• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Left Libertarianism

gunner said:
Is Left Libertarianism a coherent political philosophy?

Left Libertarianism is not much discussed, from what I can see, within academia. Libertarianism in the normative sense is covered quite extensively. Robert Nozick in 'justice as entitlement' has been challenged not only from a liberal (Rawls, J), but a communitarian (Otsuka, M) perspective.

As an example, one argument has been over distributive justice:

Robert Nozick (American philosopher) :: The entitlement theory of justice -- Encyclopedia Britannica

What would a left Libertarian have to say on this, and other issues?

Paul
Click to expand...
Basic libertarianism means a bit to the left of liberal on social issues and a bit to the right of conservative on fiscal-economic issues.

With regard to libertarian-left and libertarian-right, there's theory, and then there's practice.

Regardless of theory, the practice of libertarian-left and libertarian-right exemplified on this board is that libertarian-left is an emphasis on the social aspect of libertarianism and libertarian-right is an emphasis on the fiscal-economic aspect of libertarianism.

Of course, that's all moot, as libertarianism in any form is simply an extreme psychological reaction to unresolved family of origin damage, and like all the rest, masquerading as a political ideology: http://www.debatepolitics.com/general-political-discussion/145001-libertarian-abnormal-psychology.html#post1061216315.

Young, white, single, childless, males tend to be most predisposed to libertarianism.

When people marry and have kids, though, their libertarian reaction is challenged and they frequently get some relief from it, especially if therapy is included.

Thus libertarianism is a transitional state, accounting for why it's never been a player, even after multiple generations, as the young grow older, the single marry, they have kids, .. and they come to experience that the libertarian mantra of "I am a rock, I am an island" simply no longer appeals to them.
 
gunner said:
Is Left Libertarianism a coherent political philosophy?

Left Libertarianism is not much discussed, from what I can see, within academia. Libertarianism in the normative sense is covered quite extensively. Robert Nozick in 'justice as entitlement' has been challenged not only from a liberal (Rawls, J), but a communitarian (Otsuka, M) perspective.

As an example, one argument has been over distributive justice:

Robert Nozick (American philosopher) :: The entitlement theory of justice -- Encyclopedia Britannica

What would a left Libertarian have to say on this, and other issues?

Paul
Click to expand...

The problem with even limited social programs, i have personally, is that it always leads to more social programs. In other words, once there is a social program for the less fortunate, there will be another and another and another. Just as its not fortunate for people to suffer, the united states representatives have no inherent right to decide that you as a citizen are too dumb with your own money and that they will decide for you to help less fortunate. This way of thinking leads to corruption, not to mention the robbery of every citizens property.Critics of the free market capitalist thought tend to say "ok so well just let people die because they dont have money" but this is not the case in history. Modern day people dont give humanity enough credit for a trait we all share, compassion. Just because there is no longer a governing force deciding that you by law are forced the help the less fortunate, does not mean the less fortunate wont be helped. Look at history, especially since the creation of the Federal reserve and the beginning of Keynesian economics, and look at us now. More debt, more homeless, more people starving, more reliance on government assistance and more inflation. These are all problems created by governmental hand over the economy. Mises and Austrian school of economics is the foundation of modern day libertarian thought. People like Dr. Ron Paul revolutionized it with those economic principles. True libertarianism is neither left or right because modern day left is more government social programs, Modern day right is governmental influence with economic subsidies in certain industries. The true libertarian thought is that no single body or person has control over economy rather the citizens control the economy through markets. I personally allocate strongly for Free-Market capitalism because it protects our civil liberties better than any other form of economic theories i have studied or understood. This is what i consider as being libertarian.

So to answer your question, in my opinion, is it doesn't matter if you consider yourself "left wing" or "right wing" because being a libertarian is neither and both at the same time. Its left wing because it proposing "new policies to get rid of old policies" but its right wing because it " is conserving its resources fiscally" due to the modern economic mess we are in. But i strongly believe that the left right paradigm is the worse thing to any free nation as well as the partisanship of our government. Being a libertarian is about limiting government control over all else, and that is about 80% of its control over our economy. So no, you simply can not have social programs and be a libertarian at the same time. however, if a reformation politically were to happen we would all need time to drift away from the programs we have in place today.
 
sangha said:
I'm not sure why you're distinguishing between social and economic matters when, as far as I can tell, libertarianism does not. And my experiences, though the perception they've led me to is very subjective, leads me to believe that left libertarians are more supportive of govt in social matters than they are with govt involvement in economic matters.
Click to expand...

I suppose this returns us to the OP and creating shared definitions of both term "leftist" and the term "libertarian" and whether the compound of the two changes their respective meaning(s).

I'm approaching it from a political compass angle, where the two axis aren't exclusive to one another.
 
Ontologuy said:
Basic libertarianism means a bit to the left of liberal on social issues and a bit to the right of conservative on fiscal-economic issues.

With regard to libertarian-left and libertarian-right, there's theory, and then there's practice.

Regardless of theory, the practice of libertarian-left and libertarian-right exemplified on this board is that libertarian-left is an emphasis on the social aspect of libertarianism and libertarian-right is an emphasis on the fiscal-economic aspect of libertarianism.

Of course, that's all moot, as libertarianism in any form is simply an extreme psychological reaction to unresolved family of origin damage, and like all the rest, masquerading as a political ideology: http://www.debatepolitics.com/general-political-discussion/145001-libertarian-abnormal-psychology.html#post1061216315.

Young, white, single, childless, males tend to be most predisposed to libertarianism.

When people marry and have kids, though, their libertarian reaction is challenged and they frequently get some relief from it, especially if therapy is included.

Thus libertarianism is a transitional state, accounting for why it's never been a player, even after multiple generations, as the young grow older, the single marry, they have kids, .. and they come to experience that the libertarian mantra of "I am a rock, I am an island" simply no longer appeals to them.
Click to expand...

I advise you to study austrian school of economics and the people who it creates before you make a statement as ludicrous as this. The new libertarian movement is a younger movement because the youth sees the BS of the dieing regimes and understands the history of american policies and this generation is the generation feeling the effects of the problematic policies. You have absoluty no evidence to support this claim that it only targets white single young males who grow up and get in a sense "wiser"
 
Libertie76 said:
The problem with even limited social programs, i have personally, is that it always leads to more social programs. In other words, once there is a social program for the less fortunate, there will be another and another and another. Just as its not fortunate for people to suffer, the united states representatives have no inherent right to decide that you as a citizen are too dumb with your own money and that they will decide for you to help less fortunate. This way of thinking leads to corruption, not to mention the robbery of every citizens property.Critics of the free market capitalist thought tend to say "ok so well just let people die because they dont have money" but this is not the case in history. Modern day people dont give humanity enough credit for a trait we all share, compassion. Just because there is no longer a governing force deciding that you by law are forced the help the less fortunate, does not mean the less fortunate wont be helped. Look at history, especially since the creation of the Federal reserve and the beginning of Keynesian economics, and look at us now. More debt, more homeless, more people starving, more reliance on government assistance and more inflation. These are all problems created by governmental hand over the economy. Mises and Austrian school of economics is the foundation of modern day libertarian thought. People like Dr. Ron Paul revolutionized it with those economic principles. True libertarianism is neither left or right because modern day left is more government social programs, Modern day right is governmental influence with economic subsidies in certain industries. The true libertarian thought is that no single body or person has control over economy rather the citizens control the economy through markets. I personally allocate strongly for Free-Market capitalism because it protects our civil liberties better than any other form of economic theories i have studied or understood. This is what i consider as being libertarian.

So to answer your question, in my opinion, is it doesn't matter if you consider yourself "left wing" or "right wing" because being a libertarian is neither and both at the same time. Its left wing because it proposing "new policies to get rid of old policies" but its right wing because it " is conserving its resources fiscally" due to the modern economic mess we are in. But i strongly believe that the left right paradigm is the worse thing to any free nation as well as the partisanship of our government. Being a libertarian is about limiting government control over all else, and that is about 80% of its control over our economy. So no, you simply can not have social programs and be a libertarian at the same time. however, if a reformation politically were to happen we would all need time to drift away from the programs we have in place today.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, I'm off to work so I'll respond tomorrow. This is probably the best, and most coherent, response thus far.

Paul
 
Unrepresented said:
I suppose this returns us to the OP and creating shared definitions of both term "leftist" and the term "libertarian" and whether the compound of the two changes their respective meaning(s).

I'm approaching it from a political compass angle, where the two axis aren't exclusive to one another.
Click to expand...

Or, Left libertarianism is simply a contradiction?

Paul
 
Unrepresented said:
I suppose this returns us to the OP and creating shared definitions of both term "leftist" and the term "libertarian" and whether the compound of the two changes their respective meaning(s).

I'm approaching it from a political compass angle, where the two axis aren't exclusive to one another.
Click to expand...

I'm not a big fan of those political compass thingies. They tend to take simplistic definitions of the terms they use to label their axes. For example, when it comes to left vs right relating to economic matters, the judgement is based on support for govt redistributive programs. However, my perception is that while left-ibertarians are more in favor of "economic justice" and more opposed to inequality, they seek to achieve that by decoupling work from pay as opposed to through govt intervention and redistribution of wealth.
 
gunner said:
Unfortunately, I'm off to work so I'll respond tomorrow. This is probably the best, and most coherent, response thus far.

Paul
Click to expand...

I thought it was the worst, most incoherent response. i mean "social programs are bad because they lead to more social programs"??!!!

Not only is that not true, it doesn't state what is wrong with social programs. I could go on, but it's just a mess of fictions piled on top of fictions
 
Libertie76 said:
I advise you to study austrian school of economics and the people who it creates before you make a statement as ludicrous as this. The new libertarian movement is a younger movement because the youth sees the BS of the dieing regimes and understands the history of american policies and this generation is the generation feeling the effects of the problematic policies. You have absoluty no evidence to support this claim that it only targets white single young males who grow up and get in a sense "wiser"
Click to expand...
Your employment of the word "only" is typical libertarian exaggeration, as I clearly said that young, white, single, childless males tend to be most predisposed, but, clearly, that does not mean "only".

:roll:

Nevertheless, I do find it interesting that you chose to say that "the new libertarian movement is a younger movement because the youth sees ...".

You yourself are pretty much substantiating what I presented regarding the etiology of libertarianism, which strikes most people when they're young, but can also strike some when they're older, depending on what happens to them in their adult social and socioeconomic relationships.

For those struck by it young, it does often fade, and for the reasons I previously presented, which accounts for why the "movement" never really grows.

Regardless, it remains a reaction to unresolved family of origin damage, and obviously so.

You only find my statements "ludicrous" because they conflict with your idealism, as well as your denial.

Everything I say on the matter, however, is true.
 
The attached link is a good example of radicalized left-libertarianism, a.k.a socialist anarchism, but is scarcely representative of all of the Libertarian Left. Left-libertarians are, most simplistically, libertarians that lean left, or leftists that lean libertarian. However you would like to think of it.

More moderate left-libertarians, like most of the left-libs on this board(including myself), are basically "liberaltarians." We have strong liberal tendencies while also still subscribing to libertarianism's view on personal autonomy being the building block of society. Using myself as an example, I am in support of a minimum wage hike, universal healthcare, social safety nets, reasonable environmental regulation, etc. which all tend to be strong liberal positions. However, on social and civil issues, I am in strong support of leaving the individual free and autonomous to make their own choices. This means legalization of prostitution, drugs, gambling, and other victimless crimes. This means a demilitarized and accountable police force. This means an end to all mass survelliance and indefinite detention. This means an end to bureaucracy and infinite government programs. Essentially, like most libertarians, I support a drastic decrease in the size and scope of government. However, I part ways with the mainstream libertarian movement in that I don't think that means we need to leave people on the streets. I don't share the same apathy towards the poor, having literally grown up on the streets myself. Some left-libertarians approach it differently, which gets confusing, but the easiest way to think about left-libertarianism is that it is libertarianism that leans to the left. Simple as that. Similar in the way that Ron Paul is a right-libertarian because his stances on many things are uniquely comservative but he still shares the libertarian worldview and distaste for oversized/authoritarian government.

Hopefully that helps clear things up. :)
 
Last edited:
Ontologuy said:
Basic libertarianism means a bit to the left of liberal on social issues and a bit to the right of conservative on fiscal-economic issues.

With regard to libertarian-left and libertarian-right, there's theory, and then there's practice.

Regardless of theory, the practice of libertarian-left and libertarian-right exemplified on this board is that libertarian-left is an emphasis on the social aspect of libertarianism and libertarian-right is an emphasis on the fiscal-economic aspect of libertarianism.

Of course, that's all moot, as libertarianism in any form is simply an extreme psychological reaction to unresolved family of origin damage, and like all the rest, masquerading as a political ideology: http://www.debatepolitics.com/general-political-discussion/145001-libertarian-abnormal-psychology.html#post1061216315.

Young, white, single, childless, males tend to be most predisposed to libertarianism.

When people marry and have kids, though, their libertarian reaction is challenged and they frequently get some relief from it, especially if therapy is included.

Thus libertarianism is a transitional state, accounting for why it's never been a player, even after multiple generations, as the young grow older, the single marry, they have kids, .. and they come to experience that the libertarian mantra of "I am a rock, I am an island" simply no longer appeals to them.
Click to expand...

:yawn:

You never take a break from your hackery, do you?
 
sangha said:
I thought it was the worst, most incoherent response. i mean "social programs are bad because they lead to more social programs"??!!!

Not only is that not true, it doesn't state what is wrong with social programs. I could go on, but it's just a mess of fictions piled on top of fictions
Click to expand...

I meant in terms of 'sticking to the OP' and not going on a tangent. Nothing to do with the validity of the content :lol: I'll get back to that tomorrow.

Paul
 
gunner said:
I meant in terms of 'sticking to the OP' and not going on a tangent. Nothing to do with the validity of the content :lol: I'll get back to that tomorrow.

Paul
Click to expand...

I don't think it stuck to the OP, even if you did like and agree with what he said. Your OP asked "Is Left Libertarianism a coherent political philosophy?"

His response said nothing to indicate incoherence in left-libertarianism. It was nothing more than "leftism bad", which I suspect is why you like it even though it does not address your OP.

If you think i'm wrong, then please quote from that post the part that identifies the so-called "incoherence"

ps - My post #6 is the only post that in any way addresses the issue of incoherence, but I suspect that may have escaped your notice because it identifies the beliefs that govt is bad and natural rights as the cause and I suspect you are, at the least, sympathetic with those beliefs.

Am I right about that? Do you believe in natural rights and that govt is somehow inherently bad?
 
Last edited:
gunner said:
Or, Left libertarianism is simply a contradiction?

Paul
Click to expand...
Every ideology is a contradiction.
sangha said:
I'm not a big fan of those political compass thingies. They tend to take simplistic definitions of the terms they use to label their axes. For example, when it comes to left vs right relating to economic matters, the judgement is based on support for govt redistributive programs. However, my perception is that while left-ibertarians are more in favor of "economic justice" and more opposed to inequality, they seek to achieve that by decoupling work from pay as opposed to through govt intervention and redistribution of wealth.
Click to expand...
While I agree it's subjective and oversimplified, it's still a valuable concept in describing the difference between Gandhi and Stalin.
 
sangha said:
I don't think it stuck to the OP, even if you did like and agree with what he said. Your OP asked "Is Left Libertarianism a coherent political philosophy?"

His response said nothing to indicate incoherence in left-libertarianism. It was nothing more than "leftism bad", which I suspect is why you like it even though it does not address your OP.

If you think i'm wrong, then please quote from that post the part that identifies the so-called "incoherence"
Click to expand...

I'm on my phone, and in work, so this won't be a long post .

Coherent in the sense he didn't go off on a tangent, like some, by talking about communism etc. He made a reasonable effort to keep with the opening post. I don't think anyone until T-kat came on talked about left libertarianism. My views will become clearer, and I have no desire to support libertarianism or attack the left, so your wrong on that one.
 
Unrepresented said:
Every ideology is a contradiction.

While I agree it's subjective and oversimplified, it's still a valuable concept in describing the difference between Gandhi and Stalin.
Click to expand...

though I wouldn't call them useless, I don't think they can adequately explain the diference between Gandhi and stalin
 
gunner said:
I'm on my phone, and in work, so this won't be a long post .

Coherent in the sense he didn't go off on a tangent, like some, by talking about communism etc.
Click to expand...

I'm still not seeing where he addressed the issue of coherency so itl appears to me that his entire post was a hackish "leftism is bad" tangent.

But I'll wait until you have more time to identify exactly where he addresses the coherency issue. I look forward to hearing about it.
 
I've always been a bit puzzled by left-libertarianism myself.

Libertarianism comes in many flavors and branches many times from the original root, but is typically about minimal government and maximum individual freedom, within a civilized society.

The "left" part seems to invoke socialist ideals of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"... and I have a hard time understanding how that can fit in with the libertarian minarchy.

Someone who wore the label "left-libertarian" told me that "the natural human condition is one of socialism, and in the absence of governmental and corporate constraints most will choose to act and work and share cooperatively."



That sentiment has always struck me as a smidge optimistic.
 
sangha said:
I'm still not seeing where he addressed the issue of coherency so itl appears to me that his entire post was a hackish "leftism is bad" tangent.

But I'll wait until you have more time to identify exactly where he addresses the coherency issue. I look forward to hearing about it.
Click to expand...

And I'm looking forward to some using philosophy to actually back up their claims :)
 
Goshin said:
I've always been a bit puzzled by left-libertarianism myself.

Libertarianism comes in many flavors and branches many times from the original root, but is typically about minimal government and maximum individual freedom, within a civilized society.

The "left" part seems to invoke socialist ideals of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"... and I have a hard time understanding how that can fit in with the libertarian minarchy.

Someone who wore the label "left-libertarian" told me that "the natural human condition is one of socialism, and in the absence of governmental and corporate constraints most will choose to act and work and share cooperatively."



That sentiment has always struck me as a smidge optimistic.
Click to expand...

Gee, ya think? :shrug:

Yeah, maybe just a little bit optimistic


Basically, libertarianism is based on a belief that govt is not necessary to form a civil society and is, in fact, a less than optimal way to go about doing something that the people can do themselves by means of a less formal process.

From what i can tell, the difference between left and right libertarianism is the shape of the civil societies the people would (or should) form if left to their own devices. Right libertarians focus more on a society where people are free to do what they want as long as they don't interfer with the rights of others (freedom based) while left libertarians are more focused on the development of a more equitable society (prosperity/opportunity based). Another way to look at it is the right is more concerned with means while the left is more concerned with outcome though both will protest that they are concerned with the both (which is true, just one more than the other).
 
Ontologuy said:
Your employment of the word "only" is typical libertarian exaggeration, as I clearly said that young, white, single, childless males tend to be most predisposed, but, clearly, that does not mean "only".

:roll:

Nevertheless, I do find it interesting that you chose to say that "the new libertarian movement is a younger movement because the youth sees ...".

You yourself are pretty much substantiating what I presented regarding the etiology of libertarianism, which strikes most people when they're young, but can also strike some when they're older, depending on what happens to them in their adult social and socioeconomic relationships.

For those struck by it young, it does often fade, and for the reasons I previously presented, which accounts for why the "movement" never really grows.

Regardless, it remains a reaction to unresolved family of origin damage, and obviously so.

You only find my statements "ludicrous" because they conflict with your idealism, as well as your denial.

Everything I say on the matter, however, is true.
Click to expand...


Yea the movement is predisposed to young single males like phyllis schlafly right?

Never really grows? Hah ok it's getting bigger and bigger.

I find it ludicrous because you just ramble about things without showing any fact, o wait you linked to a separate forum that shows you saying the exact same thing.

Well I'm glad it's true that it's not growing and I'm living in denial, but u have absolutely no idea what ur talking about
 
sangha said:
Basically, libertarianism is based on a belief that govt is not necessary to form a civil society and is, in fact, a less than optimal way to go about doing something that the people can do themselves by means of a less formal process.

).
Click to expand...


Nah, that sounds more like Anarchy. I'm pretty sure libertarians want a little government.
 
TeleKat said:
:yawn:

You never take a break from your hackery, do you?
Click to expand...

I find his college freshman level psychology analysis to be more offensive than his misunderstanding of politics, but that may just be me.
 
sangha said:
though I wouldn't call them useless, I don't think they can adequately explain the diference between Gandhi and stalin
Click to expand...

They address it far more effectively than a simple "leftist" vs. " rightist" explanation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom