Eradicate The "Left Libertarian" Nonsense

[Okie RP fan]

You're either libertarian, or you're not. Understanding that there is a relatively large umbrella with that, this whole "left libertarian" or "right libertarian" stuff is nonsensical. And the more we argue about those semantics and divide ourselves upon dividing ourselves, our goals will not grow. No, we won't agree on everything, but at the end of the day we all should follow the NAP, believe in the individual, be anti-war, anti-Fed (central bank), etc.

We have a fantastic opportunity to reach out to all of the disenfranchised Americans who don't believe in the two party system. The LP can literally go on a marketing spree by simply pushing the slogan "Not one of the Big Two" or something like that.

This crap that many of us are seeing about "left libertarians" and what not is junk. Purge those a-holes out of the party and tell them to go to the Dem party if they want.


P.S. I've joined the Mises Caucus. We won't win the GOP, so we need to use our own vehicle at our disposal and really impact local and state races. I'm good for another go and I encourage other folks to do this. There is still power left on the lower levels that can then be used to fight against the national/federal crap going on.

P.P.S. If anyone needs a great example of those who claim to be "left libertarian" just go to the "Libetarian" subreddit on Reddit and you'll see they're nothing than lite leftists posing as libertarians.

 

[Invisible Man]

I totally agree with you.

But what I notice is that, at least here on this website, those who use the term "left libertarian" (and similar terms like libtardarian and liberaltarian) often just use it for what are simply libertarians, especially purists of the Mises Caucus mold. Their point isn't to distinguish left libertarians from right libertarians, but to distinguish all libertarians from conservatives and/or Trumpers, with the latter being understood by them to be far superior to the former.

 

[oyarde]

Fiscally there really shouldnt be much difference between real libertarians and conservatives . Where the problems probably start is in the national level with people claiming to be libertarians who do not appear to be . I find it easier just to acknowledge state level and below and then it eliminates most of what people are opposed to. The libertarians here are pretty decent overall.

 

[Okie RP fan]

I totally agree with you.

But what I notice is that, at least here on this website, those who use the term "left libertarian" (and similar terms like libtardarian and liberaltarian) often just use it for what are simply libertarians, especially purists of the Mises Caucus mold. Their point isn't to distinguish left libertarians from right libertarians, but to distinguish all libertarians from conservatives and/or Trumpers, with the latter being understood by them to be far superior to the former.

I honestly haven't ran into too many of these issues on this forum, although it does pop up occasionally. I see it way more in other libertarian Internet spheres where there appears to be a very strong leftist slant to everything, which is bizarre to me and makes me skeptical.

Fiscally there really shouldnt be much difference between real libertarians and conservatives . Where the problems probably start is in the national level with people claiming to be libertarians who do not appear to be . I find it easier just to acknowledge state level and below and then it eliminates most of what people are opposed to. The libertarians here are pretty decent overall.

Yep, I agree with this.

 

[Invisible Man]

I honestly haven't ran into too many of these issues on this forum, although it does pop up occasionally. I see it way more in other libertarian Internet spheres where there appears to be a very strong leftist slant to everything, which is bizarre to me and makes me skeptical.

I have seen that too, especially on reddit. I pretty much gave up on the main libertarian subreddit there for that reason.

 

[acptulsa]

I honestly haven't ran into too many of these issues on this forum, although it does pop up occasionally. I see it way more in other libertarian Internet spheres where there appears to be a very strong leftist slant to everything, which is bizarre to me and makes me skeptical.

I have seen that too, especially on reddit. I pretty much gave up on the main libertarian subreddit there for that reason.

There is no such thing in nature as a "left libertarian", unless you're talking about a [MENTION=26252]James_Madison_Lives[/MENTION], who is pretty leftist but is slowly learning Thomas Jefferson was right when he talked about the difficulty in finding "angels in human form" to take charge of us who actually love us and truly want us to be happy.

Leftarians were invented by the troll brigade that sent us Swordshyll to confuse the masses about what libertarians believe and/or instill unfounded feelings about libertarians into the ignorant.

And, of course, Republicans, the people who supported Nixon and the Bushes, are rather well known for their gullibility. Witness their willingness to go from "Fearless Alpha genius playing 3D chess" to "duped and in fear of his life" all within a single paragraph.

Hell, look at Q. Hey, look! The Nostradamus of the CIA! That's bound to be a reliable source! The CIA is the enemy, the 'net is censored and a wall of trolls, and we laugh at the left for thinking the government loves them and wants them to be happy, but the Nostradamus of the CIA surely loves us and wants us to be happy!

 

[jmdrake]

There is no such thing in nature as a "left libertarian", unless you're talking about a [MENTION=26252]James_Madison_Lives[/MENTION], who is pretty leftist but is slowly learning Thomas Jefferson was right when he talked about the difficulty in finding "angels in human form" to take charge of us who actually love us and truly want us to be happy.

Leftarians were invented by the troll brigade that sent us Swordshyll to confuse the masses about what libertarians believe and/or instill unfounded feelings about libertarians into the ignorant.

And, of course, Republicans, the people who supported Nixon and the Bushes, are rather well known for their gullibility. Witness their willingness to go from "Fearless Alpha genius playing 3D chess" to "duped and in fear of his life" all within a single paragraph.

Hell, look at Q. Hey, look! The Nostradamus of the CIA! That's bound to be a reliable source! The CIA is the enemy, the 'net is censored and a wall of trolls, and we laugh at the left for thinking the government loves them and wants them to be happy, but the Nostradamus of the CIA surely loves us and wants us to be happy!

Ususually the "liBROtarian" trope is thrown at people who think (gasp) Ron Paul is right to be concerned about a police state being put in place to stop the "border invasion." Even if you propose Ron Paul's actual plan on immigration as a solution, a vocal minority will call you a librotarian, or worse a marxist. When you bring up that you're just going by Ron Paul's actual plan, they're all "Well I like him on everthing but that." Rather than admit that they aren't 100% libertarian, they morph the definition when it suits them, then still try to hang on Ron Paul's coattails by making a "special exception" for him. Here's the truth. Most people are not 100% libertarian. And it's very hard to be. Take antitrust legislation for example. It's easy to make a theoretical argument that it should be okay for businesses to do whatever they want. But then we see big corporations like Facebook, Twitter and Google collude with each other (Suckerbooker had to admit that under oath) to censor conservative voices. What's the appropriate liberarian response? Mine is that since these corporations are a government creation anyway, it is right and proper to use the power of the government to reign them in. (Also I've come to the [MENTION=3169]Anti Federalist[/MENTION] position that they could be considered "state actors" because the government pressured them to start censoring in the first place.)

 

[Anti Federalist]

Ususually the "liBROtarian" trope is thrown at people who think (gasp) Ron Paul is right to be concerned about a police state being put in place to stop the "border invasion." Even if you propose Ron Paul's actual plan on immigration as a solution, a vocal minority will call you a librotarian, or worse a marxist. When you bring up that you're just going by Ron Paul's actual plan, they're all "Well I like him on everthing but that." Rather than admit that they aren't 100% libertarian, they morph the definition when it suits them, then still try to hang on Ron Paul's coattails by making a "special exception" for him. Here's the truth. Most people are not 100% libertarian. And it's very hard to be. Take antitrust legislation for example. It's easy to make a theoretical argument that it should be okay for businesses to do whatever they want. But then we see big corporations like Facebook, Twitter and Google collude with each other (Suckerbooker had to admit that under oath) to censor conservative voices. What's the appropriate liberarian response? Mine is that since these corporations are a government creation anyway, it is right and proper to use the power of the government to reign them in. (Also I've come to the [MENTION=3169]Anti Federalist[/MENTION] position that they could be considered "state actors" because the government pressured them to start censoring in the first place.)

Exactly right and good to see. I think all that needs to happen is to hold them to First Amendment standards, with criminal and civil sanctions for failure to comply.

As far as leftarianism goes, there most certainly was/are a significant segment of "libertarian" Ron Paul folks who, at heart, were/are leftists.

The Great Migration from Ron's camp to Bernie's proves that point.

The musician John Popper, who I am big fan of, is one of them...a gun toting, property rights, self professed libertarian, who phone banked for Ron in NH.

Went on to do support concerts for Bernie in 2016.

I think most who supported Ron, left or right, were simply looking for an outsider to shake things up.

That explains Trump.

 

[jmdrake]

Exactly right and good to see. I think all that needs to happen is to hold them to First Amendment standards, with criminal and civil sanctions for failure to comply.

As far as leftarianism goes, there most certainly was/are a significant segment of "libertarian" Ron Paul folks who, at heart, were/are leftists.

The Great Migration from Ron's camp to Bernie's proves that point.

The musician John Popper, who I am big fan of, is one of them...a gun toting, property rights, self professed libertarian, who phone banked for Ron in NH.

Went on to do support concerts for Bernie in 2016.

I think most who supported Ron, left or right, were simply looking for an outsider to shake things up.

That explains Trump.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Anti Federalist again.

Yeah....you have a good point there. I don't understand why some jumped ship for Bernie or Trump while Rand was still in the race but I guess Rand had started being seen as something of a quasi insider by that point.

Anyhow, I saw that the anti-trust lawsuit against Twitter and Facebook got tossed some months ago, but that was before the testimony where Zuckerberg admitted to the collusion. Hopefully it will be refiled. It's going to be tough to go after them criminally. Maybe there is a RICO angle but I haven't seen it yet. A state actor who violates a constitutional right under the color of law is civilly liable under a 42 USC 1983. Private companies generally aren't seen as state actors but the can be if they take on a state function. The clearest example of this is violations of prisoner rights by for profit prisons. This needs some serious thought.

 

[Ender]

Ususually the "liBROtarian" trope is thrown at people who think (gasp) Ron Paul is right to be concerned about a police state being put in place to stop the "border invasion." Even if you propose Ron Paul's actual plan on immigration as a solution, a vocal minority will call you a librotarian, or worse a marxist. When you bring up that you're just going by Ron Paul's actual plan, they're all "Well I like him on everthing but that." Rather than admit that they aren't 100% libertarian, they morph the definition when it suits them, then still try to hang on Ron Paul's coattails by making a "special exception" for him. Here's the truth. Most people are not 100% libertarian. And it's very hard to be. Take antitrust legislation for example. It's easy to make a theoretical argument that it should be okay for businesses to do whatever they want. But then we see big corporations like Facebook, Twitter and Google collude with each other (Suckerbooker had to admit that under oath) to censor conservative voices. What's the appropriate liberarian response? Mine is that since these corporations are a government creation anyway, it is right and proper to use the power of the government to reign them in. (Also I've come to the [MENTION=3169]Anti Federalist[/MENTION] position that they could be considered "state actors" because the government pressured them to start censoring in the first place.)

1 Zillion % agree!

And I've been called all that crap because I stand with Ron Paul.

 

[phill4paul]

I don't think that we should give amnesty and they become voters. But I do think we should deal with our borders. One way that I would suggest that we could do it is pay less attention to the borders between Afghanistan and Iraq and Pakistan and bring our troops home and deal with the border. But why do we pay more attention to the borders overseas and less attention to the borders here at home?

-Guess who?

Leftarians don't believe in borders.

 

[RJB]

-Guess who?

Leftarians don't believe in borders.

1 Zillion % agree!

And I've been called a statist because I stand with Ron Paul.

 

[phill4paul]

1 Zillion % agree!

And I've been called a statist because I stand with Ron Paul.

If Ron Paul would have brought troops back and put them at the border, many that claim to support him here, would excoriate him. "Ron Paul is a Federal tyrant! Posse comitatus! Down with Ron Paul! He's just another big government stooge! Booooo!"

 

[jmdrake]

-Guess who?

Leftarians don't believe in borders.

1 Zillion % agree!

And I've been called a statist because I stand with Ron Paul.

What exactly does it mean to "not believe in borders?" Here is Ron Paul saying he doesn't support open borders but he doesn't support a wall either. That he doesn't want to "wall people in or wall people out."



And just about anything that one might do with the money saved from not policing the world is a better use of that money.

 

[osan]

You're either libertarian, or you're not. Understanding that there is a relatively large umbrella with that, this whole "left libertarian" or "right libertarian" stuff is nonsensical. And the more we argue about those semantics and divide ourselves upon dividing ourselves, our goals will not grow. No, we won't agree on everything, but at the end of the day we all should follow the NAP, believe in the individual, be anti-war, anti-Fed (central bank), etc.

We have a fantastic opportunity to reach out to all of the disenfranchised Americans who don't believe in the two party system. The LP can literally go on a marketing spree by simply pushing the slogan "Not one of the Big Two" or something like that.

This crap that many of us are seeing about "left libertarians" and what not is junk. Purge those a-holes out of the party and tell them to go to the Dem party if they want.


P.S. I've joined the Mises Caucus. We won't win the GOP, so we need to use our own vehicle at our disposal and really impact local and state races. I'm good for another go and I encourage other folks to do this. There is still power left on the lower levels that can then be used to fight against the national/federal crap going on.

P.P.S. If anyone needs a great example of those who claim to be "left libertarian" just go to the "Libetarian" subreddit on Reddit and you'll see they're nothing than lite leftists posing as libertarians.

Like "anarchism", "libertarian" is compromised beyond salvation. There are more idiots who ID as libertarian than there are actual libertarians.

I jettisoned "anarchy" for "autodiathism", a term I coined that comes from the Greek for "self-determination". Similarly, I would leave "libertarian" on the cutting room floor. I prefer Freeman, the rest being Weakmen.

As for "left libertarian", that is just another example of how the Regressives (communists) coopt and modify terms in order that they may perpetuate the Stupid in as many people as possible. They develop a lingo all their own and that alone tends to take on a life of its own. Next thing you know, Freemen are using is for the sake of being conversational, and it's all downhill from there.

Same has happened with anarchy. "I'm a anarcho-communist"... and other similar idiocy can be seen spewed by the homers on social media - the little ignorant cunts who know nothing but think they know everything, wishing cancer on all who disagree with them and who hope the children of their enemies are raped and murdered. Can't make this crap up. There may be no other oxymoron as moronic as "ancom". The term literally means nothing at all to anyone who applies so much as a single half-functional brain cell to consideration of what "anarcho-communist" must perforce mean, if we assume basic sanity, rationality, and sincerity in a man. One cannot be an anarchist and communist at the same time. This is prime Stupid in action.

I'm more of a mind to eradicate the left libertarian, as he is too stupid to live.

 

[Invisible Man]

What exactly does it mean to "not believe in borders?"

That is always the question to ask in immigration debates.

People often try to lump people together in categories based on pure abstractions like borders vs. no borders, or open borders vs. secure borders, and things like that, without getting into the actual policies.

 

[Pericles]

Like "anarchism", "libertarian" is compromised beyond salvation. There are more idiots who ID as libertarian than there are actual libertarians.

I jettisoned "anarchy" for "autodiathism", a term I coined that comes from the Greek for "self-determination". Similarly, I would leave "libertarian" on the cutting room floor. I prefer Freeman, the rest being Weakmen.

As for "left libertarian", that is just another example of how the Regressives (communists) coopt and modify terms in order that they may perpetuate the Stupid in as many people as possible. They develop a lingo all their own and that alone tends to take on a life of its own. Next thing you know, Freemen are using is for the sake of being conversational, and it's all downhill from there.

Same has happened with anarchy. "I'm a anarcho-communist"... and other similar idiocy can be seen spewed by the homers on social media - the little ignorant $#@!s who know nothing but think they know everything, wishing cancer on all who disagree with them and who hope the children of their enemies are raped and murdered. Can't make this crap up. There may be no other oxymoron as moronic as "ancom". The term literally means nothing at all to anyone who applies so much as a single half-functional brain cell to consideration of what "anarcho-communist" must perforce mean, if we assume basic sanity, rationality, and sincerity in a man. One cannot be an anarchist and communist at the same time. This is prime Stupid in action.

I'm more of a mind to eradicate the left libertarian, as he is too stupid to live.

Absolutely this and the problem is compounded by state libertarian parties actively driving out anyone who is not a open borders pro polygamy homosexual activist. The brand has been destroyed.

 

[Okie RP fan]

Absolutely this and the problem is compounded by state libertarian parties actively driving out anyone who is not a open borders pro polygamy homosexual activist. The brand has been destroyed.

Yes, and I agree with Osan to be quite honest. However, isn't the Mises Caucus trying to turn that around by taking the LP over and using Ron Paul as the primary bedrock moving forward? That was my understanding. I think there may be something there for those who want to remain "politically active" FWIW.

 

[CaptUSA]

My guess is that most of us have shifted from one segment of this wheel to another at some point in our lives. Some of us probably can identify with several segments at once depending on our current moods.

Because of that, I'm pretty open to working with people on other ends of the wheel when our positions align. And when they don't align, I try not to get into divisions that would turn them off.

The only ones who really get under my skin are the ones who are pretending to share small government ideals, but just want to sow division among the ranks. The ones who put personality over principles every time.

 

[osan]

Absolutely this and the problem is compounded by state libertarian parties actively driving out anyone who is not a open borders pro polygamy homosexual activist. The brand has been destroyed.

I would add a few points.

Firstly, I don't care if they are ***** or pro-polygamy. Freedom is as scary and shitty as it is elating and exciting. As with anything, liberty is a mixed bag because we humans are mixed bags.

Secondly, the open borders deal is a whole other kettle of rotting-in-the-sun fish. Humans are by nature territorial. Being so makes every good sense imaginable and it is wired into out mid-brains. Therefore, to go against our own nature by dispensing with borders is insane. It is tantamount to dispensing with our identities. Those advocating and working toward open borders should be taken from their beds at 3 AM and beaten with iron bars and whipped with iron wires until hatred for their mothers for having brought them into this world becomes second nature to them.

People speak ceaseless of "tolerance". Tolerance yes, but not of the intolerable.