3 ms·

>...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

• 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.
  • opo 10y ago
    >...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. Obviously not. People have a rough understanding of "right wing" - with the election of Trump they think about Breitbart and various "economic nationalism" groups and various authoritarians who want to limit social freedoms like the right to terminate a pregnancy, put something in their body, etc etc. Those groups obviously have nothing to do with libertarianism. Politicians love to label opponents to poison the well: "tax and spend liberal", "reactionary", "far right", etc - such labeling of other people is not useful if you actually want to understand the other person's views. >...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"? Again, you are using a one dimensional view of political thought when you say "on both sides of the spectrum". Also some of the libertarian positions such as the removal of victimless crimes haven't been fully embraced by the voters but that doesn't mean they are "far out". We no longer have a draft, most people are now more leery of the war on drugs and gay marriage is allowed, so progress is slowly made. >...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. And again - if the people who label, reject that label as being misleading, it isn't a good label (unless your goal is simply to marginalize them.) >> 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. Well it is good we agree on something, but you continue to use this one dimensional model throughout.
    • vidarh 10y ago
      > Obviously not. Really? I don't you've made that case at all. My experience is far from that. Maybe that's the case in the US, but in Europe at least the right still encompass a wide range of ideologies that are mostly far more nuanced than that. > Again, you are using a one dimensional view of political thought when you say "on both sides of the spectrum". Read again. There is a one-dimensional spectrum that people like assign political movements to, and the main point I've been making in this thread has been exactly that the formation of US style right-wing libertarianism explicitly was an exercise in recognising that this was insufficient, and that while right-libertarians to a large extent are aligned with the "traditional right" in terms of economic views, they rarely are when it comes to social views, and there there is potential for alliances with libertarians on the left. > And again - if the people who label, reject that label as being misleading, it isn't a good label (unless your goal is simply to marginalize them.) I don't know what you are trying to say here. I am a left-libertarian. I do use that label, and I don't reject it. I've spoken to many right-libertarians, and they all self-identified as right-wing and libertarians, and don't reject it. I've spoken to many left-libertarians, and they've all self-identified as left wing and seen themselves as clearly separate from the right. I've never met someone who called themselves libertarian who didn't have a very clear idea of whether or not they considered themselves left- or right. There is a very clear distinction, generally: Those who favour strong private property rights tends to clearly define themselves as right-wing and favour the Austrian school when in comes to economy. Many of them are extremely hostile to socialism, while most left libertarians considers themselves socialist, Marxist and/or anarchist. As such the left and right labels here are not hypothetical. Also because of who people consider viable alliance partners or alternatives to vote for. I would opt for (non-libertarian) social democrats over right-libertarians, for example, and would opt for (non-libertarian) classical liberals over right-libertarians too, because while I agree more with right-libertarians on social issues, I see their economic views as disastrous and immoral and in starker opposition to liberty than social-democratic policies even though the latter involve more government regulation, because of which areas they want to regulate and how. As such the left/right axis is still deeply relevant, though it's important for libertarians to realise that in specific areas, the most likely ally might be on the other side of the spectrum. > Well it is good we agree on something, but you continue to use this one dimensional model throughout. Because it is still relevant, given that it is what people are familiar with and define themselves by, no matter how flawed it is. In 25 years of discussing this with people, you're the first person to get hung up in this use of left vs. right.