A Question to Left-Libertarians: Why are you not Democratic Socialists or Progressive Democrats?

I have a question that I have been wanting to ask those who label themselves Left-Libertarians here on this Board, and please mind you, I ask purely for my own edification and am not trying to be insulting towards you: Why do you not consider yourselves either Democratic Socialists or Progressive Democrats? What do you believe distinguishes you and your political philosophy from either the political Progressives or Democratic Socialists such that you would not wish to be lumped in with them?

As a Left Libertarian, what would your ideal country look like and how would it look different from an ideal Democratic Socialist country or a nation ruled by political progressive ideals?

Progressive Democrats = Incompetent conservatives

Left-Libertarian = Pls. define

Democratic Socialist = Pls. define

I identify as slightly liberal but I do appear half-way to libertarian on many of these simplified-to-stupidity lean tests. I need an issue-by-issue thing. But some general ones:

Health care: Universal health care. Do it. Not full single payer.

Drugs: Decriminalize/legalize all personal use. Commercial? Definitely legalize with regulation marijuana. In fact, anything with lower per-user harm than alcohol. Worse things? I definitely don't want heroin in CVS but....well, that's another discussion.

Social: get government out of marriage, basically. No gain, no loss. Allow any to marry, and tie that to visitation rights and the like. But don't try to influence marriage or not via tax policy or anything else. As in, as long as no laws are broken, I don't care if ten people want to marry each other just so long as that policy goes along with the point about getting rid of tax effects of marriage.

Da Gubbament: I need policy by policy. Government is not inherently anything. Ardent tiny-government right wingers are fools, little better than communists. You're always going to have a government - a local warlord in 1991 Somolia was government for the people in range. The question isn't "is government big or small?" It's "what needs to be done and is what is allocated to the doing of that thing more or less than what is required according to blah blah blah".

when was the last time you saw someone argue in detail like that here? Meaning, naming a specific policy, saying it changed X to Y (numbers), and this is why the new balance of cost/benefit was wrong? That sort of thing.

Taxes: I'd want to hear from economists, but I'd love it if there was a fair way to do a bracketed flat tax. That is, to strip out all of the social initiatives - child tax credit, mortgage interest deduction, etc - but to do it fairly so that it's not regressive. In addition to the billions of headache-hours averted, this would lop off all the tax law/etc industry that has been built up around this. And maybe it would finally make sense to actually underfund the IRS.

I mainly want government not to use tax policy to push initiatives "like that." I put that in quotes because as I type it I realize I've been vague. What about anti-cigarette policies? Am I advocating getting rid of anti-tobacco sin taxes? No. Sales/consumption taxes are different in some ways, comparable in others.

(ie, you could say "but you choose to smoke cigarettes so it's voluntary" but one could reply "yes, but you choose to take a job, so you consent to the income tax).

I could ramble on....but that's a wall of text already



Edit: strong safety net, though. Police it to the extent necessary, but strong safety net.

3leftsdoo said:

Progressive Democrats = Incompetent conservatives

Left-Libertarian = Pls. define

Democratic Socialist = Pls. define

Click to expand...

A Democratic Socialist is one who wishes to wishes to restrict the and control individual ownership of the means of production via democratic means and existing legal structures rather than violent revolutionary means in order to curb the alleged oppression caused by capitalism.

I have no idea what, at heart, Left Libertarians believe.

Felis Leo said:

A Democratic Socialist is one who wishes to wishes to restrict the and control individual ownership of the means of production via democratic means and existing legal structures rather than violent revolutionary means in order to curb the alleged oppression caused by capitalism.

I have no idea what, at heart, Left Libertarians believe.

Click to expand...

So we should take your definition of a democratic socialist (from a conservative such as yourself) as fact why?

Would you take a definition of conservative (from a democratic socialist) as fact?

Praxas said:

So we should take your definition of a democratic socialist (from a conservative such as yourself) as fact why?

Would you take a definition of conservative (from a democratic socialist) as fact?

Click to expand...

I use the definition given by actual dyed-in-the-wool Democratic Socialists, Praxas. I would say the writing staff at Jacobin lays out the goals of Democratic Socialism quite clearly and distinguishes it from simply increasing a nation's social safety net while maintaining a free market economy. And it must be noted, Democratic Socialists and Social Democrats are NOT the same thing (as annoying as that is).

Felis Leo said:

I have a question that I have been wanting to ask those who label themselves Left-Libertarians here on this Board, and please mind you, I ask purely for my own edification and am not trying to be insulting towards you: Why do you not consider yourselves either Democratic Socialists or Progressive Democrats? What do you believe distinguishes you and your political philosophy from either the political Progressives or Democratic Socialists such that you would not wish to be lumped in with them?

As a Left Libertarian, what would your ideal country look like and how would it look different from an ideal Democratic Socialist country or a nation ruled by political progressive ideals?

Click to expand...

I consider myself Left-Libertarian because I see some needs for government beyond mere criminal justice and national defense.

For example, I also support a national education program. I do so because I adhere to the ideal that an educated citizenry can make informed decisions. My problem with such a system is the fear that it can be used not simply to educate, but also to indoctrinate. That fear is coming to a head when I see all these clearly indoctrinated millennials and Gen-Z'ers spouting globalist, socialist, anti-freedom doctrines these days and a hatred of our national identity.

A basic education should be just that, learning to read, write, add/subtract/calculate, science, literature, and physical education. Not "Politics." Save that for the college you go to and are paying for on your own dime.

The other thing I support is national health. Not "medical coverage from the cradle to the grave," but rather actual public health actions. This would include sewage and garbage treatment, pandemic reaction (isolation, development of cures, and treatment of plagues), and medical care for those who served in government and were injured in service.

Felis Leo said:

I use the definition given by actual dyed-in-the-wool Democratic Socialists, Praxas. And it must be noted, Democratic Socialists and Social Democrats are NOT the same thing.

Click to expand...

And equally conservatives aren’t conservative. What is it you are actually trying to conserve? It isn’t family values supporting trump. It isn’t monogamy supporting trump since he had cheated on all three of his wives. You aren’t trying to conserve honesty since trump lies on a almost daily basis. You aren’t trying to conserve decency since trump is the least decent president. You aren’t trying to conserve the environment since you want trump to approve pollution. So what are you trying to conserve besides corruption?

Praxas said:

And equally conservatives aren’t conservative. What is it you are actually trying to conserve? It isn’t family values supporting trump. It isn’t monogamy supporting trump since he had cheated on all three of his wives. You aren’t trying to conserve honesty since trump lies on a almost daily basis. You aren’t trying to conserve decency since trump is the least decent president. You aren’t trying to conserve the environment since you want trump to approve pollution. So what are you trying to conserve besides corruption?

Click to expand...

I cannot recall if I told you specifically before, Praxas, but if I did, it certainly bears repeating: I did not vote for Donald Trump nor have I voiced support for Donald Trump. I did not vote for him for many of the reasons that you described, and for the fact that he would make conservatism toxic because it would be tied to his character for at least a generation. What I am trying to conserve the freedoms and institutions that made this country the place for whom millions upon millions of the people of the world forsook their native homelands to immigrate to against the tide of people who wish to sweep aside those freedoms in the name of "progress" or some twisted sense of "fairness" or "equality".

Felis Leo said:

A Democratic Socialist is one who wishes to wishes to restrict the and control individual ownership of the means of production via democratic means and existing legal structures rather than violent revolutionary means in order to curb the alleged oppression caused by capitalism.

I have no idea what, at heart, Left Libertarians believe.

Click to expand...

Yeah - it's super complicated.

x does not = x in many cases, and may = y or apple or pluot.

Basically, if people say they're socialist, they probably are, but if that say they're libertarian anything other than libertarian socialist, they're probably conservative.

Same for anything with liberal or Democrat in it, except they're generally incompetent/illogical conservatives.

Social democrats are generally decent left-leaning types, but hard to define otherwise.

People generally claim to be much less conservative than they actually are, and genuine socialists may also have concerns that lie outside the spectrum.

A lot of socialists would support Gabbard for instance, and this is primarily due to her firm anti-war stance.

So a LOT of intersectionality (in the larger sense of the concept) happening.

Mr Person said:

I identify as slightly liberal but I do appear half-way to libertarian on many of these simplified-to-stupidity lean tests. I need an issue-by-issue thing. But some general ones:

Health care: Universal health care. Do it. Not full single payer.

Drugs: Decriminalize/legalize all personal use. Commercial? Definitely legalize with regulation marijuana. In fact, anything with lower per-user harm than alcohol. Worse things? I definitely don't want heroin in CVS but....well, that's another discussion.

Social: get government out of marriage, basically. No gain, no loss. Allow any to marry, and tie that to visitation rights and the like. But don't try to influence marriage or not via tax policy or anything else. As in, as long as no laws are broken, I don't care if ten people want to marry each other just so long as that policy goes along with the point about getting rid of tax effects of marriage.

Da Gubbament: I need policy by policy. Government is not inherently anything. Ardent tiny-government right wingers are fools, little better than communists. You're always going to have a government - a local warlord in 1991 Somolia was government for the people in range. The question isn't "is government big or small?" It's "what needs to be done and is what is allocated to the doing of that thing more or less than what is required according to blah blah blah".

when was the last time you saw someone argue in detail like that here? Meaning, naming a specific policy, saying it changed X to Y (numbers), and this is why the new balance of cost/benefit was wrong? That sort of thing.

Taxes: I'd want to hear from economists, but I'd love it if there was a fair way to do a bracketed flat tax. That is, to strip out all of the social initiatives - child tax credit, mortgage interest deduction, etc - but to do it fairly so that it's not regressive. In addition to the billions of headache-hours averted, this would lop off all the tax law/etc industry that has been built up around this. And maybe it would finally make sense to actually underfund the IRS.

I mainly want government not to use tax policy to push initiatives "like that." I put that in quotes because as I type it I realize I've been vague. What about anti-cigarette policies? Am I advocating getting rid of anti-tobacco sin taxes? No. Sales/consumption taxes are different in some ways, comparable in others.

(ie, you could say "but you choose to smoke cigarettes so it's voluntary" but one could reply "yes, but you choose to take a job, so you consent to the income tax).

I could ramble on....but that's a wall of text already



Edit: strong safety net, though. Police it to the extent necessary, but strong safety net.

Click to expand...

You say 'get the government out of marriage' but then you go on to say 'tie it to visitation rights'. Wait a minute, that's getting the government in on marriage.

MOreover, who gets what during divorce, is the state a community property state, etc.


No, I don't see anyway how one cannot get the government involved with marriage licensing


You're a libertarian. Even Milton Friedman supported a negative income tax.

THe trouble with flat taxes is that they tax the poor and middle class more, and tax the rich less. \

Also, a 'bracketed flat tax' is an oxymoron.

This article might be helpful for those not of a philosophical or political science bent.

What is Left-Libertarianism? –

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Felis Leo said:

I have a question that I have been wanting to ask those who label themselves Left-Libertarians here on this Board, and please mind you, I ask purely for my own edification and am not trying to be insulting towards you: Why do you not consider yourselves either Democratic Socialists or Progressive Democrats? What do you believe distinguishes you and your political philosophy from either the political Progressives or Democratic Socialists such that you would not wish to be lumped in with them?

As a Left Libertarian, what would your ideal country look like and how would it look different from an ideal Democratic Socialist country or a nation ruled by political progressive ideals?

Click to expand...

I consider myself a Social Democrat. Unfortunately there's no Social Democrat lean available at DP, so I picked the closest lean DP has available.

Felis Leo said:

I use the definition given by actual dyed-in-the-wool Democratic Socialists, Praxas. I would say the writing staff at Jacobin lays out the goals of Democratic Socialism quite clearly and distinguishes it from simply increasing a nation's social safety net while maintaining a free market economy. And it must be noted, Democratic Socialists and Social Democrats are NOT the same thing (as annoying as that is).

Click to expand...

Bingo! One's a Socialist, the other is a capitalist!

Praxas said:

So we should take your definition of a democratic socialist (from a conservative such as yourself) as fact why?

Would you take a definition of conservative (from a democratic socialist) as fact?

Click to expand...

Because he's right? It works for me!

3leftsdoo said:

Yeah - it's super complicated.

x does not = x in many cases, and may = y or apple or pluot.

Basically, if people say they're socialist, they probably are, but if that say they're libertarian anything other than libertarian socialist, they're probably conservative.

Same for anything with liberal or Democrat in it, except they're generally incompetent/illogical conservatives.

Social democrats are generally decent left-leaning types, but hard to define otherwise.

People generally claim to be much less conservative than they actually are, and genuine socialists may also have concerns that lie outside the spectrum.

A lot of socialists would support Gabbard for instance, and this is primarily due to her firm anti-war stance.

So a LOT of intersectionality (in the larger sense of the concept) happening.

Click to expand...

Damn. You did a pretty nice post, here.

Felis Leo said:

I cannot recall if I told you specifically before, Praxas, but if I did, it certainly bears repeating: I did not vote for Donald Trump nor have I voiced support for Donald Trump. I did not vote for him for many of the reasons that you described, and for the fact that he would make conservatism toxic because it would be tied to his character for at least a generation. What I am trying to conserve the freedoms and institutions that made this country the place for whom millions upon millions of the people of the world forsook their native homelands to immigrate to against the tide of people who wish to sweep aside those freedoms in the name of "progress" or some twisted sense of "fairness" or "equality".

Click to expand...

Everything I have said is true is because you are trying to conserve Trump and his morals. You supoport him everyday. You support his actions. You support his methods. You support everything about him. You support hi foreign policy of asking his foreign contacts of investigating personal rivals, USING HIS OWN PERSONAL ATTORNEY (not US government) to gather that. You support all of that. So whether you voted for Trump or not, you support Trump now in all his crooked deals, corrupt behavior and illegal means.

YOU CONSERVE CORRUPTION and nothing more.

Felis Leo said:

I have a question that I have been wanting to ask those who label themselves Left-Libertarians here on this Board, and please mind you, I ask purely for my own edification and am not trying to be insulting towards you: Why do you not consider yourselves either Democratic Socialists or Progressive Democrats? What do you believe distinguishes you and your political philosophy from either the political Progressives or Democratic Socialists such that you would not wish to be lumped in with them?

As a Left Libertarian, what would your ideal country look like and how would it look different from an ideal Democratic Socialist country or a nation ruled by political progressive ideals?

Click to expand...

I'm a democratic socialist leaning toward left-libertarianism/anarchy. I oppose the DNC.

I'm a market socialist on economic policy and a civil libertarian.

Felis Leo said:

I have a question that I have been wanting to ask those who label themselves Left-Libertarians here on this Board, and please mind you, I ask purely for my own edification and am not trying to be insulting towards you: Why do you not consider yourselves either Democratic Socialists or Progressive Democrats? What do you believe distinguishes you and your political philosophy from either the political Progressives or Democratic Socialists such that you would not wish to be lumped in with them?

As a Left Libertarian, what would your ideal country look like and how would it look different from an ideal Democratic Socialist country or a nation ruled by political progressive ideals?

Click to expand...

I don't like labels because it lets people pigeon hole you on issues or limits the use of your own brain and moral compass, but I have heavy left libertarian tendencies.

Libertarian because I believe everyone has a fundamental right to his own body and essentially without exception. If someone wants to do drugs in their home and isn't harming anyone, that's their right. I do not believe there can be a crime without a victim. On social issues I'm very libertarian.

However, I realize that we've all been born into a world where most of the world's wealth has long since been predistributed. There are families who robbed society blind 200 years ago and their do nothing heirs are still riding on that wealth. Our economic society is a game and we should be free to adjust the rules of that game to make it more fair to new players. Some arbitrary digital value in a computer somewhere says Johnny never has to work a day in his life as he's pampered by servants while Ronny works 3 jobs just not to starve.

Classically left libertarian I'm very skeptical of the idea of ownership of land, especially the resources that are on that land. I think resources and land belong to society and that land ownership should be a lease paid for by some kind of contribution back to society, like work. It doesn't make sense to me that a family can own large swathes of America until the end of time just because they got there first, especially considering land indefinitely appreciates in value.

So in short, the rules of personal domain over one's body I see as absolute, but the rules over how we structure society's game is highly fluid and arbitrary and should be used to encourage real contributions and not just familial luck. I think these views are pretty compatible with Democratic Socialism and I don't see a lot of daylight between them.

What is Democratic Socialism? This is not a question that really requires debate. There is an accepted definition for the term, Democratic Socialism:
Democratic socialism is a political philosophy which advocates political democracy alongside a socially owned economy.

There are some additional qualifiers that some think provide granularity sometimes added to the backend of the above. Here is one of them: with an emphasis on workers' self-management and democratic control of economic institutions within a market or some form of a decentralised planned socialist economy.

Frankly I think this is one instance when granularity does not add light but just provides more gibberish to argue through. The bolded above in this post is sufficient.

In other words, a Democratic Socialist is a Socialist. The use of the adjective "Democratic" simply means they want to "vote" their way to Socialism.

So that might be a worthy topic for debate:
Is Democratic Socialism more or less likely to run wild than other Socialist constructs. Does it hold within it the possibility that once "voters" get the Socialist needle in their arms, that they will simply keep voting themselves newfound credits to voucher themselves with from the government?

I look at them as a very confused bunch

i don't have any desire to seize the means of production to give it to the workers, so i'm not much of a socialist. instead, i am European center left. this means that i support making America resemble countries that routinely score higher on quality of life indexes.

Chomsky said:

I consider myself a Social Democrat. Unfortunately there's no Social Democrat lean available at DP, so I picked the closest lean DP has available.

Click to expand...

The distinct difference between a Social Democrat and a Democratic Socialist has been the lynchpin to my argument that in his effort to get farther and farther Left of some elements of the Dem field for nomination, Bernie has now thrown himself off the cliff edge and has done it in a way that will eventually make it very difficult for him to recover.

I'm not a progressive because I am not obsessed with gender diaspora or controlling speech or freedom of association.

I identify most as a left libertarian. To me that means I am skeptical of any socially conservative view on individual personal freedoms. I do not believe religion should have anything to do with social policy.

Marriage, to me, is a legal contract between consenting adults - unless you live in some backwater state that says kids can be married with parental permission, which I oppose, because it removes the freedom to choose from the child - and this contractual arrangement is being unduly threatened and assaulted by social conservatives countrywide.

I think anyone should be able to marry whomever they want, but that churches should be exempt from being forced to marry people that are engaged in a relationship they oppose.

I believe in the right to associate freely and refuse to support any notion that requires private businesses that are not funded with public dollars to associate with others they do not want to associate with. I think progressives have the wrong position on this, and look at it incorrectly. Why would you want your money going to pay for the lifestyle of someone who despises you?

On economic policy I believe in free markets but I am highly skeptical and have become convinced of a need to single payer healthcare. I do not believe that replacing the insurance companies with a payor of the government is tyrannical, and instead view it as a necessity due to the way we have mismanaged healthcare and leave so many millions uncovered.

With regard to foreign policy I am non interventionist. I do not believe our tax dollars should be going to foreigners, especially not when we have so many issues here at home. I believe in defense and that's what we should be focusing on, not neo-imperialist expansionism with endless occupation.

On natural resources I see land, air, minerals, etc as a public good and any of these should be considered as such. I believe that any oil, water bottling, mining, wtc profits should be shared with the public as we 'own' those resources, and the companies that profit off of them are making undo profits they are not entitled to. I do not believe this extends to crops planted on land because crops can be cultivated over decades and centuries by individual families, and I believe heirloom crops are of more importance than the **** we grow now.

I one hundred percent support the right to keep and bear arms, to freely speak, to assemble. I do not support and indeed oppose all forms of social conservatism as it is anathema to my political position and places an undo amount of malice into the legal systen. I am against the war on drugs, I oppose the use of the police to enforce religiously influenced laws, I oppose the police state enabled by things like the patriot act. I see liberty as a means to ensure safety peace and prosperity for all, where as right wing libertarians see liberty as the ends and freedom as the means by which to attain it. To me liberty and freedom are the means to attain a better society in general.

jnug said:

The distinct difference between a Social Democrat and a Democratic Socialist has been the lynchpin to my argument that in his effort to get farther and farther Left of some elements of the Dem field for nomination, Bernie has now thrown himself off the cliff edge and has done it in a way that will eventually make it very difficult for him to recover.

Click to expand...

How so? You mean his misrepresented immigration plan, that is more conservative than it is progressive?

It returns power to the institutions that originally had it for enforcement and the like.

I dont agree with everything Sanders says but to me hes the best candidate out of the bunch.