Would it be fair to say that US libertarians are anarcho-capitalists while the leftist libertarians are anarcho-syndicalists?
Anarchists believe in no laws. Libertarians believe in increased liberty for the individual. This can be manifest as a reduction of laws, it may be as extreme as a desire for anarchy.
Libertarian really is (was?) about increasing and protecting the individual liberties, maximizing one's ability to make use of their freedoms.
To put those words into a descriptive use, I prefer this; You are free to kill me, you are not at liberty to do so. If you try to kill me, I have the right to defend myself.
So, libertarians are concerned with increasing personal liberties and typically for everyone. So, no, to use the above example, a libertarian would not suggest they have the right to kill people because that's reducing the right of the other person to live. Typically, a libertarian would have wanted to ensure one can most appreciate their freedoms while protecting the commons.
I use the past tense because the usual perception of libertarian is the current incarnation which is mostly made up of ashamed republicans who can no longer feel comfortable being associated with the republican party.
Really, Ayn Rand was an idiot and adoption of her book was absolutely not libertarian in nature. Liberties are for everyone, not just those who can afford them. The goal is to maximize the ability to enjoy your freedoms, and that isn't just reserved for the wealthy. Furthermore, wealth isn't an indicator of productivity or value to society. Wealth is an absolutely horrible metric for determining liberties or rights.
Way back when, libertarians were considered the kooky left. Now, they are seen as the crazy right. Really, it's a very broad spectrum that isn't easy to pin down and put onto a bumper sticker.
I identify as a libertarian, I'd probably be considered close to a Scandinavian Social-Democrat but with a touch of greater rights and expecting a bit more personal responsibility. I believe in things like a strong social safety net, inexpensive health care, inexpensive education, and a right to individual autonomy.
On the political compass, I'm fairly far to the left (very far by US standards) and down in the lower quadrant, as a libertarian.
Sorry for the novella, but hopefully this makes sense. For the most part, the leftist leaning libertarians are extinct in the US. The party has been usurped. Even before that, there weren't many calls for anarchy.
I kinda wish this could be more succinct. Again, sorry about that.
Maybe idiot was too strong a word, but it was shorter than the alternatives. If she'd left it as a work of fantasy, and not encouraged adoption, I'd be less inclined to be disrespectful. However, she gave many talks on the subject and pushed her views as serious political philosophy. This was adopted by others and has pretty much ruined the whole party and platform.
So, maybe she isn't an idiot but is actually a genius for undermining a once viable political platform and duping young people into believing in fairy tales.
Libertarianism was never viable. It goes against human nature, just in the opposite direction from communism. Communism postulates that lazy people deserve everything (“to each according to his need”), so the wealthy and aspiring hate it. Libertarianism postulates they deserve nothing (“taxation is theft”) so the poor hate it. The gray reality is somewhere in between. The underlying truth of the situation is that when the poor have nothing to eat, they eat the rich, and moral absolutes do not help either side.
i just wanted to add that the poor don't eat the rich when they have nothing to eat. they do it much sooner, when they notice that the rich eat better and better and the quality of their food increases way quicker than theirs. that's when the biggest revolutions happen, anyway.
(guess what - i actually live in a post-communist country, too. most people here probably have no idea what they're talking about when they say communism.)
Libertarian is the opposite of authoritarian. Again, it's a broad spectrum on the political compass. There is still left and right. There are extremes and moderates. You're claiming absolutes and being polarized by assuming the loudest speak for every one.
If you read my posts, you'd see that I think Ayn Rand was a moron. You'd also already know that it is far more than just Randians. There's a wonderful Wikipedia article on the subject, if you don't believe me.
TL;DR: The "opposite" of a bad world isn't necessarily a good world.
It really is a broad spectrum and it's quite possible to have both authoritarian ideals in one category while having libertarian values in a different category.
I do favor the simplicity of the political compass with four points. It has a specific name but I can't think of it at the moment. It is simplistic, and reductionist, but it is handy enough for a forum post and adequate for generalized conversations.
But, as you suggest, it's much more complicated than that. We humans really do like putting things into boxes, or so it seems.
...
Liberties are for everyone, not just those who can afford them.
How do you square these two lines of reasoning? If you can afford making sure I get killed and I cannot afford to defend myself against you what difference my theoretical right to defend myself make? If the only rights I have are the ones I can personally defend then only the rich have rights.
The goal being to maximize your ability to enjoy your freedoms does not mean you'll be able to maximize them as much as someone else with greater assets.
An example would be public parks. A wealthy person may be able to put a giant boat on the lake, but you may only be able to afford to swim in the lake. You should still be allowed to swim in the lake and enjoy the park.
You, the individual, are still responsible for you. Equal opportunity doesn't ensure equal outcome. So, we must still protect the commons and have a strong social safety net.
Unlike most libertarians, given the power to do so, I'd tax the hell out of the wealthy. For the record, I'm considered wealthy. I pay a lot of taxes, but could easily pay more without even really reducing my ability to enjoy my freedoms.
It is my responsibility to help pay for your social safety net. Not only that, it is financially sound for me to do so.
I want you to be healthy, you're more productive. I want you to be educated, you're more innovative. I want you to have the ability to try to start a business, so I can sell your business products and services. I want you happy, because happy people are more productive. I want you to not have to worry about health care expenses, because keeping you healthy is less expensive than fixing you up after you become unhealthy.
It's just good sense, I think. Killing you is still illegal and no system is going to recent that. Laws aren't really meant to stop people, they are meant to indicate those actions will be punished.
That sounds naive to me. Without regulation on boat traffic what is to stop it becoming unfeasible to swim in the lake due to all the giant boats and all their docks clogging the lake. Being allowed to do something doesn't matter much if actually doing so in practice is impossible or highly impractical.
Additionally, I'm not sure how you would read my posts and think I was in favor of no regulations? Libertarian != anarchist. Maybe you missed the part about protecting the commons? Maybe you missed my comments explaining what libertarian means? I dunno...
If you're really curious, there is a pretty good Wikipedia article on the subject. Again, it is a broad spectrum that encompasses quite a lot of variations.
The thing is, we weren't ever a large group. When what I call ashamed republicans took over the party, it moved perception strongly to the right. We can't really kick them out of the party, that would kinda be antithetical to our stated beliefs.
So, here we are. I can understand why people would be confused when I say I'm a libertarian. I can understand why they'd immediately think I'm a Randian. So, I try to explain it, but it's rather verbose and not exactly easy to sum up.
Indeed. Do you think it is possible that you are mislabeling yourself? From this thread, I'd say most people would label you a social democrat (and no, not because you reject Ayn Rand).
This is incorrect. Anarchists believe in no rulers. Laws can be agreed between consenting parties.
That doesn't sound like a law - that sounds like a contract.
The point of laws in a democracy is that they're (theoretically, without corruption) consented to by a maximum amount of people. If you don't have rulers, then whatever your group of 10 people consent to as an unwritten rule will be broken by me, much to my gain.
Actually there is a recent trend of leftwing libertains in America under the names "free-market anti-capitalist", "thick libertarianism", " market-anarchism", and even "libertarian socialism", all working inside and outside of the Libertarian Party.
I sometimes describe myself as 'classic libertarian' but 'libertarian socialist' is also pretty close to my ideals.
Notably, I'm nearing 60 and I've never once had political representation. Not one elected politician has represented my ideals, at least not at the national level. There may be some at local levels, but they wouldn't be in any of the areas where I live(d).
No, no I don't usually vote for the Libertarian Party candidate these days.
- "Free-market anti-capitalist" is a term used by people who want to call themselves "mutualists" but lost the rhetorical shell game trying to compare themselves to Proudhon, with whom they in reality share nothing.
- Thick vs thin libertarianism is orthogonal to the discussion here, though I think it's discussed almost exclusively by ancaps; as far as I know the distinction was created to discuss two different attitudes towards the NAP. Anarchists and other socialists don't put much faith in NAPs.
- "Market anarchism" is a synonym for full-on Rothbard ancap.
- "Libertarian socialism" is identified with anarchism back into the 19th century. Any attempt to use the term to describe "free market" policies is incoherent appropriation for the sake of (probably populist) branding.
No libertarian socialists of note work within the Libertarian Party in the US. When the term "left libertarian" is used in that context, the "left" is only relative to the paleoconservative parts of it.
Crazy right makes them sound very far to the right.
I'd consider them more kooky right, but in such a way that the result of their policies would be extremely far right. If everyone was a libertarian then maybe it would work better.
https://www.theverge.com/2017/2/21/14671978/alt-right-menciu...
https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/educatio...
"Many will be shocked to learn that the word “democracy” was neither used in the Declaration of Independence nor in the Constitution. Indeed, the Founding Fathers were anxious and fearful of allowing any form of tyranny, including the tyranny of the majority." [1]
[1] https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/democracy-versu...
alphonsegaston's point is the exact opposite.
> The term libertarianism was first used in the U.S. as a synonym for classic liberalism in May 1955 by writer Dean Russell, a colleague of Leonard Read and a classic liberal himself.
What precedes that paragraph is mainly about the French word "libertaire" which is not the French translation for "libertarian" but does shares a root with it (liberty).
Interestingly, the French Wikipedia article[0] claims that the word "libertarian" was coined specifically to distinguish classical liberals from modern liberals in the US.
In the US at least, libertarians very rarely identify with the "left" label.
Colin Ward (2004), Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 62.
"For a century, anarchists have used the word 'libertarian' as a synonym for 'anarchist', both as a noun and an adjective. The celebrated anarchist journal Le Libertaire was founded in 1896. However, much more recently the word has been appropriated by various American free-market philosophers."
No one’s denying that it’s modern connotations hem toward the right-wing cooption that that took place in the 1950s. Their project was to dress up reactionary ideology as radicalism and was undeniably successful.
I think the confusion is that the term is used for all sorts of things like economic liberals (neo-liberal de-regulators), social liberals (into multi-culturalism and identity politics) and Ayn Randian sea-steaders and techno-utopians, which is where classical liberals often seem to end up on a diet of extreme capitalism and sociopathy?
In Europe, left libertarianism is very much a thing, as identity politics and re-distributive economic socialism often find common ground in empathy for those who are disadvantaged in different ways. The right to exploit others does not trump the right to not be exploited, unless I am badly mis-remembering John Stuart Mill?
Don't really know why, but it's what they seem to want to do.