Left and Right Libertarian

[a_unique_person]

I mentioned to someone I met in passing, who was a philosophy tutor, that I had debated Libertarians on the internet. His first question was, were they left or right wing libertarians. That stumped me. My guess on reflection is that they are pretty well all Right Wing libertarians here.

[Tony]

You should first objectively quantify what "left" and "right" mean, dontcha think?

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I mentioned to someone I met in passing, who was a philosophy tutor, that I had debated Libertarians on the internet. His first question was, were they left or right wing libertarians. That stumped me. My guess on reflection is that they are pretty well all Right Wing libertarians here.

I suspect most Libertarians will be very annoyed that you've characterized them as "Right Wing".

Libertarians are "Right wing" on economic policies (Lower taxes, less government influence in the economy), but "Left wing" on social issues (no censorship, liberalized drug laws, etc.)

I suppose that a person could have some libertarian views, but still favour some government involvement (call them "libertarian-lite"). And the label 'left wing' or 'right wing' could refer to where they want the government involved.

[Patrick]

His first question was, were they left or right wing libertarians.

Liberals and conservatives, and other statists, try to force libertarians into their "left wing"/"right wing" taxonomy, but that model is inadequate to represent libertarianism. The left/right spectrum is a model useful only for classifying various kinds of statists, and even for that limited use fails to represent such as "socially liberal fiscally conservative persons" (i.e., well-off ethics-free greedy people who favor abortion).

[varwoche]

Originally posted by Tony
You should first objectively quantify what "left" and "right" mean, dontcha think? I suppose a different (still simplistic) take is there are the militia types, and then there are the hippies.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by varwoche
I suppose a different (still simplistic) take is there are the militia types, and then there are the hippies. And what about the 99% of us who are neither?

[Tony]

Originally posted by varwoche
I suppose a different (still simplistic) take is there are the militia types, and then there are the hippies.

What about the type of libertarians who are both?

[varwoche]

Originally posted by BPSCG
And what about the 99% of us who are neither? Are you sure it's 99%? ;) The point being, it's an interesting cast of characters.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by varwoche
Are you sure it's 99%? ;) The point being, it's an interesting cast of characters. Well, jeeze, I have lots of friends who are conservative/right who aren't militia types, and that includes a neighbor who's a retired Air Force general. And I have lots of friends who are liberal/left who aren't hippies. Honestly, I don't know anyone who's still a hippie after all these years. And I don't know any militia types either.

What kind of crowd do you hang out with, anyway? :D

[Larspeart]

"I suspect most Libertarians will be very annoyed that you've characterized them as "Right Wing".

Libertarians are "Right wing" on economic policies (Lower taxes, less government influence in the economy), but "Left wing" on social issues (no censorship, liberalized drug laws, etc.)

I suppose that a person could have some libertarian views, but still favour some government involvement (call them "libertarian-lite"). And the label 'left wing' or 'right wing' could refer to where they want the government involved."


Beautifully put.

We are, as a whole, neither. Because we are strongly right on some things and strongly left on others, one can call us 'neither', 'both', or moderate. Frankly, I'd be happy to be called any of those three.

To call me right wing would be a lie. I am pro-choice, but anti abortion. I am anti-gun control. I am pro-legalized drugs. I am pro-legal prostitution. I am anti-immigration laws.

I am fiscally conservative, and socially liberal. I believe in government restraint, and isolationist foreign policy, but only in government. Business is free to do business abroad.

You'll find that I am pretty mainstream (l)ibertarian. Now, if you want a (L)ibertarian, go ask Shane.

;)

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Tony
You should first objectively quantify what "left" and "right" mean, dontcha think?

A libertarian believes that an initiation of force is never justified.

A "right" libertarian is one that somehow uses the "non-intitation of force" principle in a philisophical framework where property rights are held to be supreme. This is problematic in that it is hard to explain how a concept of ownership of property can develop without at some point force being initiated.

A brief explaination of this is that at some time we have people, and we have stuff as well as land, and at some point certain people own certain stuff and parts of land, more precisely, certain people claim the right to exclude others from the use of this stuff and land. How this can be done without force is a problem that "right" libertarians have struggled with for some time. They mainly get around it by ignoring it.


A "left" libertarian recognizes the problems of property ownership as being the product of an initial inititation of force and thus has a much lower view of property rights. One need not be a sooper geenus to begin to realize how getting rid of the concept of ownership of property changes the rights calculus w/r/t things like taxation and so forth.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Suddenly
A libertarian believes that an initiation of force is never justified.

A "right" libertarian is one that somehow uses the "non-intitation of force" principle in a philisophical framework where property rights are held to be supreme. This is problematic in that it is hard to explain how a concept of ownership of property can develop without at some point force being initiated.

A brief explaination of this is that at some time we have people, and we have stuff as well as land, and at some point certain people own certain stuff and parts of land, more precisely, certain people claim the right to exclude others from the use of this stuff and land. How this can be done without force is a problem that "right" libertarians have struggled with for some time. They mainly get around it by ignoring it.


A "left" libertarian recognizes the problems of property ownership as being the product of an initial inititation of force and thus has a much lower view of property rights. One need not be a sooper geenus to begin to realize how getting rid of the concept of ownership of property changes the rights calculus w/r/t things like taxation and so forth.

I think private power should be restricted and controlled as much as government power. What kind of libertarian would I be?

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I mentioned to someone I met in passing, who was a philosophy tutor, that I had debated Libertarians on the internet. His first question was, were they left or right wing libertarians. That stumped me. My guess on reflection is that they are pretty well all Right Wing libertarians here.

Libertarians are neither right nor left. We're up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolan_chart

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Tony
I think private power should be restricted and controlled as much as government power. What kind of libertarian would I be?

I'm gonna guess more to the left than what we commonly consider libertarian in the US, as most if not virtually all private power is derived from private property rights in some shape or form. You seem willing to allow that property rights are not supreme in that this is the only way (as far as I can tell) to place limits of private power.

Although loss of property rights change a whole bunch more. Most of the more sane formulations still recognize ownership to some degree in that possession of goods and land is recognized.

I wouldn't put you completely on the left, as at the extreme, left libertarianism is just about equal to marxism.

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
His first question was, were they left or right wing libertarians. That stumped me.Actually it is not such a strange question, although what he meant with right wing libertarians are not right wing, but as Shanek said 'up' on the Nolan Chart.

There are Libertarians (like Shanek) and there are Libertarian Socialists (like Noam Chomsky or the Italian Partido Radical). Libertarian Socialists wouldn't fit at all on the Nolan Chart because they favour both personal freedoms and economic freedoms but economic freedom within a socialist system that doesn't use force.

There is of course also the problem with people who call themselves libertarians, but at the same time favour all sorts of military action even the war in Iraq. That clashes with the libertarian 'non-initiation of force' principle so these people are a bit more like rightwingers than strict libertarians, IMHO.

[varwoche]

Originally posted by BPSCG
What kind of crowd do you hang out with, anyway? :D Not a bunch of crazy goddamn libertarians! ;)

(Truth be told, I'm copasetic with certain libertarian positions.)

[Tony]

Originally posted by Earthborn

There is of course also the problem with people who call themselves libertarians, but at the same time favour all sorts of military action even the war in Iraq. That clashes with the libertarian 'non-initiation of force' principle so these people are a bit more like rightwingers than strict libertarians, IMHO.

There is no clash. Stopping someone from rapping or killing another person is not initiating force.

[Beerina]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I mentioned to someone I met in passing, who was a philosophy tutor, that I had debated Libertarians on the internet. His first question was, were they left or right wing libertarians. That stumped me. My guess on reflection is that they are pretty well all Right Wing libertarians here.


He may have had prior dealings with an anarcho-capitalist, who would have pointed out the difference between himself (right-anarchist) and the good old fashioned 1900 anarchist, the left-anarchist.

[Larspeart]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Actually it is not such a strange question, although what he meant with right wing libertarians are not right wing, but as Shanek said 'up' on the Nolan Chart.

There are Libertarians (like Shanek) and there are Libertarian Socialists (like Noam Chomsky or the Italian Partido Radical). Libertarian Socialists wouldn't fit at all on the Nolan Chart because they favour both personal freedoms and economic freedoms but economic freedom within a socialist system that doesn't use force.

There is of course also the problem with people who call themselves libertarians, but at the same time favour all sorts of military action even the war in Iraq. That clashes with the libertarian 'non-initiation of force' principle so these people are a bit more like rightwingers than strict libertarians, IMHO.


Correct. By definition, libs are against initial force. We are non-interventionists. However, we are also FAR from pacifists. We'll gladly kick butt if someone infringes on our right to exist or our property rights. Remember, libs are anti-war, but pro-gun, ;) .

I find it strange for a lib to endorse teh war in iraq. WW2 is a good example of 'justified force'. One can fairly easily argue that the war in afganistan is justified too, as we KNOW that they DIRECTLY trained and harbored our IMMEDIATE attackers. To attack those people is, in my mind, justified. Iraq? Not even close. Pre-emptive war is never justified in my book, and ALWAYS ends badly, and with the pre-emptor looking like the war-mongering badguy.

The US could get by with 1/2 it's currently military if we adotped a non-interventionist policy, and followed the near-brilliant Monroe Doctrine. It works AWESOMELY for Canada, who has choosen to tactily follow it since their inception.

[Beerina]

Originally posted by Larspeart
The US could get by with 1/2 it's currently military if we adotped a non-interventionist policy, and followed the near-brilliant Monroe Doctrine.

And thus be unprepared if anything big actually happened. It's called being unprepared. I'm no fan of interventionist policies or Iraq pre-emption, but sometimes things do happen that you have to deal with.

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by Larspeart
Remember, libs are anti-war, but pro-gun, ;) .Yes, I noticed that! Even pro-guns-on-board-airplanes. :rolleyes:

Only government officials shouldn't have guns, because it would make them ominous Men With Guns (wuhuhahah, scary! :eek: ).WW2 is a good example of 'justified force'.I think it was justified to use force, but I can't see how the force used was all justified. Dresden, Hiroshima? Aren't libertarians against using force against people who haven't used force against you themselves.One can fairly easily argue that the war in afganistan is justified too, as we KNOW that they DIRECTLY trained and harbored our IMMEDIATE attackers.I think that war had a few elements that I consider closer to how I think a just war must be fought. Trying to help the population with food packets while limiting bombardments to military targets was one of them. I'm not such a fan of the warfare-by-proxy method of supporting one group of warlords and let them do the dirty work though, as it caused the horrible 'convoy of death (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3267.htm)' incident. I'm even more disappointed that it wasn't investigated, or that we hear nothing about it anymore.Originally posted by Beerina
And thus be unprepared if anything big actually happened.What kind of big thing could happen that the US couldn't defend itself against with half of all its troops (but all of them in the US or on actual battlefields) and limiting its nuclear arsenal to only be able to sterilize the planet 2 times over?

[Earthborn]

BTW, Larspeart. The quote in your sig is a misquote. It should read: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Also it may not have been from Benjamin Franklin himself. Read all about it! (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin)

Either way, I think it is an incredibly stupid thing to say. Taken to its logical conclusion, it would mean that the vast majority of people do not deserve liberty or safety. Something that is obviousy not true.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Larspeart

I find it strange for a lib to endorse teh war in iraq. WW2 is a good example of 'justified force'.

Here's a question though... Japan obviously 'brought' the U.S. into WW2 by attacking Pearl Harbour, so fighting Japan was justified. But if you take a strict policy of 'non-interventionism', woudn't you be opposed to the U.S. entering the war in Europe? After all, Germany had not attacked the U.S., and was of no direct threat. (Yes, Germany did declare war on the U.S., but I'm sure the U.S. might have tried negotiating a non-agreesion treaty.)

[shanek]

Originally posted by Larspeart
Correct. By definition, libs are against initial force. We are non-interventionists. However, we are also FAR from pacifists. We'll gladly kick butt if someone infringes on our right to exist or our property rights. Remember, libs are anti-war, but pro-gun, ;) .

In fact, the best way to prevent war is with an armed population.

WW2 is a good example of 'justified force'. One can fairly easily argue that the war in afganistan is justified too, as we KNOW that they DIRECTLY trained and harbored our IMMEDIATE attackers. To attack those people is, in my mind, justified.

I agree that we had to go into Afghanistan, but I disagree with the way it was done.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Segnosaur
Here's a question though... Japan obviously 'brought' the U.S. into WW2 by attacking Pearl Harbour, so fighting Japan was justified. But if you take a strict policy of 'non-interventionism', woudn't you be opposed to the U.S. entering the war in Europe? After all, Germany had not attacked the U.S., and was of no direct threat. (Yes, Germany did declare war on the U.S., but I'm sure the U.S. might have tried negotiating a non-agreesion treaty.)

I think you're trying to create a straw-man version of "non-interventionism." The mere fact that German declared war on the United States means in practical terms that the United States was involved in a war in Europe. The United States certainly might have tried to negotiate a separate peace treaty (at the point where Germany and the United States were formally at war, a "non-aggression treaty" would not have been appropriate, and diplomats on both sides would have rejected it). There's certainly historical precedents for such "separate peace," for example Russia's treaty with German in WWI.

But there's no reason to believe that Roosevelt, who was himself avowedly non-interventionist, would have been interested in negotiating such a peace, nor that there would have been interest from his German equivalents. For Germany to undertake such a separate peace with the United States would have involved violating its treaty obligations to Japan --- leaving a "non-interventionist" United States in the uncomfortable obligation of having no one to negotiate with and being in the middle of a declared war.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Either way, I think it is an incredibly stupid thing to say. Taken to its logical conclusion, it would mean that the vast majority of people do not deserve liberty or safety. Something that is obviousy not true.

I would disagree with this. If someone infringes the liberty of others, he has forfeited some of his. If someone steals something, he can be put in jail. Same concept. It doesn't matter if a majority of the people are in favor of it (that's just argumentum ad populum, and supports the tyranny of democracy); if they're infringing on the liberty of others, even if it is purportedly to obtain safety, then they do indeed deserve neither liberty nor safety.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Segnosaur
Here's a question though... Japan obviously 'brought' the U.S. into WW2 by attacking Pearl Harbour, so fighting Japan was justified.

Until you realize that FDR maneuvered and provoked the Japanese into firing first. It was NOT in the best interests of Japan to have America enter the war if America was just going to sit by neutral.

But if you take a strict policy of 'non-interventionism', woudn't you be opposed to the U.S. entering the war in Europe? After all, Germany had not attacked the U.S., and was of no direct threat. (Yes, Germany did declare war on the U.S., but I'm sure the U.S. might have tried negotiating a non-agreesion treaty.)

Probably wouldn't have worked. Germany was honor-bound to go to war against the US after the US declared war on Japan.

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by shanek
if they're infringing on the liberty of othersI don't read the quote like that. It speaks of 'those who would give up essential liberty' which I interpret as 'those who would give up some of their own essential liberty'. No mention is made that people in the quote infringe on the liberty of others and I think most people will interpret it as that 'those' give up their own liberty too easily. They can only give up what is their own.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Earthborn
I don't read the quote like that. It speaks of 'those who would give up essential liberty' which I interpret as 'those who would give up some of their own essential liberty'.

Liberty is a universal concept. You cannot give up YOUR OWN liberty; that's a ridiculous and completely paradoxical concept. It's kind of like saying you made the choice not to have a choice, so you don't have a choice. You can always change your mind.

If I decide to lock myself in my house for safety instead of going out at night, that DOESN'T mean that I no longer have the liberty to decide otherwise and let myself out. But if SOMEONE ELSE locks me in, it's an entirely different matter.

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by shanek
You cannot give up YOUR OWN liberty;You cannot give up someone else's liberty, because you don't have someone else's liberty. Removing liberty from someone else would most likely be called 'taking it away' instead of 'giving it up'. that's a ridiculous and completely paradoxical concept.I fail to see what is paradoxical about it.It's kind of like saying you made the choice not to have a choice, so you don't have a choice.Perfectly possible: someone might sign a contract selling himself into slavery and agreeing that his master can do anything with him as he pleases.You can always change your mind.Yes, but when you made the choice not to have a choice earlier, you can't go back and undo your choice. I think that is what Benjamin Franklin tried to warn us about: if you give up your freedom of choice for temporary safety, you'll have a very hard time getting it back.If I decide to lock myself in my house for safety instead of going out at night, that DOESN'T mean that I no longer have the liberty to decide otherwise and let myself out. But if SOMEONE ELSE locks me in, it's an entirely different matter.I think Benjamin Franklin talks about a situation where someone agrees to be locked in by another person. By locking yourself in you don't give up any essential liberty, because you still have the key and can get out whenever you want. But if you allow yourself to be locked in, you are at the mercy of that person and have given up essential liberty.

How you can read the quote and assume it is about infringing other people's rights is beyond me.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Earthborn
You cannot give up someone else's liberty, because you don't have someone else's liberty. Removing liberty from someone else would most likely be called 'taking it away' instead of 'giving it up'.

No; if you vote for people who take away the liberty of yourself and others, you can certainly be said to be giving it up.

I fail to see what is paradoxical about it.

If you choose not to make a particular choice, does that mean you do or do not have a choice?

Perfectly possible: someone might sign a contract selling himself into slavery and agreeing that his master can do anything with him as he pleases.

Yeah, try that in the real world. You can choose to breach ANY contract; you're just liable for it in civil court.

Yes, but when you made the choice not to have a choice earlier, you can't go back and undo your choice.

Sure you can!

I think that is what Benjamin Franklin tried to warn us about: if you give up your freedom of choice for temporary safety, you'll have a very hard time getting it back.

That is the case for, as I said above, electing someone who will take away liberty from everyone. And that is exactly what he was talking about.

[Earthborn]

No; if you vote for people who take away the liberty of yourself and others, you can certainly be said to be giving it up.This contradicts with your statement that someone cannot give up his own liberty.

If you vote for someone who takes away your own liberty and that of others, you are giving up your own liberty and taking it away from someone else. It does not invalidate the possibility that someone can give up just his own liberty.If you choose not to make a particular choice, does that mean you do or do not have a choice?That's not what this is about. This is about making a choice not being allowed to have a choice later on.Yeah, try that in the real world.I'm not talking about the real world, I'm giving a hypothetical example. The example shows that it is possible for someone to give up his own liberty.Sure you can!Someone who has given up his own liberty - for example by selling himself into slavery, letting himself be locked up or something similar - cannot.That is the case for, as I said above, electing someone who will take away liberty from everyone. And that is exactly what he was talking about.Pity he isn't around anymore to ask him. But the quote does not even mention anyone else but the people who 'give up essential liberty'. So I really don't see how you can think those unmentioned people are relevant in it.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by shanek
Until you realize that FDR maneuvered and provoked the Japanese into firing first.


That's why I put the word "brought" in quotes... I know that the U.S. was officially neutral, but did a lot to provoke the wars in both sides (with things like the lend-lease program). Still, it doesn't change the basic question... would the correct 'non-interventionist' policy be not to interfere with Germany in WW2.

Originally posted by shanek
Probably wouldn't have worked. Germany was honor-bound to go to war against the US after the US declared war on Japan.

But Germany had shown its willingness to turn its back on 'allies' before; remember they had a treaty with Russia at one time. I'm sure Germany might have been very willing to give up on Japan if they had proper assurances from the U.S. to stay out.

[epepke]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I mentioned to someone I met in passing, who was a philosophy tutor, that I had debated Libertarians on the internet. His first question was, were they left or right wing libertarians. That stumped me. My guess on reflection is that they are pretty well all Right Wing libertarians here.

Libertarianism is, approximately, where the left and right wings join after coming full circle. Libertarianism has a lot in common with liberalism and conservatism.

A left-winger is going to consider libertarians ultra-right, and a right-winger is going to consider libertarians ultra-left.

[Nikk]

Originally posted by Earthborn
This contradicts with your statement that someone cannot give up his own liberty.

I'm not talking about the real world, I'm giving a hypothetical example. The example shows that it is possible for someone to give up his own liberty.




Anyone joining a volunteer army does give up their liberty and cannot simply choose to treat the agreement as if it were a civil contract. So your example is far from hypothetical.

Such a person may well believe that by giving up their liberty they will obtain safety and security for themselves and their society. It would then follow from the quote that they deserve neither liberty nor safety. A curious result;) .

Of course if one regards the quotation as no more than an ill thought out piece of political posturing the problem disappears:) .

[peptoabysmal]

Libertarians remind me of pre-WWII America.
Fiscally conservative and isolationist. We swore we would never let ourselves become like that again after WWII, but like any fashion, it comes around again every once in a while.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Segnosaur
That's why I put the word "brought" in quotes... I know that the U.S. was officially neutral, but did a lot to provoke the wars in both sides (with things like the lend-lease program). Still, it doesn't change the basic question... would the correct 'non-interventionist' policy be not to interfere with Germany in WW2.

Well, even absent all of that, I still don't think WW2 is all that great an example because it was in large part due to the actions of American forces in WW1 and Woodrow Wilson supporting the Treaty of Versailles that set up the conditions that allowed Hitler to rise to power in the first place. If we had kept a non-interventionist policy in WW1, things would have been quite different.

Actually, if ALL countries had had a noninterventionist policy, there wouldn't even have been a WW1 in the first place. The simple assassination of Archduke Ferdinand wouldn't have pulled all these countries into fighting each other had it not been for their extensive treaties. It would have just been Austria and Serbia, and it would have hardly been the first time in history those two countries fought.

[shanek]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
Libertarians remind me of pre-WWII America.
Fiscally conservative and isolationist.

We are NOT isolationists. We're NON-INTERVENTIONISTS. There's a HUGE difference.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by shanek
Well, even absent all of that, I still don't think WW2 is all that great an example ... If we had kept a non-interventionist policy in WW1, things would have been quite different.

Actually, if ALL countries had had a noninterventionist policy, there wouldn't even have been a WW1 in the first place.

How the world got to the point where WW2 started, as well as the actions of other countries is irrelevant to this discussion. After all, leaders have to deal with messes that have been created, either from their predecessors, or by other countries. Plus, there is nothing that says a non-interventionist leader has to continue the policies of an interventionalist leader.

So, we are still left with the question... Would a non-interventionalist in the U.S. (or Canada for that matter) engage in the war with Germany, had there not been an official delcaration made.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Segnosaur
How the world got to the point where WW2 started, as well as the actions of other countries is irrelevant to this discussion.

I don't see how. Pointing out how all of this was a result of interventionist policies certainly does support the idea that noninterventionist policies are, on the balance, good things.

So, we are still left with the question... Would a non-interventionalist in the U.S. (or Canada for that matter) engage in the war with Germany, had there not been an official delcaration made.

Well, if there's no official declaration, no letters of marque and reprisal, and no direct attacks, the President doesn't have the Constitutional authority to intervene. One of those things has to happen. So I would say that the policy of noninvolvement would apply to this situation. Unless the US was directly attacked or at least threatened by the Axis, there would be no justification for entering the war. Note that Congress at any point could decide otherwise and declare war, taking the decision out of the President's hands.

[Sushi]

Originally posted by epepke


A left-winger is going to consider libertarians ultra-right, and a right-winger is going to consider libertarians ultra-left.

And a libertarian will think they're both socialists :)

[epepke]

Originally posted by Sushi
And a libertarian will think they're both socialists :)

Right on!