Libertarian Discussion Thread II - Don't Thread on Me

[Phoenicaea]

^i find these last posts of _Darussalam and _Byzconia good for historic and political surface of the words.

then, i say _Vascottos may be labeled (with all despise for labels, as formers were saying) as “bourgeois dictatorship” advocate, not uncommon.

[West Leas Oros 2]

wow yes the market feature of an insurance system is surely party-biased, thanks for your insightful input

The Republicans seem to favor healthcare staying in the hands of insurance companies so yes.

So do the democrats, they're just less vocal about it.

[The Liberated Territories]

Some did. Herbert Spencer, most notably, proposed a "right to ignore the state" and his student Auberon Herbert took that idea to its logical conclusion, seeking to replace most government functions with a network of voluntary institutions. Interestingly, both opposed the label "anarchist" for their radical beliefs. They were liberals.

In an announcement of Herbert's death, Benjamin Tucker said, "Auberon Herbert is dead. He was a true anarchist in everything but name. How much better (and how much rarer) to be an anarchist in everything but name than to be an anarchist in name only!"

Given that he was an "anarchist in everything but name," that just means he was an anarchist. In other words, not a liberal. The fact that he preferred "liberal" as his label is irrelevant.

This goes into my issues with how most people use labels: they use them wrong. If your beliefs align more with "anarchist" than "liberal," then you're an anarchist (and vice versa), that's how labels are supposed to work--they're descriptive, not prescriptive. People assign too much importance to one label or the other instead of just using them as the descriptors that they are. /mini-rant over

Not only that, but saying that Left-Libertarians should be the only ones to have the right to the label because "they used it first" is a form of etymological fallacy. Likewise with the label "anarchist."

[Genivaria]

The Republicans seem to favor healthcare staying in the hands of insurance companies so yes.

So do the democrats, they're just less vocal about it.

Well no, that's one of the big issues that the Dems are split over.

[Page]

Given that he was an "anarchist in everything but name," that just means he was an anarchist. In other words, not a liberal. The fact that he preferred "liberal" as his label is irrelevant.

This goes into my issues with how most people use labels: they use them wrong. If your beliefs align more with "anarchist" than "liberal," then you're an anarchist (and vice versa), that's how labels are supposed to work--they're descriptive, not prescriptive. People assign too much importance to one label or the other instead of just using them as the descriptors that they are. /mini-rant over

Not only that, but saying that Left-Libertarians should be the only ones to have the right to the label because "they used it first" is a form of etymological fallacy. Likewise with the label "anarchist."

I would settle for the word libertarian being ambiguous if only Americans wouldn't automatically assume self-identified libertarians support the Libertarian Party.

[New Paine]

Not only that, but saying that Left-Libertarians should be the only ones to have the right to the label because "they used it first" is a form of etymological fallacy. Likewise with the label "anarchist."

I would settle for the word libertarian being ambiguous if only Americans wouldn't automatically assume self-identified libertarians support the Libertarian Party.

Some have proposed that using “libertarian”(small “l”) and “Libertarian”(Capital “L”) to distinguish libertarians that support the party and ones that don’t.

[Byzconia]

Given that he was an "anarchist in everything but name," that just means he was an anarchist. In other words, not a liberal. The fact that he preferred "liberal" as his label is irrelevant.

This goes into my issues with how most people use labels: they use them wrong. If your beliefs align more with "anarchist" than "liberal," then you're an anarchist (and vice versa), that's how labels are supposed to work--they're descriptive, not prescriptive. People assign too much importance to one label or the other instead of just using them as the descriptors that they are. /mini-rant over

Not only that, but saying that Left-Libertarians should be the only ones to have the right to the label because "they used it first" is a form of etymological fallacy. Likewise with the label "anarchist."

Except that's not what I was arguing, though I can admittedly understand the confusion. My issue with the right-wing hijacking of the term is less "we had it first" and more "the term doesn't actually apply to them." Right-libertarians don't oppose oppression and injustice, just government-based oppression and injustice. Not good enough.

[Byzconia]

I would settle for the word libertarian being ambiguous if only Americans wouldn't automatically assume self-identified libertarians support the Libertarian Party.

Some have proposed that using “libertarian”(small “l”) and “Libertarian”(Capital “L”) to distinguish libertarians that support the party and ones that don’t.

Which just creates the same problems that using "Communism" as opposed to "communism" (or vice versa) does--the distinction is meaningless to people who don't have an understanding of the terms and their history and even if it were useful, it would only apply to print media and not speech.

[Phoenicaea]

^i propose as follows. then, you can say what you wish we don t even need a definition. proposal is in lines that come.

you might write ‘liberal’ to say classical liberals, jacobins, conservatives, mild anarchists, as wide as you can.

you might write ‘democrats’ to say social democrats. the key is that ‘radical’ stands for liberal, while socialist is ‘socialist’.

what is sense of what above? aim is not write libertarian for reactionaries, not write socialist for regime. berlin wall has fallen, put a stone on in.

[Northern Davincia]

Not only that, but saying that Left-Libertarians should be the only ones to have the right to the label because "they used it first" is a form of etymological fallacy. Likewise with the label "anarchist."

Except that's not what I was arguing, though I can admittedly understand the confusion. My issue with the right-wing hijacking of the term is less "we had it first" and more "the term doesn't actually apply to them." Right-libertarians don't oppose oppression and injustice, just government-based oppression and injustice. Not good enough.

Considering your definitions of oppression and injustice are drastically different from ours, it doesn't matter.

[Bear Stearns]

The Republicans seem to favor healthcare staying in the hands of insurance companies so yes.

So do the democrats, they're just less vocal about it.

Insurance and pharma companies own the parts of the government that defense contractors and banks haven't already claimed.

[Proctopeo]

Except that's not what I was arguing, though I can admittedly understand the confusion. My issue with the right-wing hijacking of the term is less "we had it first" and more "the term doesn't actually apply to them." Right-libertarians don't oppose oppression and injustice, just government-based oppression and injustice. Not good enough.

Considering your definitions of oppression and injustice are drastically different from ours, it doesn't matter.

The fundamental differences mean that, from a right-wing libertarian standpoint, left-wing "libertarians" aren't.

Who's right? Who knows, and honestly it's not a shouting match worth having.

[Northern Davincia]

Considering your definitions of oppression and injustice are drastically different from ours, it doesn't matter.

The fundamental differences mean that, from a right-wing libertarian standpoint, left-wing "libertarians" aren't.

Who's right? Who knows, and honestly it's not a shouting match worth having.

I would not deny that left-libertarians have claim to the title, it's just equal to our claim. We don't fit alongside the right-authoritarians as much as leftists want us to.

[Byzconia]

Except that's not what I was arguing, though I can admittedly understand the confusion. My issue with the right-wing hijacking of the term is less "we had it first" and more "the term doesn't actually apply to them." Right-libertarians don't oppose oppression and injustice, just government-based oppression and injustice. Not good enough.

Considering your definitions of oppression and injustice are drastically different from ours, it doesn't matter.

If you truly believe these concepts can be subjectively defined, then you don't actually believe in them to begin with (then again, given the shit I've seen from you, I'm not exactly shocked to find that to be the case).

[Byzconia]

The fundamental differences mean that, from a right-wing libertarian standpoint, left-wing "libertarians" aren't.

Who's right? Who knows, and honestly it's not a shouting match worth having.

I would not deny that left-libertarians have claim to the title, it's just equal to our claim. We don't fit alongside the right-authoritarians as much as leftists want us to.

Yet you still love corporations just as much as they do. Funny how that works.

[Northern Davincia]

Considering your definitions of oppression and injustice are drastically different from ours, it doesn't matter.

If you truly believe these concepts can be subjectively defined, then you don't actually believe in them to begin with (then again, given the shit I've seen from you, I'm not exactly shocked to find that to be the case).

I am pointing out a basic truth that we do not agree on what oppression and injustice really are. We would define ourselves as against both in all circumstances.
However, because your definitions are different, you reject this. I am no subjectivist, merely pointing out the obvious.

I would not deny that left-libertarians have claim to the title, it's just equal to our claim. We don't fit alongside the right-authoritarians as much as leftists want us to.

Yet you still love corporations just as much as they do. Funny how that works.

Nobody said there can't be common ground.

[Rojava Free State]

Not only that, but saying that Left-Libertarians should be the only ones to have the right to the label because "they used it first" is a form of etymological fallacy. Likewise with the label "anarchist."

I would settle for the word libertarian being ambiguous if only Americans wouldn't automatically assume self-identified libertarians support the Libertarian Party.

I often watch reason TV and while I agree with a lot of stuff they believe, there's times im like "yeah this caters to a very specific kind of liberterian." You don't often see stuff from left wing liberterians on there

[LiberNovusAmericae]

I would settle for the word libertarian being ambiguous if only Americans wouldn't automatically assume self-identified libertarians support the Libertarian Party.

I often watch reason TV and while I agree with a lot of stuff they believe, there's times im like "yeah this caters to a very specific kind of liberterian." You don't often see stuff from left wing liberterians on there

Reason is right-libertarian media. Left-libertarians have their own media.

[New Paine]

The fundamental differences mean that, from a right-wing libertarian standpoint, left-wing "libertarians" aren't.

Who's right? Who knows, and honestly it's not a shouting match worth having.

I would not deny that left-libertarians have claim to the title, it's just equal to our claim. We don't fit alongside the right-authoritarians as much as leftists want us to.

What do you think when the left points to people like Richard Spencer, Nick Fuentes and even certain people on NSG then shout “See! (Right)-Libertarian to alt-right pipeline!”

[Northern Davincia]

I would not deny that left-libertarians have claim to the title, it's just equal to our claim. We don't fit alongside the right-authoritarians as much as leftists want us to.

What do you think when the left points to people like Richard Spencer, Nick Fuentes and even certain people on NSG then shout “See! (Right)-Libertarian to alt-right pipeline!”

We can find a few loons in any group, doesn't make it a trend.

[Darussalam]

The term liberal was hijacked by FDR's New Deal progressives, makes sense that they later fled towards "libertarian" umbrella. And calling Austrians "libertarians" isn't that far-fetched - Tucker and Spooner were market libertarians in a sense, unlike socialists who later appropriated this term merely for the virtue of being leftist. Even Rothbard in his early years identified more with leftist counterculture than the "state capitalists" and once formulated syndicalist-esque expropriation scheme for industries and academies affiliated/supported by the state into the hands of workers and students who legitimately "homesteaded" them on Lockean basis.

The meta-point is that quibbles on who owns which term is basically just shorthand for other grievances/criticisms on public faces of these terms, which should be addressed instead.

Except Tucker readily referred to himself as a socialist and openly argued in favor of socialism, so to say "socialists later appropriated the term" is just plain wrong. Before its takeover by the laissez-faire capitalists in the 30s-60s, it had been associated with socialism for more than a century. Liberals appropriated it, not the other way around.

Read my poast again please. Tucker's identification with socialism is irrelevant. I'm saying that he was a market libertarian, unlike many libertarian-socialists who aren't and yet apply themselves the term libertarian. Your quibble is that right-libertarians have appropriated the term from leftists on the ground that early libertarian thinkers have different ideas of libertarianism from them. Yet they have a different idea from many left-libertarians too.

My second point stands. People who care about "appropriation" and such strikes me as assuming political ideology as identity instead of descriptor of views. Viewpoints come first, then terms to describe them follow. Doing otherwise is pathetic and whiny and annoying and not really doing anything. Tbh this is partly why I don't describe myself as a libertarian anymore.

[Elwher]

I would not deny that left-libertarians have claim to the title, it's just equal to our claim. We don't fit alongside the right-authoritarians as much as leftists want us to.

Yet you still love corporations just as much as they do. Funny how that works.

And you still love state control of production just as much as Stalinists do. Funny how that works.

[Nuroblav]

Yet you still love corporations just as much as they do. Funny how that works.

And you still love state control of production just as much as Stalinists do. Funny how that works.

That's not true for a lot of left-libertarians. Many of us tend to prefer decentralised worker-owned control of production and think state-controlled production to be almost as bad as capitalism.

[Taihei Tengoku]

And you still love state control of production just as much as Stalinists do. Funny how that works.

That's not true for a lot of left-libertarians. Many of us tend to prefer decentralised worker-owned control of production and think state-controlled production to be almost as bad as capitalism.

Left-libertarians also tend to prefer being milquetoasts so perhaps there is a correlation here

[The Liberated Territories]

Not only that, but saying that Left-Libertarians should be the only ones to have the right to the label because "they used it first" is a form of etymological fallacy. Likewise with the label "anarchist."

Except that's not what I was arguing, though I can admittedly understand the confusion. My issue with the right-wing hijacking of the term is less "we had it first" and more "the term doesn't actually apply to them." Right-libertarians don't oppose oppression and injustice, just government-based oppression and injustice. Not good enough.

Libertarianism as an ideology is only concerned with the political sphere, not so much with the private sphere. In fact it's probably best not to mix the two...