Left and Right Libertarian

[a_unique_person]

I mentioned to someone I met in passing, who was a philosophy tutor, that I had debated Libertarians on the internet. His first question was, were they left or right wing libertarians. That stumped me. My guess on reflection is that they are pretty well all Right Wing libertarians here.

 

[Tony]

You should first objectively quantify what "left" and "right" mean, dontcha think?

 

[Segnosaur]

I mentioned to someone I met in passing, who was a philosophy tutor, that I had debated Libertarians on the internet. His first question was, were they left or right wing libertarians. That stumped me. My guess on reflection is that they are pretty well all Right Wing libertarians here.

I suspect most Libertarians will be very annoyed that you've characterized them as "Right Wing".

Libertarians are "Right wing" on economic policies (Lower taxes, less government influence in the economy), but "Left wing" on social issues (no censorship, liberalized drug laws, etc.)

I suppose that a person could have some libertarian views, but still favour some government involvement (call them "libertarian-lite"). And the label 'left wing' or 'right wing' could refer to where they want the government involved.

 

[Patrick]

His first question was, were they left or right wing libertarians.

Liberals and conservatives, and other statists, try to force libertarians into their "left wing"/"right wing" taxonomy, but that model is inadequate to represent libertarianism. The left/right spectrum is a model useful only for classifying various kinds of statists, and even for that limited use fails to represent such as "socially liberal fiscally conservative persons" (i.e., well-off ethics-free greedy people who favor abortion).

 

[varwoche]

You should first objectively quantify what "left" and "right" mean, dontcha think?

I suppose a different (still simplistic) take is there are the militia types, and then there are the hippies.

 

[BPSCG]

I suppose a different (still simplistic) take is there are the militia types, and then there are the hippies.

And what about the 99% of us who are neither?

 

[Tony]

I suppose a different (still simplistic) take is there are the militia types, and then there are the hippies.

What about the type of libertarians who are both?

 

[varwoche]

And what about the 99% of us who are neither?

Are you sure it's 99%? The point being, it's an interesting cast of characters.

 

[BPSCG]

Are you sure it's 99%? The point being, it's an interesting cast of characters.

Well, jeeze, I have lots of friends who are conservative/right who aren't militia types, and that includes a neighbor who's a retired Air Force general. And I have lots of friends who are liberal/left who aren't hippies. Honestly, I don't know anyone who's still a hippie after all these years. And I don't know any militia types either.

What kind of crowd do you hang out with, anyway?

 

[Larspeart]

"I suspect most Libertarians will be very annoyed that you've characterized them as "Right Wing".

Libertarians are "Right wing" on economic policies (Lower taxes, less government influence in the economy), but "Left wing" on social issues (no censorship, liberalized drug laws, etc.)

I suppose that a person could have some libertarian views, but still favour some government involvement (call them "libertarian-lite"). And the label 'left wing' or 'right wing' could refer to where they want the government involved."


Beautifully put.

We are, as a whole, neither. Because we are strongly right on some things and strongly left on others, one can call us 'neither', 'both', or moderate. Frankly, I'd be happy to be called any of those three.

To call me right wing would be a lie. I am pro-choice, but anti abortion. I am anti-gun control. I am pro-legalized drugs. I am pro-legal prostitution. I am anti-immigration laws.

I am fiscally conservative, and socially liberal. I believe in government restraint, and isolationist foreign policy, but only in government. Business is free to do business abroad.

You'll find that I am pretty mainstream (l)ibertarian. Now, if you want a (L)ibertarian, go ask Shane.

 

[Suddenly]

You should first objectively quantify what "left" and "right" mean, dontcha think?

A libertarian believes that an initiation of force is never justified.

A "right" libertarian is one that somehow uses the "non-intitation of force" principle in a philisophical framework where property rights are held to be supreme. This is problematic in that it is hard to explain how a concept of ownership of property can develop without at some point force being initiated.

A brief explaination of this is that at some time we have people, and we have stuff as well as land, and at some point certain people own certain stuff and parts of land, more precisely, certain people claim the right to exclude others from the use of this stuff and land. How this can be done without force is a problem that "right" libertarians have struggled with for some time. They mainly get around it by ignoring it.


A "left" libertarian recognizes the problems of property ownership as being the product of an initial inititation of force and thus has a much lower view of property rights. One need not be a sooper geenus to begin to realize how getting rid of the concept of ownership of property changes the rights calculus w/r/t things like taxation and so forth.

 

[Tony]

A libertarian believes that an initiation of force is never justified.

A "right" libertarian is one that somehow uses the "non-intitation of force" principle in a philisophical framework where property rights are held to be supreme. This is problematic in that it is hard to explain how a concept of ownership of property can develop without at some point force being initiated.

A brief explaination of this is that at some time we have people, and we have stuff as well as land, and at some point certain people own certain stuff and parts of land, more precisely, certain people claim the right to exclude others from the use of this stuff and land. How this can be done without force is a problem that "right" libertarians have struggled with for some time. They mainly get around it by ignoring it.


A "left" libertarian recognizes the problems of property ownership as being the product of an initial inititation of force and thus has a much lower view of property rights. One need not be a sooper geenus to begin to realize how getting rid of the concept of ownership of property changes the rights calculus w/r/t things like taxation and so forth.

I think private power should be restricted and controlled as much as government power. What kind of libertarian would I be?

 

[shanek]

I mentioned to someone I met in passing, who was a philosophy tutor, that I had debated Libertarians on the internet. His first question was, were they left or right wing libertarians. That stumped me. My guess on reflection is that they are pretty well all Right Wing libertarians here.

Libertarians are neither right nor left. We're up.

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

 

[Suddenly]

I think private power should be restricted and controlled as much as government power. What kind of libertarian would I be?

I'm gonna guess more to the left than what we commonly consider libertarian in the US, as most if not virtually all private power is derived from private property rights in some shape or form. You seem willing to allow that property rights are not supreme in that this is the only way (as far as I can tell) to place limits of private power.

Although loss of property rights change a whole bunch more. Most of the more sane formulations still recognize ownership to some degree in that possession of goods and land is recognized.

I wouldn't put you completely on the left, as at the extreme, left libertarianism is just about equal to marxism.

 

[Earthborn]

His first question was, were they left or right wing libertarians. That stumped me.

Actually it is not such a strange question, although what he meant with right wing libertarians are not right wing, but as Shanek said 'up' on the Nolan Chart.

There are Libertarians (like Shanek) and there are Libertarian Socialists (like Noam Chomsky or the Italian Partido Radical). Libertarian Socialists wouldn't fit at all on the Nolan Chart because they favour both personal freedoms and economic freedoms but economic freedom within a socialist system that doesn't use force.

There is of course also the problem with people who call themselves libertarians, but at the same time favour all sorts of military action even the war in Iraq. That clashes with the libertarian 'non-initiation of force' principle so these people are a bit more like rightwingers than strict libertarians, IMHO.

 

[varwoche]

What kind of crowd do you hang out with, anyway?

Not a bunch of crazy goddamn libertarians!

(Truth be told, I'm copasetic with certain libertarian positions.)

 

[Tony]

There is of course also the problem with people who call themselves libertarians, but at the same time favour all sorts of military action even the war in Iraq. That clashes with the libertarian 'non-initiation of force' principle so these people are a bit more like rightwingers than strict libertarians, IMHO.

There is no clash. Stopping someone from rapping or killing another person is not initiating force.

 

[Beerina]

I mentioned to someone I met in passing, who was a philosophy tutor, that I had debated Libertarians on the internet. His first question was, were they left or right wing libertarians. That stumped me. My guess on reflection is that they are pretty well all Right Wing libertarians here.

He may have had prior dealings with an anarcho-capitalist, who would have pointed out the difference between himself (right-anarchist) and the good old fashioned 1900 anarchist, the left-anarchist.

 

[Larspeart]

Actually it is not such a strange question, although what he meant with right wing libertarians are not right wing, but as Shanek said 'up' on the Nolan Chart.

There are Libertarians (like Shanek) and there are Libertarian Socialists (like Noam Chomsky or the Italian Partido Radical). Libertarian Socialists wouldn't fit at all on the Nolan Chart because they favour both personal freedoms and economic freedoms but economic freedom within a socialist system that doesn't use force.

There is of course also the problem with people who call themselves libertarians, but at the same time favour all sorts of military action even the war in Iraq. That clashes with the libertarian 'non-initiation of force' principle so these people are a bit more like rightwingers than strict libertarians, IMHO.

Correct. By definition, libs are against initial force. We are non-interventionists. However, we are also FAR from pacifists. We'll gladly kick butt if someone infringes on our right to exist or our property rights. Remember, libs are anti-war, but pro-gun, .

I find it strange for a lib to endorse teh war in iraq. WW2 is a good example of 'justified force'. One can fairly easily argue that the war in afganistan is justified too, as we KNOW that they DIRECTLY trained and harbored our IMMEDIATE attackers. To attack those people is, in my mind, justified. Iraq? Not even close. Pre-emptive war is never justified in my book, and ALWAYS ends badly, and with the pre-emptor looking like the war-mongering badguy.

The US could get by with 1/2 it's currently military if we adotped a non-interventionist policy, and followed the near-brilliant Monroe Doctrine. It works AWESOMELY for Canada, who has choosen to tactily follow it since their inception.

 

[Beerina]

The US could get by with 1/2 it's currently military if we adotped a non-interventionist policy, and followed the near-brilliant Monroe Doctrine.

And thus be unprepared if anything big actually happened. It's called being unprepared. I'm no fan of interventionist policies or Iraq pre-emption, but sometimes things do happen that you have to deal with.