Green and Bleeding Heart Libertarians

[compromise]

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.

How far will you take that? Is Dennis Kucinich the furthest you'll go? Or a step further, Cynthia "Black Panther" McKinney? Or even further than that, George "Saddam" Galloway? What about a full-blown Maoist?

The progressive left may look tame in comparison to the neoconservatives, but all you need to do is look across the pond to the European Union to see what they can do when they get in control.

On one hand, you want to hold a Nuremberg-style military tribunal for Ted Cruz for voting to give some medical data from the state governments to the federal government. On the other hand, you proclaim support for people who would most likely favor a total ban on firearm ownership.

 

[SkepticalMetal]

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.

Well I'm afraid that I'm not familiar with the Rothbardians on Facebook, as I've only gotten my Rothbardian fix at the Mises forums. Basically though what I get out of what you're saying is that Rothbardianism is failing to become popular with "minorities" and women because of the arguments of many Rothbardians disregarding the needs of these particular groups in order to fixate directly on the statist oppression of the populous. But if I read you correctly in saying that you think that the neutrality of Rothbardianism should be sacrificed simply to get these minorities on our side, then I have to disagree with you there. For one, the whole point of the Rothbardian legal system is that people should be permitted to view society in any way they please. Does this mean some Rothbardians could be "racist?" "Sexist?" "Homophobic?" Sure it does. But the only reason this is so is because people have the right to discriminate, as long as they don't violate property rights.

I do agree with you on a personal level that it is better to persuade people through "how it is going to benefit them," however I think it is not a good idea to go and subject yourself to an entirely new ideology like "left-libertarianism" which sacrifices the neutrality of it all and takes away the fact of what Rothbardianism is at it's core - a justice system which has no social leaning, in the same way that "freedom of speech" is neutral and takes no side.

 

[SkepticalMetal]

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.

"Left-wing peacenik?" I guess the illusion that the left is the peace-leaning side of the spectrum lives on. Individuals identifying with the left have killed more people than everyone on the right combined. Of course this is assuming your definition of "left" and "right" are the same as mine. Those terms have been rearranged and raped so much over the years that they aren't even worth bothering with most of the time.

 

[compromise]

"Left-wing peacenik?" I guess the illusion that the left is the peace-leaning side of the spectrum lives on. Individuals identifying with the left have killed more people than everyone on the right combined. Of course this is assuming your definition of "left" and "right" are the same as mine. Those terms have been rearranged and raped so much over the years that they aren't even worth bothering with most of the time.

True. The left like to murder more people domestically, and in many cases are also supportive of the right's military adventures abroad under the guise of "liberal internationalism".

The Obamacare death panels are a good example of some very anti-peace actions taken by the left within the United States. Another is the high Chicago murder rate, a product of left-wing gun control.

 

[Acala]

True. The left like to murder more people domestically, and in many cases are also supportive of the right's military adventures abroad under the guise of "liberal internationalism".

World War One - Woodrow Wilson - Democrat
World War Two - FDR - Democrat
Vietnam - JFK/LBG - Democrats

Enough said, really.

 

[SkepticalMetal]

World War One - Woodrow Wilson - Democrat
World War Two - FDR - Democrat
Vietnam - JFK/LBG - Democrats

Enough said, really.

It's where the atrocities really start to overflow when you look internationally at guys like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, the Kim family, Hitler (although some consider him to be right-wing, let's not forget his labeling of capitalism as "Jewish" and evil, and the official name of the Nazi Party as the "National Socialist Worker's Party), etc.

The holocausts caused by socialists in the 20th century alone is absolutely mind-blowing.

 

[Danan]

"Left" or "right" - wars are caused by collectivists.

 

[Boss]

Though this thread has already reached 5 pages, I doubt there is a consensus about what "Leftist Libertarianism" even is. Can we define it, plz

 

[SkepticalMetal]

Though this thread has already reached 5 pages, I doubt there is a consensus about what "Leftist Libertarianism" even is. Can we define it, plz

Generally if you're a "left-libertarian" then you're a traditional anarchist (subscribing to the works of Kropotkin, Chomsky, etc.) I think that the confusion really set in when Roderick Long subscribed to the title as well (despite believing in the free market/Austrian economics). This is why I promote Rothbardianism as being the most specific title if you believe in true property rights and a truly free market.

 

[Rothbardian Girl]

Though this thread has already reached 5 pages, I doubt there is a consensus about what "Leftist Libertarianism" even is. Can we define it, plz

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/libertarian-left/ This may be a good place to start. Not to throw links at you, as it's a very long read, but I feel as though it offers the most concrete explanation. You are correct in that there is no consensus; to this end, I certainly wouldn't call Chomsky or Kropotkin some of my personal influences. I prefer Proudhon, Carson and Tucker, just to name a few.

One thing I'd like to note is that some left-libertarians typically analyze capitalism from a historical perspective and oppose it based on those grounds, rather than continually falling back on "We've never had 'true' capitalism". Again, it has more to do with the fact that most people have a very specific idea of what capitalism is, and this idea conflicts with the one that most staunch right-libertarians have. I like to hint at the difference with this quote from Alice in Wonderland, which is also in my signature on these forums:

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - - that's all."
―Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass, Chapter 6

 

[Danan]

One thing I'd like to note is that some left-libertarians typically analyze capitalism from a historical perspective and oppose it based on those grounds, rather than continually falling back on "We've never had 'true' capitalism". Again, it has more to do with the fact that most people have a very specific idea of what capitalism is, and this idea conflicts with the one that most staunch right-libertarians have. I like to hint at the difference with this quote from Alice in Wonderland, which is also in my signature on these forums:

But even "historical capitalism" with all its impurities and imperfections is way better than everything they strive for (at least as far as I know).

 

[zade]

I was in your position at one point. My advice: ditch libertarianism. It might not be for you. I know you've probably been a libertarian for a while and there's a certain inertia. And so we make the attempt to force our actual concerns about human rights and dignity into the moral straight jacket that is libertarianism and deem it "left-libertarian." I think at some point you'll realize there's no point in trying to force it anymore. Libertarianism isn't compatible with any sort of concern about social justice.

 

[CaptUSA]

Libertarianism isn't compatible with any sort of concern about social justice.

Huh? Are you serious?

To me, social justice means that those who provide the most value to society receive the most value in return. It encourages people to provide more social value!

 

[Darguth]

Libertarianism isn't compatible with any sort of concern about social justice.

This is exactly contrary to my own views. Libertarianism to me is the most compatible social/economic/political ideology to achieve social justice.

 

[ThePenguinLibertarian]

I am majoring in both biology and psychology, and minoring in bioethics.

Almost everyone in my YAL chapter is a political science, business, and/or econ major, so it's understandable that they want to focus on the econ side of things.

i presume you aren't on the premedical advisory track. Because if you are, i'd drop bioethics and do a round of English or more Organic Chemistry. Those who know Healthcare best are the ones that provide. By the way, Matt Zwolinski is a crappy writer. Roderick Long is okay.

 

[ThePenguinLibertarian]

This is exactly contrary to my own views. Libertarianism to me is the most compatible social/economic/political ideology to achieve social justice.

Most Social Justice that liberals and "bleeding hearts" like are similar to the crappy Rawlsian doctrine. Social justice as Libertarians know it is the market sorting out what is good and what is bad. Individual people being rewarded and punished by actions and circumstances that people have little control over. This is a good syste, a good clothing store gets customers, a good restaurant becomes famous. Others are then inclined to do better. however, some fall through the cracks with more complex circumstances like debt or with some sort of unprotected cheating. Most would say the state has to help, in some cases, Bleeding hearts are no different. THe best way for "true" social justice is to help from your own pocket. Not force others to help others.

 

[I<3Liberty]

i presume you aren't on the premedical advisory track. Because if you are, i'd drop bioethics and do a round of English or more Organic Chemistry. Those who know Healthcare best are the ones that provide. By the way, Matt Zwolinski is a crappy writer. Roderick Long is okay.

I'd disagree, but yes, I'm not interested in going to medical school. I could go, but I don't want to. I'd rather work in academia or business.

Ethics is something I'm very passionate about and value. In fact, more people die from issues surrounding morals than scientific ones. As a Christian, I just really feel compelled to be educated and aware of all aspects of such problems. While I agree it cannot really provide in and of itself, it can be a useful tool. I also enjoy reading about philosophy-type stuff for fun.

 

[I<3Liberty]

I disagree that social justice ( through personal choice not mandatory or gov funded) cannot be combined with libertarianism. I also acknowledge the independent and "non-label peeps" that focus on the individual issue rather than label of their opinions based on one political party. I removed my political views from my FB page and Twitter for this reason... and because I keep getting friend requests from creepertarians and annoying people that post on my wall and send me oodles of libertarian page requests. In all seriousness, I don't like labels because we end up getting into arguments about what is the "libertarian thing" for a libertarian to do.

 

[LibertyEagle]

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.

I'd sure like to see an example of where he said that, because I never ever heard him say anything close to that.

 

[James Madison]

I removed my political views from my FB page and Twitter for this reason... and because I keep getting friend requests from creepertarians and annoying people that post on my wall and send me oodles of libertarian page requests.

I hope that doesn't apply to the people on RPFs. We enjoy having you here.