Plus, your view that anarchism is inherently leftist is completely arbitrary... unless you are stuck on ancient definitions, or unless you are admitting the following quote is true:
The average anarchist is simply an extreme version of the political leftist; while the political leftist seeks to use the state to rob the evil rich of their property and time, the average anarchist simply takes it upon himself. Don't allow leftists to play games with definitions! Some of the libertarian-leaning leftists at this forum will try to redefine "left-wing" back to its original defition (Third Estate, limited government, free-markets, laissez-faire reforms, etc.). Fine! We non-leftists can't stop them from using their own personal definitions; they can use whatever labels they want to describe any concept they want.However, they have the audacity to then use their personal definition of "left-wing" (remember, the original definition, which is no longer valid) to prove that modern leftists are more libertarian than modern rightists! They will say that libertarianism is "inherently leftist" (again, using the original, no longer valid definition), and use that to insist that we should prefer and side with modern leftists over modern rightists. Question their motives. | Post Points: 20
The average anarchist is simply an extreme version of the political leftist; while the political leftist seeks to use the state to rob the evil rich of their property and time, the average anarchist simply takes it upon himself.
Don't allow leftists to play games with definitions! Some of the libertarian-leaning leftists at this forum will try to redefine "left-wing" back to its original defition (Third Estate, limited government, free-markets, laissez-faire reforms, etc.). Fine! We non-leftists can't stop them from using their own personal definitions; they can use whatever labels they want to describe any concept they want.However, they have the audacity to then use their personal definition of "left-wing" (remember, the original definition, which is no longer valid) to prove that modern leftists are more libertarian than modern rightists! They will say that libertarianism is "inherently leftist" (again, using the original, no longer valid definition), and use that to insist that we should prefer and side with modern leftists over modern rightists.
Question their motives.
JAlanKatz: More to the point, though, what is libertarian about asking the government to legislate on what language people speak?
I think you miss the point. Official Language doesn't legislate "what language people speak", it legislates what language the government speaks.
A bilingual state is not somehow less statist than a monolingual state. As I often repeat, many unsolvable problems appear in the absence of freedom. Neither alternative is more like freedom than the other. You can not simulate or approximate it.
There seems to be a left-libertarian idea that freedom means "anything goes." However, freedom means individuals have no choice but to cooperate, since the political method is not available. An ordered society is required for cooperation to exist. The political method, and thus the state, actually serves to decrease order in society; and create false choices like this. If this were not true, cultures would never have formed.
I was reading a few things on this thread and this argument between both sides seems to be more about semantics, emotions and emphasis.
I do think there is such a thing as a right libertarian and a left libertarian but I always viewed these two groups as being left and right within it's own context much like the Left Social Revolutionaries and the Right Social Revolutionaries of post Tzarist Russia. By that statement I mean left and right in way that does not involve attachments to outside political views.
When I think of a right libertarians I think of someone who might be against abortion and immigration. When I think of left libertarian I think of the opposite. I believe these differences in view stem from thinking that the same approach will lead to different results. I see that very strongly in the immigration debate. Both sides seem to believe that a voluntary, property approach to immigration will lead to less immigration, while some think it will lead to more or the same amount of immigration.
I think the beauty of libertarianism is it will allow you to have a radical counter cultural lifestyle or a conservative lifestyle if one so chose. I could see monasteries, socialist communes, Strict extended families and gay night clubs operating in an anarcho capitalist/individual anarchist society.
Ego: Brainpolice, why do you give "libertarian socialism" the voluntaryist-benefit-of-the-doubt but not "capitalism"? A quick Google search for "libertarian socialism" shows most (all?) of the results in the Google search are anti-property; you can say that libertarian socialists can be voluntaryist, but so can capitalists! Why do you draw the distinction? Why don't you care about the statist leftist connotation of "libertarian socialist" but you do care enough about the statist rightist connotation for "capitalist" (epecially considering it's arguably smaller) to distance yourself from the term?
Brainpolice, why do you give "libertarian socialism" the voluntaryist-benefit-of-the-doubt but not "capitalism"?
A quick Google search for "libertarian socialism" shows most (all?) of the results in the Google search are anti-property; you can say that libertarian socialists can be voluntaryist, but so can capitalists! Why do you draw the distinction? Why don't you care about the statist leftist connotation of "libertarian socialist" but you do care enough about the statist rightist connotation for "capitalist" (epecially considering it's arguably smaller) to distance yourself from the term?
Everytime you make a post like this, you ignore the content of what I'm actually defending (In this case, mutualism - which is simply free market socialism). Then you tell me to go google stuff that isn't even specifically what I'm talking about and insist that it's apparently obviously the case that none of these people would refrain from forcing their system on others. It absurd.
Mutualists are closer to contemporary market anarchism then any of the minarchists or conservatives who you prefer to consider allies. For one, they oppose the state on principle. For another, they don't advocate forcing anyone into their prefered form of organization. That makes them far more libertarian than any paleocon or vulgar "capitalist" out there, who aren't voluntaryist and do support the state.
Deist:When I think of a right libertarians I think of someone who might be against abortion and immigration.
I believe Right Libertarians like to think of it as being for the life of the unborn but clearly living and regard the Left stance as being for murder.
We're back to the argument of whether the unborn is property. Especially later in pregnancies, when the unborn can survive outside the mother's womb.
I would make a great bureaucrat. Wanna see? Click here. It's fun.
I don't bring up your support for mutualists because I agree with you; there's nothing wrong them.
I do bring up your support (in present and past threads) for libertarian socialists, anarcho-communists, leftist anarchists and anarcho-syndicalists(!) while you decry capitalists and anarcho-capitalists. It's incredibly inconsistent.
Brainpolice: Everytime you make a post like this, you ignore the content of what I'm actually defending (In this case, mutualism - which is simply free market socialism)
Everytime you make a post like this, you ignore the content of what I'm actually defending (In this case, mutualism - which is simply free market socialism)
But it isn't "free market socialism". There can be no such thing. What it is is capitalism combined with a screwed up theory of value and no trace of socialism as such.
μὴ παραχώρει τοῖς κακοῖς ἀλλ' εὐτολμώτερον ἀντιβάδιζε.
Ego: I don't bring up your support for mutualists because I agree with you; there's nothing wrong them. I do bring up your support (in present and past threads) for libertarian socialists, anarcho-communists, leftist anarchists and anarcho-syndicalists(!) while you decry capitalists and anarcho-capitalists. It's incredibly inconsistent.
Actually my position has merely been that such prefered forms of organization are theoretically compatible with voluntaryism to the extent that they are persued through free association. My position is basically anarchism without adjectives. Personally, I have had bad luck trying to discuss and debate with anarcho-syndicalists in particular since they are often very intolerant towards market anarchists, and many of them do strike me as closet statists. That being said, this does not mean that the market anarchist should then become just like them and act absurdly intolerant and hostile towards them, and ignore the possibility for any of them to take an anarchist without adjectives approach. It does not mean that the entirely of the social anarchist movement isn't truly anarchistic/voluntaryistic or that the market anarchist has nothing in common with them whatsoever.
What I do is reject usage of the terms capitalist and anarcho-capitalist. And I maintain that certain segments within the traditions of social anarchism are far more libertarian than any minarchist or conservative "capitalist" by definition since they actually oppose the state altogether as a matter of principle and do not advocate forcing anyone into their prefered forms of organization, while the non-anarchist "libertarian capitalist" and conservatives and vulgar libertarians support the state to some degree and may sometimes function as a knee-jerk apologist for big buisiness and certain policies or interventions of the state. My criteria for compatibility between myself and others is not whether or not they are "capitalist" in character but a matter of their more broad outlook on political power and the state.
Before I continue: when you say you are an "anarchist without adjectives", does that mean that you are an anarchist without adjectives or an anarchist? I hope you know what I mean...
Ego: Before I continue: when you say you are an "anarchist without adjectives", does that mean that you are an anarchist without adjectives or an anarchist? I hope you know what I mean...
An anarchist without adjectives is an anarchist in the broadest possible sense, since they accept or at least tolerate all forms of voluntary organization as being anarchic. It accepts all schools of anarchism as potentially legitimate so long as noone forces their prefered form of organization onto anyone else. It is neutral with respect to economic preferances and rejects the idea of a singular economic model for a society. Anarcho-anarchism, if you will - a redundancy.
I know what it means.
Here's what I'm getting at: you reject using the terms "capitalist" and "anarcho-capitalist" to describe yourself on the grounds that they both have modern negative connotations; how can you not see the modern negative connotation carried by the word "anarchist"!? It's not consistent!
Ego: I know what it means. Here's what I'm getting at: you reject using the terms "capitalist" and "anarcho-capitalist" to describe yourself on the grounds that they both have modern negative connotations; how can you not see the modern negative connotation carried by the word "anarchist"!? It's not consistent!
You're basically advocating creating a new word?
I'd suggest that people actually tend to have at least a moderately better understanding of what anarchism is then they do of what capitalism means. At least with anarchism, pop culture cliches of chaos and destruction aside, people vaguely know that you probably oppose the government. With the term capitalism, however, there is nearly endless confusion.
Furthermore, my perspective is basically that adjectives or add-ons are secondary or inconsequential in comparison to the more broad or general principle of no rulers, no state, anti-authoritarianism, and so on. And anarcho-capitalist is simply a bad label, I think Rothbard made a mistake in labeling his philosophy that because it has created more semantic confusion.
Ego: Plus, your view that anarchism is inherently leftist is completely arbitrary... unless you are stuck on ancient definitions, or unless you are admitting the following quote is true: The average anarchist is simply an extreme version of the political leftist; while the political leftist seeks to use the state to rob the evil rich of their property and time, the average anarchist simply takes it upon himself.
I've never known anyone so pretentious to quote themselves so many times in one thread.
Do we really need MORE regulators?
And for more periodic bloggings by moi,
Leftlibertarian.org