Hello all,
Here is a question for all those in the Left-Libertarian/Right-Libertarian "turf war". Whose side is Justin Raimondo on and why? He publishes in paleo/minarchist outlets (takimag.com and Chronicles Magazine namely) and he publishes paleos/minarchists at AntiWar.com. But he also fits several characteristics that would appear to make him a LL: he' a practicioner of an "alternate lifestyle", namely he's a homosexual. On top of that, he publishes lefties on AntiWar.com too. So which one of you [LLs & RLs] claim him? Can neither of you [LLs & RLs] touch him? Do you do an article count at antiwar.com?
Noncombatants are free to answer too, it's just the LL v. RL thing that got me thinking of it.
Left libertarianism has nothing to do with lifestyle. Leftism in this sense simply means "radical", as in the Left Wing of the old French parliament. It refers to the tendency of many libertarians to shun conventional (within the establishment and therefore "right") strategies toward attaining liberty in favor of market activism (such as civil disobedience and economic secession). Ideologically, however, left-libertarians are anarchists. So I don't think Raimondo would qualify.
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!
Why? Why? Why, another one of these threads. Hasn'tt there been enough inconclusive debate?
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
MacFall: Left libertarianism has nothing to do with lifestyle. Leftism in this sense simply means "radical", as in the Left Wing of the old French parliament. It refers to the tendency of many libertarians to shun conventional (within the establishment and therefore "right") strategies toward attaining liberty in favor of market activism (such as civil disobedience and economic secession). Ideologically, however, left-libertarians are anarchists. So I don't think Raimondo would qualify.
I think your usage of the term is different from others usage. Hoppe, for example, supported the secession of small unimportant areas from the central state as a strategy for liberty. The article he wrote on this was the basis for that whole "microsecessionism" thread. But he is obviously not a "left-libertarian" under any rubric. Granted he was in favor of the Ron Paul candidacy, but Long has also been complementary to Paul as a politician, for example:
Roderick Long: To wield political power, admittedly, is to run the risk of being corrupted; but is such corruption inevitable? It seems like a sizeable bloc of Ron Paul clones in Congress could be pretty effective in scaling back the state without sacrificing any libertarian principle. (see here)
To wield political power, admittedly, is to run the risk of being corrupted; but is such corruption inevitable? It seems like a sizeable bloc of Ron Paul clones in Congress could be pretty effective in scaling back the state without sacrificing any libertarian principle. (see here)
So by your rubric LLs would only include agorism and a few fellow travelers, no? That's not the common definition which tends to be much more loosely used: cultural leftists who tend to be more favorably predisposed to expressing distaste for commerce.
laminustacitus: Why? Why? Why, another one of these threads. Hasn'tt there been enough inconclusive debate?
It's not really "another one of these threads". All I want to know is what do all those who are using these words think about what appears to be an emminent exception to both sides of their coin. That's all. Just because I enjoy busting chops, although it was intended to do so for those primarily involved in those debates.
But he also fits several characteristics that would appear to make him a LL: he' a practicioner of an "alternate lifestyle", namely he's a homosexual.
That isn't what defines left-libertarianism. It's not about someone's practise of an alternative lifestyle, it's about someone's political philosophy.
As for Raimondo in general, I don't know him super well but I had thought he was a paleolibertarian.
I only meant to point out that he seems not to be hostile to the left-libertarian belief that alternate lifestyles will not be outcompeted so to speak by traditional ones. But if alliances with paleos/minarchists define the libertarian right in large part and alliances with "hard" lefties define the libertarian right what about people who mix and match with both sides.
MacFall:Leftism in this sense simply means "radical", as in the Left Wing of the old French parliament.
Lew Rockwell and Hans Hoppe are more radical than left appeasers like Long and Carson. I don't buy that left libertarianism is radical, implying that right libertarianism is not.
I will say this, left libertarians spend a lot more time bitching about right libertarians than the other way around. So-called right libertarians seem to spend a lot of time confronting the state. Peter Schiff has done more to challenge the state than Rod Long, and he's an Austrian minarchist. While Long might be much more intellectually consistent, like Konkin, preaching to the choir is still preaching to the choir.
Dare I say, in action Ron Paul is much more radical than any left libertarian from the last century I have heard of (admittedly there may be some I do not know).
he's a practicioner of an "alternate lifestyle", namely he's a homosexual.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
MacFall:It refers to the tendency of many libertarians to shun conventional (within the establishment and therefore "right") strategies toward attaining liberty in favor of market activism (such as civil disobedience and economic secession).
I don't think that's what very many people mean why they distinguish between "right" and "left" libertarians. For example, while I would consider myself a "right libertarian" due to my stances on various issues of contention within the liberty movement, I think that agorism, civil disobedience, and secession are probably the best ways to fight the State.
That isn't what defines left-libertarianism. It's not about someone's practise of an alternative lifestyle, it's about someone's political philosophy. As for Raimondo in general, I don't know him super well but I had thought he was a paleolibertarian.
Indeed. My sexual preferences run the same way as Raimondo's, yet that implies about next to nothing about where my politics should lie (to the right of Long and to the left of Hoppe.) But he is a right-libertarian, there's little doubt about that. He's radically anti-state. I think a lot of people for whatever reason think your personal lifestyle must dictate your politics. Rockwell is a bit more unclear. He seems to have gone silent on the topic of immigration. Regarding the whole left/right divide, both sides are radically anti-state, and in that sense "left". I don't think the terms make much sense in that way, so they must be understood in terms of cultural preferences.
As a word of warning to all, if this thread devolves into another intellectual foodfight over the virtues of left/right libertarianism, I will close this thread and temporarily ban any participants.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Nerditarian: Hello all, Here is a question for all those in the Left-Libertarian/Right-Libertarian "turf war". Whose side is Justin Raimondo on and why? He publishes in paleo/minarchist outlets (takimag.com and Chronicles Magazine namely) and he publishes paleos/minarchists at AntiWar.com. But he also fits several characteristics that would appear to make him a LL: he' a practicioner of an "alternate lifestyle", namely he's a homosexual. On top of that, he publishes lefties on AntiWar.com too. So which one of you [LLs & RLs] claim him? Can neither of you [LLs & RLs] touch him? Do you do an article count at antiwar.com? Noncombatants are free to answer too, it's just the LL v. RL thing that got me thinking of it.
Jon Irenicus:I don't think the terms make much sense in that way, so they must be understood in terms of cultural preferences.
For example on issues like traditional firm organization versus worker-owned firms &c. That's about as much validity as I see the "left" and "right" labels having these days, unless applied to anarchists on the one hand (in which case all are "left") and statists of all stripes on the other ("right".)
liberty student: I don't buy that left libertarianism is radical, implying that right libertarianism is not.
I don't buy that left libertarianism is radical, implying that right libertarianism is not.
A strategy that consistently opposes political processes is inherently more radical than one that promotes a political solution. Left = market based; right = political based.
You quite obviously don't know very many. Also, it's absurd to say that Roderick Long has done little to oppose the state. He is an educator, and he shares in the credit for bringing many people to liberty - myself included. He does not preach to the choir. He preaches to intellectuals. Just because you didn't come to your understanding through that route does not mean it is invalid. I am proof that it is.
MacFall, meet libertystudent. Prepare to be misrepresented.
MacFall:Just because you didn't come to your understanding through that route does not mean it is invalid.
Yeah clearly what is good for the goose is not good for the gander.
Nerditarian: So by your rubric LLs would only include agorism and a few fellow travelers, no?
So by your rubric LLs would only include agorism and a few fellow travelers, no?
Anti-political libertarians. That limits the definition to anarchists, but especially favors those who advocate market-based strategies for opposing the state. Agorists, "gulchers", civil disobedients, people like Sam from the Obscured Truth Network (which isn't exactly civil disobedience, but it involves challenging the legitimacy of the government in court), microsecessionists, seasteaders (or their like in the Liberty Colony model), and others in similar viens. It excludes partyarchs and others who believe that the system can be changed through the system.
That's not the common definition which tends to be much more loosely used: cultural leftists who tend to be more favorably predisposed to expressing distaste for commerce.
I know of some so-called "civil libertarians" who dislike commerce, but all of the self-described left-libertarians I know personally (myself included) are market anarchists.
It is true that many LLs are cultural leftists. You certainly don't find many cultural leftists simultaneously embracing the free market and political solutions. But it does not follow that a left-libertarian must be a cultural leftist. I am a left-libertarian, but I am also a Christian with fairly conservative personal morals.
There is no such thing as a right libertarian.
exactly. who is a more of a rightist? a tribe in the amazon who pull their women from their hair but want to preceive their communistic lifestyle (hence conserve) or a pro-gay rights statist.
MacFall:microsecessionists
MacFall: It excludes partyarchs and others who believe that the system can be changed through the system.
I never even knew there was such a thing as left-libertarians until they started distancing themselves from me.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Nerditarian:So Giles and Stranger are left-libertarians?
I don't know about Stranger. Giles is a feudalist. He has proclaimed that he is not a radical libertarian. I don't think he is.
What happens if someone was a microsecessionist minarchist?
A left-libertarian cannot be a statist. That would be a contradiction in terms. The term "left-libertarian" was created to distinguish anarchists from the minarchist, "big-L" political Libertarians in the first place, as I understand it from Konkin's writings.
Now does that include people who supported Ron Paul, but had no pretensions that Ron Paul would be elected?
Possibly, but not necessarily. Clarification below:
Would you deny that Ron Paul has been the greatest recruiting method for libertarians in a generation or more?
No, I would not. In fact, I supported him for that very purpose, even as I opposed the idea of a libertarian politician on principle. I see people like him as an educational tool.
Again, this definition is so vague and so different from the way people who are NOT LLs use the term, I think the term is practically useless.
People who are not LL's use the term as a perjorative to describe people who disagree with them. The actual meaning of the term is useful because it encompasses the whole body of anarchist libertarians who reject political action as a legitimate means of achieving their goals.
MacFall:Giles is a feudalist. He has proclaimed that he is not a radical libertarian
What could be more radical than voluntary feudalism?
MacFall:A left-libertarian cannot be a statist.
There are lots of non-left anti-state libertarians. That definition is a fail.
MacFall:People who are not LL's use the term as a perjorative to describe people who disagree with them.
Nonsense. LL's spend a lot of time complaining about everyone else. Do you know how ignorant it is to call someone "vulgar" for their beliefs, when you're alredy an anti-statist and for voluntarism? I'll tell you. It's really ignorant. And that is what LLs do to people within their own sphere who are not "perfect" by their own sliding scale.
MacFall:The actual meaning of the term is useful because it encompasses the whole body of anarchist libertarians who reject political action as a legitimate means of achieving their goals.
Nonsense. Most of us here hold those sentiments, and most of those people again, do not call themselves LL. Oh, but we're vulgar because even though we are apolitical and don't support the state, LLs like Carson and Long like to perpetuate the myth that we believe WalMart is a product of the free market.
liberty student: What could be more radical than voluntary feudalism?
Marko: liberty student: What could be more radical than voluntary feudalism? BDSM.
You mean what we have now? *ba dum bum*
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
MacFall:Giles is a feudalist. He has proclaimed that he is not a radical libertarian. I don't think he is.
I am a radical libertarian, in fact, more radical than most here. Since, the society I envision is more radical than that imagined by most here.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
LS:What could be more radical than voluntary feudalism?
Raimondo's good because his word is the truth and he is an excellent writer. Nothing to do with radicalism or conservatism.
Bigotry (in the general sense of circular reasoning or polylogism) and novelty are not virtues.