Switching from Progressive to Libertarian-Left

[Sarcogito]

I have been undergoing quite a bit of transformation with regard to my political views over the past few years. When I first came to this board I didn't know what Libertarian-Left was. I felt Progressive best reflected my ideals. But I have come to believe Left Libertarianism best describes my current political philosophy. I guess the major stumbling block for me lately with regards to progressivism is I have come to distrust governments almost as much as I mistrust large corporations. I am weary of any coalescence of power, whether it is in government or in the business sector.

I am certainly open to any further reading on the subject if anyone has suggestions.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

You wouldn't make a good progressive unless you have a poster of FDR on your wall and want the government to play master market manipulator.

I'm glad you made the switch.

Liberty: +1
Statism: -1

 

[66gardeners]

Who in their right minds is against progress. I do not trust corporations to do the right thing for me or you. Gov't is there for that reason. Make sure you vote for the right people. George Bush was not that.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Who in their right minds is against progress. I do not trust corporations to do the right thing for me or you. Gov't is there for that reason. Make sure you vote for the right people. George Bush was not that.

You can't equate progressive with progress, because they are not synonyms. That would be like me starting a cult called "the reasonablists", then accuse everyone who opposed me of being against reason.

Personally I don't feel like giving the government a blank check to manipulate, tax, and control every sector of our economy they choose.

 

[66gardeners]

You can't equate progressive with progress, because they are not synonyms. That would be like me starting a cult called "the reasonablists", then accuse everyone who opposed me of being against reason.

Personally I don't feel like giving the government a blank check to manipulate, tax, and control every sector of our economy they choose.

Progress is a noun. Progressive is an adverb.

Submit is a noun. Submissive is an adverb. Someone who submits is submissive. Some who wants progress is progressive.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Now all we have to do is move you to the right...

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Progress is a noun. Progressive is an adverb.

Submit is a noun. Submissive is an adverb. Someone who submits is submissive. Some who wants progress is progressive.

Yes, but you can't say that your political views = progress, and anyone who opposes it is anti-progress. You obviously failed to comprehend my example. Anyway, carry on.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I am certainly open to any further reading on the subject if anyone has suggestions.

How about reading the platform, and seeing how much you agree with.

Libertarian Party 2012 Platform

 

[Sarcogito]

How about reading the platform, and seeing how much you agree with.

Libertarian Party 2012 Platform

There seem to be some distinct differences between the Libertarian Party and Left Libertarianism, particularly in regards to labor, capitalism, and ownership of property.

 

[Lord of Planar]

There seem to be some distinct differences between the Libertarian Party and Left Libertarianism, particularly in regards to labor, capitalism, and ownership of property.

How is it different?

 

[fmw]

Why would we care what you call yourself?

 

[tererun]

You can't equate progressive with progress, because they are not synonyms. That would be like me starting a cult called "the reasonablists", then accuse everyone who opposed me of being against reason.

Personally I don't feel like giving the government a blank check to manipulate, tax, and control every sector of our economy they choose.

Yup, just like you can no longer associate libertarian with liberty since most of them are now republican fascists who got lost on their way to the tea party.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Yup, just like you can no longer associate libertarian with liberty since most of them are now republican fascists who got lost on their way to the tea party.

Wow...

You are so misinformed.

 

[Thrilla]

How is it different?

generally the libertarian views on persons property are identical ....but left libertarians have an egalitarian outlook on commercial property and natiural resources.

the stark difference is realized when unowned property resources come into play... but as there are really no unowned property or resources anymore, the difference is primarily academic.

 

[Muhammed]

"Libertarian-left" is an oxymoron.

 

[Lord of Planar]

"Libertarian-left" is an oxymoron.

It depends on what you call left and right.

 

[Lord of Planar]

generally the libertarian views on persons property are identical ....but left libertarians have an egalitarian outlook on commercial property and natiural resources.

the stark difference is realized when unowned property resources come into play... but as there are really no unowned property or resources anymore, the difference is primarily academic.

How can a communistic attitude be libertarian as well?

 

[Cyrylek]

generally the libertarian views on persons property are identical ....but left libertarians have an egalitarian outlook on commercial property and natiural resources.

the stark difference is realized when unowned property resources come into play... but as there are really no unowned property or resources anymore, the difference is primarily academic.

In the recent experience, one litmus test is the reaction to Citizens United v. FEC. While "right libertarians" (and people focused on civil liberties as such, like the ACLU) have celebrated the court decision, "left-libertarians" seem to be so blinded by their paranoia about all things labeled "corporate", they have joined the cacophony of absurd outrage started by the Unthinking Left.

One would think that allowing groups of people - NGOs, unions and corporations - to pool their resources to compete with wealthy individuals and entrenched incumbents would appeal to the collectivist sentiment of "the left" (whatever kind of "left"), even regardless of the obvious freedom-of-speech angle. But oh no! Corporations are e-e-evil, ergo whatever eliminates any kind of hindrance to whatever they do is absolutely horrible, by definition.

 

[Bob N]

I guess the major stumbling block for me lately with regards to progressivism is I have come to distrust governments almost as much as I mistrust large corporations. I am weary of any coalescence of power, whether it is in government or in the business sector.

I just turned to Independent myself. But concerning the state and big business, I believe you're going to find out that they both make good bed partners. You can't have a messed-up situation without both parties getting involved.

 

[cpwill]

I have been undergoing quite a bit of transformation with regard to my political views over the past few years. When I first came to this board I didn't know what Libertarian-Left was. I felt Progressive best reflected my ideals. But I have come to believe Left Libertarianism best describes my current political philosophy. I guess the major stumbling block for me lately with regards to progressivism is I have come to distrust governments almost as much as I mistrust large corporations. I am weary of any coalescence of power, whether it is in government or in the business sector.

I am certainly open to any further reading on the subject if anyone has suggestions.

Skepticism of government, belief that power in the hands of people (any power, any people) will be corrupted?

congrats on the move. You're in good company.

 

[Thrilla]

In the recent experience, one litmus test is the reaction to Citizens United v. FEC. While "right libertarians" (and people focused on civil liberties as such, like the ACLU) have celebrated the court decision, "left-libertarians" seem to be so blinded by their paranoia about all things labeled "corporate", they have joined the cacophony of absurd outrage started by the Unthinking Left.

One would think that allowing groups of people - NGOs, unions and corporations - to pool their resources to compete with wealthy individuals and entrenched incumbents would appeal to the collectivist sentiment of "the left" (whatever kind of "left"), even regardless of the obvious freedom-of-speech angle. But oh no! Corporations are e-e-evil, ergo whatever eliminates any kind of hindrance to whatever they do is absolutely horrible, by definition.

while i agree that some folks take their hatred of corporations to absurd and idiotic heights, there is good reason to distrust large authoritative bodies ...especially when they game the system , hold wide influence on policy, and have a history of corrupt behavior, and are not influenced by the electorate due to government favor.

where differ from the left leaning libertarians is that I see government at the root of bad corporate behavior...and i don't trust government to regulate away a problem they created by regulation.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Corporations are like people. Some can be good and some can be bad. To arbitrarily treat them all as the worse of them is flat our wrong.

 

[Thrilla]

How can a communistic attitude be libertarian as well?

to be more accurate, it would be a socialistic attitude.

socialism and libertarianism are compatible... but it's mostly academic/philosophical compatibility... real world integration is incredible hard to pull off( primarily due to the authoritative tendencies that arise in implementing policy)

many Socialists are actually left Libertarians, but find themselves vacating basic tenants of libertarians in order to implement policy.

to be fair, this is also a problem that right libertarians have.

 

[Cyrylek]

while i agree that some folks take their hatred of corporations to absurd and idiotic heights, there is good reason to distrust large authoritative bodies ...especially when they game the system , hold wide influence on policy, and have a history of corrupt behavior, and are not influenced by the electorate due to government favor.

Absolutely. It's just that the idea that a group of people should be banned from buying a newspaper ad close to an election because the only money they have sits in a corporate (or union, or NGOs) account strikes me as an example of those very heights.

(Remarkably, nobody objected against the newspapers themselves doing editorials close to elections, as if the News Corps (NASDAQ: NWS) or the New York Times (NYSE: NYT) are not enormous, powerful corporations, with their distinct agendas and interests)

 

[Gardener]

I always find it amusing how so many people relate to political philosophy as if they were buying shoes off a rack. Instead of understanding much of anything, they just conform.

Why not show some intelligence, instead, and instead of viewing political ideology as a commodity and an identity while retrofitting ones attitudes to coincide, why not build one yourself from the ground up by deciding on basic values first and then applying these values to day to day situations?

From where I sit, I'd say there are precious few stated liberals who are liberal, precious few libertarians who are libertarian and precious few anybody who actually understands any of the precepts of the political philosophy they purport to follow. Instead, I see huge numbers of people just saying what they think they should be saying in order to sound like everybody else. Sheep, all.