4 ms·

No, it more accurate to say that the "Left and Right - A Journal of Libertarian Thought" was an attempt by libertarians to highlight the fact that the one dimen

by opo 10y ago

No, it more accurate to say that the "Left and Right - A Journal of Libertarian Thought" was an attempt by libertarians to highlight the fact that the one dimensional left/right line is obviously a very incomplete model of political thought. As your link quotes from the opening editorial: "Our title, Left and Right, reflects our concerns in several ways. It reveals our editorial concern with the ideological; and it also highlights our conviction that the present-day categories of left and right have become misleading and obsolete, and that the doctrine of liberty contains elements corresponding with both contemporary left and right. This means in no sense that we are middle-of-the-roaders, eclectically trying to combine, or step between, both poles; but rather that a consistent view of liberty includes concepts that have also become part of the rhetoric or program of right and of left. Hence a creative approach to liberty must transcend the confines of contemporary political shibboleths." Those who talk about "US-style right-wing libertarianism" should realize that this is a too simplistic label as Rothbard tried to say decades ago. For example: • not only has the libertarian party always supported gay marriage but the first presidential candidate was an openly gay man • libertarians are opposed to the war on drugs • libertarians opposed the Viet Nam war • libertarians generally favor regulated legalized prostitution etc etc etc Whatever "right wing" is supposed to mean, I doubt it means these positions.

vidarh 10y ago
You start out seeming trying to argue against me, but nothing of what you've written contradicts what I wrote. I'm not sure what you're trying to say. > Whatever "right wing" is supposed to mean, I doubt it means these positions. "Right wing" in this context is about economic positions, views on property etc. Right-wing libertarianism generally draw from the Austrian school, and people like von Mises and occasionally Ayn Rand etc. Compare to left-wing libertarians who generally are anarchists or Marxists when it comes to economic views and views on property rights. The entire point is that these two camps align with the traditional left and right on economic issues, but are aligned with each other on a lot of social issues and on anti-authoritarianism.
- opo 10y ago
  >...I'm not sure what you're trying to say. I thought I was pretty clear: "Those who talk about "US-style right-wing libertarianism" should realize that this is a too simplistic label as Rothbard tried to say decades ago." >..."Right wing" in this context is about economic positions, views on property etc. Again, I doubt the vast majority of the groups you would call "right wing" would share the economic views of the average libertarian. (They also don't share the social views of the average libertarian.) That label isn't helpful if it doesn't explain their views - as Rothbard wrote so long ago: "...This means in no sense that we are middle-of-the-roaders, eclectically trying to combine, or step between, both poles; but rather that a consistent view of liberty includes concepts that have also become part of the rhetoric or program of right and of left. Hence a creative approach to liberty must transcend the confines of contemporary political shibboleths." >...The entire point is that these two camps align with the traditional left and right on economic issues, but are aligned with each other on a lot of social issues and on anti-authoritarianism. The point is that using a one dimensional model for political thought is too simplistic and it is simply misleading.
  - vidarh 10y ago
    > I thought I was pretty clear: "Those who talk about "US-style right-wing libertarianism" should realize that this is a too simplistic label as Rothbard tried to say decades ago." It is a too simplistic label for libertarianism as a whole. It is a perfectly viable lable when you want to talk about "US-style right-wing libertarianism" - most people instantly understand roughly what that refers to, so the label serves its purpose. > Again, I doubt the vast majority of the groups you would call "right wing" would share the economic views of the average libertarian. Huh? The point is exactly that libertarian groups are found far out on both sides of the spectrum, so what in the world is an "average libertarian"? > That label isn't helpful if it doesn't explain their views But it does. > as Rothbard wrote so long ago: "...This means in no sense that we are middle-of-the-roaders, eclectically trying to combine, or step between, both poles; but rather that a consistent view of liberty includes concepts that have also become part of the rhetoric or program of right and of left. Hence a creative approach to liberty must transcend the confines of contemporary political shibboleths." And this was exactly the point I made by bringing up Rothbard in the first place: There was an attempt to unify these views of the left and right. But that still does not mean there is not a firmly right-wing and firmly left-wing libertarianism both when considering primarily economic views and when considering where people self-identify. > The point is that using a one dimensional model for political thought is too simplistic and it is simply misleading. So we largely agree then, but this doesn't change any of what I wrote earlier.

by opo 10y ago

vidarh 10y ago

You start out seeming trying to argue against me, but nothing of what you've written contradicts what I wrote. I'm not sure what you're trying to say. > Whatever "right wing" is supposed to mean, I doubt it means these positions. "Right wing" in this context is about economic positions, views on property etc. Right-wing libertarianism generally draw from the Austrian school, and people like von Mises and occasionally Ayn Rand etc. Compare to left-wing libertarians who generally are anarchists or Marxists when it comes to economic views and views on property rights. The entire point is that these two camps align with the traditional left and right on economic issues, but are aligned with each other on a lot of social issues and on anti-authoritarianism.

opo 10y ago
>...I'm not sure what you're trying to say. I thought I was pretty clear: "Those who talk about "US-style right-wing libertarianism" should realize that this is a too simplistic label as Rothbard tried to say decades ago." >..."Right wing" in this context is about economic positions, views on property etc. Again, I doubt the vast majority of the groups you would call "right wing" would share the economic views of the average libertarian. (They also don't share the social views of the average libertarian.) That label isn't helpful if it doesn't explain their views - as Rothbard wrote so long ago: "...This means in no sense that we are middle-of-the-roaders, eclectically trying to combine, or step between, both poles; but rather that a consistent view of liberty includes concepts that have also become part of the rhetoric or program of right and of left. Hence a creative approach to liberty must transcend the confines of contemporary political shibboleths." >...The entire point is that these two camps align with the traditional left and right on economic issues, but are aligned with each other on a lot of social issues and on anti-authoritarianism. The point is that using a one dimensional model for political thought is too simplistic and it is simply misleading.
- vidarh 10y ago
  > I thought I was pretty clear: "Those who talk about "US-style right-wing libertarianism" should realize that this is a too simplistic label as Rothbard tried to say decades ago." It is a too simplistic label for libertarianism as a whole. It is a perfectly viable lable when you want to talk about "US-style right-wing libertarianism" - most people instantly understand roughly what that refers to, so the label serves its purpose. > Again, I doubt the vast majority of the groups you would call "right wing" would share the economic views of the average libertarian. Huh? The point is exactly that libertarian groups are found far out on both sides of the spectrum, so what in the world is an "average libertarian"? > That label isn't helpful if it doesn't explain their views But it does. > as Rothbard wrote so long ago: "...This means in no sense that we are middle-of-the-roaders, eclectically trying to combine, or step between, both poles; but rather that a consistent view of liberty includes concepts that have also become part of the rhetoric or program of right and of left. Hence a creative approach to liberty must transcend the confines of contemporary political shibboleths." And this was exactly the point I made by bringing up Rothbard in the first place: There was an attempt to unify these views of the left and right. But that still does not mean there is not a firmly right-wing and firmly left-wing libertarianism both when considering primarily economic views and when considering where people self-identify. > The point is that using a one dimensional model for political thought is too simplistic and it is simply misleading. So we largely agree then, but this doesn't change any of what I wrote earlier.