Will Left Libertarians Go Extinct?

[r3volution 3.0]

Something just occurred to me.

The alliance between the left and left-libertarians on cultural issues (as personified by the Sarvis campaign in Virginia back in 2014) can only be temporary.

The present thinking of the left (re gay marriage and abortion esp) happen to coincide with the thinking of left-libertarians, but the left is always pushing further leftward, whereas the left-libertarians are anchored by their belief in equality under the law (which the insane race/gender politics on the far left violate). The left-libertarians will wake up one day surprised to find themselves on the right. Though they'd still be to the left of right-libertarians, both would be on the same side of the larger social/political divide, which would affect a merger.

[randomname]

Left libertarians such as Glenn Greenwald? They're with Bernie

[angelatc]

I don't see how you can be a "right libertarian." The libertarians seem to lean left on social issues, but are more conservative on fiscal policy. The liberal libertarians are just liberals.

[euphemia]

As far as my personal values go, I lean right on social issues. I recognize the freedom of citizens to have whatever values they want as long as they do it at their own expense. At the same time, freedom to do something does not mean I have to agree with what you do. It simply means the government will not interfere with your right to live differently than I do.

In my opinion. I think libertarians will go away unless they can find about five issues on which they agree and make those their core platform. The lack of a unified message hurts libertarians over and over.

[fisharmor]

Left libertarians are absolutely not anchored in any belief in equality under the law, and their position on abortion proves this.

Left libertarianism has always been a niche market. Ever since I found out about them 25 years ago, they've been the party for people who actually don't spend any time thinking about law, or policy, and are just pushing for legalized pot and abortions.

I was not libertarian, in fact I soundly rejected the policy, until Ron Paul showed up and convinced me that there was a side to libertarianism which isn't reflected in the current political climate. I really don't think I'm alone there either. I think there are a lot of people who are put off by left libertarianism because ultimately that's all it is, legal pot and abortions. It's not going to go extinct, it's just going to go back to being exactly as popular as it was 25 years ago when I first heard about it... Which means less than 4% electoral results.

[otherone]

As far as my personal values go, I lean right on social issues. I recognize the freedom of citizens to have whatever values they want as long as they do it at their own expense. At the same time, freedom to do something does not mean I have to agree with what you do. It simply means the government will not interfere with your right to live differently than I do.

In my opinion. I think libertarians will go away unless they can find about five issues on which they agree and make those their core platform. The lack of a unified message hurts libertarians over and over.

There is the individual or there is the collective. I see no right/left paradigm.

[euphemia]

And that's the problem. If libertarians hope to convince the rest of America to break off government domination, we will have to help that along with choosing five major issues and presenting different solutions than establishment Dems and GOP. Foreign policy, for example, should be more than the extremes of capitulation and full on war. Forward thinking econominc policy should stop spending us into oblivion. I think we agree on those two things, at least.

Dealing with the things that affect everyone is the way to get them to think more generously about individual liberty issues affecting only a few.

See, when we focus on the individual liberty issues like gay marriage, it comes acrosss as a win for the left, and isolation of the right. That's not really what it is, because it is still government telling people how to run their private lives. The discussion is all wrong--especially when there are issues like foreign policy and the economy that affect everyone. Start with the core issues and move outward.

[otherone]

And that's the problem. If libertarians hope to convince the rest of America to break off government domination, we will have to help that along with choosing five major issues and presenting different solutions than establishment Dems and GOP. Foreign policy, for example, should be more than the extremes of capitulation and full on war. Forward thinking econominc policy should stop spending us into oblivion. I think we agree on those two things, at least.

Dealing with the things that affect everyone is the way to get them to think more generously about individual liberty issues affecting only a few.

See, when we focus on the individual liberty issues like gay marriage, it comes acrosss as a win for the left, and isolation of the right. That's not really what it is, because it is still government telling people how to run their private lives. The discussion is all wrong--especially when there are issues like foreign policy and the economy that affect everyone. Start with the core issues and move outward.

Agreed. But that's difficult when even the OP is divisive. Let's argue practicality instead of philosophy, as you say.
Step 1) Identify core issues....
and they are?

[euphemia]

In random order:

Foreign policy
Economy
Debt reduction
National security
Downsize government and end the nanny/police state.

[otherone]

In random order:

Foreign policy
Economy
Debt reduction
National security
Downsize government and end the nanny/police state.

Thanks.
Keeping in my mind that we are talking "practicality", not "Philosophy",
In what way are you personally affected by those five issues?

[undergroundrr]

I don't agree with the "pick five issues" platform. In my experience, the most vocal libertarians get hung up on one or both of these issues:

Drug legalization
Gun rights

These are both vital to any concept of liberty I can understand. But they're small pieces of a much larger tapestry.

People have to be comfortable wanting freedom for people who are different than themselves. Until that happens, they won't be able to even consider either of those. The non-aggression principle has to be the foundation for any message about liberty. Unfortunately, equating non-aggression with the idea that everybody should have a bunch of guns is non-intuitive to those who haven't thought about it before and is instantly dismissed. Equating non-aggression with drug legalization is also a non-starter because public perception is that drugs = drive by shootings (i.e. guns) in urban blight.

But the NAP should be the go-to concept for just about everybody, whether Christians, Buddhists, Muslims or atheist fans of contractarian ethics. It's simple golden rule and it's the opposite of nihilism.

This is still the clearest explanation I've seen:



Rand (for all the criticism) and Ron have had the most success of just about anybody in history at getting a large group of people enthusiastic about libertarian public policy. That's because they were doing it from a place (government office) where the direct application of the NAP to current issues can be most dynamically demonstrated. But in the end, neither of them is the truly ideal mouthpiece.

What is needed is a pool of attractive, charismatic, intelligent and articulate people who can deliver the message consistently and pervasively, Fox News style. Neither left-libertarianism nor right-libertarianism will disappear, but they'll continue to garner 5% of the vote until something like that happens.

[r3volution 3.0]

Left libertarians such as Glenn Greenwald? They're with Bernie

I'm not aware that he's a libertarian at all; more like a leftist who's interested in civil liberties.

By left libertarians I mean people like Jeffrey Tucker or Nick Gillespie - i.e. genuine libertarians who find themselves on the left side of the culture war.

...and thus have always been uneasy about the Pauls and their efforts within the GOP.

But as the left gets more and more radical in the cultural sphere, these left-libertarians are going to change their tune, I think.

(2016) The left is pro abortion and pro gay marriage, the right anti abortion and anti gay marriage, so they side with the left.

(20XX) The left moves on to Harrison Bergeron, while the right remains about the same, so they side with the right.

[euphemia]

My selection of issues affect me personally in a lot of ways, but the bigger explanation will have to wait until I am home from work.

[cajuncocoa]

I don't see how you can be a "right libertarian." The libertarians seem to lean left on social issues, but are more conservative on fiscal policy. The liberalleft libertarians are just liberals.

LOL, no. The problem for you is that you see everyone who doesn't agree 100% with you as a liberal.

[The Free Hornet]

1 Star thread.

Left-right is a false dichotomy, poorly and inconsistently defined.

This BS ought not be tolerated. The language of liberty is being twisted to give the appearence of only partial applicability. Unambiguously, this is framing the libertarians as opponents of liberty (half opposed to creationists and anti-vaxers - the other half opposed to medical privacy and gayness). A real libertarian values medical privacy, personal liberty, freedom of thought and freedom of association.

[angelatc]

LOL, no. The problem for you is that you see everyone who doesn't agree 100% with you as a liberal.

Yeah, and I am the only person on the whole forums that thinks your views are consistently more liberal than libertarian. <rolls eyes>.

[cajuncocoa]

Yeah, and I am the only person on the whole forums that thinks your views are consistently more liberal than libertarian. <rolls eyes>.

No, you're not the only one. LE does, too.

(Weren't you bragging about ignoring me not that long ago?)

[r3volution 3.0]

Well, from the responses, perhaps there are no actual libertarians here at all.

Perhaps there are just contrarians, and various other useless bitches.

...I thought I was talking to libertarians.

[otherone]

Well, from the responses, perhaps there are no actual libertarians here at all.

Perhaps there are just contrarians, and various other useless bitches.

...I thought I was talking to libertarians.

[euphemia]

Indeed. They don't want a strategy to help educate American voters, basically guaranteeing we will never win enough to really bring our country back to its foundational principles.

[RonPaulIsGreat]

Well, from the responses, perhaps there are no actual libertarians here at all.

Perhaps there are just contrarians, and various other useless bitches.

...I thought I was talking to libertarians.

Someone need a nap... and their belly tickled. You a grumpy boy, You a grumpy boy. Booo... where'd I go boo!. Ahhhh, a giggle. good night....

[r3volution 3.0]

Someone need a nap... and their belly tickled. You a grumpy boy, You a grumpy boy. Booo... where'd I go boo!. Ahhhh, a giggle. good night....

You might try to become fluent in English.

[RonPaulIsGreat]

You might try to become fluent in English.

Baby, needs to sleep. We can argue in the morning.

[BamaAla]

I have little experience with "left libertarians" outside of facebook, but judging strictly by their seemingly only issues of white privilege and alternative sex lives, I doubt they side with the right anytime soon.

[r3volution 3.0]

Baby, needs to sleep. We can argue in the morning.

To the ignore list.

What's your name again? Have I ever spoken to you before?

...well, we'll never know.

[heavenlyboy34]

Well, from the responses, perhaps there are no actual libertarians here at all.

Perhaps there are just contrarians, and various other useless bitches.

...I thought I was talking to libertarians.

That's what ya get when ya try to mix conservatism with libertarianism. Too much confusion and cognitive dissonance tends to render people useless bitches.

[r3volution 3.0]

That's what ya get when ya try to mix conservatism with libertarianism. Too much confusion and cognitive dissonance tends to render people useless bitches.

It depends what you mean by "mix."

...compromise of core issues, versus common ground coalition building.

[VIDEODROME]

Well, from the responses, perhaps there are no actual libertarians here at all.

Perhaps there are just contrarians, and various other useless bitches.

...I thought I was talking to libertarians.

Honestly, I think Ron Paul was a catch-all candidate for many people who were not Libertarian in the first place. Some who joined did 'convert' and are now Libertarians.

However, I think many only had just enough overlap with Ron Paul on important issues like foreign policy, civil liberties, or marijuana. I was in a Ron Paul meetup and half the membership were Green Party people. The liked Ron Paul, but were ready to vote for Jill Stein as plan b.

[r3volution 3.0]

Honestly, I think Ron Paul was a catch-all candidate for many people who were not Libertarian in the first place. Some who joined did 'convert' and are now Libertarians.

However, I think many only had just enough overlap with Ron Paul on important issues like foreign policy, civil liberties, or marijuana. I was in a Ron Paul meetup and half the membership were Green Party people. The liked Ron Paul, but were ready to vote for Jill Stein as plan b.

exactly

[otherone]

Maybe RPF should be called the "Paleo Forest"? "Forest Primeval"?
"Sovereignty Forest"? "National Park"? "Nationalist Park"?