Right/Left Libertarianism

[Pennsylvania]

So what exactly is the difference between a Right Libertarian and a Left Libertarian? I would like to hear the opinions of those who identify specifically as a Right or Left Libertarian.

As far as I can tell:

Left-Libertarianism: pro-choice, strongly pro gay-rights

Right-Libertarianism: pro-life, may agree with gay-rights to some extent, but places a great deal of emphasis on the cultural importance of heterosexual marriage

I would gather most other differences are minor. I'd like to have a solid grasp on these terms for convenient use in conversation, however.

[Conza88]

The left / right paradigm, is a false one.

Essentially, there is an ideology, a set of ideas - then some retards come along and try to corrupt it. Steal its meaning.

Liberalism is a key example. Basically, the "left" better referred to as SOCIALISTS (but then so are the right wing), anyway - the international socialists (marxists) - then to wage an esoteric agenda. They take up the label and corrupt it.

They did it with liberalism. And they are doing it with libertarianism. Divide and conquer tactics.

Which is why I think the term anarcho-capitalism, chosen by Murray Rothbard to describe the logical conclusion of Libertarianism (in the classical liberal sense), is SO invincible.

The lefts already have "anarchism" claimed and totally destroyed. And no socialist is going to try corrupt a label that contains the word capitalist. :D

Basically -
left wing = communist / marxist (international socialist)
right wing = fascist / nazi (national socialist)

See - no matter what you refer to, you are STUCK within the paradigm, always a socialist. Left and Right, suck balls. :eek:

There is no centre either.

Personally, I propose - FORWARDS towards FREEDOM (Individualism) or BACKWARDS towards TYRANNY. (Collectivism)

They're the options.

[liberteebell]

The left / right paradigm, is a false one.

Essentially, there is an ideology, a set of ideas - then some retards come along and try to corrupt it. Steal its meaning.

Liberalism is a key example. Basically, the "left" better referred to as SOCIALISTS (but then so are the right wing), anyway - the international socialists (marxists) - then to wage an esoteric agenda. They take up the label and corrupt it.

They did it with liberalism. And they are doing it with libertarianism. Divide and conquer tactics.

Which is why I think the term anarcho-capitalism, chosen by Murray Rothbard to describe the logical conclusion of Libertarianism (in the classical liberal sense), is SO invincible.

The lefts already have "anarchism" claimed and totally destroyed. And no socialist is going to try corrupt a label that contains the word capitalist. :D

Basically -
left wing = communist / marxist (international socialist)
right wing = fascist / nazi (national socialist)

See - no matter what you refer to, you are STUCK within the paradigm, always a socialist. Left and Right, suck balls. :eek:

There is no centre either.

Personally, I propose - FORWARDS towards FREEDOM (Individualism) or BACKWARDS towards TYRANNY. (Collectivism)

They're the options.

Well done!

[heavenlyboy34]

The left / right paradigm, is a false one.

Essentially, there is an ideology, a set of ideas - then some retards come along and try to corrupt it. Steal its meaning.

Liberalism is a key example. Basically, the "left" better referred to as SOCIALISTS (but then so are the right wing), anyway - the international socialists (marxists) - then to wage an esoteric agenda. They take up the label and corrupt it.

They did it with liberalism. And they are doing it with libertarianism. Divide and conquer tactics.

Which is why I think the term anarcho-capitalism, chosen by Murray Rothbard to describe the logical conclusion of Libertarianism (in the classical liberal sense), is SO invincible.

The lefts already have "anarchism" claimed and totally destroyed. And no socialist is going to try corrupt a label that contains the word capitalist. :D

Basically -
left wing = communist / marxist (international socialist)
right wing = fascist / nazi (national socialist)

See - no matter what you refer to, you are STUCK within the paradigm, always a socialist. Left and Right, suck balls. :eek:

There is no centre either.

Personally, I propose - FORWARDS towards FREEDOM (Individualism) or BACKWARDS towards TYRANNY. (Collectivism)

They're the options.

Is your "FORWARDS" philosophy more compatible with "archism" or "non-archism"? :confused::);)

[zach]

Personally, I propose - FORWARDS towards FREEDOM (Individualism) or BACKWARDS towards TYRANNY. (Collectivism)

They're the options.

This summarization is what would be good in conversation. :)

[Pennsylvania]

It all sounds good to me, but many people, though they agree on the general notion of freedom, place emphasis on different things in varying proportions, or even disagree on what freedom actually is, because of distinct worldviews. This to me, is the basis upon which many people have built sub-identities within the libertarian movement. I'd just like to understand what those subtle differences are.

[Truth Warrior]

Just keep it simple. ;)

"Complexity is the essence of the con and the hustle."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/libertarian (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/libertarian)

[wizardwatson]

Just keep it simple. ;)

"Complexity is the essence of the con and the hustle."

^^^

I like the above quote. Do you know who said it?


"It is indeed difficult to see the situation simply-our minds are very complex and it is easy to teach one to be skillful, but it is difficult to teach him his own attitude."
—Bruce Lee




"Mastery is approached not through acquiring more and more knowledge but through stripping away the inessentials.

A stone sculptor, rather than building up with clay, instead chisels away everything not needed, revealing the underlying form hidden inside the material."

- Bruce Lee

[Truth Warrior]

^^^

I like the above quote. Do you know who said it?

I don't recall his name. He was a retired and reformed con man that wrote a tell-all con prevention and protection book, several decades ago.

All that I now remember is the quote. It has served me very well over time. ;)

[Acala]

"Complexity is the essence of the con and the hustle"

That sure explains a lot about the monetary system.

By the way, the difference between a "left" libertarian and a "right" libertarian is in which pant leg they hang their schlong. "Centrist" libertarians are those with Eldridge Cleaver pants.

[M House]

I find it kinda ironic that anyone who agrees with interfering with another's rights would actually be a libertarian.

[Truth Warrior]

That sure explains a lot about the monetary system.

By the way, the difference between a "left" libertarian and a "right" libertarian is in which pant leg they hang their schlong. "Centrist" libertarians are those with Eldridge Cleaver pants.

"If you want to understand, what's REALLY going on, just follow the money!"

[Conza88]

I find it kinda ironic that anyone who agrees with interfering with another's rights would actually be a libertarian.

See thats exactly it. They aren't. But you still get a corruption of the ideology and its pureness.

And it happens because FOOLS don't even know its taking place. The MEDIA starts it by and large, someone prominent takes it to the for - but plug Chomsky, or someone else. Then the masses repeat it.

Words convey language and meaning. By automatically choosing to operate within THEIR framework, you've already lost half the battle.

Don't call them PREGRESSIVES, they are REGRESSIVES. They are NOT progressing towards anything. Tyranny is OLD. Liberty is NEW.

Have the morale courage for it. :)

[BillyDkid]

The left / right paradigm, is a false one.

Essentially, there is an ideology, a set of ideas - then some retards come along and try to corrupt it. Steal its meaning.

Liberalism is a key example. Basically, the "left" better referred to as SOCIALISTS (but then so are the right wing), anyway - the international socialists (marxists) - then to wage an esoteric agenda. They take up the label and corrupt it.

They did it with liberalism. And they are doing it with libertarianism. Divide and conquer tactics.

Which is why I think the term anarcho-capitalism, chosen by Murray Rothbard to describe the logical conclusion of Libertarianism (in the classical liberal sense), is SO invincible.

The lefts already have "anarchism" claimed and totally destroyed. And no socialist is going to try corrupt a label that contains the word capitalist. :D

Basically -
left wing = communist / marxist (international socialist)
right wing = fascist / nazi (national socialist)

See - no matter what you refer to, you are STUCK within the paradigm, always a socialist. Left and Right, suck balls. :eek:

There is no centre either.

Personally, I propose - FORWARDS towards FREEDOM (Individualism) or BACKWARDS towards TYRANNY. (Collectivism)

They're the options.I agree. There is only the love of individual liberty or not. Left and right are meaningless. You may be personally liberal or conservative minded, it has nothing to do with governing. Obviously, you can look at Ron Paul and see that he is personally a very conservative person, but you can also see that he has no interest at all in making others live up to his personal standards of conduct. There are lots of things I may find offensive, but I wouldn't dream of telling you whether or not you may enjoy them or not - as long as you are not infringing on the rights of others. There is only collectivism or liberty. Letting others decide for you what constitutes sufficient liberty for you is not liberty. I have to add that I am personally a very liberal person, but I couldn't imagine supporting anybody but Dr. Paul. Conservative or liberal (as distorted as these things have become) should be personal attributes and not factor into governing. The only thing that should matter in our elected officials is if they will obey the Constitution. They can be as personally left or right as they want to be. There power should be limited in such a way that it makes no difference where they are on that spectrum. But I agree, left and right have no meaning in the context of libertarianism.

[The_Orlonater]

Wait, I thought the total right wing is no government and the total left wing is total government control?

I'm lost, what makes fascism right wing and communism left wing? They are pretty similar.

[The_Orlonater]

I agree. There is only the love of individual liberty or not. Left and right are meaningless. You may be personally liberal or conservative minded, it has nothing to do with governing. Obviously, you can look at Ron Paul and see that he is personally a very conservative person, but you can also see that he has no interest at all in making others live up to his personal standards of conduct. There are lots of things I may find offensive, but I wouldn't dream of telling you whether or not you may enjoy them or not - as long as you are not infringing on the rights of others. There is only collectivism or liberty. Letting others decide for you what constitutes sufficient liberty for you is not liberty. I have to add that I am personally a very liberal person, but I couldn't imagine supporting anybody but Dr. Paul. Conservative or liberal (as distorted as these things have become) should be personal attributes and not factor into governing. The only thing that should matter in our elected officials is if they will obey the Constitution. They can be as personally left or right as they want to be. There power should be limited in such a way that it makes no difference where they are on that spectrum. But I agree, left and right have no meaning in the context of libertarianism.

This is something I can agree with. Some may be socially liberal or conservative, but politically we all want liberty(at least we hope).

[Freedom 4 all]

Right Libertarian: Someone who votes for McCain to prevent Communism/gun snatching

Left Libertarian: Someone who shares the exact views of the above person but voted for Obama to prevent unnecessary wars/ civil liberty violations

[Xenophage]

Left Libertarian: A dumbass who doesn't know what a libertarian is, but thinks its cool to call himself one.

Right Libertarian: A dumbass who doesn't know what a libertarian is, but thinks its cool to call himself one.

[Freedom 4 all]

Left Libertarian: A dumbass who doesn't know what a libertarian is, but thinks its cool to call himself one.

Right Libertarian: A dumbass who doesn't know what a libertarian is, but thinks its cool to call himself one.

exactly

[Truth Warrior]

Left Libertarian: A dumbass who doesn't know what a libertarian is, but thinks its cool to call himself one.

Right Libertarian: A dumbass who doesn't know what a libertarian is, but thinks its cool to call himself one.

I'd say that pretty well sums it all up.<IMHO> :D

[Stary Hickory]

Well because Socialists are always looking for another disguise so that they can infiltrate the system. They latched on to the term Liberal because of it's positive freedom message, and now some are doing it with the term Libertarian.

I don't know if maybe people are just confused and think it's cool to be the "other" party or what. But I think it is truly sad they cannot simply identify themselves as who they are. If they must constantly think of new names, find new disguises IE Liberal or Progressive and it seems Libertarian then they are quite sad.

It just shows that Socialists know deep down that they do not have the moral footing to sell their ideology of power over others, so rather than face off against liberty and freedom the try to "blend" in.

It's sad and shows that Socialism is inferior and outdated as a method of rule. And that Socialism is morally bankrupt, and when people truly understand it, they will reject it outright.

[Paulitician]

I like how Jake Smith explained it at this blog (http://leftlibertarian.org/what-is-left-libertarianism):


Left-libertarianism is a growing tendency amongst certain people identifying as libertarian who challenge many of the prevailing views and attitudes held by most libertarians, particularly those stemming from the unfortunate 20th century alliance with political rightists. Knee-jerk anti-leftism, apologia for current distributions of wealth, support for big business interests, and a generally atomistic orientation regarding human relations are examples of positions being challenged, if not outright rejected, by left-libertarian thinking.

Many, if not most, left-libertarians envision a more decentralized human scale economy and a more egalitarian organization of society taking shape upon the removal of the myriad forms of state privilege promoting centralization, exploitation, and the unsustainable, cancerous forms of growth resulting from artificial economies of scale.

Many, if not most, left libertarians additionally recognize many forms of aggression and harm originating either outside of a purely state-based context or from forms of state privledge distorting relations between people and other forms of life. The role of patriarchal attitudes and behavior in society serves as an example of the former, whereas ecological exploitation and destruction represents the latter tendency.


Also, brainpolice adds a great historical insight that is a must-see. Watch here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3XtEWufGWs) and read along here (http://polycentricorder.blogspot.com/2008/11/what-is-left-libertarianism.html).


Basically, it's libertarianism with a progressive/leftist perspective, or perhaps you can say progressivism/leftism with a libertarian perspective. So yes, cultural preferences/attitudes are part of what separates right-libertarians from left-libertarians, but also other political, economic and social concerns that are thought to be hallmarks of the left currently, left-libertarians may also share. On one end, you have left-libertarians who like to ally with greens and liberals, on another end you have left-libertarian anarchists ranging from free marketeers (like me) to mutualists to socialists to communists (an anarchist communist was in fact the first to use libertarianism to describe his philosophy).

Right-libertarianism, as I see it is cultural conservatism, but also, many right libertarians don't seem to have a problem with authoritarianism or centralized/hierarchical forms of organization, so long as its not the government. Minarchists on the right would fit this description, so would some anarcho-capitalists.

Yes, the distinction exists between certain libertarians (obviously not all). No, being one or the other doesn't make you more or less libertarian. Part of the debate is whether libertarianism belongs on the left-wing of the political spectrum or the right-wing of the political spectrum. I think to proclaim either way is stupid. It's just different visions and different practices in terms of a free society. At any rate, I think what unites all libertarians is the support for more voluntary and peaceful relationships between individuals.

[LibForestPaul]

Right-libertarianism = Someone who wants to be left alone but wants to control others.
Left-libertarianism = Someone who is lonely and wants others to control them.

[LibertiORDeth]

So what exactly is the difference between a Right Libertarian and a Left Libertarian? I would like to hear the opinions of those who identify specifically as a Right or Left Libertarian.

As far as I can tell:

Left-Libertarianism: pro-choice, strongly pro gay-rights

Right-Libertarianism: pro-life, may agree with gay-rights to some extent, but places a great deal of emphasis on the cultural importance of heterosexual marriage

I would gather most other differences are minor. I'd like to have a solid grasp on these terms for convenient use in conversation, however.

All the libertarians I know believe that the government shouldn't legislate marriage, that's not a "right" or "left" issue.

[JoshLowry]

Personally, I propose - FORWARDS towards FREEDOM (Individualism) or BACKWARDS towards TYRANNY. (Collectivism)

They're the options.

Post of the day!

[Conza88]

Wait, I thought the total right wing is no government and the total left wing is total government control?

I'm lost, what makes fascism right wing and communism left wing? They are pretty similar.

Extreme right wing is contended as Fascism, variants are the National Socialist Party (Nazi Party). Mussolini, who coined the term fascism - said it was better termed "Corporatism". It is the state ownership of the mean of production. The government gives orders for what to produce and when, why, how etc.

Extreme left wing is contended as Communism, variants are the Marxists, Leninists, whatever. They're all socialists. State ownership of the means of production. The government gives orders for what to produce and when, why, how etc.

International Socialism - marxism.
National Socialism - fascism.

5 letters of difference.

NOW, part of the reason the FALSE left / right paradigm was created, was because the Communists and Fascists would go at eachother. They IDIOTICALLY considered eachother, sworn mortal enemies. :rolleyes: As for its maintenance and continued application in the "intellectual" circles despite it blatantly being wrong... it serves the purpose of boxing in anyone and everyone who wishes to use it as a description of their ideology. If you argue, or PRESENT yourself as RIGHT wing, or LEFT wing - you continue to play their game and you will always lose.

Reject it and win. When a Libertarian gets called Right wing, they usually shrug it off, or accept it. That is wrong. The error is made because we consider the fact that all rights come from private property ownership, and erroneously believe that the "right" represents that.

We choose to overlook the shortcomings inherent in the label. We view the left as always being on the extreme end of the spectrum, whilst the "right" as not being as extreme. The problem is, national socialism disrespects property just as much as socialism does, in terms of the means of production.

On the path to liberty, this paradigm must be shattered - or we'll forever remain in that box. Don't present yourself as "right", and use the word "socialists / statists" instead of "left", because in the mind of the person who are talking to, they naturally assume that you are the other false paradigm. You attack the "left", their defence mechanism is = you support wars and death and destruction etc.

It makes it harder to wake people up.

The Fascists and Fabians (http://mises.org/mp3/lefevre/146.mp3)
The Communists (http://mises.org/mp3/lefevre/145.mp3)
Origins of Socialist Thought (http://mises.org/mp3/lefevre/142.mp3)
The Communist Manifesto (http://mises.org/mp3/lefevre/140.mp3)
Collective Ownership (http://mises.org/mp3/lefevre/112.mp3)

May be of use.

But mostly this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvhKOsn-0AY

[heavenlyboy34]

Extreme right wing is contended as Fascism, variants are the National Socialist Party (Nazi Party). Mussolini, who coined the term fascism - said it was better termed "Corporatism". It is the state ownership of the mean of production. The government gives orders for what to produce and when, why, how etc.

Extreme left wing is contended as Communism, variants are the Marxists, Leninists, whatever. They're all socialists. State ownership of the means of production. The government gives orders for what to produce and when, why, how etc.

International Socialism - marxism.
National Socialism - fascism.

5 letters of difference.

NOW, part of the reason the FALSE left / right paradigm was created, was because the Communists and Fascists would go at eachother. They IDIOTICALLY considered eachother, sworn mortal enemies. :rolleyes:

The Fascists and Fabians (http://mises.org/mp3/lefevre/146.mp3)
The Communists (http://mises.org/mp3/lefevre/145.mp3)
Origins of Socialist Thought (http://mises.org/mp3/lefevre/142.mp3)
The Communist Manifesto (http://mises.org/mp3/lefevre/140.mp3)
Collective Ownership (http://mises.org/mp3/lefevre/112.mp3)

May be of use.

But mostly this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvhKOsn-0AY

Now post some Engels stuff as supplemental-I dare ya. ;)

[Pennsylvania]

So yes, cultural preferences/attitudes are part of what separates right-libertarians from left-libertarians, but also other political, economic and social concerns that are thought to be hallmarks of the left currently, left-libertarians may also share..

Now this is more along the lines of what I was thinking with my original post. Might I ask which issues in particular you place emphasis on in general? Also, what is the different between a left market anarchist and a Rothbardian capitalist, if any, in terms of market functionality? Just less globalization? I would support that completely.

[paulitics]

Left Libertarian: A dumbass who doesn't know what a libertarian is, but thinks its cool to call himself one.

Right Libertarian: A dumbass who doesn't know what a libertarian is, but thinks its cool to call himself one.


Left Libertarian Dumbass: Bill Maher.
Right Libertarian Dumbass: Glenn Beck.

[paulitics]

Extreme right wing is contended as Fascism, variants are the National Socialist Party (Nazi Party). Mussolini, who coined the term fascism - said it was better termed "Corporatism". It is the state ownership of the mean of production. The government gives orders for what to produce and when, why, how etc.
[/url]


Isn't fascism more like the "control" of means of production through regulation, quotas, price controls, etc, where state ownership is reserved for communism?

I do think both communism and socialism have their roots in leftist philosphy, and where you find elements of one you are likely to find elements of the other. They are very similar indeed.

[DTOM]

Left/Right of anything makes those who wish to control smile. How about a quote from Sutton- Good stuff

Right and Left - A Control Device
For Hegelians, the State is almighty, and seen as "the march of God on earth." Indeed, a State religion.
Progress in the Hegelian State is through contrived conflict: the clash of opposites makes for progress. If
you can control the opposites, you dominate the nature of the outcome.

Hegelianism glorifies the State, the vehicle for the dissemination of statist and materialist ideas and policies in
education, science, politics and economics.

In classical liberalism, the State is always
subordinate to the individual. In Hegelian Statism, as we see in Naziism and Marxism, the State is supreme, and the
individual exists only to serve the State.
Our two-parry Republican-Democrat (= one Hegelian party, no one else welcome or allowed) system is a
reflection of this Hegelianism. A small group - a very small group - by using Hegel, can manipulate, and to some
extent, control society for its own purposes.

[Paulitician]

Now this is more along the lines of what I was thinking with my original post. Might I ask which issues in particular you place emphasis on in general? Also, what is the different between a left market anarchist and a Rothbardian capitalist, if any, in terms of market functionality? Just less globalization? I would support that completely.
Personally, I don't place an emphasis on a certain issue. I suppose most left-libertarians generally concentrate on ecology, civil liberties, immigrant rights, anti-corporate welfare, anti-corporatism period, labor issues, more decentralized/direct form of organization and governance, anti-racism, anti-militarism, anti-drug war etc. But left-libertarianism covers a wide variety of different perspectives even, as I said, there can green influenced moderate libertarians, market anarchists, syndicalists etc. To answer your second question, yes. Particularly, left-libertarians believe a truly free market as much more decentralized and horizontal/flat/less hierarchical than what most free market people believe it would be. And where most free market people have in a monistic view of market such as the capitalism and wage system we have now, left-libertarians see more options and left-of-center organizations springing up. They're against great concentrations of wealth, and think of them as being a result of state intervention in any case. Hence, they're more egalitarian in this regard. There are also differences in property theory, which are more in line with wanting to see more egalitarianism (such as support for occupancy and use as opposed to absolute property rights--I personally like the ideal of distributism within the framework of a free market). Left-libertarians for the most part would be against corporate globalization, but not against free/fair trade. I reckon most don't believe in nations, borders etc. I don't.

EDIT: you mentioned Rothbard, and during his early years (around the 60s), he actually supported allying, and did ally, with the anti-authoritarian left, but became more conservative in his later years. I'm not quite sure why he changed his mind, maybe because he thought there was no viable anti-authoritarian left movement left. That's probably true even today, especially now that Obama is in.

[Conza88]

Isn't fascism more like the "control" of means of production through regulation, quotas, price controls, etc, where state ownership is reserved for communism?

I do think both communism and socialism have their roots in leftist philosphy, and where you find elements of one you are likely to find elements of the other. They are very similar indeed.

Ron Paul Tells it like it is - US moving towards Fascism (Corporatism) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wy-w6y6DTxw)

"Guess what the political philosophy is that Ron Paul mentions in the first 30 seconds? But doesn't name." ;)

What do you think the bailouts are? i.e NATIONALIZATION. :) Government 'buying the debts' with 'public funds'. The 'taxpayers' own the resources now. LOL :rolleyes:

"There is no difference between communism and socialism, except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism proposes to enslave men by force, socialism -- by vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide." – Ayn Rand, LA Times, 9/2/62

[The_Orlonater]

Insightful, thanks. So it's a fake paradigm? I never understood why the fascists and communists hated each other?

[Conza88]

Insightful, thanks. So it's a fake paradigm? I never understood why the fascists and communists hated each other?

Essentially, they believe the State exists, and it is always controlled by a 'class'.

The Communists etc at the time believe the State is controlled by the "Bourgeoisie" the Capitalists, Fascists who support the Corporations and Business.

They want to get power, so their 'class' the proletariat can take over and then it's their turn to stick to the Fascists hard and good.

That's the breakdown of it. There is a historic explanation aswell, world war 2 it played out. I'll try find that bit.

But false paradigm, yes.

How The Elite Control Politics (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTahZE4q90U)

[Minarchy4Sale]

I have been called a 'left' libertarian because of my anti-aggro war position, my belief that inherited real property rights are not absolute, and my belief that corporate personhood is a mistake. I have also been called a 'right' libertarian because I am a social conservative who would rather scrap that institution of marriage than extend it to gays, and I am for actual enforceable borders with limits on immigration, and also am in favor of a fair trade policy instead of a unilateral free trade policy.

I dont think the labels are really useful.

[Truth Warrior]

I have been called a 'left' libertarian because of my anti-aggro war position, my belief that inherited real property rights are not absolute, and my belief that corporate personhood is a mistake. I have also been called a 'right' libertarian because I am a social conservative who would rather scrap that institution of marriage than extend it to gays, and I am for actual enforceable borders with limits on immigration, and also am in favor of a fair trade policy instead of a unilateral free trade policy.

I dont think the labels are really useful. Without labels how else would we know what many things are? Labels leverage past accumulated human knowledge. As with any other tool, labels can be and are very useful when used correctly for identification purposes, as designed. :) Unfortunately, they may also be misused merely to short circuit any additional thought. :( Self labels are a great shorthand method for saving TONS of repetitive tedious and tiresome explanations, when communicating and dealing with others.

For example, from your label, I assume that you are a minarchist. Is that correct? ;)

[Elwar]

Hyphenated libertarians are those who have not accepted that they are libertarians and still cling to their past.

A left-libertarian is a liberal that has seen the light but still cannot let go of a few liberal stances that are in conflict with being a true libertarian.
A right-libertarian is a conservative that has seen the light but still cannot let go of a few conservative stances that are in conflict with being a true libertarian.

There is no room in this movement for hyphenated libertarians. A hyphenated libertarian is not a libertarian at all. The one absolutely certain way of bringing this movement to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a movement at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling ideologies.