Green and Bleeding Heart Libertarians

[RockEnds]

Social justice is really my primary issue. I believe that a libertarian approach to family and personal matters is the way to go. I stand against highly interventionalist policies that violate due process. Freedom is messy, no doubt, but it's certainly better than any alternative. I think the economic issues are important, but for me, their importance is secondary. If the government controls the money and the market, crony capitalism leads to social programs that are highly oppressive toward people who lack the means to defend themselves, their family, and their property.

 

[compromise]

Fiscal issues and preventing America's slide into socialism are my primary concern, so I generally align myself with conservatives and against the left.

 

[silverhandorder]

Liberals have a lot of good criticism of society. I tend to agree with them on the issues but see their solutions as what causes these problems in the first place.

 

[RockEnds]

Liberals have a lot of good criticism of society. I tend to agree with them on the issues but see their solutions as what causes these problems in the first place.

The right has their own brand of social engineering, though. Sometimes the two sides have more in common than either side would like to admit. The marriage issue is a good example. Neither the left nor the right take the time to consider that possibly the state has no business declaring itself the final authority on marriage by requiring interested individuals to take hat in hand and beg for a license. Each side has its version of what they think the state should approve, but both agree that it is an appropriate matter for state involvement.

 

[talkingpointes]

For those that are extremely confused. Leftist libertarians are rarely where they are going to end up. Before I was a full blow anarch-capitalist I used to say that Ron Paul would say bringing home the troops would help us focus on a single-payer system. Yes, he said it more than a few times.

Anyways these are people from the left on their way over - they are just at the starting or half-way point. I wasn't and most here always were not a libertarian or born that way. People from the left especially, have a ton to shrug off and still view it as compassion - that will take a while to chip away. But the general interest is in the right way.

People from the right always are natural fits becuase they come out the gate with a basic understanding of economics - somewhat.

Hope this makes sense.

 

[Acala]

I don't think it is possible to be a true "bleeding heart" and NOT be libertarian. Either you think it is okay to make people do what you want by beating them, tasering them, or shooting them, or you don't. There really is no in-between where it is okay to beat people up for a really good cause or some such nonsense. The truly peaceful, compassionate person can only advocate using government to achieve social goals if they are in blatant denial of the true nature of government. I spend a lot of time trying to get people to see the true nature of government. They have been deeply conditioned to ignore it or gloss over it or in some way accept that it is inevitable.

 

[talkingpointes]

I don't think it is possible to be a true "bleeding heart" and NOT be libertarian. Either you think it is okay to make people do what you want by beating them, tasering them, or shooting them, or you don't. There really is no in-between where it is okay to beat people up for a really good cause or some such nonsense. The truly peaceful, compassionate person can only advocate using government to achieve social goals if they are in blatant denial of the true nature of government. I spend a lot of time trying to get people to see the true nature of government. They have been deeply conditioned to ignore it or gloss over it or in some way accept that it is inevitable.

Exactly - you can't get anymore bleeding heart then libertarian. You're called the worst of names by both parties and you're truly trying to bring all together for the better of all. Yet to them you're a heartless asshole. Bring the troops home - GASP - SO THEY CAN DIE HERE!!!

 

[Acala]

My absolute FAVORITE t-shirt is the one I got at last year's Students for Liberty conference at Arizona State University. On the front in huge letters it says:

Peace
Love
Liberty

 

[nobody's_hero]

Acala hit it. if you truly love your fellow man, you want him to enjoy freedom to the fullest.

 

[Xhin]

The great part about libertarianism is that it doesn't matter where you are socially or environmentally. Anarcho-capitalism/communism/syndicalism are just different sides of the same general movement away from state control.

 

[Rothbardian Girl]

I read BHL occasionally, but I am an even bigger fan of sites like Radgeek and C4SS, among others. Roderick Long's site is also good reading from time to time. I think my favorite sites tend to have more of a leftist bent, while the stuff at BHL is still fairly "liberal" in nature (but mostly still good). Not everyone at these forums will know what you're referring to specifically, but I know we do have a few leftist/"liberal"tarian types around here.

I can't read Rockwell's site anymore, and I can no longer identify with rightist libertarians for a variety of reasons; one primarily being that their rhetoric is a turnoff. Most of them have numerous problems separating actually-existing capitalism from a free(d) market. Some of them also make fairly naive and simplistic arguments that alienate people from certain demographics.

 

[SkepticalMetal]

I read BHL occasionally, but I am an even bigger fan of sites like Radgeek and C4SS, among others. Roderick Long's site is also good reading from time to time. I think my favorite sites tend to have more of a leftist bent, while the stuff at BHL is still fairly "liberal" in nature (but mostly still good). Not everyone at these forums will know what you're referring to specifically, but I know we do have a few leftist/"liberal"tarian types around here.

I can't read Rockwell's site anymore, and I can no longer identify with rightist libertarians for a variety of reasons; one primarily being that their rhetoric is a turnoff. Most of them have numerous problems separating actually-existing capitalism from a free(d) market. Some of them also make fairly naive and simplistic arguments that alienate people from certain demographics.

I would think that the primary reason for the alienation of these "people from certain demographics" comes from the fact that Rothbardianism is simply a set of neutral legal ethics based on individualism and not the group mentality that the liberal/socialist legal policies promote.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Most who espouse free market economics cannot seem to separate themselves from corporatism.
XNN

This is soooo important for people to understand when in the company of traditional libertarians and "conservatives". The terms of controversy are often confused when they can't accept (or usually just refuse to acknowledge) that government controlled markets are what they are defending or soliciting support for. They make it sound like it's free market capitalism but many just aren't immune to the spin and end up following the herd mentality. The good old boy's thank them. Is kind of a lobby within the movement that more people need to learn to identify before becoming active. If not then too many new people coming into it will fall prey to the role of useful idiot for support of the same principles that have allowed the lobby to maneuver these multi-national corporations into a position to define repatriation.

This is especially important during these particular times of change when the sciences and those who are literate in these fields coexist in lobbying for representation. National defense and military spending are largely at the whim of the private defense industry and so without the means to separate the fields accordingly we maintain a war economy and subsequently end up at the mecy of the legislation that these corporations basically influence through thee supply and demand model for "them thar terrists".

I think we need more people coming into the liberty movement who are literate enough to comprehend what is happening because they have the relevant education/background to say..."wait a minute...why can't we do this or that instead?" or "why are you supporting, oh I don't know...monsanto's model on incorporating the sciences?" A large problem is that the traditional base simply cannot derive (often will not or proceed to deter through mob rule mentality) the relevant questions to ask their representatives when scrutinizing the platform and lobby that these representatives usually speak for (who do understand the technicals but incorporate narrative via media to those who cannot). Kellog, Brown and Root and the lot...Monsanto...those vampires. And this is what too many refer to as the free market when in fact they are simply government controlled industries via muti-national corporate lobby or merge of the representation/corporation and state.

Unfortanately, social issues are too often the model/narrative that is thrown up as a roadblock to getting at the nuts and bolts of the more relevant factors. The old "Shut up!...Listen!" gag.

 

[Rothbardian Girl]

I would think that the primary reason for the alienation of these "people from certain demographics" comes from the fact that Rothbardianism is simply a set of neutral legal ethics based on individualism and not the group mentality that the liberal/socialist legal policies promote.

The main issue for me is that many Rothbardians (at least, 95% of the self-identified "Rothbardians" on Facebook) see the State as the only source of oppression that people face, and so all their arguments will typically reject the notion that any group of people could have some sort of common struggle in favor of "Well, everyone is being oppressed by the State." I think this is a largely myopic worldview. My problem isn't so much with Rothbardianism itself as with what people do with it. If Rothbardianism is supposed to be a set of neutral legal ethics, then why do so many people use it to make normative statements about what other people "should" feel oppressed by?

For example, the argument "Let's not recognize gay marriage, let's get the government out of gay marriage" simply doesn't have much to offer people, simply because people already enjoying the benefits of state-recognized heterosexual marriage aren't exactly clamoring to give up those benefits. Women who aren't happy with their treatment in society aren't going to feel as though the state is the only thing making their lives harder. If it is "leftist" of me to feel as though some rightist libertarians are either unwilling or unable to come to terms with the fact that women do in fact feel this way, then so be it.

I just think they are going to have a hard time growing their numbers if they continue to gloss over certain "undesirable" aspects of society by treating them as arising purely from "voluntary" relationships, or denying that a conflict exists at all.

 

[dannno]

Define "social justice".... because I have a feeling it's nothing good.

How about ending the war on drugs?

 

[RockEnds]

For example, the argument "Let's not recognize gay marriage, let's get the government out of gay marriage" simply doesn't have much to offer people, simply because people already enjoying the benefits of state-recognized heterosexual marriage aren't exactly clamoring to give up those benefits. Women who aren't happy with their treatment in society aren't going to feel as though the state is the only thing making their lives harder. If it is "leftist" of me to feel as though some rightist libertarians are either unwilling or unable to come to terms with the fact that women do in fact feel this way, then so be it.

What benefits? I've been married three times, and all I got was pissed. Actually, my third husband was a nice guy, but I was sorta out of the picket fence mood.

 

[AuH20]

The main issue for me is that many Rothbardians (at least, 95% of the self-identified "Rothbardians" on Facebook) see the State as the only source of oppression that people face, and so all their arguments will typically reject the notion that any group of people could have some sort of common struggle in favor of "Well, everyone is being oppressed by the State." I think this is a largely myopic worldview. My problem isn't so much with Rothbardianism itself as with what people do with it. If Rothbardianism is supposed to be a set of neutral legal ethics, then why do so many people use it to make normative statements about what other people "should" feel oppressed by?

For example, the argument "Let's not recognize gay marriage, let's get the government out of gay marriage" simply doesn't have much to offer people, simply because people already enjoying the benefits of state-recognized heterosexual marriage aren't exactly clamoring to give up those benefits. Women who aren't happy with their treatment in society aren't going to feel as though the state is the only thing making their lives harder. If it is "leftist" of me to feel as though some rightist libertarians are either unwilling or unable to come to terms with the fact that women do in fact feel this way, then so be it.

I just think they are going to have a hard time growing their numbers if they continue to gloss over certain "undesirable" aspects of society by treating them as arising purely from "voluntary" relationships, or denying that a conflict exists at all.

I think it's a fool's errand to attempt to alter reality with the monopoly of force provided by the government. It's kind of like a man with a third arm coming out of his back angry that society is treating him unfairly. Gay, homosexual couples should be afforded general privacy and rights but this bizarre insistence to have equal footing with heterosexual couples in the most microscopic instances is fraught with serious delusions. Putting a proverbial gun to society's head and demanding acceptance actually weakens the cause.

 

[Philhelm]

I would prefer that our enemies' hearts are the ones bleeding.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Frankly it's because the economics are the most important part of the entire movement... everything else you want can fall into place with a decentralization of power and that's only made possible by the economics.

I don't know if I agree with that. I'd vote for a left-wing peacenik over a "right-wing" neocon any day.

Fiscal issues matter more than social ones to me, but foreign policy and civil liberties issues are more important than economics.

 

[July]

For example, the argument "Let's not recognize gay marriage, let's get the government out of gay marriage" simply doesn't have much to offer people, simply because people already enjoying the benefits of state-recognized heterosexual marriage aren't exactly clamoring to give up those benefits. Women who aren't happy with their treatment in society aren't going to feel as though the state is the only thing making their lives harder. If it is "leftist" of me to feel as though some rightist libertarians are either unwilling or unable to come to terms with the fact that women do in fact feel this way, then so be it.

This is really part of a much larger problem, IMO...once any group starts using the state to gain an advantage, and they start receiving privilege or benefits from the state, the tendency is not to give it up. Rather, the tendency is for additional groups to seek similar privilege and advantage out of self defense, just to be able to compete and get an even playing field... which in turn prompts other groups to seek more advantage through the state. It's a cycle, and a big part of the reason why the tendency is for government to always grow, and why government programs and agencies become entrenched and are never abolished once they are set up. No special interest group is ever realistically going to vote an advantage away, especially if they are/were being exploited or have become dependent.

I see this as a huge catch 22. Outside of a total collapse and getting to start over fresh, I'm not sure there is any "fair" way out of the cycle. People can come to view others as individuals, and to understand negative law theory, etc...but that's not an overnight fix. For things to change though, enough people would have to stop viewing the state as a means of self defense, even in the face of oppression, which is obviously not easy.