I'll vote for this honest guy:
When I saw it was by them, I knew it was going to be awesome.
"By saying that, you just reminded me of something I've always wanted to know...why is it that the left has been more hostile to libertarianism then the right?"
I think that this is actually a very interesting question, and while I don't really have a straightforward answer I do have some thoughts on the matter.
1. If you're talking about the far left then libertarians are more likely to actually talk to them, partly because it spends more time and effort on the subject. Being on the fringe means that you tend to take other people on the fringe more seriously. You also see AE and libertarianism pay A LOT of attention to Marxism, in large part for historical reasons. This means that the two are much more likely to actually clash, this feeds into point two. It's also important to note that in a lot of ways they compete for the same head space, freedom and an end to coercion are cries for both ideologies since in our day most socialists are exceedingly "socially liberal" (and I want to make this very clear, that they are so in how they describe themselves, I would argue that this is not implied by their system nor is it likely to turn out that way if the system is ever instated) the only differences come down to economic differences, which would mean that both of them are likely to attract similar people, but also with AE running around you have libertarians saying that their system is a system which provides immense prosperity. Therefore I think that there is some understanding, especially upon the Marxist side, that there is some inherent competition here.
2. Libertarianism is actually fit to critique socialism, and it is exceedingly hostile to the ideology. A huge amount of AE, probably too much from a modern standpoint, has been spend criticizing the numerous flaws in the various forms of socialism and the thought processes behind them, and actually as soon as we discard the neoclassical logic behind the perfect competition model and replace it with the dynamic Austrian framework, then suddenly the socialist argument doesn't work with anywhere near the efficacy that it does if you're dealing with a perfectly competitive mindset which is not met by the modern monopolistic economy. I think that the far left, with the possible exception of anarcho-communism (to which Austrian critiques don't apply quite as well) fears libertarianism and the economics which back it up because of how thoroughly they debunk socialism.
3. Libertarians, for reasons 1 and 2 are more likely to engage radical leftists and are far more fit to talk to them. Have you ever seen a republican try to engage a Marxist? It's pathetic, they don't have the first semblance of an idea of how to critique the long-dead 150 year old set of fallacies that they supposedly hate so much. Libertarians on the other hand, can engage leftists, and they can do it really well. This breeds more and more contempt towards libertarianism.
4. Moving towards a more all encompassing view of the left, it's important to note that libertarianism is everything that the leftists hate, and something which really upsets their worldview. For the most part leftism is an economic worldview, far more than conservatism is, and today leftism is ALL about the economics, social issues are practically forgotten, with the exception of same-sex marriage. Even when leftists talk about discrimination and sexism, they're damn well talking about the results of the economic system and what someone did with their property and their business. Libertarianism proposes a fully free market and a fully free social atmosphere, this combines something that they hate more than anything else, something that they routinely strawman conservatives with, and combines it with what they are supposed to be.
They are supposed to be the supporters of freedom, of "social liberty", while their opponents support social repression by their corrupt government and economic repression with the evil that is their corporations. Libertarianism messes up this worldview totally, now they are in favor of massive freedom, but the economic system which makes leftists of all kinds scream. The radicalism of libertarianism would instantly bring about the hatred we are talking about, but the social aspect just totally sets them off.
5. Many of the arguments made by libertarians are very arcane in modern, and often more simplistic, discourse. This means that they are more likely to look like idiots to pretentious idiot liberals who will go on to rail against them and call them stupid... My hatred for liberals is often unmatched.
6. Libertarianism has, much to my dismay, become increasingly associated with the tea party and the republican party. This combines any hatred towards the right the left has with all the hatred for libertarianism they would have otherwise had... So a perfect storm in many respect.
I think that's a large part of the reason, anyway.
Semi relevant:
http://www.tickld.com/images/content/26913.jpg
Very interesting. In a great speech he once did, John Stossel once brought up how he made his transformation from a liberal to a libertarian, stating that he was extremely suprised when he found out that the right treated libertarianism more than the left, as libertarians don't have a problem with things like same-sex marriage, drugs, and all that good stuff.
I think the guys at South Park sum it up pretty well:
"What we're sick of—and it's getting even worse—is: you either like Michael Moore or you wanna fuckin' go overseas and shoot Iraqis. There can't be a middle ground. Basically, if you think Michael Moore's full of shit, then you are a super-Christian right-wing whatever. And we're both just pretty middle-ground guys. We find just as many things to rip on on the left as we do on the right. People on the far left and the far right are the same exact person to us."
Wheylous,
Bro, you didn't post anything bro.
SkepticalMetal,
The best part about the southpark quote is that the downside to being associated with the left is liking Michael Moore... And I have to say between the two choices presented the I'd have a tough time making a decision.
Fixed it.
On another topic:
HOLY crap, Coase is still alive! He's 101.
Feminists: Obama worse than Bush:
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/10/05/american-women-marching-into-tribal-pakistan-obama-worse-than-bush?vwo=5bd53
Latest gold from Kokesh:
Contrary to Paul Krugman, the Broken Window Fallacy Is a Fallacy
by Walter Block
Huh?!?! It's not Bob Murphy? So, even though this stuff is obvious to almost anyone who reads this forum, I suggest you read this just for the humor. Block is funny.
What did he write where his target was Hayek? As he states in the article.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1880543
what the hell does this mean, "labor implies disutility"?
then hoppe says that this is an "empirical assumption" .... Why?
Lol. I just got it.
Wheylous:
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Translation: Work is a pain in the ass.
Because we can easily imagine a world where everyone is a workaholic... they work because they love to work. So, there is no a priori reason why work is a pain the ass. It just happens to be a pain in the ass and this is empirically determined because if you want someone to work, you have to pay them, whereas you don't have to pay people to sit on the beach in Tahiti, they'll pay for the opportunity to do that. Hence, sitting on the beach in Tahiti is empirically determined to have utility and labor is empirically determined to have disutility.
Clayton -
hah appreciate the easy translation. Makes perfect sense now. for some i was thinking labor is somehow a disutility in the macro sense like labor is inherently bad or harmful (now that i know what it means im really not sure what i was thinking). I wasnt putting the sentence in the context of the individuals in the labor force.
Thanks.
Bert: What did he write where his target was Hayek? As he states in the article.
And here: http://mises.org/journals/jls/12_2/12_2_6.pdf
Government Explained 2: The Special Piece of Paper
Law without Government
Obama's plan to fix the economy:
@ Wheylous
His plan to fix the economy means as much to me as the words echoed in this video.
Wheylous, if I was still in college I'd in all seriousness print that picture out and give it to my engineering teacher as a project I was working on.
http://www.valuewalk.com/2012/10/meet-imran-khan-the-ron-paul-of-pakistan/
I read this, and at first I thought it would be different than what it was, I don't know why, maybe because a Republican was breaking out of the norm? In reality, no, again same rhetoric and agenda, just a different mask.
Republican Senator, Vietnam Vet, Endorses Obama
President Obama ended one war, is ending another and meeting our national security needs with support of our military leaders. He's laid out a clear plan that would reduce the deficit and prevent the mandatory military spending cuts that no one wants. But today's Republican Party, including Ryan who voted for the deal that would trigger the cuts, is willing to bring our country's defenses to the fiscal cliff -- just so a multimillionaire doesn't have to pay a single extra penny in taxes. And the real lack of leadership? Failing to own up to your role in racking up a record debt from two unpaid wars and two massive unpaid for tax cuts. Mitt Romney leads the party that fails this leadership test.
Wut?
Did Romney Cheat During Debate By Smuggling in Notes?
Voting
Huawei probed for security, espionage risk
Is it just me, or does Maoism slightly resemble Jeffersonian Democracy?
Not really. They both just have the farmer as the basic unit, Jefferson because of the strong Anglo-Saxon, Graeco-Roman tradition (with good reason), and Mao because almost everyone in China was a farmer so he had to adapt Marxism to that environment. Other than that, they are pretty different.
Both emphasize the power of the yeoman, I guess that's what made me view them as similar. And please expand on what the "good reason" is.
Are they really yeomen under socialism?? The good reason is that decentralised agrarian societies foster beneficial social institutions.
Ha, I suppose they aren't yeomen under socialism. But regardless, Jeffersonian Democracy is still democracy, also known as the tyranny of the majority. Jeffersonian democracy seems to me like a small spin on that. I'd be happy if you helped me understand it more.
Well when I said 'with good reason' I was referring to the Anglo-Saxon, Graeco-Roman tradition, i.e. that Jefferson's knowledge of those civilizations aided his understanding of social institutions. Also, note that if there are property requirements for voting, the latter does not necessarily result in the 'tyranny of the majority'.
So what you are saying is that democracy can exist under libertarian principles, just as long as it does not violate somebody's rights.
Not exactly. Rather that a significant degree of liberty can exist in a limited democracy...'if you can keep it'. The health of any society depends on the character of its members. Imagine if everyone on these forums created a new democracy. Don't you think it would allow for much greater freedom than if it was made up of random members of the general public?
Hmm, I see.
Well tell me your thoughts on Jeffersonian democracy, and if you think it is a fairly good or bad idea. I just read about how the Democratic-Republican Party (Jefferson's party) supported both Jeffersonian democracy as well as isolationism and nationalism. And I honestly don't see how you could build an entire political philosophy around the agrarian peasentry and make it work.
Look, compared to what exists today, it's amazing. You have to understand: the reason why they favoured the yeoman and opposed the aristocrats and plutocrats is that they realised the latter could use their wealth and power to capture the state and transform it into their own tool for gaining even more wealth and power, and so forth. They were right, since that's essentially what happened. But it existed within its own context. The conditions for the revival of such specific ideas are not exactly present, since the base foundations of the societal institutions upon which the philosophy is based have been swept away.