Switching from Progressive to Libertarian-Left

[What if...?]

As long as you legislate buying and selling, the first things bought and sold are legislators. If you wish to cease the leveraging of government for the , benefit of select economic interests then you have to take away the governments' ability to legislate buying and selling. Businesses only do what's in their best interest - but when the Return on Investment for political activity is higher than the RoI for new investment in American workers, why would they create jobs for anything except lobbyists.



That. Or you wait for the system to implode. Which it will soon enough.

I actually think that libertarianism might function in a space colony or something.

But I don't think it can when 10% own 60% of everything that can be owned already.

Try STARTING a game of Monopoly like that. What do you think the outcome will be?

 

[Master PO]

I wonder if people actually know that the historic aspect of the word "libertarian" was actually coined and used by a French individual to describe a communistic ideology? Just throwing that out there..

well "classical liberals" our founders... can no longer be used becuase the left took it over around 1890, and have corrupted the word.

 

[Zalatix]

I hope you're kidding

They both suck massively

If you appreciate knowing your food is safe to eat, then Teddy Roosevelt does not suck.

 

[Zalatix]

I wonder if people actually know that the historic aspect of the word "libertarian" was actually coined and used by a French individual to describe a communistic ideology? Just throwing that out there..

Murder 1 for making TONS of DP heads explode.

 

[Sarcogito]

How is it different?

Granted, everyone is different, but from what I have read so far on the subject, in general, Left Libertarians:

- Believe in a free market but not in capitalism. Money earned should be from one’s labor and not from the accumulation of capital and property.
- Believe in personal property, but not in private property. People own the homes they personally use and own the buildings they do their work in, but shouldn’t be making profits off of renting out homes and buildings.
- Believe the workers who use the means of production should own the means of production.
- Left Libertarians reject the notion that the State is required. The Libertarian Party believes the State is required to protect property rights and to provide for the national defense.

Frankly, left libertarianism is practically synonymous with anarchism (in the political sense, not the pop-culture sense). Right libertarianism seems to be synonymous with anarcho-capitalism. The more I read on the subject the more nuance I find.

 

[instagramsci]

Granted, everyone is different, but from what I have read so far on the subject, in general, Left Libertarians:

- Believe in a free market but not in capitalism. Money earned should be from one’s labor and not from the accumulation of capital and property.
- Believe in personal property, but not in private property. People own the homes they personally use and own the buildings they do their work in, but shouldn’t be making profits off of renting out homes and buildings.
- Believe the workers who use the means of production should own the means of production.
- Left Libertarians reject the notion that the State is required. The Libertarian Party believes the State is required to protect property rights and to provide for the national defense.

Frankly, left libertarianism is practically synonymous with anarchism (in the political sense, not the pop-culture sense). Right libertarianism seems to be synonymous with anarcho-capitalism. The more I read on the subject the more nuance I find.

So you categorize yourself as a market anarchist of sorts?

 

[Sarcogito]

So you categorize yourself as a market anarchist of sorts?

I think the term "market anarchist" refers to anarchists who are capitalists. I am not really a capitalist as I am against the entire notion of modern corporations and the accrual of wealth through investments rather than through one’s labor. I may be more of a “social anarchist”.

I believe in a free market in that I think you and I should be able to buy and sell what we want to each other without a state interfering. I think in a Stateless society free market would work just fine. However, in a society where the State has empowered corporations to amass huge amounts of capital, and to control a disproportionate amount of the market, an unregulated market would be a dangerous one. So if humans ever got rid of the concept of the State, THEN I would be all for a free market. But first thing’s first.

I realize that left libertarianism or anarchism are ideals that won’t come to fruition anytime soon, if ever.

 

[instagramsci]

I think the term "market anarchist" refers to anarchists who are capitalists. I am not really a capitalist as I am against the entire notion of modern corporations and the accrual of wealth through investments rather than through one’s labor. I may be more of a “social anarchist”.

I believe in a free market in that I think you and I should be able to buy and sell what we want to each other without a state interfering. I think in a Stateless society free market would work just fine. However, in a society where the State has empowered corporations to amass huge amounts of capital, and to control a disproportionate amount of the market, an unregulated market would be a dangerous one. So if humans ever got rid of the concept of the State, THEN I would be all for a free market. But first thing’s first.

I realize that left libertarianism or anarchism are ideals that won’t come to fruition anytime soon, if ever.

Really it can mean either. I'm not completely opposed to the idea of markets without a state I just find it highly unlikely it would ever happen.

But then again I'm a Marxist and a state socialist so whoops

 

[RabidAlpaca]

FDR? Dude, please. I've got Teddy Roosevelt's poster on my wall. He's the ORIGINAL progressive.

Considering you're socialist, FDR would've been a better pick.

Of course back in FDR's day Progressives were Republicans who wanted more social change than the retrenched big business 'Conservatives'.

I guess in today's hyper partisan world they would be RINOs or tepid Democrats.

Rather than letting a few incredibly greedy men manipulate the market until it crashes and leaving the mess for the taxpayer, in one way or another, to pay for the mess. Progressives would like enough oversight to keep speculators from rocking the boat enough to capsize it, they are going to game the system, but let's not kill the goose because you have yours, to hell with everyone else. eace

So instead of having the economy in the hands of many greedy businessmen, you put it in the hands of a few greed politicians who the businessmen buy like packs of cigarettes? Yeah, let's add the force of law to their power.

 

[Velvet Elvis]

The irony of this entire thread is the insatiable desire to pigeonhole everyone into groups. What is it with liberals and their abject hatred for individuality? Seriously, what is the allure of this "group-think" mentality? This "hive" way of thinking?

Sometimes I wonder if some of those on the left have secret beliefs. Perhaps some of them really aren't that fond of letting illegal aliens flow into the country. Maybe some of them aren't too keen to gays. Perhaps some of them have a secret penchant for capitalism. These are all only secret beliefs, because they tragically desire to be fit into a group. Furthermore, that group must be affiliated to one of the major sides.

God FORBID anyone find out they actually think for themselves, and are not part of the "collective." I mean...look how they treat folks like Elbert Guillory. It's like some f'd up gang mentality. "Hey, esse. You know you can't leave the gang, right? Now we gotta pop a cap in ya."

 

[YoungConserv]

there is no contradiction... they are entirely compatible.

libertarianism was, at it's inception, a very "lefty" ideology.....it has, since then, expanded and covers a very wide array of beliefs.... form right leaning, to left, from socialism to anarchy.

the very first person to label himself a libertarian was a communist anarchist....Joseph Déjacque ... he was a french philosopher that identified himself as a libertarian communist.

unfortunately, it was the left leaning authoritatives who have crushed and persecuted libertarians throughout the years... primarily socialists and communists... this tradition continues today , even here in the US, where so called "liberals" are the the most most opposed to the ideology ( which says something about how illiberal contemporary liberals actually are)

I would argue that the libertarian in the us I much like the classical liberals of Europe. I don't see how any socialist idea ca be held by a libertarian as it requires the use of government force which they are Gainst.

 

[instagramsci]

Considering you're socialist, FDR would've been a better pick.

lol no

 

[RabidAlpaca]

lol no

He was without a doubt the most socialist president we've ever had. I would think you would be proud to support him. He started more social programs and threatened more businesses than just about any other president. Combine that with a targeted racism and detainment program and the pseudo-black-mailing of supreme court officials, it almost felt like the USSR itself. Praise the mother land.

 

[head of joaquin]

I believe in a free market in that I think you and I should be able to buy and sell what we want to each other without a state interfering. I think in a Stateless society free market would work just fine.

I think it would be gang warfare, with those with resources exploiting those without them mercilessly.

Besides, there can be no market without rules. Even simple things like what is property requires rules (not to mention institutions like courts and recorders offices). Making rules is government by any other name.

 

[Cyrylek]

Corporations' purpose is not to work for you or me. A government's purpose is that reason.

There are declarations of intent, and there are realities.

Corporations depend on 'you or me' - we are the customers, after all. If "we" don't buy what "they" sell, they are gone.
The government does not depend on this "market feedback". At the election time, our choice is not "buy or walk away with your money still in your pocket" - it is rather "spend everything you have on one of the two (three, five) almost equally repulsive options - or lose it". The House always wins (no pun intended).

 

[instagramsci]

He was without a doubt the most socialist president we've ever had. I would think you would be proud to support him. He started more social programs and threatened more businesses than just about any other president. Combine that with a targeted racism and detainment program and the pseudo-black-mailing of supreme court officials, it almost felt like the USSR itself. Praise the mother land.

No more than you are a fascist apologist like Mises or a supporter of Pinochet.

 

[Cyrylek]

I would argue that the libertarian in the us I much like the classical liberals of Europe.

You would argue right.

"Libertarians" are the original, actual liberals, in every logical way. The American "liberals" ("progressives", whatever) are a triumph of the Orwellian Newspeak.

 

[Henrin]

No more than you are a fascist apologist like Mises or a supporter of Pinochet.

So who told you that and what did they use to support their case?

 

[instagramsci]

So who told you that and what did they use to support their case?

Mises claimed that fascism saved European civilization

Friedman gave Pinochet advice

Pinochet violently removed a democratically elected socialist president. That must've scored him some points with you guys

 

[Henrin]

Mises claimed that fascism saved European civilization

Tell me, are you perhaps using these two sentences from Mises book Liberalism for your claim?

It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aimed at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has for the moment saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history.

 

[Henrin]

Well it looks like I'm not going to get an answer. Since I have yet to see someone make that claim and not be referencing those two sentences it should be noted that is not all that Mises said nor is it his conclusion. If anyone is interested this is his conclusion:

But though its policy has brought salvation for the moment, it is not of the kind which could promise continued success. Fascism was an emergency makeshift. To view it as something more would be a fatal error.

The entire section of the book can be found here.

 

[Thrilla]

:lol: That's rich :lol:

... and true.

 

[Thrilla]

With a 22,000 percent return? :roll: That's getting back $220.00 for every dollar that you have invested. I don't know too many people--I hang out with at least--that gets that kind of return on their investments, so I doubt it :shrug:

really?.. you doubt firms lobby to lower their tax burdens with tax breaks?...well... ok...doubt away.


umm.. ok

 

[cpwill]

I actually think that libertarianism might function in a space colony or something.

But I don't think it can when 10% own 60% of everything that can be owned already.

Try STARTING a game of Monopoly like that. What do you think the outcome will be?

well, if the game of monopoly acts like the history of humanity, quite interestingly. Consider that a smaller percentage of people used to own a greater percentage of what could be owned .

 

[cpwill]

No more than you are a fascist apologist like Mises .

:lamo :lamo :lamo