5 ms·

Would it be fair to say that US libertarians are anarcho-capitalists while the leftist libertarians are anarcho-syndicalists?

alphonsegaston 9y ago
This is is irrelevant with regard to Thiel, because, as the parent points out, he’s a neo-feudalist working for the abolition of democracy. He funds several “Dark Enlightment” figures like Curtis Yarvin and even says as much himself: https://www.theverge.com/2017/2/21/14671978/alt-right-mencius-moldbug-urbit-curtis-yarvin-tlon https://www.theverge.com/2017/2/21/14671978/alt-right-menciu... https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/education-libertarian https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/educatio...
- sjcsjc 9y ago
  Democracy does not equal liberty. It may, arguably, be the best way of preserving liberty. But then again it may not. "Many will be shocked to learn that the word “democracy” was neither used in the Declaration of Independence nor in the Constitution. Indeed, the Founding Fathers were anxious and fearful of allowing any form of tyranny, including the tyranny of the majority." [1] [1] https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/democracy-versus-liberty https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/democracy-versu...
  - gnaritas 9y ago
    We call what the founders described a representative democracy, whether they used the word or not isn't relevant as what they meant by democracy is more aptly called direct democracy today. You are objecting to the use of a term because you aren't using the term in the modern way, and that's a silly semantic debate. The United States is a democracy according to the modern use of the word, please just accept it and stop making this silly argument.
    - olalonde 9y ago
      I think parent's point was simply that being critical of democracy does not automatically make you a "neo-feudalist". For example, countries with a strong constitution like the USA have a more constrained democratic process.
      - masklinn 9y ago
        > I think parent's point was simply that being critical of democracy does not automatically make you a "neo-feudalist". alphonsegaston's point is the exact opposite.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
olalonde 9y ago
Most US libertarians are just proponents of classical liberalism. "Left libertarianism" is very niche and sounds a bit like an oxymoron to me. I don't know much about Peter Thiel but it's hard for me to reconcile his outspoken support for Trump with the "libertarian" label.
- alphonsegaston 9y ago
  The term was invented by anarcho-communists and co-opted by the right: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#Etymology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#Etymology
  - confounded 9y ago
    I imagine the downvotes are out of disbelief, but this is not really disputed (it's worth clicking the link).
    - alphonsegaston 9y ago
      And also avoid things like entries in the Oxford English Dictionary to prevent becoming similarly enraged.
      - Nuzzerino 9y ago
        Perhaps for the better, as it's hardly a subject that does any good when driven by emotional impulses.
  - olalonde 9y ago
    The question I was replying to was specifically about the US. From the same Wikipedia article: > The term libertarianism was first used in the U.S. as a synonym for classic liberalism in May 1955 by writer Dean Russell, a colleague of Leonard Read and a classic liberal himself. What precedes that paragraph is mainly about the French word "libertaire" which is not the French translation for "libertarian" but does shares a root with it (liberty). Interestingly, the French Wikipedia article[0] claims that the word "libertarian" was coined specifically to distinguish classical liberals from modern liberals in the US. In the US at least, libertarians very rarely identify with the "left" label. [0] https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianisme https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianisme
x3n0ph3n3 9y ago
Many US libertarians are anarcho-capitalists, but certainly not all. Most are just minarchists.
KGIII 9y ago
Not really, no. Libertarian is, on the political compass, the opposite of authoritarian. As such, there's actually a whole spectrum of beliefs. Anarchists believe in no laws. Libertarians believe in increased liberty for the individual. This can be manifest as a reduction of laws, it may be as extreme as a desire for anarchy. Libertarian really is (was?) about increasing and protecting the individual liberties, maximizing one's ability to make use of their freedoms. To put those words into a descriptive use, I prefer this; You are free to kill me, you are not at liberty to do so. If you try to kill me, I have the right to defend myself. So, libertarians are concerned with increasing personal liberties and typically for everyone. So, no, to use the above example, a libertarian would not suggest they have the right to kill people because that's reducing the right of the other person to live. Typically, a libertarian would have wanted to ensure one can most appreciate their freedoms while protecting the commons. I use the past tense because the usual perception of libertarian is the current incarnation which is mostly made up of ashamed republicans who can no longer feel comfortable being associated with the republican party. Really, Ayn Rand was an idiot and adoption of her book was absolutely not libertarian in nature. Liberties are for everyone, not just those who can afford them. The goal is to maximize the ability to enjoy your freedoms, and that isn't just reserved for the wealthy. Furthermore, wealth isn't an indicator of productivity or value to society. Wealth is an absolutely horrible metric for determining liberties or rights. Way back when, libertarians were considered the kooky left. Now, they are seen as the crazy right. Really, it's a very broad spectrum that isn't easy to pin down and put onto a bumper sticker. I identify as a libertarian, I'd probably be considered close to a Scandinavian Social-Democrat but with a touch of greater rights and expecting a bit more personal responsibility. I believe in things like a strong social safety net, inexpensive health care, inexpensive education, and a right to individual autonomy. On the political compass, I'm fairly far to the left (very far by US standards) and down in the lower quadrant, as a libertarian. Sorry for the novella, but hopefully this makes sense. For the most part, the leftist leaning libertarians are extinct in the US. The party has been usurped. Even before that, there weren't many calls for anarchy. I kinda wish this could be more succinct. Again, sorry about that.
- 0xbear 9y ago
  Ayn Rand was not an idiot. You just misunderstood what her book was, as did many other people who have never lived under a communist regime. I have lived under a communist regime, and I remember it well, so I can tell you that her book is basically a fantasy world diameterally opposed to communism, or to be exact the form of it that the Soviet Union was aiming for. Nothing more, nothing less.

alphonsegaston 9y ago

This is is irrelevant with regard to Thiel, because, as the parent points out, he’s a neo-feudalist working for the abolition of democracy. He funds several “Dark Enlightment” figures like Curtis Yarvin and even says as much himself: https://www.theverge.com/2017/2/21/14671978/alt-right-mencius-moldbug-urbit-curtis-yarvin-tlon https://www.theverge.com/2017/2/21/14671978/alt-right-menciu... https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/education-libertarian https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/educatio...

sjcsjc 9y ago
Democracy does not equal liberty. It may, arguably, be the best way of preserving liberty. But then again it may not. "Many will be shocked to learn that the word “democracy” was neither used in the Declaration of Independence nor in the Constitution. Indeed, the Founding Fathers were anxious and fearful of allowing any form of tyranny, including the tyranny of the majority." [1] [1] https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/democracy-versus-liberty https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/democracy-versu...
- gnaritas 9y ago
  We call what the founders described a representative democracy, whether they used the word or not isn't relevant as what they meant by democracy is more aptly called direct democracy today. You are objecting to the use of a term because you aren't using the term in the modern way, and that's a silly semantic debate. The United States is a democracy according to the modern use of the word, please just accept it and stop making this silly argument.
  - olalonde 9y ago
    I think parent's point was simply that being critical of democracy does not automatically make you a "neo-feudalist". For example, countries with a strong constitution like the USA have a more constrained democratic process.
    - masklinn 9y ago
      > I think parent's point was simply that being critical of democracy does not automatically make you a "neo-feudalist". alphonsegaston's point is the exact opposite.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]

olalonde 9y ago

Most US libertarians are just proponents of classical liberalism. "Left libertarianism" is very niche and sounds a bit like an oxymoron to me. I don't know much about Peter Thiel but it's hard for me to reconcile his outspoken support for Trump with the "libertarian" label.

alphonsegaston 9y ago
The term was invented by anarcho-communists and co-opted by the right: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#Etymology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#Etymology
- confounded 9y ago
  I imagine the downvotes are out of disbelief, but this is not really disputed (it's worth clicking the link).
  - alphonsegaston 9y ago
    And also avoid things like entries in the Oxford English Dictionary to prevent becoming similarly enraged.
    - Nuzzerino 9y ago
      Perhaps for the better, as it's hardly a subject that does any good when driven by emotional impulses.
- olalonde 9y ago
  The question I was replying to was specifically about the US. From the same Wikipedia article: > The term libertarianism was first used in the U.S. as a synonym for classic liberalism in May 1955 by writer Dean Russell, a colleague of Leonard Read and a classic liberal himself. What precedes that paragraph is mainly about the French word "libertaire" which is not the French translation for "libertarian" but does shares a root with it (liberty). Interestingly, the French Wikipedia article[0] claims that the word "libertarian" was coined specifically to distinguish classical liberals from modern liberals in the US. In the US at least, libertarians very rarely identify with the "left" label. [0] https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianisme https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianisme

x3n0ph3n3 9y ago

Many US libertarians are anarcho-capitalists, but certainly not all. Most are just minarchists.

KGIII 9y ago

Not really, no. Libertarian is, on the political compass, the opposite of authoritarian. As such, there's actually a whole spectrum of beliefs. Anarchists believe in no laws. Libertarians believe in increased liberty for the individual. This can be manifest as a reduction of laws, it may be as extreme as a desire for anarchy. Libertarian really is (was?) about increasing and protecting the individual liberties, maximizing one's ability to make use of their freedoms. To put those words into a descriptive use, I prefer this; You are free to kill me, you are not at liberty to do so. If you try to kill me, I have the right to defend myself. So, libertarians are concerned with increasing personal liberties and typically for everyone. So, no, to use the above example, a libertarian would not suggest they have the right to kill people because that's reducing the right of the other person to live. Typically, a libertarian would have wanted to ensure one can most appreciate their freedoms while protecting the commons. I use the past tense because the usual perception of libertarian is the current incarnation which is mostly made up of ashamed republicans who can no longer feel comfortable being associated with the republican party. Really, Ayn Rand was an idiot and adoption of her book was absolutely not libertarian in nature. Liberties are for everyone, not just those who can afford them. The goal is to maximize the ability to enjoy your freedoms, and that isn't just reserved for the wealthy. Furthermore, wealth isn't an indicator of productivity or value to society. Wealth is an absolutely horrible metric for determining liberties or rights. Way back when, libertarians were considered the kooky left. Now, they are seen as the crazy right. Really, it's a very broad spectrum that isn't easy to pin down and put onto a bumper sticker. I identify as a libertarian, I'd probably be considered close to a Scandinavian Social-Democrat but with a touch of greater rights and expecting a bit more personal responsibility. I believe in things like a strong social safety net, inexpensive health care, inexpensive education, and a right to individual autonomy. On the political compass, I'm fairly far to the left (very far by US standards) and down in the lower quadrant, as a libertarian. Sorry for the novella, but hopefully this makes sense. For the most part, the leftist leaning libertarians are extinct in the US. The party has been usurped. Even before that, there weren't many calls for anarchy. I kinda wish this could be more succinct. Again, sorry about that.

0xbear 9y ago
Ayn Rand was not an idiot. You just misunderstood what her book was, as did many other people who have never lived under a communist regime. I have lived under a communist regime, and I remember it well, so I can tell you that her book is basically a fantasy world diameterally opposed to communism, or to be exact the form of it that the Soviet Union was aiming for. Nothing more, nothing less.