Confusion about Libertarianism

[Hexen]

Is libertarianism is the exact opposite opposite of authoritarianism (as I heard from somewhere or those political spectrum graphs) or is it Ayn Randite individualism? I'm very confused.

[Tzadikim]

I consider myself a libertarian, and I want nothing to do with the Randians and other bourgeois apologists. I do, however, take great interest in the works of Murray Rothbard, as there were times when he attempted to ally with the 'New Left' on some social issues and against corporate welfare. I would like to take that line of attack and run a touchdown with it, as I think the current environment would allow.

[Amphictyonis]

I consider myself a libertarian ....I take great interest in the works of Murray Rothbard

I'm an atheist....I take great interest in the works of John The Baptist. It's all true.

[Tzadikim]

I'm an atheist....I take great interest in the works of John The Baptist. It's all true.

Read this (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard33.html). While I don't deny that Rothbard was a capitalist apologist, and an egregious one at that, I do think he showed the possibility of forming partial-alliances with right-libertarians on issues where our desires converge. And while that'll probably be condemned here as 'popular frontism', I don't really care: I don't hold to any one Party line; whatever works is worth keeping, whatever fails ought to be discarded, in line with the scientific method.

My ideal is a stateless, moneyless society. In the absence of conditions allowing for that possibility at the moment, I want to fight the battles we can win.

[RebelDog]

Is libertarianism is the exact opposite opposite of authoritarianism (as I heard from somewhere or those political spectrum graphs) or is it Ayn Randite individualism? I'm very confused.

I suppose it is ideally. One wants total control and freedom of action over labour. The other seeks freedom of the labouring class and self-management. I'm talking of libertarianism in the european sense of the word.

[ContrarianLemming]

Libertarins both refers to randians and us, depending on who your asking.

[NGNM85]

'Libertarian' historically referred to Anarchists, or Left/Anti-State Socialists. In other countries it is often still used this way. Unfortunately, a few decades ago a clique of American lassez-faire right-wingers got together and claimed the word for themselves, which can lead to some confusion. However, Anarchists who employ the phrase are simply being true to the historical, literal meaning of the word.

[Demogorgon]

Libertarianism as it is referred to in modern Anglo-American political discourse is woefully misnamed as it claims to be against state power but in fact is more about opposing state interference in private power structures. This of course rapidly leads to very authoritarian positions (see extreme Libertarian views on indentured servitude for instance).

Indeed you will actually find many self professed Libertarians going further and claiming that the State while not to try to prevent these "natural" hierarchies appearing, does have an obligation to protect them against challenge. Very rapidly they are then calling for an authoritarian state enforcing what they see as natural liberty-that is private authority.

Of course even this perverted logic rapidly shows itself to be a scam once you talk to them and see their policy preferences. Quite aside from the fact that they frequently hold every prejudice under the sun, they often turn out to be fairly run of the mill social Conservatives in many areas, particularly law and order (though some so called Communists have that problem too I am sorry to say). The areas they frequently differ from ordinary conservatives is foreign policy and drug policy, but even there that isn't as strong as you think. If you look at Randroid forums you will see them all supporting the so called War on Terror and if you look at the stuff Leonard Peikoff says, he explicitly calls for genocide in the Middle East saying that Nuclear Bombs should have been detonated in Muslim majority countries in retaliation for 9/11. He also claims it is immoral to be concerned about civilian casualties, saying sole responsibility falls on the Governments of the dead civilians for daring to provoke America to military confrontation. I am sure you can see how this may not seem to correspond with the layman's definition of "Libertarian". But nonetheless that is what he calls for.

Now to be fair, many Libertarians want little to do with Randroids and would never go that far. The majority do oppose the war, but there is by no means general consensus, so even on that area where they should be able to show a way of differentiating themselves from hardline Conservatism, they come up short.

[RED DAVE]

Read this (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard33.html). While I don't deny that Rothbard was a capitalist apologist, and an egregious one at that, I do think he showed the possibility of forming partial-alliances with right-libertarians on issues where our desires converge. And while that'll probably be condemned here as 'popular frontism', I don't really care: I don't hold to any one Party line; whatever works is worth keeping, whatever fails ought to be discarded, in line with the scientific method.There is no meeting ground between the so-called libertarians and the left. Even if we hold to the same position (many libertarians are against US intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan), we do so for diffrerent reasons, our analysis of causes is differen t and our strategies are differing.

I was peripherally involved in Rothbard's bs in the late 60s. He displayed a superficial idea of the Left and for a leftist group (or individual) or the Left as a whole, to engage in an alliance with libertarians, then and now, was/is opportunism.

RED DAVE

[Apoi_Viitor]

The libertarian right are only against the war in Iraq, because they think a 100% privately funded army would more efficiently kill Muslims.

[RadioRaheem84]

There is no meeting ground between the so-called libertarians and the left. Even if we hold to the same position (many libertarians are against US intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan), we do so for diffrerent reasons, our analysis of causes is differen t and our strategies are differing.

I was peripherally involved in Rothbard's bs in the late 60s. He displayed a superficial idea of the Left and for a leftist group (or individual) or the Left as a whole, to engage in an alliance with libertarians, then and now, was/is opportunism.

RED DAVE

Yes. I always look at the philosophical presuppositions too. :thumbup1:

[MarxSchmarx]

There is no meeting ground between the so-called libertarians and the left. Even if we hold to the same position (many libertarians are against US intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan), we do so for diffrerent reasons, our analysis of causes is differen t and our strategies are differing.

I was peripherally involved in Rothbard's bs in the late 60s. He displayed a superficial idea of the Left and for a leftist group (or individual) or the Left as a whole, to engage in an alliance with libertarians, then and now, was/is opportunism.

RED DAVE

In principle opportunism isn't a problem. If there are people who are deeply opposed to the current order and who feel they have no other outlet for activism save for working with the right libertarians, then working with such groups with the goal of poaching individuals to our side makes sense.

The problem with working with this crowd, as pointed out in the an-cap thread, is that it is almost entirely an internet phenomenon in the anglo-saxon countries.Opportunism presupposes the ability to derive a beneficial outcome, like wider exposure of our message. Here no such outcome exists. Perhaps all that could be said for the movement is that it has some wealthy backers, but they aren't stupid and they won't fund projects that go against their financial interests.

[Amphictyonis]

While I don't deny that Rothbard was a capitalist apologist, and an egregious one at that, I do think he showed the possibility of forming partial-alliances with right-libertarians on issues where our desires converge. And while that'll probably be condemned here as 'popular frontism', I don't really care: I don't hold to any one Party line; whatever works is worth keeping, whatever fails ought to be discarded, in line with the scientific method.

My ideal is a stateless, moneyless society. In the absence of conditions allowing for that possibility at the moment, I want to fight the battles we can win.

I'll never align myself with free marketeers. Hell will freeze over and gold plated diamonds will flow from my anus before it happens. Have you ever actually spoken with free marketeers?

[Demogorgon]

There is no meeting ground between the so-called libertarians and the left. Even if we hold to the same position (many libertarians are against US intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan), we do so for diffrerent reasons, our analysis of causes is differen t and our strategies are differing.

I was peripherally involved in Rothbard's bs in the late 60s. He displayed a superficial idea of the Left and for a leftist group (or individual) or the Left as a whole, to engage in an alliance with libertarians, then and now, was/is opportunism.

RED DAVEI think what is most important to remember there as well is that after a while he decided he was never going to manage an alliance with the left and cosied up to hard-right Social Conservatives instead. Somewhere that he felt a lot more comfortable philosophically.

[Unkut]

I think that Rothbard deliberately omitted the ruling class in America's desire to protect their property as a primary motivation for the establishment of the U.S. Constitution from his analysis. A guy called Buddhagem on youtube did a video about it. So to me he's dismissible.