuals have a right to choose what they put in their bodies. I do not agree with drug use, just as I don't agree with smoking, but it is an individual choice so long as that choice does not fringe upon another's right to choose not to engage in such activity. (For example: second hand smoking.) I believe capital punishment should be abolished, because the government should not have the right to decide who lives or dies, that is too much power invested in the hands of the government. It has been proven, in addition to that, that the government is incapable of always telling who is innocent and who is not.

I consider myself to be a capitalist who believes in the free market. Yet, I support regulation. I believe capitalism works best when it is more local. I oppose corporate welfare. I oppose monopolies and giant corporations that are too big to fail, because such things harm the free market. Capitalism works at its best when there is competition, because such things spur innovation, create jobs and create wealth. I stand in opposition to Communism, because I believe it concentrates too much power into the hands of the state, which has proven to lead to authoritarianism.

And in opposition to the libertarian right, I support the government making use of social safety nets, because I believe such things help balance out the inequalities of society. Everyone person should be given a fair opportunity to succeed. Although some will always have an advantage over others, it is necessary for the government to create systems that balances those inequalities out. This is accomplished through a number of means, but first and foremost is education.

These are my views as a libertarian leftist.

I think that drugs should be legalized because they are a health issue and not a criminal issue. We shouldn't be putting addicts in jail and we shouldn't be punishing users of some of the safe, recreational drugs. They should however be regulated and it shouldn't be legal to drive on acid for example. Likewise, smoking should be illegal in public places because of the second hand smoke issue. You can bet that if heroin were ever decriminalized you're still not going to be able to shoot up in public, and rightfully so.

So to me, the Libertarian says that these are basic questions of personal freedom, and the individual should have the freedom to smoke when and where they like, drink where they like, and make the personal choice whether or not they are sober enough to drive. The liberal approach IMO decides that it's sometimes acceptable to curtail certain freedoms in the public interest. I think that's the more reasonable approach and is more in line with the practical reality of the government we live under (and in fact every government throughout history).

At a certain point you can get any absolutist Libertarian idealogue to agree to some pretty strange things. With economic libertarians it's child labor and slavery which they have to admit they would allow. With civil libertarians I would think they would have to agree that things like child pornography and drunk driving should be legal. As soon as you compromise and agree to any sort of limits or regulations then what's the point of calling yourself a Libertarian? Then you're just a normal, reasonable person who judges a given situation based on the specific facts and circumstances of the issue rather than adhering to a rigid ideology.

BTW, it's Ayn Rand.

You're confusing Libertarianism with Anarchism. You act as if libertarians don't see the need for government. Anarchists seek to abolish government.

No, a left libertarian would not support drinking while driving. Why? The same reason a left libertarian can deny the right to smoke in a publicly owned building. Because it effects the freedoms of others. Yes, you have the right to drink. No, you don't have the right to drive while drunk because you could wreck your car and kill someone. Yes, you can smoke even though it will kill you. No, you cannot smoke in a public building because you force others to endure second hand smoke.

An authoritarian person would say, "Because drinking can cause problems, like car wrecks, liver damage and domestic violence it is a bad thing and must be outlawed. All alcohol must be illegal to protect the people from these things."

A libertarian person would say, "Just because drinking can cause problems, doesn't mean it should be outlawed. Drinking is a personal choice that comes with responsibility. Outlaw driving while drunk, and raise insurance premiums on those who damage their livers due to excessive drinking. Punish those who commit crimes of domestic violence."

An anarchist would say, "Why should the government have any say in what people do or don't do? If people want to drink, let them, it's their business. Sure, people shouldn't drive while drunk, but we don't need the government telling us what to do. If someone does damage to their liver, so what? It is their liver to damage. If someone is committing domestic violence, then the victim should leave the situation and not stay in it. If they remain they only have themselves to blame."

Libertarianism is about balance. It is about guarding against excessive and authoritarian government. An anarchist is an extreme libertarian, whose views ultimately would result in all the things you outlined. Anarchism is to libertarians what tyranny is to authoritarians - an extreme. You cannot take an extreme point of view and call it normal.

that has nothing to do with the people who commonly call themselves Libertarians in the U.S. today. Why not just call yourself a liberal? How is what you're describing different than any other form of liberalism?

Libertarianism in and of itself is neither left nor right. It is simply an opposition to authoritarianism, most often represented by the state.

Look at someone like Hugo Chavez. He is definitely on the left side of things politically. Many of his goals those on the left would find agreeable, it's his methods that a libertarian leftist would find abhorrent. Hugo Chavez is an authoritarian leftist. He believes in using the state to achieve leftist goals, which he then achieves by suppressing freedom.

Further up, in response to one of my previous posts, someone compared authoritarian leftists and the seduction of the One Ring from Lord of the Rings. They seek to use the ring only for good, but in the end it only corrupts them and turns them toward evil.

I found that funny, mostly because that is exactly how I see someone like Hugo Chavez. He seeks to combat disease, illiteracy, malnutrition, poverty, and other social ills domestically. These are all things that anyone on the left could support. Yet, how far are those on the left willing to go to achieve them? Are they willing to effectively turn themselves into a dictator? Are they willing to strip away freedoms from the citizens, of the press, to silence any and all dissenting points of view?

In order for an authoritarian to hold power, especially one who becomes a dictator, they must constantly fight to maintain that power. Freedom as a whole must begin to be suppressed.

No matter what type of government you live under, whether it be an oppressive dictatorial regime, theocracy, democracy, monarchy - the power of the government comes from the consent of the people. If the people are roused to anger, they will rebel against you. See Iran for an example. When the people rebel, the difference between a peaceful revolution and a violent one is a matter of democracy and freedom. Or, to state it more bluntly, the degree to which libertarianism exists within a government. A society that embraces libertarian philosophy is more often than not democratic in nature, and thus such revolutions take place at the ballot box instead of with bullets.

An authoritarian government is more vulnerable to corruption. Just because someone is on the left does not make them immune to corruption.

There is a huge difference between a libertarian leftist and an authoritarian leftist, but more often than not, that difference is not in the goals they seek to achieve, but how they seek to achieve them.

But that's just me. Can you describe to me some of these authoritarian leftists besides Chavez? What are their political parties in the U.S.? Who are the authoritarian leftist office holders? What kind of voting blocs, organizations, or interest groups do they control?

Why should a liberal in the United States need to differentiate himself from a Latin American Socialist leader? Or worse yet, a list of history's favorite leftist boogie men (yeah yeah, Stalin, etc) other than to play into right wing stereotypes and appease the right by constantly having to prove that we're not commies?

Additionally, there are no real leftists elected to political office. Dennis Kucinich comes to mind as being the most well known, and there are others, but they are few. Dennis would be a left libertarian on most issues.

Almost all of our elected leaders, including President Obama, fall on the authoritarian right. Although Obama is certainly far to the left and WAY less authoritarian than most Republicans, and even in many cases most Democrats. However, that does not change the fact that he is still on the right and holds primarily authoritarian views. I would wager that upward of 90% of all our elected officials are somewhere on the authoritarian right.

If you take the left - right / libertarian - authoritarian scale into account the Western World, in Europe, for example, Obama would be considered a moderate conservative.

Obama is now an authoritarian?

So by your definition, the majority in America is authoritarian? In your other post you said the majority was libertarian. Certainly by this definition of yours, the entire Democratic party would be authoritarian, wouldn't we?

I am not speaking of America, I am speaking of American elected leaders.

Most American's DO embrace libertarian philosophy (knowingly or unknowingly).

For example, if you have a poll like: "Do you believe gay marriage should be legal or illegal?" Most Americans will say illegal. They are morally opposed to gay marriage. However, if you ask a poll like this: "Do you believe the government has the right to deny gays the ability to get married?" Suddenly, opinions begin to shift.

The reason most of our candidates are Authoritarian Right is because of the way our electoral system works. If we were to convert to a system of proportional representation we would see a wider range of political views. In that sense, you can also thank our electoral system for the two party system due to Duverger's Law.

"Most American's DO embrace libertarian philosophy" "most of our candidates are Authoritarian Right".

An individual is almost always libertarian and authoritarianism is a problem of leaders. Almost no person is going to self-identify as an authoritarian. And no average citizen is in any position to do anything about it anyway. It's the leaders who are authoritarian. Therefore there's not much use in self-identifying as a libertarian.

I guess I've thought about the Libertarian Party ideology quite a bit because of annoying interactions with some self proclaimed libertarians, and as you have pointed out they are really just anarchists. And in my opinion they are too stupid to realize it. They want to do away with any government intervention into the economy... except of course that major fundamental government regulation that actually creates the market by creating our currency and creating the whole concept of private property! They are simply too dumb to think this idea through to its logical conclusion which would be the end of money and private property (true anarchism).

But I wonder if there isn't a similar dynamic at play in the concept of civil libertarianism. Just like you can argue the economic libertarian into a corner where they're embarrassingly forced to admit that they would allow slavery and child labor, doesn't an absolutist position on individual liberty leave you open to similar ridiculous positions? And once you concede to some minor limitations in personal freedom, aren't you simply admitting that you're on some kind of spectrum with the rest of us and you pick and choose based on the individual issues?

Where is the line in the middle that you have to cross to veer from the libertarian side into the authoritarian side? What is the litmus test? Is there an individual issue that decides, or like the political axis test, do you have to arbitrarily tally up your positions on a bunch of issues and you get plotted on a graph in between?

An individual is almost always libertarian and authoritarianism is a problem of leaders. Almost no person is going to self-identify as an authoritarian. And no average citizen is in any position to do anything about it anyway. It's the leaders who are authoritarian. Therefore there's not much use in self-identifying as a libertarian.

I don't understand what you are saying here. Identifying as libertarian is to stand counter to authoritarians. They are not authoritarians because they are leaders, they are authoritarians because of how they seek to use the power of the government. The average citizen is in a position to do something about it: inform themselves, run for elected office if they can, or support and advocate for someone who is running. At the very least they should inform themselves and go out and vote.

Where is the line in the middle that you have to cross to veer from the libertarian side into the authoritarian side? What is the litmus test? Is there an individual issue that decides, or like the political axis test, do you have to arbitrarily tally up your positions on a bunch of issues and you get plotted on a graph in between?

There is no line, it is a spectrum. What you are looking at is extremes. You are looking at libertarianism and expecting it to be like anarchism. It is not. It is no more like anarchism than authoritarianism is fascism. It is possible to be authoritarian without being a fascist. Therefore, it is equally possible to be a libertarian without being an anarchist.

Because it exists on a spectrum the line is somewhat blurred, but that is where the philosophy, common sense, and rational debate come into play. As a general rule of thumb: a persons freedom ends where another persons freedom begins. I would define that as the view of freedom when it comes to libertarianism. An anarchist does not take the freedoms of others into consideration, but instead believes that anyone should be able to act in anyway they want at any time without interference. That is: absolute freedom.

Naturally, a libertarian seems authoritarian to an anarchist, because they do not swing to the same extreme.

But I wonder if there isn't a similar dynamic at play in the concept of civil libertarianism. Just like you can argue the economic libertarian into a corner where they're embarrassingly forced to admit that they would allow slavery and child labor, doesn't an absolutist position on individual liberty leave you open to similar ridiculous positions? And once you concede to some minor limitations in personal freedom, aren't you simply admitting that you're on some kind of spectrum with the rest of us and you pick and choose based on the individual issues?

See the above.

I guess I've thought about the Libertarian Party ideology quite a bit because of annoying interactions with some self proclaimed libertarians, and as you have pointed out they are really just anarchists. And in my opinion they are too stupid to realize it. They want to do away with any government intervention into the economy... except of course that major fundamental government regulation that actually creates the market by creating our currency and creating the whole concept of private property! They are simply too dumb to think this idea through to its logical conclusion which would be the end of money and private property (true anarchism).

In this we are in absolute agreement. Their views, in my mind, are just as dangerous as those of fascism.

It can mean simply 'pro-civil-liberties', in which case it's certainly liberal.

However *economic* libertarianism is a poisonous right-wing view and dominates Libertarian parties. As others have said, most Libertarians with a big L are just right-wingers who smoke pot.

I consider myself (mostly) one of the former in that I believe, to a first approximation, that Rights Are Good And More Rights Are Better. I even believe so in an economic sense, though my definition of how far one can take that before doing whatever it is that a lot of libertarians call "imposition of force" (acting on someone in a way that harms them, etc) lately is a lot stricter than the Randian crowd would ever accept.

I differ from the big-L ones, though, the guys in the same-named party, in their obsessions over specific sets of rights, the assumption that any deviation from them is morally identical to becoming North Korea, and the fact that many of them don't just exalt solipsism as a worldview but consider looking out for one's neighbors to be actively evil.

..."some kind of WEIRD DEMOCRAT!"

The no-taxes-ever/gun nut libertarians and the dope smoking Libertarians. That's it.

more often than you think.

stems from my former law partner who was very very involved with the Libertarian Party at a state and national level. Sure there are plenty of individuals who would be in both camps. I'm not really talking here about people who call themselves libertarian, but people who are actually members of the Libertarian Party. Of those there really are two distinct groups, those that focus on guns and those that focus on dope. Just from my experience, the two groups barely tolerated each other and where constantly fighting for the "soul" of the party. I found very few "pure" libertarians. Most wanted to be left alone to do what they wanted, but drew the line on things that didn't personally approve of.

They're convinced that people left alone in the market will in sufficient numbers decide to do the right thing. I don't believe history bears this out, and therefore suggest government policies can and should encourage choices that benefit individuals and society at large.

There are no wealthy countries with truly libertarian economic or social safety net policies. However the wealthier and more developed a country becomes the more libertarian its social policies become in some ways. However even that has controvery. Libertarians believe blacks (as an example) should be allowed to vote, but they don't think the government should force states to treat blacks like human beings via the civil rights or voting rights acts. Libertarians think gays should be allowed to live in peace, but they tend to oppose legislation to protect them from abuse.

Liberals tend to be both economically and socially liberal. Plus we tend to support government intervention to protect socially liberal policies because we realize that force is used to oppress certain groups, and legal force has to be used to protect them. The civil rights act, the voting rights act, hate crime legislation, affirmative action, etc. Authoritarian conservatives tend to favor using force to oppress minority groups (grandfather clause, DOMA, etc), liberals favor using force to protect minority groups (civil rights act, hate crime legislation, etc), and libertarians oppose both the oppression of minorities but also oppose using force to protect minorities too, which means that their ideas generally aren't going to work.

Anyway, its all weird. I would say that libertarians have a right to their opinions, but their opinions don't work. That is why no wealthy country with a functioning democracy follows their ideals. Wealthy countries not only have social safety nets and market regulation, they have laws designed to protect minority groups, all of which are policies libertarians tend to balk at.

a fee. got the money you get to stay out of the Thunder Dome.

- it's hilarious. Over half of this forum would classify as being members of the libertarian left.

First of all, folks here are confusing right libertarians with left libertarians. The two are very different, and are in most cases in direct opposition. I find this ironic that people here, on this forum, have such little knowledge of the diversity of political philosophies that exist.

I guess everyone here just considers there to be two camps: liberal or conservative. Anything outside of that doesn't exist. Black and white.

Alright, I'll try and explain, in brief:

If you want an example of a left libertarian organization, then I am sure you are familiar with the ACLU. Those on the libertarian left are very focused on keeping the government out of the private lives of individuals, and protecting the freedoms of Americans. They stand in opposition to authoritarianism (which is the belief directly opposed to libertarianism). With out left libertarians, America would not exist. Heard of Thomas Paine? Guess what. He was a member of the libertarian left. Most of the freedoms American's enjoy today, the freedoms enshrined in the Bill of Rights, are directly taken from left libertarian philosophy. Freedom of Speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press - all of those things and more - are the cornerstones of left libertarian philosophy.

Unlike the OP, I'd argue that left libertarianism is the -only- philosophical view that creates a civil, fair and just society.

Left libertarians, in addition to standing opposed to those on the right who seek to take away America's freedoms, also oppose those on the left who seek to do the same. Yes, you will find left libertarian opposing such things as Communism, because it concentrates all the power in the hands of the state. Although, at the same time, some on the libertarian left may also hold "democratic communist" views. That's not something I personally support, but on the whole the views of the libertarian left are more socialist than communist or capitalist.

The libertarian left in general (although keep in mind it is highly diverse) believe in workers rights and regulation, they oppose extreme Ann Rand type corporatism because it leads to a similar kind of oppression as generated by a government that has too much power. I consider myself a capitalist, and believe in the free market, but I also believe that there should be regulations to prevent giant corporations from swallowing up everything. Capitalism, in my view, is strongest when it is local and there is lots of competition. Capitalism cannot exist if there is a monopoly, and one of the roles of government when it comes to business is to ensure that monopolies (or businesses that are "too big to fail") don't exist.

This is in direct opposition to the libertarian right, which is very Darwinian in their views when it comes to capitalism. They don't believe the government should have ANY say, and this, of course, leads to all sorts of horrible things - all of which the libertarian left opposes.

until i found out that the vast majority of libertarians are disciples of Von Mises and Friedman, and think Ayn Rand was misunderstood.

their hero is Ron Paul, and they have no cohesive strategy outside of anarchy and self-preservation.

I think Ayn Rand's a tool, and that yes, regulation is needed, ironically, to preserve freedom, because big business can be just as tyrannical and authoritarian as a dictatorial government.

you'd be considered a "leftist".

come back from the dark side... we have cookies... :-)

Who'da thunk it - a left-libertarian in favor of single-payer or public-option health care reform, and even doesn't mind the individual mandate?

oops

From all that I have read up on, leftist libertarianism is basically anarchism. They believe in the abolition of all forms of coercive government.


It's an extreme form of socialism. And I highly doubt that very many people here would fall under that category. There is a significant difference between a liberal socialist and a libertarian socialist.

A libertarian is not an anarchist. An anarchist seeks to abolish government in all forms, and yes such individuals exist on the right and the left. Yes, anarchism is closer to libertarianism than to authoritarianism. However, they are not the same.

A libertarian, like the anarchist, is opposed to authoritarianism and oppressive government. Thus, you often see the two groups allied, but when you strip away what they fight against, they are very much at odds. To an anarchist, a libertarian is simply less oppressive than an authoritarian.

Anarchism is to libertarianism what tyranny is to authoritarianism: a radical extreme.

A libertarian does not seek to abolish government, but rather keep it in check.

People love being talked down to.

I don't think right wing libertarians are necessarily opposed to authoritarianism, just government authoritarianism. Like you said, libertarianism is likely to result in corporate plutocracy with wealthy corporations manipulating public opinion, buying politicians and basically controlling people's lives. Most right wing libertarians I have met are not necessarily opposed to this, but they are opposed to government intervention to protect people from it.

Right wing libertarians, in my experience, are comfortable with a country where corporations can curtail the democratic process and individual liberties, as well as use their organization and wealth to influence the country in ways most people disagree with. So they are not anti-authoritarianism, only anti government authoritarianism. Corporate authoritarianism is something they have always been comfortable with.

I do not consider many of those on the right who call themselves libertarian to be true libertarians at all. (At least all the folks brought up here.) Their economic beliefs are more akin to anarchism than libertarianism.

In my view a libertarian leftist and a libertarian rightist are just as strongly opposed as they are to the authoritarian left or right. Anarchism is an extreme form of libertarianism, in the same way tyranny is an extreme form of authoritarianism.

The Ann Rand folks, thus, are best grouped as corporate anarchists.

Additionally, those who fall into such a group tend to have (in my experience) authoritarian views when it comes to social issues. They have no problem with the death penalty, for example, despite the fact that it goes directly against libertarian philosophy to give such a power to the government.

I still consider myself a left libertarian.

Overly powerful corporations are just as dangerous as overly powerful government. The incestuous relationship between coprorations and our government must end

I'm a subscriber to the political philosophy of Karl Popper, which has a tendency of pissing off the resident Marxist authoritarians sucking up to Chavez.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_society



The Neo-Cons are exactly the type of Authoritarians Popper warned about (it's my visceral hatred towards the Neo-Cons and their love of Platonic Reactionary Authoritarianism that got me interested in Popper in the first place).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism

The problem with the Right-Libertarians is that they don't understand the dangers of corporate power, their conceptions about the economic relationship between individuals are stuck in the pre-industrial age and Jefferson's ideal of a country of "Yeoman Farmers". The notions of the Right-Libertarians would have made sense in 1776, but not today.

You keep mentioning the ACLU as a "left libertarian" organization. So can you name one single authoritarian leftist organization in the U.S.? :shrug:

They don't exist. It's nothing but total right wing, anti-liberal propaganda. We have another, simpler term for what you're calling a "left libertarian" and that's LIBERAL.

The ACLU is a clear example of a left libertarian organization, for all the obvious reasons I have pointed out in previous posts. You don't believe authoritarian leftists exist? I'll grant you that such individuals are rare in the United States, but that is only because the nation as a whole is STRONGLY libertarian. The left in the United States tend to more-or-less fall into the category of Left Libertarian.

This is in marked contrast to say, Hugo Chavez (the best known modern example outside of the United States but I could also use the Castro Brothers as another example), who is also on the left but is staunchly authoritarian. How about the Pope? Again, he is on the left, but he is an authoritarian.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/index

Go take that test, and read around the website.

is in any way useful or accurate. If our nation is strongly libertarian and if the left as a whole in the U.S. is primarily left-libertarian then why does this distinction need to be made? Other than as a way for the right to paint some liberals as "authoritarians"? Considering that you seem to agree that most liberals in the U.S. are "left libertarians" and considering that we have an actual right wing political party and movement in the U.S. that has come to be widely associated with the name Libertarian, don't you think it might make sense to reconsider your use of the term?

It's kind of like the term "liberal" which outside of the U.S. generally means that you believe in free markets and globalization. Your definition of the term libertarian doesn't really reflect the common usage here.

And yes, political compass is interesting (and of course I fall far to the "left libertarian" quadrant) but I don't think it's the be-all-end-all of political categorization and terminology. Maybe it's not quite so black and white as liberal->conservative but it's really just black, white, red, blue, instead. It's not exactly earth shattering that they added one extra axis to the concept of political identification. I also love how you segue from "No matter how black and white you want to paint things, they still remain gray" directly into "The ACLU is a clear example of a left libertarian organization" :P

Also the Pope is on the left!? And Chavez is an authoritarian? OK.

Here is why: The word libertarian is neither right nor left. It is simply an opposition to authoritarianism.

Yes, the Pope is on the Authoritarian Left. Sure, he isn't what WE would consider a liberal, and he is not as far left as we are, but he is still to the left. He embraces concepts such as fighting against poverty, AIDS, and other humanitarian crises. Someone further to the right would be less concerned about such things, and would take on the whole "pull yourself up by the boot-straps" approach. Yet, at the same time the Pope seeks to use the government to restrict freedom and choice, to ban such things as gay marriage and abortion. He also seeks to use government, though not as heavily as some on the Authoritarian Left, to pursue his agenda.

Ironically, he is to the left of Obama, though not by a whole lot. You and I would be miles apart from them both, politically speaking.

Just because there are Right Libertarians in the United States that use the word, does not mean that they control the word. I choose to identify as a Left Libertarian precisely BECAUSE I oppose authoritarianism. It is the description that best identifies my political philosophy.

In fact, when someone asks me if I am a conservative or a liberal, I tell them libertarian. There are just far too many people on the left who would eagerly and happily embrace growing the government, even after all we've been through with Bush. Many on the left happily embrace certain types of corporate welfare and the like as well. It just depends on the corporation.

Besides, being gay I've found that there are plenty of folks on the left who are also more than happy to use the government against us, or even those who are on our side would use the government against our enemies. As if the government were designed to be some type of weapon. It really sickens me to my stomach, and it is not something I can support in any way shape or form.

Trust me. We may all be leftists, but we certainly don't agree on everything.

And I think you demonstrate that clearly here. I would eagerly and happily embrace "growing the government." Why not? What problem do you have with that? For starters I want socialized medicine. I like to use the term "corporate welfare" to poke at the right, but I think there are some cases where subsidies and tax breaks to private industry are quite positive and necessary (for example green initiatives). If you are opposed to all instances of growing the government, and any form of government intrusion into private industry, then aren't you also an economic (or "right") libertarian?

How do you pick and choose? If you agree that sometimes it's necessary to compromise our personal freedoms for the public good and that sometimes bigger government can perform some useful functions, then aren't you just like the rest of us who make decisions based on the individual issues, not on some ideological framework? It sounds like what you're ultimately saying is something akin to "wherever possible, we should minimize government intrusion and maximize individual freedom, unless it's in the greater public good to regulate or curtail that freedom". Isn't that what we all believe? We just have different ideas about where those lines are and what is in the public interest.

Almost nobody says "wherever possible, a strong central government should limit the personal freedoms of the citizenry in order to best maximize the strength and continued growth of the central government." Even when a so-called right authoritarian wants to create anti-gay legislation they are for the most part doing it with the desire to protect what they think is the greater public good. They're wrong on that particular issue of course. But that same person might be "libertarian" on other issues such as gun ownership.

So in other words, unless you take these labels to their obvious conclusion and adhere to them as a rigid ideology, I don't see the usefulness as a casual political label. Who is more authoritarian and who is more libertarian: the person who wants to ban all guns but allow gay marriage, or the person who supports anti-sodomy laws but wants to do away with all gun regulations?

"Again, it's not a spectrum IMO, but an absolutist position no better than authoritarianism."

Yes, it is a spectrum. I use the political compass as a guideline, although I still don't think it's perfect. There is a WIDE range of views in each quadrant, but it is still better than the traditional left / right point of view.

"I would eagerly and happily embrace "growing the government." Why not? What problem do you have with that?"

Because I realize that large governments lead to more bureaucracy by their very nature. It is hard to maintain something very large. Our government has a lot of corruption going on, and a lot of wastefulness ($40 dollars for screws you can buy at the local hardware store, for example), precisely because it is so large.

I do not like the term "small government." That is not really what I seek. I seek a focused and effective government. A government that can handle and react to any issue that requires its attention virtually immediately.

Finally, the larger a government grows the more people depend upon the government. I find it odd that after eight years of Bush, that people believe that there will never be another Bush. Would you want Bush running a socialized health care system, for example? Imagine what would have happened had he managed to privatize social security, something that so many now depend upon just to get by – I shudder at the thought. Look at what Bush has done to education in America.

No, I prefer to empower individuals, and avoid an overly large and bureaucratic government. Just imagine how much money is wasted, how much intelligence is mangled, because we have so many different intelligence agencies all essentially doing the same job.

"For starters I want socialized medicine."

I am actually on the fence when it comes to socialized medicine. Do not get me wrong, the current system needs a major overhaul. However, again like above, I would shudder at the thought of Bush being in control of my health care. I'd actually prefer to see very STRONG consumer protections put in place on health insurance companies. For example, they would not be able to deny someone health coverage for any reason, or have the ability to drop them from their plan unless they stop payments.

I would support privately run Non-Profit Health Insurance Companies, which would take the place of the government plan option. I'd make major changes to the laws that govern pharmaceutical companies
which causes medication to cost so much, reducing additional burdens on individuals.

I'd have a website that anyone could go to and see the different health care plans offered. I'd have the government take the burden of health care off of business, and take that burden onto itself. This would make business more competitive in the United States, creating more jobs.

I would mandate that everyone requires health care, which would get everyone in the system. I would then do away with medicare and medicaid, folding it into the new system.

I would have all premium payments go into a large pool, regardless of state or company, which would then be removed from the pool based on need by individual companies. A private cooperation can determine how much profit they want to keep based upon the premium paid. However, if a company withdraws more money than they put into the pool they go into debt just like normal.

I'd have the government pay for the education of thousands upon thousands of new doctors, nurses, and specialists. This will be critical in the coming years as the Baby Boomers move into their final years of life. It will also have an impact on supply and demand, with the goal of creating a surplus of health care workers, thus creating a more competitive market. This results in cheaper health care, as doctors can afford to be paid less, freed from paying off huge medical school student debts.

Anyone who could not pay for health care (which would be based only upon income) would receive it for free, paid for by the government. They would have the ability to select from a more restricted number of plans, most likely only the non-profit plans as they should be the cheapest.

To ensure that there are plenty of non-profit health insurance companies, the government would fund their creation with no interest loans.

I'd also mandate that doctors be paid, not based on the number of tests they perform, but based upon results. If they get someone to lose weight, for example, they get paid more. If they get someone to stop smoking, they get paid more, etc. This is very similar to how it is done in Britain.

Finally, I would mandate that every health insurance company must be accepted by every doctor or hospital. You would not only get to keep the doctor you have, but you would also have the ability to see any doctor willing to see you.

So in the end what you have is a system that is very similar to that of a European country, in which everyone is covered, but focused on keeping prices low through competition. The for profit insurance companies would eventually be driven out of business or forced to adapt their prices to a more sane range. They would no longer be pulling in multi-billion dollar profits. Having multiple managers and plans allows Americans to select what best suits their needs and price range, this combats the fraud experienced in something like Medicare which costs us an estimated $60 Billion Dollars a year from fraud alone. The smaller companies, which must focus on profit in order to survive, will therefore be very keen on weeding such things out.

Additionally, it keeps health care out of the hands of the government, which primary role would be regulator, along with paying for health care for those who cannot afford it. This prevents fuck ups we would no doubt see under someone like Bush, or some Republican or "health care is a privilege not a right" person showing up and purposefully fucking over the system.

"I like to use the term "corporate welfare" to poke at the right, but I think there are some cases where subsidies and tax breaks to private industry are quite positive and necessary (for example green initiatives)."

There is a difference between funding research, which is what funding green initiatives would consist of along with offering low interest loans. It is quite another to subsidize farmers in Iowa, for example. No, I am not interested in a debate over this particular matter, but suffice it to say certain groups get government subsidies because they are politically important to either the right or the left. Many on the left supported bailing out GM as well, for example, because so many workers would have lost their jobs.

I did not support the bailing out of GM. I supported the government funding education programs, even going as far as to give no interest loans to people to go to college or start their own businesses. This would have helped them out much more than GM, which in reality had nothing to do with saving the company, but instead creating a government jobs program.

I believe bad companies deserve to fail. That is how capitalism works. Bad businesses deserve to die, and the government exists to help those who are unemployed as a result. Keeping such businesses alive, especially large businesses, completely fucks up capitalism by allowing them to keep their competitive edge built up over the years. New car companies cannot easily break into the market when competing against something like GM, but if GM were gone imagine the future of something like Tesla Motors.

"How do you pick and choose? If you agree that sometimes it's necessary to compromise our personal freedoms for the public good and that sometimes bigger government can perform some useful functions, then aren't you just like the rest of us who make decisions based on the individual issues, not on some ideological framework?"

You are confusing ideology with philosophy. They are two different things. A philosophy exists to act a set of principles to help guide an individual in practical matters. It is not dogmatic, unyielding. It serves to guide and inform, based upon circumstance, reason and logic.

That being said, there are some stances that I do consider myself rather dogmatic on, and you hit upon one of them. I do not believe it is ever necessary to compromise our personal freedoms for the public good. I don't care what happens, terrorists can set off a nuke in DC, but I will never willingly or happily give up my personal freedoms for any reason.

It is my belief that once a government has taken away something, it is very hard, if not impossible to get it back without some type of revolution.

"It sounds like what you're ultimately saying is something akin to "wherever possible, we should minimize government intrusion and maximize individual freedom, unless it's in the greater public good to regulate or curtail that freedom". Isn't that what we all believe? We just have different ideas about where those lines are and what is in the public interest."

Yes and no to the answer to that question. I believe there are limits to freedom: it ends where another persons freedom begins. You are free to express yourself, and live your life as you see fit, but the moment it begins to harm or negatively impact someone else's life in a measurable way, then you are no longer free to act in that manner.

You are free, therefore, to sell your body for the sexual gratification of others. It is your body, and what you do with it is your business. There is no measurable harm done to those who would morally object, and so long as everyone involved is consensual then it should be perfectly legal. You are allowed to smoke cigarettes, even though they will eventually lead to your death. It is your right to smoke. However, society is not obligated to take on the burden of your actions, and thus you are therefore obligated to pay more for health care due to your dangerous behavior that will most likely lead to high medical bills in the future. Additionally, you are not free to smoke in public places or anywhere that second hand smoke can be exchanged. You are putting others at a health risk.

As you can see, in all of these cases, there are limits. Yet, those limits are rational and informed based upon a shared understanding of freedom. There is a very clearly defined boundary of what is acceptable and what is not.

"Almost nobody says "wherever possible, a strong central government should limit the personal freedoms of the citizenry in order to best maximize the strength and continued growth of the central government." Even when a so-called right authoritarian wants to create anti-gay legislation they are for the most part doing it with the desire to protect what they think is the greater public good. They're wrong on that particular issue of course. But that same person might be "libertarian" on other issues such as gun ownership."

That is exactly what fascism is - the belief that the individuals rights are irrelevant, and everyone should be subservient to the state. That was pretty popular for a time. That is until people started to realize how much life sucked under fascism. :P

Of course, such things are always cloaked in the greater public good. That is how you force down the bitter pill and make the sheep swallow.

"So in other words, unless you take these labels to their obvious conclusion and adhere to them as a rigid ideology, I don't see the usefulness as a casual political label. Who is more authoritarian and who is more libertarian: the person who wants to ban all guns but allow gay marriage, or the person who supports anti-sodomy laws but wants to do away with all gun regulations?"

You cannot determine libertarian vs authoritarian based on just one issue. It is based on a general belief of the view of government. It is not meant to be a rigid ideology, or taken to extremism: if taken to its extreme libertarianism is no longer libertarianism but instead becomes anarchism. If authoritarianism is taken to it's extreme it becomes fascism. There is a lot going around in between those extremes, encompassing a HUGE range of political thought.

I view it as a philosophy, not a rigid ideology, something that is meant to guide and inform practical decisions. It is something I naturally feel drawn to, both based on personal life experiences, but also the development of my own political ideas.

Nobody's buying it. Yet, you try to convince the rest of us as you write posts as long as Ayn Rand monologues. That's what's truly hilarious.

What you describe as libertarian left already has a perfectly good word attached to it. LIBERAL.

And they're... authoritarians! :scared:

Let's get rid of superfluous words that I love and the GOP hates and go with wordy hybrids that have little meaning, context or emotional appeal.:eyes:

I did not mean to complicate your world view. I know it is earth shattering, to realize that the world is not black and white. It seems you very much like to see the world in those terms, much like a neo-conservative. Perhaps you have more in common with them mentally than you thought?

Also, it may come as a shock, but I am not trying to redefine anything. Go read up on Henry George or Thomas Paine. They've only been around for virtually the entire time this nation has been in existence (and for Thomas Paine - before the nation was even born).

Finally, I find it funny that you would try and force your label on me, after claiming that I am "trying to catch the re-definition train that left 30 years ago." When you are the one trying to slap me with the word liberal.

I don't have a problem with the word liberal. I certainly am a liberal, but I view the world as more complicated than just left vs right. Sorry.

The very definition is open minded. Libertarianism is not, no matter what modifier you place with it. Make shit up about somebody else's personality flaws.

Seriously, if you think I am even a little bit like Ayn Rand - a corporate anarchist - then you have no idea what you are talking about. Seriously, I come to this site for intellectual debate and read things from like minded folks. You claim to be open minded, but you are not. If you cannot even understand that the world is more complicated than simply left vs right, and has additional components attached to it, then your world view is really no different than a neo-conservative.

"You're either with us or against us!"

Go ahead and say it. You know you want too. :P

If you had any clue about me you would not be so quick to categorize me yourself. For intellectual debate, you would first have to posit a position to debate, rather than claim authority on the subject matter and claim nobody else "knows what they're talking about". Of course you applied once more to me a trait that I don't have. That "simply left vs. right" windmill you wish to dodge. I would love to know what dark crevice you got that from.

I likened you to Rand, because you like to write novels and go on long, self absorbing diatribes in pursuit of your army building of "libertarian left" minions. Rand herself did that in her chicken scratches.

I'm not the one obsessed with labels, which is why you can't see any other aspect of that annoying woman other than the category of anarchist that you put her in. You are only like her in that you are absolutely sure of your correctness, and everybody else's wrongness, and that you are a fan of filibustering and circumlocutions. The anarchist in you? I haven't seen and can't comment on that.

if their ideologies were practiced w/o modification, the resulting society would be an absolute disaster.

Because they really aren't.


To suggest that we know the outcome of something like an anarcho-communist society is kind of lame. Because we really don't know what would happen.

Take the health care debate. Go on YouTube (Libertarian La-La Land Paradise) and read some of the comments.....

It's all about how "unconstitutional" government run health care would be....and that somehow it would take away THEIR freedom.

Libertarians are just shills for the corporate elite, who think that if they just continue to shill for the corporate elite and their almighty free market opiate for the masses, they will become part of said elite.

He's a theocratic, racist, misogynistic, pro big business nut job. Who cares if he thinks we should be able to smoke pot if we want, or shouldn't have to pay taxes? He's still a nutjob. EOM

If so, I've never heard of any.

i have never, ever, seen a car with a Ron Paul sticker have a female driver.

never.

that they don't get laid because women aren't smart enough to see how smart they are.

Yeah, yeah. I know. Kinda rude. But to a man, every guy I know who calls himself a libertarian thinks it is okay to go ahead and hurt someone else for the sake of being "honest", but get their feelings pulped like bruised peaches whenever their opinions are shown for the selfishness that they are.

:thumbsup:

She's really gone off the deep end, thinks the Federal Reserve wants to force her to go to the Bohemeian Grove to get a flu shot, that kind of shit.

I don't know what happened. But yes, she's a woman, whereas I'm a white male lifelong Democrat.

So put that in your pipe and smoke it.

i'll be able to report that i finally saw a woman's car with an RP sticker.

Just sayin'.

I don't think authoritarian thought policing should be tolerated in a civil society, but you apparently think otherwise.

Honestly, I'm not a libertarian in the slightest, but they tend to be fairly liberal on social issues like gay marriage so I already have more in common with them then the standard repuke.

policing or mind control. I do, however, believe in the public, society, and the public good.
Libertarians - capital L- profess that there is no such animal, that there is only individuals who are motivated by their own greed driven interests. And, BTW, that is from (though no exact quote) from the writings of Robert Nozick, David Schaefer, and other prominent Libertarian thinkers (Nozick is dead, so he's not exactly current)

Perhaps "tolerated" was not the word I should have used. I don't think that Libertarianism in the sense that I have described it (think Pat Buchanan) is all that compatible with a well functioning civil society.

There are plenty of studies which acknowledge that the rising inequality in the US today (which, btw, mirrors that of the Gilded Age ... and the "Long Gilded Age" as denoted by Paul Krugman ) is detrimental to the maintenance of a well functioning civil society and of a vibrant democracy). To a very large degree, this inequality is the result of Libertarian policies put into effect since Ronald Reagan.

then maybe your choice of words will be important. Maybe you're starting to learn that already. :D

Pure & simple. Old school.

I am really saddened about a lot of what I've read here. I suppose I deluded myself into believing that DU was somehow more educated than the general public, but I guess I was wrong.

Pat Buchanan is definitely a hardcore right authoritarian. I mean, hell, I've seen the guy (I believe it was on Hardball) flat out say he'd support a monarchy in the United States, so long as the king was a "true" Christian! I am googling right now to see if I can find a transcript of that conversation, but I can't seem to find it. :(

I knew he was hardcore right authoritarian, but I did not realize just how hardcore authoritarian he was until that comment! My jaw dropped.

MATTHEWS: You Pat Buchanan, although you are a libertarian in many ways-no, you're a nationalist, actually. You're not what you like to call derisively a democratist.

BUCHANAN: I don't believe there's a great salvation in a political process at all. You know, I believe in different-far different things. I put democracy far down the line. I think a devoutly Christian, conservative, traditionalist country, even if it's a monarchy, is fine with me.

MATTHEWS: Your Franco is talking, Pat. Franco is speaking.

BUCHANAN: He was better than the alternative, Chris.

.....

Yeah, Uncle Pat is a huge libertarian. :sarcasm:

Even Matthews realized he was wrong as soon as the words left his lips.

More here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31444432/

yeah, lets break out the concentration/re-education camps...


:sarcasm:

wasn't there a Dem worth your vote?

Republican-Jesus+pot+hot sexy gun toting naked chicks=Libertarian

http://wikiality.wikia.com/Libertarian

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism

Wow. I can post links too. Links that actually lead to real information!

If you disagree, then your a traitor and a coward!;)

18th and 19th century liberalism. It was later in the 30's-60's when the word liberal was used to describe people that believe government should be more involved in the betterment of the living conditions of people.

Extreme far right anarchists who want big business to run all. There are some that make a little more sense.

If you do, congratulations, you hold "libertarian" views.

I know how much fun some people around here have conflating small l or left-libertarianism with the big L Libertarian Party, but before y'all start these incredibly redundant (meaning we've been through this before) threads waving the "l" word around like it's dog doo on a stick, I REALLY wish y'all would come right out and say what issues and concepts -defined by "libertarianism"- it is that have you so wound up.

Is it the idea that consenting adults should have control over their own bodies, insofar as what they drink, smoke, etc. as long as they aren't harming or endangering others?
Is it consenting adults looking at pictures of other consenting adults fucking?
Or is it wacky Ayn Rand/Milton Friedman economics that say we should privatize fire departments and sewage treatment?

Because all those ideas, while they can be loosely glommed together under the label "libertarianism", represent far different outlooks on the political spectrum.

What is a human being.
Killing a human being, except in self-deffence is wrong.
When does a fetus become human?
That controls when Abortion is about right of choice over ones own body vs committing murder.

But here are my views as someone who identifies as "left libertarian."

Morally and personally, if I were a woman (and I weren't gay!) I wouldn't have an abortion. I believe most people think like me: If given the choice, they'd have the child. I believe abortions take place for a number of reasons.

I believe that -life- begins not long after conception. Yet, for all intents and purposes the fetus is a parasite. It requires the mother's body in order to live. Now, while morally I would be opposed to abortions used as a form of birth control ("But he said he'd pull out!"), I am in favor of it being legal.

Why? Because the fetus, by it's parasitic nature, is infringing upon the freedoms of the mother. I believe that the freedom of the mother trumps the right of the fetus to live. If the fetus can be delivered and survive on its own - then fine. It is no longer a parasite. If it cannot, then it requires the mother to sacrifice her freedom in order to carry it to term.

I am pretty sure the word "parasite" is going to offend some people. So, before I am hit with hate PM's, read the definition.

---

Parasite: an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.

---

If I were an authoritarian and felt as I currently do, I would see no moral qualm about outlawing abortion.

Instead, as a libertarian, I support a woman's right to choose. As a left libertarian I support educating the public about birth control and free access to it. I believe educating the public is a good thing, because when people are properly educated they will make wise and intelligent decisions for themselves. My informed decision would be to have the child, but just because that would be my decision does not mean it equally applies to others. I believe others have the right to do what they think is best for them, and that others - even a fetus that depends upon them for survival - has the no right to deny that freedom to them.

If it was a parasite that started growing on it's own I would agree with you 100%. But it takes a physical act to spawn that parasite. So the logic says if you don't want to be put in the position of being forced between choosing between freedom of your body vs murdering a fetus you shouldn't do that act in the first place. Or at least use protection so you don't conceive.

I deffinitely don't think abortion should be 100% illegal, there are cases where it is medically necessary. However, it shouldn't be used as a form of birth control. If you don't want a kid use birth control. If you can't afford birth control don't have sex. That would cover, in my guesstimate, 90% of the abortions that happen. Even if I'm wrong about the 90% number it's still a good rule to live by.

Morally speaking, I really don't have a problem with abortion in the case where it comes down to choosing the fetus or the mother's life. Where I think MOST people have a moral problem with abortion is when it is used as a form of birth control.

However, I believe that such individuals are -rare-, and are by far not the norm. In fact far from it. I believe the specter of women using abortion as a form of birth control is a specter created by the right. Abortion is, in no way shape or form, pleasant. It is also a medical procedure that does not come without risk.

Although, let us say for the sake of argument that 90% of all abortions were used as a form of birth control. Then who gets to determine what is and is not medically necessary? The doctor or the government? That is really where the libertarian side of things kick in, I believe that such choices should be left up to the individual and their doctor. Once you open the door and allow the government to place restrictions on something like abortion, they will continue to push until it is repealed entirely – even in the cases of the mother's life.

Additionally, I don't believe that such measures work. We know from the past that even when abortion was outlawed, there were still back alley abortion clinics who preformed the procedure, often in DANGEROUS and UNSANITARY conditions.

The same goes for prohibition against alcohol and pot. When there was a prohibition against alcohol, did it stop drinking? No. It drove people who wanted to drink underground and created a black market run by criminals. Is the prohibition against pot stopping people who want to use it? No. It has driven them underground, locks up those who are caught with it, creating a burden on society, and created a black market run by criminals.

From our past history of when abortion was outlawed the same thing happened. It is thus, for someone who is a left libertarian, not only more intelligent to allow such a thing to be legal (because people are going to do it anyway), but safer for the individual and society as a whole. It is safer for the individual because they can be certain whomever is performing the abortion, offering the pot, or the alcohol knows what they are doing or are offering an authentic product. If they perform malpractice, or offer you a false product, or somehow cause you harm there is a legal recourse against them. For society it reduces criminal elements because it brings what was once criminalized out of the shadows and into the light, where it can be transparently observed by society.

So while **I** may oppose abortions as a form of birth control, I am aware of the implications of my actions should I seek to outlaw it in an authoritarian manner. Thus, if I am opposed to such a thing, it makes sense for me to pursue other methods to make it unnecessary, such as free sex education and birth control. This then does not criminalize the act of having an abortion, but eliminates the need for it as a form of birth control.

This is, in essence, how left libertarian philosophy is applied to a real world problem.

I still oppose abortions as a form of birth control.
However, your answer to it is the most realistic solution with todays technology.

then you are in the wrong forum.

I've never actually used the term before, but taking into account the terms everyone seem to be using for right libertarism vs left libertarism I think it's appropriate.

My deffinition of myself and a true Libertarian: Anyone should be free to do anything they so desire as long as it does not interfer with the rights of another to do the same.

ie. murder would be illegal because it would interfere with the victims rights.
Traspassing would be illegal because again it's tramping on someone else's rights.

I should be free to live my life my way as long as it doesn't effect your life, or someone elses life.

It's the details that divide the hard left from the hard right.
Bill Mahrer is a Progressive Libertarian.
Ron Paul isn't.

They tend to agree with the Repubs on military and economic issues; however, they agree with us that the social conservatives are morons.

If the fundamental plank of the libertarian platform (The Randian version, which seems to be the Libertarian Bible-- everyone says they've read it, but no one made it past the first three pages...) denies legislated and collective financial, legal and health protectionism for the least of those among us, I cannot perceive any valid way it could be even remotely construed as a liberal.

Republicans are liberal, the Democratic Party is liberal, Green Party is liberal, heck yep, even the Libertarian Party is liberal. Don't confuse liberal with the "liberal" label that Republicans pin on Democrats as a "badge of dirt".

Liberalism is simply about individual rights and equal opportunity for everyone. I don't know many Americans who disagree with this.

However Liberalism is further refined into the "classical" variety and the "social" variety. Classical liberalism is more like our Libertarians, we're definitely Social liberals... Republicans are in the middle here somewhat, subscribing to both camps.

I prefer the Democrats to be described as being Social Democrats - they're doing good for the people. Except that the logical extension by any opponents would be Social -> Socialism... and Socialism has already got a bad rap here, so "Progressive" has to be the label (sadly).

Mark.