And what is a left libertarian? How do the two coalesce into a ‘Libertarian Party’ in other countries?
I was, techniclly still am registered Libertarian. I always considered myself a left-libertarian. The ideology pretty much boils down to government bad. What I failed to realize is that the government is bad because it serves capitalist interests. Now, I identify with marxist ideology. I’m also considering democratic socialism. I intend to change my registration to Democratic before the next election. I also considered the green party for a while but Jill Stein fucked that up.
The views of the US Libertarian Party are essentially summarized by “taxes and regulations are bad” with few other guiding principles. As a party, it is largely separated from any sort of political theory (even libertarian political theory), and sort of relies on a politically disenaged and uninformed populous who vote for the people promising lower taxes and legal weed without really understanding that the Libertarian Party’s approach to “taxes and regulations are bad” are primarily in favor of large corporations rather than individuals. They posture themselves as a true alternative to the Democratic and Republican parties when practically they want most of the same stuff Republicans want for the most part, with token acceptance of progressive social ideas.
Libertarianism more broadly is an ideology that believes that individual rights are the most important thing to creating a better society. This can be left wing (extending individual rights to include things like the ability to use land and other natural resources without being limited by property ownership) or right wing (believing that the right of the individual includes the right to accumulate wealth and power through accumulation of capital), and the distinction primarily depends on the approach to ownership and property. Libertarianism differs from Anarchism in that libertarians believe that a state is required for maintaining and guaranteeing individual rights through the use of laws and courts, and defending those rights from external threats via military action.
All in all, my personal view is that libertarianism, along with anarchism and other “min-archist” movements, is unable to answer the question of “how do you prevent someone from accumulating material and social power and using that power to enforce their will upon others?” For many libertarians the answer seems to be that social norms in a libertarian society would prevent people from doing this and that they would be able to withstand external attacks from groups that do not hold their views. I do not believe this, and I think that human nature means that some people will always want to gain control over others through whatever means they can, and that only a government can effectively combat these tendencies. Social norms are powerful and are a required part of a functioning democracy, but ultimately the law, backed by the ability to apply the use of force in a way agreed upon by the public, is what allows the weak to resist domination from the strong.
Thanks! This was the very thorough answer I was hoping for!
The views of the US Libertarian Party are essentially summarized by “taxes and regulations are bad” with few other guiding principles. As a party, it is largely separated from any sort of political theory (even libertarian political theory), and sort of relies on a politically disenaged and uninformed populous who vote for the people promising lower taxes and legal weed without really understanding that the Libertarian Party’s approach to “taxes and regulations are bad” are primarily in favor of large corporations rather than individuals. They posture themselves as a true alternative to the Democratic and Republican parties when practically they want most of the same stuff Republicans want for the most part, with token acceptance of progressive social ideas.
Libertarianism more broadly is an ideology that believes that individual rights are the most important thing to creating a better society. This can be left wing (extending individual rights to include things like the ability to use land and other natural resources without being limited by property ownership) or right wing (believing that the right of the individual includes the right to accumulate wealth and power through accumulation of capital), and the distinction primarily depends on the approach to ownership and property. Libertarianism differs from Anarchism in that libertarians believe that a state is required for maintaining and guaranteeing individual rights through the use of laws and courts, and defending those rights from external threats via military action.
All in all, my personal view is that libertarianism, along with anarchism and other “min-archist” movements, is unable to answer the question of “how do you prevent someone from accumulating material and social power and using that power to enforce their will upon others?” For many libertarians the answer seems to be that social norms in a libertarian society would prevent people from doing this and that they would be able to withstand external attacks from groups that do not hold their views. I do not believe this, and I think that human nature means that some people will always want to gain control over others through whatever means they can, and that only a government can effectively combat these tendencies. Social norms are powerful and are a required part of a functioning democracy, but ultimately the law, backed by the ability to apply the use of force in a way agreed upon by the public, is what allows the weak to resist domination from the strong.
Libertarians in the US want small government on three axes: they want to eliminate programs (e.g. welfare, retirement or universal healthcare), public utilities (e.g. electricity, highways), and regulation (e.g. antitrust, banking laws.) in economic terms, it’s very right-wing, since it’s pure unadulterated capitalism. usually they want government to “stay out of the bedroom and the boardroom” though, so they’re often progressive on civil liberties. unfortunately, many self-styled “libertarians” are socially conservative, or care only about their freedoms.
Left Libertarians see both the State and Corporations as oppressive power structures, and want to reign both in. think Anarchists, but not as radical. most favor decentralized, collective government with lots of direct democracy. New Hampshire is the most right-libertarian state, while Vermont is the most left-libertarian.
the Libertarian Party in the US is ridiculously disorganized because organizing Libertarians is like herding cats. afaik there aren’t really unified Libertarian parties anywhere in the world, though maybe e.g. the Pirate Party would be close?
In my opinion what defines libertarianism overall is being non-statist and a belief in markets dictating all of life.
Left libertarianism is just progressive on social issues.
being non-statist
Yes.
and a belief in markets dictating all of life.
No.
Lots of libertarians critique both markets and the state (e.g. Murray Bookchin or Nestor Makhno).
The defining feature is just a critique of state power.
critiquing both is what makes you a left libertarian.
Not sure who Maknho is so thanks for the name drop I’ll check their work out, but as far as I know, Bookchin was a lefty anarchist. I always assumed his later ‘libertarian phase’ was just another label that he’d eventually disavow as well but that his critique of the state also went alongside his critique of the market.
Can you refer me to other libertarians who are particularly anti-market, in the American context?
Bookchin was a lot of things in his life, including a zionist, by the end he had renounced anarchism in favor of his own thing. Although he has had some decent critiques, that sort of behavior has made it hard to take him too seriously.
I would recommend David Graeber frankly if you’re looking for American context anarchism.
It’s a damned shame bookchin wrote a terrible article filled with wild distortions of history of israel/palestine. It goes without saying that people should just not go to bookchin to have an accurate or rigorous framing of middle east’s history and society. Ok, he inspired autonomous democratic movements like rojava, but that’s beside the point of it all and more linked to his social theories of democracy rather than any concrete understanding of history - as far as I know he never studied the history of the middle east in any serious depth.
His social ecology essays are filled with interesting stuff and did have some very good critiques of different environmentalist currents, he did have some strange critiques of Marx at times, but I still respect some of that work even if I may not agree with much of it. His views on zionism is another story though, not excusable. The silver lining is (as far as I know) it was just that one article.
They do not care about other people, only themselves. They despise things like social programs.
those are liberaltarians
Right libertarian: doesn’t want to be oppressed by the law
Left libertarian: doesn’t want to be oppressed by the law, nor by capital neither
I’ll be interested to read the other comments when I have the time/attention span.
It could just be the part of the country where I live (i.e. deeply conservative rural south), but everybody I know who identifies as a Libertarian (going to hand wave over the reality of whether the pedants and purists would agree) is basically what’s termed as “Republican-lite” or “Conservative-lite” aka right-wing.
If I tell you I’m a Libertarian, but my voting record is such that I’ve essentially only voted for Republican candidates in all prominent elections in the past decade (or sometimes more) and/or the majority of my political speech is in opposition to Democratic politicians and liberal policies, what does that suggest?
If I identify as a vegan but I like to eat meat with every meal, am I really a vegan?
If I identify as a vegan but I like to eat meat with every meal, am I really a vegan?
/thread
I thought everyone had the right to choose their own labels.
Who told you that?
Some labels are self applied, sure, but others reflect your actions.
It’s not uncommon for sites and organizations to actively prompt for pronouns, which are labels. It’s generally accepted that minority groups can change their labels by group consensus - Redskins, to Indians, to American Indians, to Native Americans. Labels change, and this is accepted as a good thing, because identity is important to mental health.
Where do you draw the line? At what point do you think it’s justified to deny someone the right to decide their own labels?
Personally, I think it falls broadly under the paradox is tolerance, and there’s a point where someone is clearly just being contrarian. They resent self-labeling. But if someone consistently insists they’re vegan, at some point I have to ask: what gives me the right to insist they aren’t? If you go down the rabbit hole is insisting on dictionary definitions, you quickly get into a quagmire with things most of us agree on: many laws and dictionaries are wrong about their definitions of marriage, male, and female.
I think it’s an interesting topic, although I suppose almost everybody has already made up their minds one way out the other on the topic, and are frankly tired; most people automatically see anyone debating it as pushing some agenda.
But the paradox is tolerance is something I think progressives (liberals, the Left… that’s a whole different fight, on Lemmy) are still struggling with, and I’m interested in how we collectively resolve it. So when it comes up, I’m always interested in how people are thinking about this.
Dogmatic? Morally superior? Angry that people are changing the meanings of words that clearly already have a meaning?
Where does a person’s right to choose their labels (e.g., their pronouns, their identity) stop?
The barrier is internal vs external.
The pronouns one prefers are part of the internal experience they have.
Similarly names are a label that one chooses to respond to.
Whereas other labels are related to things one does, which can be externally verified. If someone describes themselves as a doctor, but has no practice or medical certificate, it is reasonable to not apply that label to them. No matter how much they insist otherwise.
Yes, words change, and the meanings too. But since that happens for even the most mundane object, we can’t really be surprised to see it happen to more complicated concepts :p
So for me, the barrier is internal experience vs. External reality.
Where do you draw the line?
some people label themselves christian and feel that label is a free pass for venomous bigotry. my feeling is that’s perhaps a bit un-christ-like, actually.
As a Christian, who has actually read the Bible, I think the venomous bigotry actually self-selects them out of Christianity. “They’ll know you are Christians by your love for others” was maybe Jesus’ clearest definition of what it meant to follow him.
This may be similar to “actual libertarianism,” but I wouldn’t know, not being a libertarian.
Ah, the rare Christian who’s read the Bible!
It’s crazy, and I highly recommend people in the US do it, especially if they’re not Christian. I have yet to come across a version of the New Testament that successfully creatively edits it enough that Jesus doesn’t come across as an utterly pacifist communist. It’s funny how so many self-proclaimed Christians will just ignore everything in the New to cherry-pick from the Old, which obviously was about a completely different god. An angry god. a righteous, vengeful, unforgiving god. The god who destroyed an entire city, children and infants, because some guys were buggering other guys, vs the Jesus who re-attached his enemies ear when one of his disciples tried to defend him. A Jesus who, by definition in the book itself, is both the son of, and yet the same being as, the old testament god. The new testament god who forgives the traitor, vs the old testament god who tortures his most faithful follower on a bet.
Everyone should read the Bible, if only to comprehend how utterly un-Christian most Christians are.
See: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#Etymology >
The term “libertarian” was invented by Joseph Dejacque, who was, broadly, a communist who rejected using a centralized state to move society toward communism (this is the opposite of what we now call authoritarian communists, who believe that you have to seize state power first in order to bring about a socialist and then communist society).
in the 1960s Murray Rothbard, a right-wing libertarian, popularized the term to refer to people who want zero or minimal state power and want a sort of hyper-capitalism to run everything by contract. He wrote that he specifically chose to steal the term from the left. This is considered right wing because it will make hierarchical systems, especially capitalism, much more intense and brutal. The state doesn’t usually limit the brutality of capitalism or other hierarchies, but from time to time popular movements have been able to make it do that.
In the US, most people will think you mean the Rothbard definition if you just say “libertarian” and will not really know what a “libertarian socialist” or “left-libertarian” is. American socialists will often have heard all of these terms.
First you have to understand this: Anti “big government” sentiment is basically built and drilled into the American psyche, from birth and in school. We were founded on a rebellion against a king, and that hasn’t changed much.
I like to think it distinguishes us. Even as we plunge into autocracy, many openly hate the government, and many Trump supporters openly hate government.
And this is where the American Libertarian Party is coming from. It’s the party of Adam Smith, of hoarding weapons for an armed rebellion against the govt if necessary, of old school homesteading and bootstrapping, of free trade, of minding your own business. I like to think there’s overlap with Warren Buffet’s “sensible business” kind of philosophy, which I am sympathetic to. It’s a bit anarchic, like left wing libertarianism. I know because I have family that expresses some of this.
…It was not prepared for corporate oligarchy.
It was not built for complex, technical modern systems of society.
It was built for low tech entrepreneurs/businessfolk to resist foreign kings, not engagement-driven propaganda from within.
Hence I know registered American libertarians that buy into, say, climate denial, even when they’re very scientific minded people, or conspiracy theories against Democrats while giving Trump a pass. They were essentially a wing of fiscally conservative Republicans for a long time until the whole party got consumed by MAGA, and drug other beliefs in.
A right libertarian believes that the best government is the smallest and most local, and that the government cannot and should not regulate sex, drugs, guns, or businesses.
A left libertarian believes that the best government is one that regulates the economy, protects the public commons, and safeguards the rights of minority groups but otherwise leaves people alone to do as they will.
I’m much more familiar with the former, so if I’ve erred in describing the latter someone please correct me.
The private ownership of production is what makes them right-wing.
Left-libertarianism would be anarchism I guess but I’d never call and anarchist left-libertarian
the whole libertarian/authoritarian axis doesn’t really describe things well because it’s a caricature. On the left Marxists and anarchists have similar end goals, the abolishing of class society, but a diversity of strategy as to how to get there. On the right, they are united in reaction and to the extent that any are “libertarian” it’s purely out of self interest.
Yeah, “libertarian” in common parlance in America is just another word for “selfish asshole”. At least anarchists want everyone to be in it together. “Libertarians” just want it all for themselves and fuck everyone else. John Galt worshipping assholes the lot of them.
Libertarians are an odd bunch these days. They claim to be against “big government” but they want to privatize everything which would essentially make giant corporations into a new authoritarian government.
The love to talk about being able to take your business elsewhere if you don’t like the service your getting, but that doesn’t do a lot of good if your house burns down because you were behind on your fire protection plan and no one will come to put it out.
It’s basically become an entire party that believes the idea that “survival of the
fittestwealthiest” should be the only lawYeah, the whole “taking your business elsewhere” is bullshit in the modern world. It might work in a town without internet that has 3 barbers; sure, you take your little protest purchase to another barber maybe it has an impact.
But I’ve lived in a neighborhood for 6 years where my internet connectivity choices have been Comcast, or DSL. That’s not a choice. When the only competitor is equivalent to no service, it’s not competition; it’s a monopoly.
They are suspiciously knowledgeable about age-of-consent laws.
I just rewatched an old video of Joel Haver’s where jokers a groomer
name a state, Batman. Any state.
uh, Mississippi
16 with parental consent. Mmm!
