Ex libertarians

[ThatGuy]

I came across at least three people on this board, who said they were at one point libertarians or ancaps and then took a hard turn left. Anyone care to explain what happened to make them change their mind so radically?

[adipocere12]

Same happened to me. I'm afraid that for me it was simply not knowing anything about economics, history or politics and siding with the an-cap point of view. Once I started reading my views changed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CubanDream]

See how Libertarianism pans out in the real world, go live in a developing nation for some time, then you'll see. Great if you're rich I guess, but for everyone else - no thanks!

[Kill all the fetuses!]

Well, I think it's all the natural. There are plenty of stories over the Internet that ex-right-wing-libertarians shared.

From me reading these stories and engaging with these kind of folk, it seems to universally be the case that they started engaging with the real world. Some of them started working, some of them lost their jobs, some of them lost their small business etc.

The point is that right-wing libertarianism is a petty-bourgeois idea, which appeals to small business owners and edgy teenagers. That's almost universally true from my encounters with right-wing libertarians - they are either some upper-middle class white males or edgy teenagers.

So there is that. But on top of that, it seems very obvious to me that any serious examination of the ideas of right-wing libertarians would make them collapse into Anarchism proper, i.e. left-wing Anarchism or Marxism altogether. I don't want to start that discussion, because from me reading your posts it seems obvious that you are as much ignorant as you are unwilling to learn anything.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Well first it's easier to be a social democrat or libertarian in most countries, the ideas are safer and more acceptable. It's harder to meet revolutionaries or come across revolutionary ideas.

Second, people change their minds about things. More radicals I know in the u.s. were not the children of revolutionaries who grew up with these ideas; almost all were liberals or conservatives before revolutionary politics. Left wingers here have also become social dems or liberals (not sure of any that became libertarians). People treat politics as an identity sometimes... While politics might be an aspect of someone's identity, it really isn't an identity.

[DigitalBluster]

You can add another one to your list.

I don't want to go into a long history, but to lay it out briefly, I was seduced by the laissez-fairytale because it has an easy answer to everything: "non-aggression." The problem is that the imposition and enforcement of the private ownership of productive resources is the greatest aggression of them all.

The spell was broken when I actually bothered to read radical leftist material, which doesn't have easy answers because these are not easy questions. My advice to those who want to prevent others like me from waking up from the matrix is to convince them not to read leftist material, if you can, because reading it unravels your myths, and you haven't been successful in countering it, in my experience.

The process is ongoing for me, but I continue to move leftward.

[ThatGuy]

You can add another one to your list.

I don't want to go into a long history, but to lay it out briefly, I was seduced by the laissez-fairytale because it has an easy answer to everything: "non-aggression." The problem is that the imposition and enforcement of the private ownership of productive resources is the greatest aggression of them all.

The spell was broken when I actually bothered to read radical leftist material, which doesn't have easy answers because these are not easy questions. My advice to those who want to prevent others like me from waking up from the matrix is to convince them not to read leftist material, if you can, because reading it unravels your myths, and you haven't been successful in countering it, in my experience.

The process is ongoing for me, but I continue to move leftward.

This is very interesting. Of course imposing boundaries on private property requires force, but so does imposing boundaries on self-ownership. The force is not a problem to me, because I see nothing wrong with self-defense, the real question is where does one individual end and another starts and private property really feels like the only logical division.

I could understand your view if "the means of production"(god I hate that phrase) were something existing in nature, and someone just announced they now belong to him and nobody can use them. But the standard Lockean view of aquiring property is that you own what you create, so you actually produced said mop or got them through consensual trade. Why would someone have a better claim over something you produced than you do?

Also, I have read quite a bit of leftist literature(admittedly mostly summaries), but it never put a dent in my beliefs, so I'm not sure that's an automatic turning experience.

[Slavic]

Was a libertarian when I was a teenager. The social freedom aspects of the ideology most appealed to me and at the time I did not grasp how important economic relationships have within the confine of shaping our society.

I turned full blown leftist when I got older and came to the realization that the whole "by your bootstraps" view of obtaining a pleasent life is more myth than fact. Started reading Marx to better understand how material relationships shape society.

So basically for me; Libertarian, come for the free drugs and sex, leave due to disillusion of success within capitalism

[adipocere12]

I could understand your view if "the means of production"(god I hate that phrase) were something existing in nature, and someone just announced they now belong to him and nobody can use them. But the standard Lockean view of aquiring property is that you own what you create, so you actually produced said mop or got them through consensual trade. Why would someone have a better claim over something you produced than you do?

See, I wish that definition of property was true. One of the main criticisms of capitalism is that what the workers create does not belong to them. It's immediately appropriated and distributed by someone else.

I've often wondered what the psychological impact is of that relationship. For one thing it makes people want to earn enough so they never have to work again. How depressing is that?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[liberlict]

Also, I have read quite a bit of leftist literature(admittedly mostly summaries), but it never put a dent in my beliefs, so I'm not sure that's an automatic turning experience.

You should try reading Capital. It's not as difficult as they say. It's turgid as shit, but that's just because of Marx's horrible writing style. All the important concepts are laid out in the first 3 chapters. So that's all you really need to read. Marx basically repeats the LTV, but then asks you to wonder how something can be sold for more than it's labour input. Surplus value is his conclusion. From this he extrapolates that all profit is unfair. The rest of the book is just an historical analysis explaining how people have been exploited in the past. The concepts are incredibly simple. Once you've read this you'll start to see that 96% of the arguments around here are based on the erroneous logic in the first 3 chapters of Capital.

[ThatGuy]

You should try reading Capital. It's not as difficult as they say. It's turgid as shit, but that's just because of Marx's horrible writing style. All the important concepts are laid out in the first 3 chapters. So that's all you really need to read. Marx basically repeats the LTV, but then asks you to wonder how something can be sold for more than it's labour input. Surplus value is his conclusion. From this he extrapolates that all profit is unfair. The rest of the book is just an historical analysis explaining how people have been exploited in the past. The concepts are incredibly simple. Once you've read this you'll start to see that 96% of the arguments around here are based on the erroneous logic in the first 3 chapters of Capital.

Yeah, that's what I gathered so far. It's not that I think Capital is too hard for me(though english is not my native language), I'm just too lazy to do it. i never even finished Human Action to be honest, because I got distracted while reading it and then never got to reading it again. Also I'm much more interested in the moral implications of capitalism than in the economical nowadays, so reading another book on economic theory isn't really that appealing. And socialists are pretty vague in terms of their moral beliefs I find.

[liberlict]

What is your native language? It's been translated into just about everything except Zulu. I think I read somewhere it's the most translated book apart from the Bible.

[ThatGuy]

What is your native language? It's been translated into just about everything except Zulu. I think I read somewhere it's the most translated book apart from the Bible.

Religious texts really do sell well My native language is Slovenian, and you are correct, Capital was translated into it. Would you really advise me to read the first three chapters? It will probably be useful when talking to socialists, but I thing I already got the gist of it.

[liberlict]

Yeah I would! You can't put a price on the sense of smug satisfaction you get from understanding peoples bible better than they do ^^

[Loony Le Fist]

Yeah I would! You can't put a price on the sense of smug satisfaction you get from understanding peoples bible better than they do ^^

I know what you mean, I get that feeling when I talk to Austrians all the time.

Fuck all dogmatism. Economic, religious, or otherwise.

[Loony Le Fist]

This one goes out to all the Marxist dogmatists out there.

Anton Pannekoek, Lenin As Philosopher (Lenin als Philosoph), Chap. 1 § 22
Thus Marxism is not an inflexible doctrine or a sterile dogma of imposed truths. Society changes, the proletariat grows, science develops. New forms and phenomena arise in capitalism, in politics, in science, which Marx and Engels could not have foreseen or surmised. Forms of thought and struggle, that under former conditions were necessary must under later conditions give way to other ones. But the method of research which they framed remains up to this day an excellent guide and tool towards the understanding and interpretation of new events. The working class, enormously increased under capitalism, today stands only at the threshold of its revolution and, hence, of its Marxist development; Marxism only now begins to get its full significance as a living force in the working class. Thus Marxism itself is a living theory which grows, with the increase of the proletariat and with the tasks and aims of its fight.

[liberlict]

Nice.

Marx it seems to me evolved his thought a lot in the 60 odd years he was on this earth. I dare say if he'd have lived to 200 he have evolved it a lot more.

Would love to be able to wake the old boy up and get his opinion on the last 100 years. Alas ...

[Loony Le Fist]

What changed me from an ancap into a libertarian socialist (I use it as an umbrella term that encompases anarcho-syndicalism, council communism, etc) are a couple of realizations.

One is that power itself is evil. We cannot live without some form of power, but we cannot allow it to become concentrated into a bureaucracy--whether we call that something a government or a corporation or whatever. People have power over their own lives, for example. I recognize that there are no self-justifying authorities. Empirical data shows that normal people placed into authority positions become sadistic about 60% of the time.

Another is that liberty is non-negotiable. Liberty should not be exchangeable for money--even if that exchange is voluntary. Sort of like how it's still illegal to murder someone even if they give you permission to do so. Some rights are more important than consent or money. They are non-negotiable.

Still another is that money is part of the problem. Money becomes a means of concentrating power. Because money is essentially power in a system that recognizes currency, it by corollary is also evil. However, money is not required, unlike power.

There are societies extant today that do not have currencies that function. While they may not be as technologically advanced, I think it is a fallacy to believe that their lack of technological advancement is due to a lack of a medium of exchange. Furthermore, it is a fallacy to believe they are uneducated or brutes. Those that hunt and forage must have an encyclopedic knowledge of plants and animals (their habitats, behaviours, etc). Hunters are actually some of the most educated in those societies, and often highly respected.

I don't see any barriers in a syncretism of technology with the ideas of these decentralized tribal societies that function with relative egalitarianism and freedom. We can have our technology and our freedom too. Individualism need not be sacrificed to a collective, but rather it can be enhanced by it. Community is what gives us culture, knowledge and understanding of the world around us.

[liberlict]

Speaking from the Austrian side of the equation, coersion is seen as the moral enemy too.

As for money Austrians are opposed to state authorized tender as well, because the supply can be expanded at will which has huge negative and destructive economic and anti-social consequences.

Austrians think that, like any other good, money should be supplied by market processes, not by a coercive monopoly.

They don't endorse a small minority (state) having legal monopoly over the money supply, or printing money as a political decision. Austrians recognise that this is an intrinsically and irredeemably corrupt and destructive state of affairs.

Austrians think of money as a market phenomenon, originating in market processes. Money arises spontaneously by market actors trying to get around the limitations of barter. The most marketable good becomes money. And the most marketable goods are traditionally precious metals, precisely because the supply can't be expanded at will, unlike paper money.

In all fiat money systems to date, only after the market has first established a money, does the State later step in and impose its monopoly, then dilute the precious metal backing, and then eventually require everyone to convert to government's paper rubbish. The government can then rip off the whole population without limit by endlessly inflating the money supply.

Communists want a "moneyless" economy, Austrians say that every person should be free to sell or buy anything whatsoever as money, just as much as people are free to sell shirts, or shoes, or sandwiches. The only limit should be the law against fraud.

In theory, anyone could offer their own paper money. But in reality, no-one would accept my Liberlict dollars, or Fred's Fred-dollars, or the US greenback - because all paper money is liable to unlimited fraud.

So if the market was made free, the result would almost certainly be that people---the market---would prefer precious metals such as gold, silver and copper. And people would be free to develop promissory notes backed by metals.

The difference would be, that inflating the money supply by printing paper money substitutes, unbacked by money proper on deposit, would be fraud, which would prevent the massive bubble- and depression-causing problems of fiat money.

Under the current system, massive fraud is legal, only you can't send the feds to arrest the crooks. Because they are the Feds ..

[ThatGuy]

Another is that liberty is non-negotiable. Liberty should not be exchangeable for money--even if that exchange is voluntary. Sort of like how it's still illegal murder someone even if they give you permission to do so. Some rights are more important than consent or money. They are non-negotiable.

Here is where you lost me. How can there be liberty if you can't choose what to do with it? And was euthanasia only a metaphor, or is it something you also oppose, because I never understood the people who wouldn't let a suffering person choose to end it.