Pro Property Libertarians? were are they?

[AnthArmo]

This is annoying as all hell and just complicates the entire political spectrum.

Pro Capitalist Libertarians, they're running around shouting Ayn Rand and Ron Paul to the high heavens. Were are they on the Political Spectrum?

They support social freedom, Decentralization, Liberty. A lot of them are opposed to the government and it's imperialism. Including the Bailouts and the wars.

Yet, at the exact same time, they support exploitation and wage slavery. Huh?

I can only take three stances on this

1. They're Rightists, fuck their "Pro-Freedom" crap. It's all a disguise to cloak the fact that they want to destroy the working class. If they come to power then the middle class will disappear and we would see exploitation on a whole new scale

2. They're actually Leftists, they just don't know it. They oppose the imperialist government. They are in favor of freedom. Some of them are environmentalists who believe in "Green Capitalism" (yea right).Many of them are under the misguided impression that Capitalism is the only way liberty can be achieved (Bloody Ayn Rand). I remember reading that one of them actually supported Cooperatives and anarcho-syndicalism. And I also remember reading one saying "I can choose were I work, no one forces me to work for them, it's a mutual contract between two people". Maybe they're just misinformed?

3. Or you can go with the Nolan Chart, in which case they're centrists.

It's confusing to say the least. If the answer is number 2. Then maybe we should try to work with them, get them to understand that there are many more ways of achieving Socialism then government centralization. Although I get the impression that some of them are really under number 1, I wouldn't be surprised.

[ZeroNowhere]

Pro-capitalist libertarian? I don't think that any exist...
Though if you're referring to the neoliberals, they're right-wing, and I don't really see how one can argue that 'they're actually leftists'. Of course, some are just lured by the fact that they're anti-war on drugs, anti-anti-abortionists, and such. These guys could become lefties, sure. But all of them? Not really. And hell, the others aren't secret leftists, they're still rightists, though still not completely in the boring side, and with the potential to join the dark side.

[communick]

The Libertarian Party in the US is ultra-pro-private property.

They might have some good positions on civil liberties but they want to privatize everything.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Pro Capitalist Libertarians, they're running around shouting Ayn Rand and Ron Paul to the high heavens. Were are they on the Political Spectrum?

They support social freedom, Decentralization, Liberty.Actually, Ron Paul, like most "capitalist libertarians," is against reproductive rights, free movement of populations, and marriage equality. While Ayn Rand was more consistent in her views, she was still, ultimately, a heterosexist disgusted with the lifestyle of gays and bisexuals (in addition to having some dubious views on gender roles).

There exists a common joke amongst Republicans that right-libertarians are just conservatives who want to complain about stoplights and not being able to consume drugs. While obviously a stereotype, it makes for good table conversation.

Political scales are not rooted in matter, but I think it's safe to conclude "pro-property libertarians" are right-wing. They do not oppose economic exploitation. You only have to visit their three battle stations of defense on the internet (Mises, Rockwell, and Cato) to get acquired with some nutty views - like Rothbard's natural rights ideology, or Rockwell's belief that child labor is a good mark on society, or Hoppe believing "voluntary" slavery should be protected.

[Os Cangaceiros]

They fall all over the political spectrum, I believe.

On the far right, you have anarcho-capitalists like Lew Rockwell and "neo-feudalists" like Hans-Hermann Hoppe.

In the center, you have more moderate libertarians, who believe that the market is ultimately a positive force, but that some entities/services should be kept in the public trust. You could probably put someone like Milton Friedman here, I suppose. I think most self-described libertarians probably fall in this category, at least in the United States.

On the far left of the pro-property libertarian spectrum, you have people like Kevin Carson, Karl Hess and others who emphasize issues like class conflict, imperialism/state terrorism, social inequalities like homophobia and racism, but who don't outright reject the concept of "property" like other leftists do, for whatever reasons.

[JimmyJazz]

Honestly, the only way to make sense of the Left-Right continuum is to define it exclusively by one's attitude toward capitalism. Then make it orthogonal to the libertarian-authoritarian scale. This is what the Political Compass (http://www.politicalcompass.org/) does (and it was invented by a right-libertarian).

In other words, pro-property libertarians are just plain rightists, not rightists in disguise. But "right" versus "left" doesn't tell you everything about a person.

eta check this out (http://www.bigheadpress.com/tpbtgn?page=1) :lol:

[KC]

They are rightists. They are not "in disguise".

[autotrophic]

Well, in order to understand pro-property libertarians, I think you have to understand some of their fundamental arguments. People like Murray Rothbard, Ben Tucker, Lysander Spooner, Mises, Josiah Warren, and even Proudhon all believed these 3 things:
- the state's main purpose is to support big business (true)
- the state and property rights distorted the 'truly free' market (also true)
- real competition without the state tends to lead to equality (maybe true??)

Anarcho-capitalists do not believe that the employer-employee relationship is inherently exploitive, if it is entered into freely by both sides. Now under state capitalism, the worker must submit to a boss under threat of starvation, but in a Non-statist area, there are other options such as farm your own land (since property is based on active-use rather than private property laws), create your own business (it would be easier for entrepreneurs to aquire capital), or alternately, you could organize things collectively.

An interesting article talks more about Tucker's (who considered himself a socialist, while being pro-money and and individualist) view's on money and banking is called Economics: The Money Debate by Wendy McElroy (google search it).

I'm not sure where I personally stand on anarcho-capitalism in general, because most anarcho-capitalists that I've read online seem to be closer to mutualists than to rothbard or hoppe(with a few exceptions). Also, I think that if anarcho-capitalism was possible, it would develop either into mutualism or state capitalism again.

[Crux]

Some mutualists are not all that bad. As for the "pro-property libertarians" 8 as opposed to pro-property anarchists) they are very very rightwing. Their stances on some social issues mean fuck all in the real implementation of their politics. in the end of the day the freedom they seek is the freedom of bourguise, and they wish to keep as much of the state as possible to keep this privilige.

While I do not agree with everything Bob Black says (after all he is a post-left super anarchist) I do belive his critique is pretty spot on as far as libertarianisms supposed libertariansim is concerned: http://www.inspiracy.com/black/abolition/libertarian.html

[Diagoras]

The left-right spectrum dichotomy is utterly ineffectual in dealing with contemporary political ideologies. I would put libertarians firmly in the right camp, if we were to use it. If it has any meaning at all, I would consider the Right to be defense of private concentrations of power for elites, while the Left advocates the general empowerment of people in common, rather than for some over others (dispersion of power and break down of domination). While libertarian-capitalists generally don't care about marijuana, and the less hypocritical ones don't care about gay marriage, they quite unabashedly tend to defend the virtues of (or meritocratic basis behind) socio-economic inequality. Generally, I find most lay-libertarians (as opposed to the high priests of the market) to be utterly uninformed about capitalism and its actual functioning, and gravitate towards its current trendiness as a manner of justifying their Gordon Gecko greed, with a facade of social liberation.

[hugsandmarxism]

http://goatmilk.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/ron_paul_photo_4.jpg

This fucker is no "Leftist in disguise." The Libertarians in the context of American politics are the worst cappie snake oil salesmen, sucking in otherwise moderates and center leftists with their dissent from typical GOP rhetoric on cultural issues, while smashing unions and assaulting the working class. Option one is correct.

[mikelepore]

They are rightists. They are not "in disguise".

That is, exactly, word for word, what I was just about to type. Then I noticed your post.

[Comrade B]

BIG chunk of those capitalist libertarians I have met are very racist. I don't play nicely with them.

[Sawtooth]

I think there is a VERY SMALL minority of Libertarians who are Leftists, but unaware of it. All they require is education on the nature of capitalism -- most Americans, but especially right-wingers, are horribly ignorant as to how capitalism actually works.

For the most part, though, they are the worst kind of scum. They're essentially a bunch of white, middle class sociopaths out to make things better for the white middle class. As if they needed it...

[gorillafuck]

They're rightists. Though the first option is also incorrect because they're not in disguise......