What Makes People Become Libertarians?

Post Reply New Topic

Although I have read about some of the differences I still have trouble understanding how these 3 each can call themselves libertarian and yet each espouse totally different solutions:

1. Right-wing libertarian (libertarian capitalist).
2. Left-wing libertarian (libertarian socialist).
3. Individualist anarchist (I guess this is a non-committed libertarian?).

The general idea of libertarianism is that you should be free to do what you want as long as it doesn't harm others. Right wing and left wing just pertain to economics.

How does one decide which economic system is the best? Isn't the more rational approach one based on experimentation with all the different social/political/economic systems without intervention/meddling and then decide what works best? Are those the only 2 economic systems?

Kon, there are a few problems:

1) There usually aren't 3 libertarianisms, but 2. Individualist anarchism usually sides with left-wing libertarianism as most individualist anarchists have historically accepted the label of "socialist" for their views. They just are a lot more individualistic than the social anarchists, who identify more strongly with the left. However, social and individualist anarchism generally accept each other's views as legitimately libertarian, but they don't accept right-libertarianism as very valid on average.

2) The two libertarianisms don't have a similar heritage. The left-libertarians took the name "libertarian" first, while the right-libertarians preferred the name "liberal", but what happened is that the mainstream left took the label "liberal" from right-libertarians, so right-libertarians took the name "libertarian" from the left-libertarians. This has created an awkward terminological situation as left-libertarians haven't moved away from their term, so we end up with two different ideologies with a different history occupying the same term. This also leads to a lot of confusion, as people often don't know about the history involved here, as people often think they are actually both the same intellectual group with a split, while they are just similar groups, with some shared influence but a largely unshared intellectual background that are put together by circumstance. Treating left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism as if they are just branches of the same ideology is just a mistake.

3) The left-right dichotomy is a deep cultural/philosophical division, and it is not as simple as AceofSpades puts it. Left-libertarians are distrustful of inequality and excesses of private power and see capitalism as a force of exploitation, while the right-libertarians mostly distrust government and see capitalism as an expression of liberty. This ends up driving the policies each group aims for. As for the "are there only two economic systems", the answer is no, and the division isn't about two explicit different systems. Right-libertarians have some variations in their economic form, but usually relatively minor compared to the left. Left libertarians are more likely to have massive variations in proposed economic systems, which leads to jokes about how to define anarchism as the number of different ideologies in that category is pretty large. I mean, both sides do care about liberty, but their views are very different on the matter.

I think part of the reason that some people hate libertarians so much is that they're harder to dismiss than a straight political opposite would be. For the liberal used to arguing against conservatism, the libertarian doesn't carry the Achilles heel of religious or social conservatism that is so vulnerable to that favored weapon, ridicule. For the conservative, libertarians certainly can't be dismissed as bleeding hearts or socialists, and the overlap on gun rights denies them another wedge issue, leaving only religious/moral issues that can't hold up under reasoned debate. It's those bits of overlap that make us harder to demonize, since we have just enough in common with both liberals and conservatives to deny them their usual cheap shots at each other.

I'm not sure it is that simple. I was involved with the Libertarian Party (right-libertarianism) in the U.S. for quite a while. The problem is that right-libertarianism tends to promote a simplistic, egocentric view of ethics (generally based upon some version of Ayn Rand's childish Objectivist philosophy) where primary value is placed upon the notion of "individual liberty" with little to no regard to any value in providing for the common good of larger society or the Nation. Right libertarians tend to have atomistic notions of a "self-sufficient" person and seem unaware of the interdependent forces (social and economic) that support the individual in their relative status. So they generally do not recognize the ethical need for a balance between individual initiative and common good.

I wish more right-libertarians would do some study into the personal lives of those individuals who promoted such as view of ethics - people such as Ayn Rand, Howard Lavey (aka "Anton Szandor LaVey" founder of the Church of Satan who promoted a simplified version of Ayn Rand's Objectivism as "Satanic" philosophy, and Friedrich Nietzsche). Each of these individuals led personal lives that led to problems and trauma both for themselves and others - this is the end result of right-libertarian "ethics".

Further, right-libertarian economic policies would simply lead to more exploitation of the 98% of the population who do not have the economic resources of the 2% of the very wealthy who control 90% of the wealth. Ultimately, right-libertarianism transforms its adherents into not much more than deluded puppets of their big business corporate masters who use the ruse of "individual freedom" to manipulate them (right-libertarianism promotes an atmosphere of monopolies, laissez-faire economics, and more corporate lobbyist control of governmental politics). Pinocchio lives!!

I forgot to mention that the platform of the Libertarian Party of the United States promotes an open immigration / border policy (after all, this meets the labor needs of the corporate masters to lower wages in the name of profitability).

And just think of all the benefits that American society would reap from this disregard of law.

one of the reasons people still dont like immigration is because there is a difference in the economies of the countries involved.
as long as we continously move towards stabilizing the global market, in a global way, this will be much less of an issue.

You keep saying this, and it continues to be untrue. The original uses of the word "libertarian" were synonymous with classical liberalism, dating back at least to the 19th century. So called "left libertarianism" only dates to the 20th century - and of course it isn't libertarianism in any real sense, to the extent it involves forcing people into economic arrangements they don't agree with.

What????

No, the original uses of the word "libertarian" were synonymous with left-wing movements such as anarchism. That's why in Europe, the word "libertarian" still means "anarchist" http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/libertarian, while the word "liberal" is often used for right-wing parties, such as the Australian liberal party. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Party_of_Australia In fact, left-wing radicals were the first to use the term: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertaria ... ical_roots " anarchist communist Joseph Déjacque was the first person to describe himself as a libertarian. Outside the United States, "libertarian" generally refers to anti-authoritarian anti-capitalist ideologies. For these reasons the term "libertarian socialism" is today almost synonymous with anarchism, outside of the US the term "libertarian socialism" would be considered redundant.". Note: none of the issues with the term "libertarian" make ANY sense with your view of it, they make absolutely perfect sense with EVERYTHING I have stated, because if libertarianism was taken over by classical liberals, because FDR took over liberalism, then other nations won't have the same problem with the term "liberal", and will also consider "libertarian" a left-wing ideology. This is exactly what we see.

The only place I might even see you making the mistake is if you somehow think that individualist anarchism is really a variant of right-libertarianism, but the problem is that most of these individuals called themselves "socialist" and the anarchist community, while accepting individualist anarchism as anarchism, has generally wholesale rejected anarcho-capitalism. The problem is very clear though, either you're wrong, or all of these people passionate about anarchist history and theory are just being radically inconsistent. I think you're probably wrong, as even though anarcho-capitalism *could be* in some ways descended from individualist anarchism, it isn't a clear-move to say that the two are the same, but individualist anarchism is right libertarianism basically REQUIRES this.

Even further the claim that "left-libertarianism" only dates to the 20th century is just wrong, and completely ignorant. Where then do you put ideologies such as mutualism by Proudhon and so on and so forth? Those are 19th century figures! In fact, a lot of the ongoing debates in that community stem back to the 19th century, particularly those special left-libertarian figures.

Finally, talking about "forcing people" is in some sense kind of ignorant of their perspective. Left-libertarians have a more nuanced view of power. They don't think power ends where contracts begin and that freedom = contracts, but rather they think that contracts can be unjust due to the power inequalities between labor and capital, and that capitalist contracts really can be a threat to liberty. And to be honest, even if one rejects their point, it isn't non-existent, thus making their view not an outright contradiction.

In any case, you're wrong. Period.

In fact, if you check Wikipedia's entry on Déjacque, it says he characterized himself as an "anarchist", not as a "libertarian".

This internal contradiction is not atypical; Wikipedia is a poor source on polltical issues.

Sorry you got fooled.

Uh... are you have no clue what you are talking about? There's no contradiction. Libertarianism and anarchism overlap, even on the freaking right wing(and even on the left-wing for that matter). Anarcho-capitalists are libertarians AND they call themselves anarchists. If you don't know that, then you don't know enough about libertarian political ideology to meaningfully discuss this, as this is a basic fact. In fact, one of the major members of the Libertarian party, and a major figure for libertarian ideology, Murray Rothbard, was a self-described anarchist.(despite writing books like a For A New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto, and being called "the founder of libertarianism" by Lew Rockwell, who is majorly involved in a few libertarian intellectual groups http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard-lib.html ) Contradiction? No, not at all. As it stands, wikipedia's use where I used it has a freaking SOURCE where if you just translate it, ends up with that author claiming libertarianism as a label. So.... really?

psychohist, you're too arrogant given your apparent ignorance, especially since for all of your criticism, you've never even begun to establish your own claim against mine. Even if my evidence is insufficient, which you haven't shown, your claim still doesn't win.

Last edited by Awesomelyglorious on 06 May 2011, 1:01 am, edited 1 time in total.

Countless right-libertarians have called themselves "anarchist" (capitalists). If you hate wikipedia (which has significant chunks written by acutal right-libertarians) then go to your local library and pick up a book. But please stop being an ahistorical, colossally ignorant, political moron as - while it may be beneficial for Republicans campaigning in know-nothing districts - unjustified arrogant ignorance is just sad here.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/libertarianism/

http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewconten ... widerquist

Anarcho-Capitalists?

Yuppers.