My View of Contemporary Politics

In contemporary politics, "left" and "right" essentially represents one's personal and/or cultural preferances, not the means by which those preferances are sought through. In this sense, I think that libertarianism is neutral to the "left" and "right" in that either of the two can be either compatible or incompatible with liberty depending on the means that the "leftist" or "rightist" advocates. The libertarian is not naturally allied with either side. Libertarianism is opposed to both to the extent that they advocate and persue political means and forced homogenization (monocentrism/monopoly). Libertarianism is compatible with both to the extent that they advocate and persue voluntary means (which, in my view, naturally leads to a certain kind of pluralism, since the free association of people in light of a diversity of desires creates a polycentric order). There is nothing intrinsic to "the right" in this sense that makes them less prone to political means. The only significant difference between the political "left" and "right" is matter of what ends they wish to use political means to accomplish. The only axis that ultimately counts is the up-down one that represents the means.

By brainpolice2

However, in another context I consider libertarianism to inherently be "left" and conservatism to be its polar opposite. By "left" I merely refer to radicalism, pluralism, voluntaryism and revolution. By "conservative" I merely refer to pragmatism, monocentrism and reactionary sentiment. This is how I view the original meaning of the terms "left" and "right" or "liberal" and "conservative". Merely flip this axis horizontally and you can see what I mean when I call libertarianism "left". To the extent that the libertarian does favor political means (and I do consider active participation in the democratic process and reformism to be political means), they are deradicalized and are "less libertarian" to that degree. The libertarian starts to function as a conservative the more that they persue political means. If they do so to too much of an extent, they cease to be a libertarian altogether and start to function as members of either the "political left" or "political right" on the other spectrum (such as social anarchists who make apologia for state-socialism and anarcho-capitalists who make apologia for corporatism - and in practise start to support the political means that they are enforced by).

The creation of a political spectrum is a pure product of democratic electoral strategy. Individuals seeking to promote their self-interest ally with others with compatible self-interests to make gains at the expense of individuals with incompatible self-interests, or simply unnecessary individuals. The result is social destruction.

Without democracy it is quite clear that people have more interest to cooperate than to align in antagonistic groups.

Just look at what is happening to the Democratic and Libertarian parties. The general party interest is being ruined because two factions of the party are conducting character assassinations on the other faction's leader. The goal is to gain control of the party at the expense of the other side. No one is responsible for the party's interest as a whole. This is what happens in the absence of private property. Conflict and fighting emerges.

This bestows unnecessary glorify upon the left.

Modern leftists are bigger fans of democracy than their rightist counterparts; in fact, they always use (democratic) collectivist rhetoric to justify their theft and coercion (taxes aren't theft because "society society agreed to them")

The reason that I feel libertarians are closer allies to the right goes beyond my signature; rightists generally have respect -- no matter how inconsistent their other views are -- for the concept of the individual.

edit: hilarious grammar

Ego:

rightists generally have respect -- no matter how inconsistent their other views are -- for the concept of the individual.

 That depends on what you mean by "rightists."  If you mean paleoconservatives (and probably not even all of them), then I would agree with you.  But if you include "rightists" like the neocons...  I think good ole' Dubya has less respect for the concept of the individual than most leftists do.

I don't know how many people would consider Bush right-wing... even neocons are dismissing him as a generic statist now.

Ego, why are you so attached to the left-right division, and those who call themselves rightists? I think BP's point is that one is a libertarian unqualifiedly, with the remnant being cultural choice. I see no reason to identify with the right over the left anymore, as both have no desire to avail themselves of non-statist means to achieve their goals, but rather have no other desire than expanding their share of the economic pie. McCain is a primary example of a rightist who is as statist as either of his leftist rivals.

I'm not "attached" to rightists at all. I am opposed to any and all attempts to support lefitsts. To be leftist it to be collectivist, self-important, and smug. It's as simple as that.

Regarding McCain, I agree that he's definitely a leftist Republican, along the lines of Bush. He still isn't as leftist as Obama, though. As an aside, I actually think that Hillary would be the best president! She's too polarizing and she wouldn't get anything done.

It honestly seems that you basically admitted so without actually saying it :\ .

The concept that leftists are the *only* ones capable of collectivism, let alone of being self-important & smug, is silly as well.  Of course, refuting that leftists aren't the only ones capable, but are worse as your signature implies, would also seem to uphold the lesser of evils idea, which hasn't been the most reliable strategy.

We don't have a choice but to choose between the lesser of two evils! To be honest, we could abstain from choosing, but that doesn't change the fact that one or the other will be ruling over us.

And I'm going to come out and make a blanket statement: yes, for the most part, leftists are the only people capable of being that smug and self-important. Their entire philisophy is built around the belief that people are too stupid to run their own lives, so they need wise leftist planners to run it for them.

It honestly seems that you basically admitted so without actually saying it :\ .

Ego:

We don't have a choice but to choose between the lesser of two evils! To be honest, we could abstain from choosing, but that doesn't change the fact that one or the other will be ruling over us.

 

If you're really a free-market anarchist, you have to be consistent. Being consistent includes consistency between your goals and your means. If your goal is an apolitical society, using politics to achieve that is absurd. It's like saying "We need to stop using cars because they pollute" and then going ahead and using them. It's called integrity.

Besides, even if you are ready to abandon your consistency for the lesser of two evils, do you really think there are enough ancaps around right now to make any serious difference in the election of a president? If there were enough, they could certainly achieve much more than  by voting.

That's a poor analogy. A better analogy:

Ancaps are opposed to using violence to achieve their goals. However, if someone is threatening an ancap with violence, ancaps will use violence to fight back.

I wrote a reply about this last night: here.

I'll quote it:

It seems like you're trying to explain to me the evils of democracy. Believe me, I'm not a fan!

The left's favorite excuse for trashing rights is that "the people agreed", and you have to realize that I hate democracy with every ounce of my being.

That doesn't mean that I'm not going to participate in it, though. We all agree that democracy is a tool used to transfer property and rights from one group of individuals to another group of individuals, regardless of whether the victims voted or not. That's the problem. When you say things like:

There are 3rd parties or innocent bystanders of people that are effected.

You're almost implying that by not voting, those people won't be affected. Well, they will be, and that's the entire reason that democracy is a sham. If they weren't affected, then we'd have no right to oppose it! By voting for the lesser of two evils, you are minimizing the injustice.

Don't say that all injustice is created equal! For an extreme example, the United States' government is much, much less evil than the North Korean government; neither is legitimate, but one violates more rights.

 

In casting a vote for any politician, you are supporting their position of power by definition.

No, it's acknowledging the fact that their position of power will exist, regardless of whether I vote.

This bestows unnecessary glorify upon the left.

We're always talking past eachother when we use these terms because we assign different meanings to them. Going by your definition of "the left", much of what I call "the right" is allegedly "the left", since you seem to essentially equate statism as a whole with "the left". But I would think that libertarians should know better than to actually accept the false dichotomy presented in most political discourse in which "the left" equals more and more government while "the right" equals less and less government. This dichotomy is rather blatantly falsified by a libertarian analysis of contemporary politics.

Modern leftists are bigger fans of democracy than their rightist counterparts; in fact, they always use (democratic) collectivist rhetoric to justify their theft and coercion (taxes aren't theft because "society society agreed to them")

Support for democracy is generally manifested among most people of all political persuasions. It is simply a common assumption in modern western society that democracy is good. It's not exclusive or specific to the political "left" by any stretch of the imagination. Furthermore, the neoconservatives are democracy fetishists and essentially advocate global democracy. Yet they most certainly are not political "leftists" in any strict sense. At the same time, despite Hoppe's brilliant comparison between democracy and monarchy, I see no reason why I should necessarily have more respect for monarchists.

The reason that I feel libertarians are closer allies to the right goes beyond my signature; rightists generally have respect -- no matter how inconsistent their other views are -- for the concept of the individual.

"Rightists" often have their own forms of collectivism that they tend to cling to. Collectivism is not specifically "left-wing". Politial individualism derived from what used to be considered the "left". The idea that "the right" are a bunch of "rugged individualists" is largely a pop culture myth. I consider nationalism, racism, theocracy and various forms of traditionalism to all be collectivist views (and they are embraced more by political "rightists" than political "leftists"). To extreme traditionalist "rightists", the individual is not the primary unit of value. Instead, the individual must be a servant to "the nation" or "the culture". Emphasis is placed on certain collective identities, just different ones than what many political "leftists" tend to emphasize.

 That depends on what you mean by "rightists."  If you mean paleoconservatives (and probably not even all of them), then I would agree with you.  But if you include "rightists" like the neocons...  I think good ole' Dubya has less respect for the concept of the individual than most leftists do.

While I agree that paleoconservatives may tend to have some good qualities in comparison to neoconservatives, nonetheless I tend to challenge the assumption that they are necessarily particularly libertarian in their outlook. I'll grant that they often have a better outlook on issues of war and international hegemony, but it's not always particularly consistant. The main problem that I see with many paleoconservatives is their tendency to support nationalism and protectionism. I mean, if Pat Buchannan is the model for today's paleoconservatism, then we have a huge problem on our hands, for the man is fairly statist when it comes down to it and a lot of what he advocates frankly scares the crap out of me.

Ego:

I don't know how many people would consider Bush right-wing... even neocons are dismissing him as a generic statist now.

And if you really would get the gist of my analysis, a generic statist is not necessarily particularly "left" or "right" in terms of their contemporary political manifestations. The cliche left-right spectrum cuts out the meat of the matter entirely: the question of liberty vs. coercion itself. Often, political "moderates" or "centrists" may actually be more dangerous than either the political "left" or "right" (as Anthony Gregory has posted about on LewRockwell.com - I'm not going to take the time to dig up a link), as they may theoretically embrace the statist tendencies of both sides and oppurtunistically switch their positions with the times. Indeed, it would seem to be the case that the status quo in politics tends to move towards "the center" as the politicians compromise with eachother to find a generally statist common ground.