And what is a left libertarian? How do the two coalesce into a ‘Libertarian Party’ in other countries?
When I was young and in college I thought I was a Libertarian because it wasn’t big government, and that libertarians were in favor of legalizing weed and gay marriage, basically letting people do what they want without the government regulating it. At the time around 2008ish, the Libertarian party really was leaning hard into that part, while leaving out the whole wanting to privatize everything. I had to get a bit older and more mature to realize that libertarians want to make every tax payer funded program function more like our fucked up healthcare system. Libertarians think that the fire department should be an opt in subscription service like it was in the 1800s. Fucking dipshits the lot of them.
The right to be fucking stupid and do without or to do it yourself shouldn’t be denied. It’s why I self host stuff. I also have the right to be fucking stupid and not backup any of my systems, but I do my backups myself. Though if I was in a position to have a better fire control situation than my local solution, you damn right I wouldn’t want to pay for the inferior service. The same goes for any other utility or public service.
The whole idea of libertarianism is to take the power away from government and abolish it so that the people can be left the fuck alone. The government is just another monopoly in my view especially in the area of currency and violence.
You’re just creating more monopolies, with no oversight and less control. At least with government, you can vote.
I’m firmly of the opinion that government regulations create monopolies. Before all the car safety and fuel efficiency regulations there were many car manufacturers in the US. Then as more regulations were added over time, we were down to just 3 manufacturers and they all made shitboxes in the 80s and 90s that didn’t last and nobody liked and gave rise to foreign manufacturers coming in and eating the big 3’s lunch.
My point is that the big 3 were the only ones that could afford those regulations and were also the ones to lobby the government to pass those regulations to drive their competitors out or force mergers. Advancements in safety and fuel efficiency would have happened anyway. This is the case where advertising can be actually helpful by showing off their products advancement in safety and efficiency to drive their sales. Volvo giving away their patent for seatbelts is another example of a way way to get goodwill and generate sales from that goodwill while keeping competition healthy.
With no government, there would be no need to vote. I’m sick and tired of every election being tHe MosT iMPorTaNt eLecTiOn oF OuR liFeTiME. I’d be fine with the absolute bare minimum of government if it meant the people we elect would not have the power to abuse in the first place.
So it sounds like you would rather trust companies to put the health and safety of its consumers over the government forcing it?
It’s really a matter of trusting companies to put the health and safety of consumers over short term profits for shareholders, without government forcing them to. Which we all know rarely happens.
No, I trust in the collective wisdom of the masses to generally make the best decisions.
The left supports collectivization of production, the right supports private ownership of production.
More libertarian left tendencies often want the means collectivised in the hands of localised workers, rather than the collective org being a national-scale bureaucracy.
I’m aware that the anarchist-adjacent left wants more cooperative, decentralized production than large scale, planned production, but as juxtaposed with right libertarians, who want private property and at most a nightwatchman state, the difference is still in how ownership is spread. I don’t agree with any libertarians, but it’s a pretty fair appraisal.
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!
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.
is it the idea that you should only ever care about yourself and fuck everyone else? cuz that seems like priority #1 for united states conservatives
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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?
I like your take on it; the issue comes in that conflict where external labels don’t align with internal pronouns (or any other form of self-identity, such as identifying as a particular race despite genetic dominance). We want to respect people’s self-image, when we can, don’t we?
For me, it’s the good faith test. It can be difficult, or impossible, to determine bad faith, but sometimes it’s obvious. Trans people usually seem sincere about their identities, so I take them at face value. A meat eater insisting they be called ‘vegan’ is just mocking self-identification and kicking back at the whole pronouns thing, for whatever reason. That’s not good faith; that’s being contrarian.
That’s my line, until someone convinces me of a better one.
I’m not an expert (or libertarian), but my understanding is that a libertarian is basically interested in small government/low government oversight. That platform is a little on both ends of the US political spectrum. They would support more right leaning initiatives like low taxation, free market capitalism, deregulation, but also possibly some left leaning initiatives like legalized marijuana, and generally be against regulation on abortions, gender affirming care, etc.
That’s just in theory. Many people use the term when they don’t fully embody it’s values. I have heard people self identify as libertarian while basically being far right (to be fair, 2016 trump did appeal to anti-establishment voters which includes libertarians). It can also be used incorrectly to mean “right wing voter who doesn’t like trump so doesn’t want to be called Republican/fascist but still supports many conservative ideologies”.
I don’t have much insight into other country libertarian parties, other than I believe it is considered fairly centrist in most cases.
They do not care about other people, only themselves. They despise things like social programs.
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
Boot licking for billionaires without understanding what they are doing
ProgrammingSocks@pawb.social:
Remember when Elon claimed to be a libertarian before literally joining the establishment Republicans? Libertarianism isn’t real. “Libertarians” bend the knee to conservatives and fascists so quickly it doesn’t matter what the ideology supposedly says.
And what is a left libertarian?
Libertarian socialist
Libertarians are right wing primarily because they align themselves with them rhetorically. They could be anywhere from closeted Nazi who sees the ability to oppress minorities as “freedom” to people who would otherwise be libertarian socialists if not for buying in to propaganda demonizing left-wing ideas. Feel free to ask more.
