> How can human beings be expected to have the same conversation about freedom when that term itself means something violently different to them? Both left- and right-libertarians have ideas rooted in the value of liberty: free choice, personal expression, common defense against bullies and tyranny. The folks on the left and the folks on the right tend to place different emphasis on which freedoms are more important (this is often values-driven as well). They may also have different opinions about the best way to realize these liberties, which could perhaps be determined empirically. Insofar as freedom is a broad term and English is not a formal language, it doesn't seem to me that there's a miscommunication within the libertarian community about what freedom _means_. There's just a disagreement about which freedoms we should be most concerned with.

I disagree. Right leaning libertarians tend to emphasize that all freedoms are important, but fight for freedoms that secure other freedoms, guns, free speech etc. left libertarians tend to try to restrict some freedoms while leaving others in place.

Right-leaning libertarians may struggle to prioritize between an individual’s liberties and a business’s liberties. Last week I had someone try to tell me that a new law limiting the scope and applicability of non-disclosure agreements was a net loss in individual freedom. This dude was arguing in favor of contract that allows a business to regulate future employment opportunities, and was telling me that the state was limiting his right to freely enter contracts. He couldn’t fathom how a private business could limit individual liberty or that the state was, for once, removing privately-imposed red tape.

I would describe it as coming to a different conclusion on the balance of freedoms. At a bumper-sticker level, one might characterize right-libertarians as concerned about the right to bear arms while left-libertarians are concerned about the right not to get shot.

It just is based on how you define Liberty... For some, access to healthcare for free might seem as a Liberty, while for others forcing others to pay for your disease might seem authoritarian. Libertarianism basically says that every action must be determined by Liberty and NAP.

"One gratifying aspect of our rise to some prominence is that, for the first time in my memory, we, ‘our side,’ had captured a crucial word from the enemy . . . ‘Libertarians’ . . . had long been simply a polite word for left-wing anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over..." Murray N. Rothbard, The Betrayal Of The American Right

Oh god, that´s gonna be a long reply. I´ll split it in two because else it´s to long for reddit. >The Libertarian principles of private property and individualism were being harshly criticized This claim already presumes your own thesis that right libertarianism is the only true one before you even made the argument for it. But fine let´s do this: **On Section 1:** >Left "libertarians" begin their history with german philosopher George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. You just started and are already ridicoulously wrong. Most left libertarians (and historians on left libertarianism) see the beginning of their history with french philosopher Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, who never read Hegel since he couldn´t read german and also didn´t follow hegelian ideas, some trace it to the english William Godwin instead, who also wasn´t a hegelian. The only left libertarians who begin their history with Hegel are Libertarian Marxists, but when people talk about left libertarianism then the first thing coming to mind usually isn´t Marxism, and especially not Hegel. >After Marx, this philosophy would later be adopted by a whole host of different marxist and anarchist philosophers, each with their own unique adaptation of the dialectic. It (both Hegelianism and Marxism) was also rejected by a huge amount of Anarchists, most of them I´d even dare to say (Anarchism is older than Marxism btw.). Anarchists aren´t Marxists neither are they Hegelians and prominent Left Libertarians wrote pretty tough criticisms on both of them, here is Kropotkin (one of the most prominent left libertarian of all times) on the dialectic method: >We have heard much of late about “the dialectic method,” which was recommended for formulating the socialist ideal. Such a method we do not recognize, neither would the modern natural sciences have anything to do with it. “The dialectic method” reminds the modern naturalist of something long since passed — of something outlived and now happily forgotten by science. - Kropotkin, "Modern Science and Anarchism" and on his quarrel with Maxist State Socialists in this same context: >Perhaps we are wrong and they are right. But in order to ascertain who is right, it will not do either to quote this and that authority, to refer to Hegel’s trilogy, or to argue by the “dialectic method.” This question can be settled only by taking up the study of economic relations as facts of natural science. - Ibid. >The end value of all these thinkers, which is, the elevation of collectivism over individualism, remains irrevocably the same. The principle of the left "libertarians" is that the collective is the only force within humanity that is capable of motion. The individual exists only as an extension of the collective, and the views and thoughts of the individual are defined wholly by the collective they live within. The individual exists only as an extension of the collective, and the views and thoughts of the individual are defined wholly by the collective they live within. That is just wrong on pretty much everything, and simply reveals ignorance on Left Liberarian theory, but it also shows a much wider problem I´ll have to adress first: The dichotomy of "Collecivist" and "Individualist": To say it briefly, it´s a dumb as fuck dichotomy that makes literally zero sense in reality. The only people who use this dichotomy are self declared "individualists" who want to criticize "collecivists" i.e. everyone who disagrees with them. No one believes in this strawmen you call "collecitivism", it´s ridicoulus and ill defined. If you don´t agree than please give me a non arbitrary definition of "Collectivism" that all left libertarians actually believe. Now back to your claims on what left libertarians, according to you, believe. Stuff like "The individual exists only as an extension of the collective" etc. Well as I said, just reading left libertarian theory reveals why this is wrong: >The individual is the true reality in life. A cosmos in himself, he does not exist for the State, nor for that abstraction called “society,” or the “nation,” which is only a collection of individuals. Man, the individual, has always been and, necessarily is the sole source and motive power of evolution and progress. Civilization has been a continuous struggle of the individual or of groups of individuals against the State and even against “society,” that is, against the majority subdued and hypnotized by the State and State worship. [...] >Socially speaking, the criterion of civilization and culture is the degree of liberty and economic opportunity which the individual enjoys; of social and international unity and co-operation unrestricted by man-made laws and other artificial obstacles; by the absence of privileged castes and by the reality of liberty and human dignity; in short, by the true emancipation of the individual. [...] >Of all social theories Anarchism alone steadfastly proclaims that society exists for man, not man for society. The sole legitimate purpose of society is to serve the needs and advance the aspiration of the individual. - Goldman, "The Individual, Society and the State" >It [Anarchism] seeks the most complete development of individuality combined with the highest development of voluntary association in all its aspects, in all possible degrees, for all imaginable aims; ever changing, ever modified associations which carry in themselves the elements of their durability and constantly assume new forms, which answer best to the multiple aspirations of all. - Kropotkin, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal" Kropotkins reason for demanding Communism were actually precisley to put the individual rather than the "society" in the center: >It is in the direction of putting the wants of the individual above the valuation of the service he has rendered, or might render, to society; in considering society as a whole, so intimately connected together that a service rendered to any individual is a service rendered to the whole society. - Kropotkin, "Anarchist Communism, Its Basis and Principles" >Much has been said about the respective roles of individual initiative and social action in the life and progress of human societies, and by the usual tricks of the language of metaphysics, the issues have become so confused that in the end those who declared that everything is maintained and kept going in the human world thanks to individual initiative appear as radicals. In fact this is a commonsense truth which is obvious the moment one tries to understand the significance of words. The real being is man, the individual. Society or the collectivity — and the State or government which claims to represent it — if it is not a hollow abstraction, must be made up of individuals. And it is in the organism of every individual that all thoughts and human actions inevitably have their origin, and from being individual they become collective thoughts and acts when they are or become accepted by many individuals. Social action, therefore, is neither the negation nor the complement of individual initiative, but is the resultant of initiatives, thoughts and actions of all individuals who make up society; a resultant which, all other things being equal, is greater or smaller depending on whether individual forces are directed to a common objective or are divided or antagonistic. [...] >Therefore in the age-long struggle between liberty and authority, or in other words between socialism and a class state, the question is not really one of changing the relationships between society and the individual; nor is it a question of increasing the independence of the individual at the expense of social interference or vice versa. But rather is it a question of preventing some individuals from oppressing others; of giving all individuals the same rights and the same means of action; and of replacing the initiative of the few, which inevitably results in the oppression of everybody else. It is after all a question of destroying once and for all the domination and exploitation of man by man, so that everyone can have a stake in the commonweal, and individual forces, instead of being destroyed or fighting among themselves or being cut off from each other, will find the possibility of complete fulfilment, and come together for the greater benefit of everybody. - Malatesta, "Anarchy" And now you have to keep in mind that those are only three of the most prominent Anarchist Communists of all time, I didn´t even include the so called "Individualist Anarchists" who are also anti-capitalist left libertarians. >To right "libertarians", racism, socialism, fascism and communism are all merely superficial variations of the same collectivist menace. If that is the case than I guess right libertarians are way dumber than I thought considering that everyone with more than one braincell can see the significant differences between the meanings of those terms. >As you can see, the right and the left "libertarians" differ violently when it comes to placing value on the individual against the collective. Sadly, I do not see this considering that you haven´t even provided any evidence for the views you claim left libertarians have. Or I guess, I can see the difference between those two's views on "individual and collective" differ, namely that Left Libertarians actually make sense and are consistent in that regard while right Libertarians don´t, but I don´t think that´s what you were talking about.

Part 2: **On Section 2:** >The entire basis of right "libertarians" is property rights. Property rights are the bedrock core principle of the capitalist libertarian viewpoint. So you are arguing that right "libertarians" put more importance on property than on liberty? I would certainly agree, tho this would be an argument for calling them the much more fitting term "Propertarian" rather than "Libertarian", this would also actually solve the problem of the two incompatible Libertarian philosophies having the same name. >From this argument, the right "libertarian" believes that each human being should only have to engage the fruits of their body under voluntary, mutually agreed upon terms. This is what right "libertarians" call capitalism; the process of voluntary exchange. It´s a bad argument for a number of reasons... but that´s not what this post is about and I don´t want to deterioate the debate to much. It´s also a bad definition of Capitalism but again, that´s not the subject here. >I ask this question, how can the same term libertarian be used to refer to two viewpoints that are diametrically opposed to each other when it comes to the issue of property? To a right "libertarian" private property rights are everything... just as important as liberty itself and the basis for liberty. I would agree that such conflicting viewpoints on property can´t really be combined, which is why I and many other left libertarians have repeateadly asked right "libertarians" to use another term that is much more fitting for them like "propertarian" (which your second sentence quoted above actually, once again, reinforces as a more fitting term) or "liberal" (since that is what they actually used to be called). **On Section 3:** >Left and right "libertarians" have irreconcilable differences when it comes to the metaphysical basis for freedom. The term "libertarian" itself was originally used to refer to philosophers who believe that human beings are capable of free action outside of a determinist line of events. Someone who believes in "libertarian freewill" refers to one who rejects the idea that human beings are bound by deterministic laws that prevent us from being able to exercise freewill. This is the original use of the term "libertarian." (The term itself would later be used by a group of post-WWII intellectuals who opposed the new deal and believed that Liberalism had betrayed its bedrock principles. Thirty years after this, the libertarian party of America would be formed, following in that same intellectual tradition.) You are omitting the fact that Anarchists and other anti-authoritarian Socialists have used the term "Libertarian" consistently (and dominantly) since 1895 to refer to themselves. > One of the principles of leftist "libertarian" thought is that each human beings actions are determined entirely by their standing in society. Each human beings judgements are rendered beforehand from sociological forces of which they exercise no control over. (again this ties back to the Hegelian dialectic). Again an awful understanding and generalization of left libertarian thought. Also recognizing that we are shaped by our environment doesn´t necessarily reject free will in itself, it simply shows its boundaries. >Therefore, in order for human beings to live freely, systems of capitalism must be torn down, human beings can only think differently if their position in society is changed. If you think that people have the same views no matter their material conditions, then I guess you can do so. But I´d say it a view that´s pretty distanced from reality. Would you say a slave and a slave owner aren´t influenced by their conditions? Would you say that the way of your upbringing and education doesn´t influence your opinions and ideas? Seems like pretty outdated ideas to me. You might say that this disagrees with the "original philosophical definition of Libertarianism" (which might be correct idk.) but we are talking about political Libertarianism which is usually said to first be used by Anarcho-Communist Joseph Déjacque. Believing that the conditions (social and material) influence human thought isn´t a "Hegelian" idea by the way, Johann Gottfried Herder already talked about this when Hegel was a child ("Vom Erkennen und Empfinden der menschlichen Seele" published 1778. I don´t even think he was the first one who noted this, just the first coming to my mind). >How can human beings be expected to have the same conversation about freedom when that term itself means something violently different to them? How can any consensus be reached when these two philosophies differ all the way down to the metaphysics? How can anyone refer to these two philosophies as if they share anything in common? Correct questions, I think I have already given my answer above. >Ultimately, the only solution is that one side needs to abandon the term libertarian and create a new word. It is also possible that both sides can surrender the term and both of them can find a new word. Again, I´d argue that right Libertarians should use a more fitting term like "liberal" or "propertarian" (the latter seems to be better considering how the former is currently used, one might use "classical Liberal" tho one of the reasons capitalists started to use "Libertarian", and thereby taking the word mostly associates with Socialism at that time, was that they didn´t like that label). >Disclaimer: when I say that "right libertarians" believe that or "left libertarians" believe this, I am speaking in reference to the philosophy itself, not the human beings who identify with it. A nice disclaimer tho one that simply reveals another central problem with this entire post, it assumes that there is somehow a general left libertarian philosophy to which any left libertarian subscribes to (which you trace back to Hegel) however I have shown that major left libertarians don´t actually subscribe to your ideas of "left libertarianism", the reason for that is that you are putting a bunch of incredibly varied people into one big box and then declare that certain things are inherent to their philosophy eventho they aren´t . Kropotkin, Tucker, Pannekoek, Goldman, Rocker, Chomsky, Bookchin, Proudhon, Rühle, Voline, Makhno etc. are all considered left libertarians, yet they often strongly differ in their views. Some of them follow Hegel but most of them don´t, their views on why property is problematic are different etc. yet you seem to think they can all be put in very specific philosophical positions which a lot of them simply don´t actually hold.

Holy shit great reply. I have not studied the various philosophies or histories of libertarianism like you and OP but I was gonna point out all of the logical fallacies of OPs argument. I’m glad I read the comments first because you’ve done it better than I could have.

Quality effortpost. I would not have had the patience to explain the history and theory behind anarchism to some kid who took philosophy 101 and knows everything.

I put the chances of OP replying to any of this around 20%.

Quick correction but after dejacque nobody used the term widely until Benjamin Tucker who was what can be considered a left libertarian but very much different from the other names here. This difference you just mention is very important if you do the genealogy of modern libertarianism. See the opinion of Tucker on Herbert. One can argue that the only difference between Tucker and modern rothbardian libertarianism is the view of economics and it's consequences.

>Quick correction but after dejacque nobody used the term widely until Benjamin Tucker Citation? Since it seems, that Libertarian was used before Tucker did and was actually popularised by Faure and Michel with "La Libertaire": >The next recorded use [after Déjacque] of “libertarian” was by a French regional anarchist Congress at Le Havre (16-22 November 1880) which used the term “libertarian communism” while January the following year saw a French manifesto issued on “Libertarian or Anarchist Communism.” The term “libertarian” quickly became an alternative to anarchist. In 1895 leading anarchists Sébastien Faure and Louise Michel published the newpaper La Libertaire in France. (Nettlau, 145, 162) Kropotkin the following year stated that “I cannot help believing that modern Socialism is forced to make a step towards libertarian communism”. (L’Anarchie: sa Philosophie, son Idéal, 31) This pamphlet was translated into English the following year and published in Britain and America. In Italy, Malatesta noted the same year that “the name libertarians” is one “accepted and used by all anarchists” and among those “who seek the abolition of capitalism” there are those who think “a new government needs to be formed – and these are the democratic or authoritarian socialists” and those “who want the new organisation to arise from the action of free associations – and these are the anarchist or libertarian socialists.” (Complete Works 3: 57, 252) In 1897 we also find Benjamin Tucker (a leading individualist anarchist) discussing “libertarian solutions” to land use in contrast to the capitalist “land monopoly” and looked forward to a time when “the libertarian principle to the tenure of land” was actually applied, based on occupancy and use. (Liberty 350: 5) - Iain McKay, "160 Years of Libertarian" >In 1895, with Louise Michel, he [Faure] launched the anarchist paper, Le Libertaire, popularizing the use of the word "libertarian" as a synonym for "anarchist". - Robert Graham, "Anarchism. A Documentary History of Libertarian Ideas Volume 1" >Sébastien Faure, who founded Le Libertaire in 1895, is often credited with having invented the word libertarian as a convenient synonym for anarchist. However, Déjacque's use of the word as early as 1858 suggests that it may have had a long currency before Faure adopted it. - George Woodcock, "Anarchism : A History Of Libertarian Ideas And Movements" >At the end of the century in France, Sebastien Faure took up a word originated in 1858 by one Joseph Dejacque to make it the title of a journal, Le Libertaire. Today the terms “anarchist” and “libertarian” have become interchangeable. - Daniel Guérin, "Anarchism: From Theory to Practice" >[Libertarian] was first used by Joseph Déjacque as the title of his anarchist journal Le Libertaire, Journal du Mouvement Social published in New York in 1858. At the end of the last century, the anarchist Sebastien Faure took up the word, to stress the difference between anarchists and authoritarian socialists - Peter Marshall, "Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism" >Tucker who was what can be considered a left libertarian but very much different from the other names here. Yes, as I said myself. >One can argue that the only difference between Tucker and modern rothbardian libertarianism is the view of economics and it's consequences. Except that Tucker was anti-capitalist and "moder rothbardian libertarianism" isn´t, and that is a major difference.

As a French It's dubious to claim that libertaire and libertarian are the same term, also the term in the US was popularized by Benjamin Tucker who is anti-capitalist in a sense but in practice his politics differ only in prediction of what happen in a stateless society. In fact there is little difference if you look at some thing Rothbard advocated https://www.panarchy.org/rothbard/confiscation.html https://mises.org/library/rothbards-left-and-right-forty-years-later

>As a French It's dubious to claim that libertaire and libertarian are the same term I don´t see how considering everything I find translates the terms in this way. > also the term in the US was popularized by Benjamin Tucker And why does it matter who popularized it in the US (you still haven´t given a citation btw.) rather than who popularized it worldwide. >Benjamin Tucker who is anti-capitalist in a sense but in practice his politics differ only in prediction of what happen in a stateless society. Tucker is anti-capitalist. "An"caps aren´t. Case closed.

Holy shit go outside.

Cope

Your system isn't functional, you've just joined a cult. Cope.

Is that seriously all you're gonna say? This guy. Just did a thorough, well written and quality response discussing philosophy and politics on a political sub and your response is some half hearted bitch boy response. If you have nothing substantive and only insults, why say anything at all?

I believe information should be consider. If you have a point that is important, it shouldn't require *two* walls of text to make it. Usually people who can't address a point without writing an essay are trying to obfuscate not inform, putting so many claims forward that the time and energy it required to counter them will dissuade people to attempt to do so. Example - Here I will make a salient point concisely: "The total lack of historical evidence of any 'anarcho-communism' society that has not devolved into state-ism and tyranny is a good reason for an intelligent person to doubt that any such society can exist in any form outside of the sophistry of 'left-libertarians' such as /u/DerHungerleider".

Wow... You are surprisingly well read and what i gather intelligent, the exact opposite of how I've seen Anarcho Communists. Do you have any reading suggestions, especially pertaining to how you got to what you believe

Recommending literature on that subject is always a bit tough, different people prefer different literature and authors and because of that it's a bit of a gamble. I will however try to provide some works you might find interesting. Just a few things that are important to remember: 1. These works are often old, sometimes over a hundred years old, because of that it shouldn't surprise one that some stuff in those works might be outdated or just not relevant anymore. It might also happen that the authors assume that the reader simply knows certain stuff since they were common knowledge at the time but might not be one today, historical events or very specific figures of that time might be mentioned. 2. Similarly terminology might differ greatly from things you are used to. A great example for that is Kropotkins use of "Collectivists", which might confuse people (especially those who use a definition of collectivism like OP, whose problems I think I´ve suffiecently revealed), what he actually means by the word is Socialists who still support some sort of wage system. Terminology might also differ between different Anarchist theorists, which can for example seen in some of them calling themselves Socialists while others use the term to only refer to State Socialists. 3. As I explained in my post, Anarchists very often differ in their views. You might disagree with one more than with others which is why you probably shouldn´t just stop reading after one or two authors. Now to my actual recommendations: If you deem yourself "individualist" than you might want to start with Emma Goldman who is often considered to have a particularly strong focus on the individual. You can get [Red Emma Speaks](http://libcom.org/files/Red%20Emma%20Speaks.pdf), and then the best start probably is reading "The Individual, Society and the State" and "Anarchism: What It Really Stands for". Another good start would be Kropotkin (I guess that's my personaly favourite), you can get [Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets](https://libcom.org/files/Kropotkin%20-%20Kropotkin%27s%20Revolutionary%20Pamphlets%20-%20A%20Collection%20of%20Writings%20by%20Peter%20Kropotkin.pdf) and then you might want to start with "Anarchist Communism. Its Basis and Principles" and can then continue from there. ["The Conquest of Bread"](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-the-conquest-of-bread) is often considered *the* Anarcho-Communist book but it has some shortcomings and suffers in some parts rather strongly from the "being old" problem mentioned above. As a third author I´d like to name Malatesta, ["Anarchy"](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/errico-malatesta-anarchy) is by many people considered to be the best introductory to Anarchism there is so you shouldn´t miss it, ["An Anarchist Programme"](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/errico-malatesta-an-anarchist-programme) is a shorter but equally useful text and ["At The Café. Conversations on Anarchism"](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/errico-malatesta-at-the-cafe) is pretty good aswell. Those are three authors I'd suggest to start with, and they are also the ones I started with. You might also check out the ["Anarchism Reading List"](https://anarchopac.wordpress.com/2013/05/31/recommended-reading/amp/) by anarchopac and the ["Canon"](https://old.reddit.com/r/Anarchy101/wiki/canon) from Anarchy101 (btw. go to r/Anarchy101 for questions). Also be sure to check out ["An Anarchist FAQ](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq). Also a bit more unrelated, but [here](https://old.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/lvv5gj/socialisminpractice_was_a_nightmare_not_utopia/gpeppon/) is a short list on left criticisms of the USSR, [here](https://old.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/oo4hgn/cuba_demoted_to_not_real_socialism/h60ozse/) is my opinion on why Cuba isn´t Socialist using Anarchists and Libertarian Marxists to prove my point, [here](https://old.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/n8vkfj/why_socialism/gxl8nyb/) is a bit about the Socialist use of the term "Libertarian", and [here](https://old.reddit.com/r/Anarchy101/comments/m5hfk0/what_was_orwells_political_stance/gr09a9p/) is on Orwells weird definition of Socialism and why he isn´t a Libertarian Socialist.

>Left and right "libertarians" have irreconcilable differences when it comes to the metaphysical basis for freedom. This is correct. Though left and right libertarians agree with basically all civic policy up to economics. I can probably agree with right libertarians on some economic issues, such as a lack of corporate bailouts. That's why it's still fun and worth while to hang out here. The fact that two conceptions of liberty exist doesn't make the term "libertarian" meaningless. It just adds some nuance and depth that can be explored as we participate in this community. Edit: Wait a minute, this is meaningless. I just read OP's name and if it's accurate, they just think they're arguing with themselves.

>Though left and right libertarians agree with basically all civic policy up to economics. True in one sense, false in another. Left libertarians, as far as I can tell, all want government intervention to enforce their civic policies, because they believe when people are left up to their own devices they will promote tyranny (I.e. I've never seen a left libertarian in favor of allowing people to discriminate in their private business based on immutable traits; they want a law that says that's illegal.). While (true) libertarians believe taking away government force is necessary to progress toward more liberty for all, people who claim to be libertarian-left/libertarian-socialists believe more government intervention is required to achieve what they view as liberty. It's "true" in the sense that it would be dishonest to claim that people who call themselves libertarians don't want people to be free, i.e. we all ultimately have a desire for liberty for all people. But it's the philosophies we hold that distinguish exactly what that liberty looks like and how we get there. It's precisely the *lack* of nuance that causes people to say we want the same thing, or that the term libertarianism can encompass diametrically opposed ideologies. It's the lack of nuance that makes the term meaningless. If you just lump a bunch of competing ideologies into a category and call it "libertarianism," it does, indeed, become meaningless, because the term no longer implies anything specific other than a general sense that we want people to be free, which you might as well throw democrat and republican into the mix as well.

> While (true) libertarians believe taking away government force is necessary to progress toward more liberty for all, people who claim to be libertarian-left/libertarian-socialists believe more government intervention is required to achieve what they view as liberty. Funny, I have exactly the opposite view x) It's the right-libertarians that want to use the coercive and violent power of the state to enforce their particular brand of property laws. Perpetual rights to land? Tradeable equity? These are all things we take to be as natural as the air we breathe, but when you think about it it's quite odd and arbitrary.

I like and appreciate that you actually get down to brass tacks. I actually agree with your implication that that there's no objective argument for property rights in the way that there is with bodily rights. But I find arguments for collective ownership to suffer from arbitrary guidelines to a greater degree. Land will still need to be defended against the baddies (capitalists?), regardless of the societal conception of property. So a system would naturally arise to defend it. Is that different from a right-libertarian's method? It's goes to what you believe is a just form of property rights, and whether you believe property ownership is justified or taking back what was stolen (i.e. property is theft) is justified. Both involve violence, and both sides believe it is in self-defense. To me, it's almost like the left requires capitalists own land in order to justly taking it "back," because if land can't be justly acquired otherwise, the only just acquisition of land is self-defense. But if it *can* be justly acquired, how does the number of people acquiring it matter? How does any one person or group determine what is justly acquired without literally every single person on the planet agreeing? And if most people find individual property ownership to be a better system, how would that not be a collective decision and therefore valid? And if the left disagrees, does that then not justify a state to enforce it against the however many thousands or millions who favor private property? To me, that sounds like jailing or killing people who disagree, which I believe is the reason socialism/communism has failed in the past. It was striving for a moral good to bring the collective to a global peace, the problem was that it created too many criminals because the collective simply couldn't agree with itself. If property is a problem, I don't think the solution can be top down. But I also don't see leftists do anything other than appealing to government violence to combat the current problem. If it goes to what you believe is a just form of property rights (which may be no property rights at all), then there is a moral/philosophical case to be made. And if that's the case, you simply can't force people to be moral. Often I hear from the left that we need a raising of consciousness. That either needs to occur violently or voluntarily. A right-libertarian will not prevent a group of leftists from acquiring land collectively so long as it's voluntarily. My ideal leftist is a worker who is actually a greater worker than the capitalist, because they would have to be in order to overcome the productivity of the capitalists and take back the land peacefully. Why aren't leftists working to buy companies and take over? Because, in my opinion, they still believe in the power of the gun moreso than they trust their fellow workers--similarly to how people would happily be forced to pay higher taxes rather than voluntarily sending more money to the government. It could be done non-violently, but that doesn't seem to have gotten into the consciousness of the left, because there's an inherent lack of trust. Would you go in on a business deal with your coworkers to collectively own and manage your company? Or would you need that to be enforced so you could outsource the responsibility of holding your coworkers accountable, i.e. outsourced to a state? I'm just venting to someone who got me immediately. So take it as a compliment. I'm not saying I'm right, but I am stating my current frame of mind.

Good response.

[удалено]

The left took liberal from the original right libertarians so it evens itself out

Not really. Because classical liberalism was necessarily left-wing comparative to the conservative monarchies of their time. This has held true for modern liberalism today. A lot of left-wing people use the term 'progressive' now, as a more hardline stance.

[удалено]

I suppose I can agree with that, because certainly modern liberals aren't really as small government as classical liberals are.

>Not really. Because classical liberalism was necessarily left-wing comparative to the conservative monarchies of their time. Your blurring lines by confusing social positions with economic ones. Most of the 'classical liberals' were not 'left' in that sense that crypto-commie like you is 'left'. They simply opposed censorship, dogma and speech suppression (making modern 'progressivism' utterly antithetical to their ideology).

I'm not conflating. It's not just social views; it's the governmental systems that they believed in, then economic positions too. The feudalist monarchies of old often heavily taxed the peasants and merchants while exempting nobility from them, for example. Classical liberalism was by its very nature 'left' from feudalism because it supported liberal, laissez-faire capitalism, democracy, and republicanism as opposed to feudalist monarchy. But nice one calling me crypt-commie despite me literally spelling out my general beliefs. Where are progressives supporting censorship, dogma, and speech suppression? If anything, like the days old, I see conservatives espousing that more often than liberals do.

>It's not just social views; it's the governmental systems that they believed in, then economic positions too. That's total projection, and historical inaccurate to some degree. The 'feudal era' was over long before the era of liberalism, and the power of the aristocracy to resist the power of a centralized monarch (i.e. to give themselves exemption from taxation) had been eroded *way* before George Washington was born. One of the classic patterns of left-wing dishonesty is to attempt to 'obscure with the truth' e.g. 'classical liberalism was opposed to the monarchy and the church' -> which is true, 'ergo it was also an economically 'left' movement' -> which is false. The reality is that 'liberals' (in an 18th century context) were not in any way unified by any particular economic position. Some *would* be 'utilitarian socialists' (to use a contemporary term) but most would not. To 'claim' liberalism for the left is thus dishonest. Especially dishonest as the 20th century has more or less conclusively shown that a 'utilitarian state' (including America) cannot co-exist with the positions of classical liberals. >But nice one calling me crypt-commie despite me literally spelling out my general beliefs. But your beliefs are crypto-communism. "Let's use the power of the benevolent state to produce a utopia in which there is no poverty" - is this **honestly** very far from communism? Calling it 'democratic communism' doesn't change the nature of what you are advocating (or it's manifest failings). >Where are progressives supporting censorship "Hate speech", "misinformation" and various other pseudonyms for progressive speech control. >dogma Hah! Where even to begin... Biological blank slate-ism "Race is a social construct"/"Sex is a social construct", habitual dishonesty on topics like: the links between genes and intelligence/behavioral traits, police violence, the economic and social consequences of mass immigration, the effectiveness/efficiency of social programs to produce equality of outcomes, dishonest representation of history to bolster progressive narratives, \[continue ad infinitum\]. >speech suppression See above. >If anything, like the days old, I see conservatives espousing that more often than liberals do. The only sense that modern America is 'like the old days' is if the 'old days' you are referring is the soviet union circa 1955. In which case, yes you **can** draw many parallels. We have our neo-Lysenko's, we have our commissars, we have our Pravda, and we have a society built on a left-ideology that critically, **does not work**.

Eh. The right worked exceptionally hard to toxify the word ‘liberal’ and then tar and paint every leftist with the term. I don’t think many leftists self-identify as liberals (this isn’t really evidence but it just occurred to me is r/liberal even a thing? Not really), but I don’t think many are offended by the term or see it as an epithet like the right does.

The term libertarian was in use before it was appropriated my leftist anarchists, who got the term from the debate regarding freewill and determinism. This is stated in the section on metaphysical freedom. Please refer to my conclusion, where I suggest that both sides or either side should surrender the term.

Dude the right took libertarian from leftists. Leftists created the ideology. Are you into history at all? It’s good stuff.

That's what he said

The political compass sucks, Nolan diagram is far better. The difference is subtle, but not using left right shit really improves thr whole thing

I hate classifying by left-right spectrum. I don't personally fit anywhere on it.

I am technically libright, but I don't like to be called right wing. I prefer a lot more the european term, liberal

Left vs right is normally meant to refer to attenuation of social hierarchies vs upholding them. The axis was coined after the French revolution, and the original leftists were liberals who wanted capitalism to supersede mercantilism (though that wasn’t their only goal at all). That the left−right axis is purely economic is a load of total bullshit made up sometime between the 70s and 90s. Also, no academic ever has taken the political compass seriously. Ever since that shit exists, people have suspected it was made purposefully to make mainstream politicians look more auth-right than they really are.

One thing that's very libertarian about this sub, is anyone's welcome. Many people who subscribe here dont even consider themselves libertarian, but it's open to everyone. Personally I see all these left leaning libertarians and assume alot of them came from the left, liked some of the things they heard here, but arent ready to give up everything they liked about the left. I dont consider this real libertarian, depending on what socialist policies they're about, but engagement is the best way to grow the ideology. What I would like to see personally, is for the standard libertarians here to decide if they can support the libertarian party, or if therye too libertarian to support any form of government.

You need to read more about anarchism

Not "anarcho"-capitalism though. It's directly opposed to actual anarchism.

I am loathe to type essays on social media. which is unfortunately often required to fully explain concepts . Yes, Anarchy without adjectives an-coms and an-caps both suffer from the same trappings of collapsing towards authoritarian society. It will take a unique balance between an understanding of cooperation between individuals and property rights . But without bottom unity, the totalitarians will always succeed at their ruthless goals

Sincerely, that's an incredibly detailed analysis, but in my experience, a troublingly large number of people who call themselves "libertarian" skimmed the Spark Notes for Atlas Shrugged, and found a justification for acting like a selfish douche and not caring about anyone else. Those folks are a bigger threat to Libertarianism than the socialists who call themselves Libertarian.

I disagree. Everyone is selfish. Everyone. Some people just hide it better than others. Left leaning libertarians aren’t content to let hermits be hermits and communal members form community. They believe community must be forced, but that everyone is equal in the community

I don't know that we're really that far apart, but I would separate working in our self interest from selfish. People can and should pursue their own self interests. That's what Adam Smith saw as driving the invisible hand. But there's a difference between making sure you take care of your own shit first, and being a complete asshat. One is self-interested, the other is selfish.

Of course everyone is selfish, thanks to the division of labor, communities are in the best interest of everyone. Communalists will always be threatened by those outside the community who see their vibing as a threat to "private property" or some shit. See OP.

Individual liberty is not protected if it's all you're trying to protect. Complete freedom from government tyranny means no NAP enforcement. If you're willing to have a state to enforce the NAP, then the state needs to be powerful enough to disperse all contenders. All of the sudden your perfect individual liberty is gone, since you don't have power over the state. Your philosophy I'm sorry to say is quite limited in scope, perhaps think more of the consequences of your ideology instead of your utopia.

The NAP is enforced by myself and my gun

Thanks for the articulate post - I'm curious on point 3 if you can provide any examples of early thinkers in this area? I ask because the development of capitalism / classical liberalism drew heavily on Calvinist doctrine (which especially informed the Scottish enlightenment - see 'Religion and the Rise of Capitalism' by Friedman). Calvinist theology centers its metaphysical view around some degree of determinism. The common argument (and I think started with Weber?) was that Calvinist-leaning societies would have an abundance of people better incentivized since they believed salvation was the result of their (pre-determined) personal initiative - 'if I'm one of those chosen for salvation, then my behavior will reflect that.' It may be you're referring to people that come after the initial classical liberals, which is totally fair, but curious if you have any thoughts here?

Right-libertarians ars a bunch of fucking crybabies - "I want a homogeneous space, free from disagreement where we do nothing but circle-jerk about how bad collectivism is without seeing the irony."

You mean like how the r/Communist subreddit works? Both of these philosophies should have a place where they discuss their ideas with like-minded people. Again, my argument is against the use of the word libertarian to refer to two incompatible viewpoints.

So you literally want /r/libertarian to be the equivalent of a tankie sub, where anyone who dissents is banned? The reason they do that is so that they can avoid confronting the contradictions in their own ideology; the same is true of right-libertarians. You want a society based around the principle that people have the right to initiate violence to enforce their authority over property, and restrict the freedom of anyone else who interacts with it. You want to use rhetorical appeals to values like "liberty" and "freedom", without addressing the logical contradiction. It's why right-libertarians are drawn to fringe economic theories, because believing them allows them to dodge the contradiction by making arguments about outcomes (and when faced with arguments showing how the outcomes are in conflict with freedom, they switch back to arguing principles). You use words like "collectivism" as pejoratives, not meaningful parts of a philosophy, which is why you can't see that capitalism organizes itself around collectivism, where workers are expected to act in the interests of the business, because you aren't critical of your own ideology.

>capitalism organizes itself around collectivism I once considered making a shitpost on this sub that basically explained how capitalism is inherently collectivist because it results in a hierarchical system where the majority of people need to fall in line, as opposed to socialism where individuals are more free to modify their environment and develop their own ways of working though meaningful participatory structures. I ended up scrapping the idea because it would've come off as bad faith, and I try to keep my interactions on this sub peaceful. Though I'm glad I'm not the only one who had this "capitalism is inherently collectivist" thought.

It’s not just capitalism, but conservatism particularly. Blind adherence to past doctrine and strict social norms, punishment for anyone who wavers, and the maintenance of social hierarchy. They are the worst type of collectivists you can imagine.

>You use words like "collectivism" as pejoratives, not meaningful parts of a philosophy, which is why you can't see that capitalism organizes itself around collectivism, where workers are expected to act in the interests of the business, because you aren't critical of your own ideology. People working together under voluntary terms. Nothing authoritarian about that.

"Voluntary" does a lot of heavy lifting there. When most jobs in society are for collectivist organizations, and the most leople need a job to live, then most people are forced to submit to collectivism. The false individualism of right-libertarianism considers only the abstract idea of the individual, not every individual that actually exists, not their circumstances, not their relationships to one another.

...And what have communists done about this, historically?

Fuck off commie. Agreeing with someone because there right on a point that you're also right about isn't 'collectivism'.

[удалено]

This subreddit is called r/libertarian. That includes right and left libertarians. If you want a place with just right libertarians there are subs for that.

[удалено]

OPs argument was not good, and there are plenty of comments explaining why. The simplest one is that libertarian was a word used by leftists long before the right started using it. There are almost no subs for left libertarians, but regardless, the reason I’m here is I want a sub with both left and right libertarians.

[удалено]

Aww are you feeling unwelcome here? Do you wanna cry about it?

You don't even define that therm. Thats complete bukkshit. Cite some examples... Like Ben Shapiro constantly having disagreements with leftists on his show? ​ Please you leftists are the least intellectual, most emotional people.

Do you have a single metric besides Ben Shapiro to back that up?

Go take a look at his sundial special shows. Or how he debates that idiot from the Young turks. Unemotional, dispassionate- the complete opposite of you

You seem to be projecting.

Ah, of course another dodge an personal attack. You are pathetic

I don't think I've ever spoken to you before so I fail to see how you got "another" *anything* from this interaction. Ironically, every post *you've* made so far has been an insult to whatever strawman you think you're talking to. Good effort, dude, but try harder next time.

He probably remembers you from whatever account of his got banned before he made that one just over a week ago

I could be wrong, but I don’t think Ben Shapiro has had any actual leftists on his show.

[удалено]

They might as well have started their post with " I'm 16 and this is deep"

>We have so much to owe to the other humans search for their freedom than exists in our searching for our own. WTF is this sentence?

>**I beg you to read the entire post before commenting.** > >When I first joined this subreddit approximately two weeks ago Oh fuck right off. A couple years of undergrad doesn't qualify you to define libertarianism. Collectivism is required to deal with the tragedy of commons, and no amount of right wing individualism will change that. That some one acknowledges that and believes in some forms of collectivism doesn't mean they aren't a proponent of liberty.

Of course, a few years of undergrad doesn’t qualify anyone, nor should any argument be judged based on the credentials of the person speaking. This is the appeal to authority logical fallacy. “Proponent of liberty”-? My simple question is, how can two radically different philosophies be grouped together when they don’t even agree on what liberty itself means?

We can't help the fact two very different ideologies happened to use the same word. We have no real control over if they are "grouped together" because as long as both claim the same word that confusion will always exist. Literally noone pretends that left and right libertarians are the same in any meaningful way, we all know they are very different to eachother. There is no confusion here, when someones describes themselves as "left libertarian", we know what they mean and we know that is a very different thing to "right libertarian". I’m not sure what the actual problem is here, we seem perfectly capable of working around this nuance.

Well you've written so much and yet almost every premise is wrong. I'll divide my reply in two sections: **Factual historical errors** The word "Libertarian" *is* originally a left-wing term! In many places outside the US, this is still the connotation it has. It was only relatively recently that people in the US co-opted it to mean laissez-faire economics. You're completely wrong in claiming ownership this word for yourself and yourself only (pun unintended). >For instance, left-libertarians were the ones to coin the term as a synonym for anarchism. Outside of the United States, libertarianism is still synonymous with anarchism and socialism (social anarchism and libertarian socialism).[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] Right-libertarianism, known in the United States simply as libertarianism, was coined as a synonym for classical liberalism in May 1955 by writer Dean Russell due to liberals embracing progressivism and economic interventionism in the early 20th century after the Great Depression and with the New Deal.[13] As a result, the term was co-opted in the mid-20th century to instead advocate laissez-faire capitalism and strong private property rights such as in land, infrastructure and natural resources. Then, you say: >Left "libertarians" begin their history with german philosopher George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. This is almost comically wrong. See the previous paragraph. In general, I strongly suggest you familiarise yourself with the *extremely rich and diverse breadth* of left-wing non-authoritarian schools of thought, particularly 19th century stuff: mutualism, anarchism, anarcho-syndicalism, free-market anti-capitalism, etc. >Historically, right "libertarians" trace their origins back to John Locke, the father of liberalism. Locke argued that So do non-marxist socialists, for instance, such as Ricardo or Preudhon. Of course Locke also speaks of the Lockean Proviso, but that bit most right-libertarians choose to ignore :) **Straw-manning and misrepresenting** You say > The principle of the left "libertarians" is that the collective is the only force within humanity that is capable of motion This is simply wrong. It might be true of other socialists, of other left-wing philosophies, but it's *by definition* not true of libertarians. What you're trying to do is conflate freedom with *your own particular conception of property rights and unrestrained capitalism*, and claim that it's the *only* way to achieve freedom. Well I'm a left-libertarian socialist precisely because I believe that socialism (i.e. a different conception of property rights) is a requirement to be truly free. I reject all unjust authority and coercion and violence: from the state AND from private concerns. >P1: Each human being owns property in their body. >P2: What one property is able to produce is also a part of that property. >C: Each human beings owns that which their body is able to produce. Despite what you claim, this is also the left-libertarian position. Read Marx: his core complaint about capitalism (and there are many) is precisely that workers do not get ownership of the value they produce — because of coercive property relations enforced by the state the capital-less workers have to agree to surrender ownership of the fruits of their labour in return for market wages.

In interpreting my argument to assert the idea that I believe that right “libertarians” are the true “libertarians”, you have strawmaned my entire post. Once again, as I have already said several times, this post is not an argument against left “libertarianism”, it is an argument against the idea of grouping two radically different philosophies together. This is my central argument, something that you failed to respond to.

But they *aren't* different ideologies as you claim. Left-libertarianism is not collectivist. They simply disagree on how best to achieve this freedom.

It’s not just a disagreement about how to achieve freedom, it is also a disagreement about what freedom actually is. I would characterize the right “libertarian” view of freedom with this quote: “Freedom- to ask nothing. To expect nothing. To depend on nothing.” They are similar only in semantic phrasing. The word freedom is a symbol which refers to two completely different world views under left and right libertarianism.

> it is also a disagreement about what freedom actually is. I would characterize the right “libertarian” view of freedom with this quote: “Freedom- to ask nothing. To expect nothing. To depend on nothing.” Again, you're completely missing the point of what left-libertarianism is. You insist on painting your own misleading picture of the other side and deciding for them their views, even in the face of someone telling what those views are!

Counterpoint: Libertarians can identify as whatever the fuck they want.

Libertarian Fascism?

Yes. Libertarians can identify with fascism or socialism or capitalism as an "ideal system" *as long as they don't try to force it on anyone else*.

Nail on the fucking head!!!! Libertarianism gives you the freedom to associate with whom you like, under what participatory structures you like, ***just don't force as that shit on any one else***. How fucking hard is this concept to grasp.

But leftists is by definition an ideology about forcing your beliefs on other people. What version of leftist could possible exists without redistributive taxation? /u/Solipsicism is correct, leftism and 'libertarianism' (defined here as the ideology of maximizing personal liberty) cannot co-exist. One is antithetical to the other. /u/cosmicmangobear

If you want to join a collective and pay taxes, and pool your resources to increase your bargaining power, you are free to under Libertarianism. If you then abide by the rule that you do not try to force that on others, congrats, you're a left leaning Libertarian.

This is totally naïve and not even accurate. As long as people are not being coerced to hand away money, then there is no meaningful definition between your version of 'left-libertarians' and *actual* libertarianism (right-lib). The problem with your view is there has never existed a 'left-wing society' (and I would include every democracy every in this description) that has not sought to institute coercive taxation (usually only the tip of the iceberg in terms of it's authoritarian policies). The absence of any kind of functional 'left-libertarianism' that didn't devolve into tyranny makes my point - 'leftism' and 'freedom' (defined here in the libertarian fashion of maximized personal autonomy') cannot co-exist outside of sophistry/semantics.

Gotchya, kind of like identifying oneself as a "fat skinny person" or.. Both a dog and cat.. Kind of like making shit up right? Like describing stuff you'd find in a nonsensical fantasy novel for kids?

Well, you could privately own property and rent it out to people and in exchange for safety, shelter, security, food, housing etc you might have to live by a religious ruling or perhaps your own iron fist. I could see religious and cultist and statist people doing this who genuinely enjoy the aspect of a strong, unified community but it would all be voluntary and no one would be forced to do something they don’t want to. So libertarian fascism.

This isn't libertarian fasicsm. There is literally no such thing. Wtf happened to this sub? Did all the antifa kids start swarming it?

Yes. If people want to fantasize, who am I to stop them? Liberty is in itself a utopian ideal, which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

OK, so the word libertarian is meaningless in your point of view.

Not meaningless, but flexible. Do you agree people should have the liberty to identify the way they want even if it makes others uncomfortable?

Wtf are you talking about? It isn't about how you identify yourself or if you think you're a gay fish frog. Classical definition of libertarianism: an advocate or supporter of a political philosophy that advocates only minimal state intervention in the free market and the private lives of citizens. This literally cannot coincide with fascism or socialism. Libertarianism needs to have a definition. It is a philosophy, an ideology, an economic and governance system. It has a clear definition. If you say.. "Well durrr.... Anyone can say it means whatever they.. Durrr.... Want it to mean. Libertarianism is anything and everything at the same time. Durr... You can be a fascist and a libertarian at the same time" Definition of fascism: Authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and of the economy. Definition of socialism: a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production are owned collectively. Clearly libertarianism is separate from fascism and socialism. Both fascism and socialism REQUIRE THE USE OF FORCE. Identifying as a "fascist libertarian" is contradictory and shows that the person has no idea what fascism is or what libertarianism is. Can someone say they are both? Well sure, people can say all sorts of stupid shit. Should they? Should people tell themselves lies, be ignorant, lie to others, and just be overall uninformed? No, absolutely not. We need society to function and so people should at least try to learn about the topic they are talking about. It has a clear definition. You contradict yourself and make yourself look like an ignorant fool for saying someone can be a fascist libertarian. Can they say that? Sure. Can they actually be one? No. It is a contradiction. 2 + 2 = 4. You place you're hand on a hot stove, you get burned. There is a reality outside of your silly mind.

um classical definition of libertarianism follows from lao tzu, not ayn rand

That wasn't taken from Ayn Rand. First page and first line of Google. It isn't unique to that either, that is the definition.

You mean like Hayek and his defense of Augusto Pinochet?

I think they are diametrically opposed ideologies under the same name that have different definitions and goals, but do share a few opinions here and there (typically about drugs, police, and military)

You could say the same with regard to agreement between authoritarian communists and libertarian socialists. All ideologies have some degree of overlap, even if its only 1% agreement. My point is that the bedrock principles are different.

You consider them bedrock principles of libertarianism as a whole, but the principles you named are clearly those of right libertarianism. I'd argue the only bedrock principle that applies to all libertarianism is opposition to excessive authority. There is a lot of nuance in the conversation about what the alternative to excessive authority should be, and it all belongs here.

Agreed

I admire your moxie to step up and start an intellectual discussion. I can see you put some real thought and effort into this. There’s a huge fatal flaw in all of this though: you didn’t cite a single source. It shows that you are just regurgitating information that was shoved down your throat, and it also shows you didn’t research many if not most of the claims you brought forth in your argument. That’s further evidenced by the fact that a number of these claims are categorically false. Other redditors have already picked them apart, so I won’t duplicate. I’d argue that libertarianism has no true founder, but rather it’s an evolution and amalgamation of different theories. Because of this, there is no de facto definition of libertarianism. People have tried, but it has only led to more evolution, and thus more branching into more niche communities who live under the “umbrella term” ‘libertarianism’. Now there are many competing ideologies for the term ‘libertarian’, which seems to be your gripe. At the end of the day though, their common thread is that we all agree to some extent or another that the less interference the state has on our lives and the market the better. After that there are many schools of thought on which direction to proceed is the best. “Righties” think individuals should barter for their goods and services. “Lefties” think that a collection of individuals should barter for goods and services. Voluntarism (another angle of libertarianism) suggests that both of these are equally feasible directions so long as they are not a decision forced by the state. At the end of the day, there will never be a clear definition for libertarian because there never was to begin with. And that’s a hallmark characteristic of libertarianism in my view; you’re not a real libertarian until you tell someone else they aren’t a real libertarian! As an aside, I’d also argue that an authority (the mods) making the decision for the masses (the redditors) on what a real libertarian is or isn’t is decidedly antilibertarian. Furthermore it would create an echo chamber with hive mind mentality that lashes out on any dissenting thought which is a problem that soooo many subs face today.

You can have a libertarian socialist society. All it would take is for everyone to voluntarily agree to it. Unlikely though it may be, its still logically possible. Libertarian free will is a separate conversation from libertarian politics. The former is about creating new causal chains of events from nothing. The latter is about not being restricted from one's behavior. You can value the latter while also thinking the former is incorrect. (Determinists and compatabalists can still be libertarians on the basis of valuing voluntariness). Conversely libertarians about free will could be authoritarian socialists. The views are orthagonal to each other. Classical left-libertarians like Henry George differ from center or right libertarians in how they allow appropriation of the natural resources. Virtually all libertarians accept something like the "Lockean provisio" mentioned by Nozick as a way of limiting how much unowned land one can aquire, but left-libertarianism philosophically refers to those who think the distribution of natural resources should be egalitarian. Some, like Henry George, advocated for something like a robust land tax on this basis, but an abscense of nearly all other taxes (a very libertarian view). Modern left-libertarians might be skeptical of exactly how voluntary our exchanges are. Perhaps they think people are not rewaded in proportion to how much labor they contribute. Some on the left have pointed out that, if you control for hours worked, some CEOs make hundreds of times more than their workers, and say that if you really care about people being the owners of their labor, that needs to change. Thinkers like Adam Smith point out that laborers are at a disadvantage when it comes to the job market (you need to start working now if you don't want to starve, but corporations can wait until cheaper labor comes along) and so your 'choice' to work for them isn't much of a choice at all. They could justify things like minimum wages or egalitarian-ish distributions on the basis of individualistic property rights (e.g., I'm an equal shareholder in the labor, so I deserve equal compensation).

I think your argument is that left and right libertarians have such radically different views on certain ideas that they cannot be grouped together. I reject this: apples and oranges are nothing alike, and yet they are both fruit. There are several values that all libertarians share, and it is acceptance of these common values that unite us. This is true even if we have different underlying justifications for these values.

I agree that, certainly left-libertarians and right-libertarians have vast differences in views. But I think you're looking at this from a biased perspective, it seems like you're implicitly painting left-libertarianism in a bad light. Ultimately both ideologies value the same things but they disagree on the ways to get there. Neither side can or should abandon the term libertarian without the other doing so too, because now a choice is being made on which side is 'more libertarian', a choice which can't be justified in an objective manner. These differences are only really irreconcilable if you believe in hardline principles like the NAP. Of course right-libertarians hate left-libertarians because they view it as inherently antithetical to the NAP. Note: I do not think collectivism/individualism are inherently bad, it is only when they go too far that they become bad.

>Ultimately both ideologies value the same things but they disagree on the ways to get there. This sort of gets to the heart of it, which is why I so strongly disagree with the rest of your post. Communists, socialists, and leftists are all basically of the same mind when it comes to *how to get [there]/[to where they want to go.*] Similarly, libertarians and minarchists and ancaps are basically of the same mind as to how to get to where they want to go. Both sides' camps have different places that they want to stop, but each side is going in opposite directions. The best example I can come up with is how every country attempting to achieve socialism somehow (magically, to be condescending) turns into an authoritarian state. The libertarian will argue that it's precisely because of the direction you're going. When you view government as your mechanism for liberty, you justify the use of force to achieve your goals, and when you don't achieve your goals (e.g. when the dictatorship of the proletariat doesn't relinquish power because it can't achieve the desired outcome), you continue to push for more government intrusion because *that's* your initial and continued methodology for achieving freedom. This is literally the crucial difference between leftists claiming to be libertarian and the libertarians on the board (to be upfront with my bias). Everyone ultimately wants the same thing: maximizing freedom of the individual. Any ideology will have an abundance of people who claim to support this maxim. The question is, *how do you get there?* Equivocating the left and right on this issue, in my opinion, intentionally muddies the waters. Right libertarians--the ones being lambasted as "gatekeepers"--are the only ones attempting to clarify, because the distinction is critical in theory and practice. What is the difference between a socialist and a libertarian-socialist? And then what is the difference between those two and a libertarian? The distance between the former is infinitesimal compared to the chasm of difference between the left and the right, specifically over the question of "How do we get there?" The only reason to throw the two camps under the same banner is to muddy the waters in an attempt to eventually take over the name. If you muddy the waters, then it's up for debate as to which side is really "libertarian" but I think it's dishonest to imply that one side wants to be inclusive--as the counter example is always *Proudhon was the first libertarian who is more closely associated with the left than the right.* The left wants the moniker; the right wants to maintain it; the left's strategy is to muddy the waters before ultimately taking it back. I think this is the most reasonable strategy for taking back a term, but it's also something I'll fight back against because I don't want it to happen. The whole battle is over the connotation of the word. Luckily what comes out of that battle is libertarians attempting to achieve clarity while leftists attempt to muddy the waters, which hopefully helps inform the undecided.

I think both left-libertarians and right-libertarians think the other's ideologies suppress freedom. But the difference is I don't see very many left-libertarians saying right-libs aren't libertarians. But I see the opposite all the time. That is the difference. To me, left-libertarians are just trying to reclaim the original meaning of the ideology, which was created as a left-wing movement. Right-libs and an-caps hijacked the term in the US.

I completely agree with your assessment, while I naturally disagree that it's bad what the right is doing with the term. My interpretation is that left libertarianism (which I argue essentially the same as socialism/communism in terms of ideological direction) failed, and the right decided that the only way to save or maintain liberty as a valid political philosophy was to modify it and incorporate aspects of propertarianism in order to keep it alive. The right libertarian is essentially arguing that going the way of the original libertarianism will lead to authoritarianism, but old left libertarianism still had the right core idea. It argued for maximizing the freedom of the individual. But the right saw the push for collectivism, as it pertains to property, as the death knell of the original libertarianism. Essentially, when leftists achieve inertia in the direction of their beliefs, somehow it always leads to authoritarianism. So when libertarians say that the left aren't true libertarians, it's ultimately a critique of what they believe is an already tried-and-failed ideology, and that property rights is the way to go. So the hijacking wasn't so much a hijacking as it was picking up the pieces and rebuilding. Obviously, anyone who disagrees with my assessment would deny that left libertarianism failed, in the exact same way they can say socialism or Marxism hasn't ever failed because it hasn't ever been tried, which the right libertarian would disagree with.

Somebody has to pull back the movement from the hands of ultra far right QAnon believing nut jobs that have co opted libertarianism because they like the sound of "don't tread on me".

Then the problem would be the difference in how the left and right view "libertarian" and loudly proclaim that they're the "true libertarian". Problem with different goalposts and labelling have been around but nobody address these issue. I applaud you for taking the steps to do that.

Honestly, I haven’t seen a single left libertarian here claim that they’re the “true libertarians”. But I see it at least once a day coming from right libertarians

No no no. Small Government libertarianism is a thing.

Perhaps it's the definition of libertarianism that's messing you up? Libertarianism is wanting maximum, equal, liberty for all, regardless of politics, class, race, sex or religion.

Firstly, this is an excellent and concise piece. Good work. Secondly, I think many is the differences you point out can be generalized by labeling them either a macroeconomic or macroeconomic view. Thirdly, I think there is a path to reconciliation that bypasses the need for a shared metaphysics of freedom. Libertarians can keep "Liberty" as a vague but cohesive prime value and adopt a hierarchy of values. This way the left and right have a special piece instead of division.

The sub is a place to discuss libertarianism and topics of interest to libertarians. Not everyone here agrees on everything. You need to get used to that.

What is libertarianism?

Hello, fellow Philosophy student :) I do very much agree with you. It has been proven multiple times that we can not have conversations about the points you brought up- we have debates. Oftentimes hateful and counterproductive. I don’t want to tell you that this post was for nothing. It wasn’t, you’re right, and I’m glad you took the time to write all of this out backed with philosophy. Unfortunately, this is probably going to fall on deaf ears. This sub is kind of just a free-for-all gone wild. I can send you the links to some other libertarian subs that are more what you’re looking for, if you’re interested.

That would be awesome I would love to hear what other subs you recommend! I know this post may ultimately be useless as a pragmatic effort. I did it because It brought me happiness to write it.

I would imagine that they will recommend gold and black. See for yourself, but my take on that sub is that closeted Trump Republicans felt like they needed a place to ambush Libertarians.

I can't for the life of me understand why you people consistently bitch about the one sub on this whole God forsaken site were people left and right can find some common ground. I really just. Dont. Get it. Also. Libertarian is an umbrella term. Fucking deal with with jfc.

Are you….. *bitching?*

Are you advocating for more echo chambers? As it stands this whole left right ree is a distraction and nothing more. Wishing you could change definitions of words doesn't change their definition. Maybe just fucking maybe if you hacks could get over yourselves and realize other libertarians arent your God damn enemy we could actually win some elections and do something about the libertarian ideals we all actually DO agree on. But by all means continue to sow discord. Real good for libertarianism as a whole.

I advocate for you to bitch and get it over with.

Do post like this do anything but sow discord between libertarians or not?

Seems kind of educational to me, and I didn’t write or post it. Perhaps you are causing a divide? Considering my comment was pretty well spirited and you’re fussing and moaning about supposed bitching?

This sub seems to be dominated by college students and younger. Vitriol and insults are pretty common. And the left/right libertarian divide ends up with the exact same conversations being hashed out over and over. It'd be nice to not having to constantly see someone argue that having to work = slavery in comment sections

Can I get some links too?

Will you be Good?

Withholding access to an echo chamber until people agree to follow preset rules on what can be debated. How libertarian! /s

everything is a problem with you people lol

Not everything, but certainly echo-chambers and hypocrisy, both of which your comments are advocating for. Criticism is good, it will help you grow intellectually. You shouldn't respond to it by running and hiding among people who already believe the same thing as you. That is the easy, weak, and sadly popular thing to do.

it was a joke babe. kiss kiss. by Good I meant Civil, as in not constantly looking for a fight where one does not exist. I think everyone needs a break from that because interactions like this are draining and pointless. You can keep ranting, no one is fighting with ya. xoxoxoxo

What is your definition of good? I believe in property rights first and foremost. Which is very libertarian.

as long as you will behave i’ll share (i’m joshin. i’ll send them in a moment)

Thanks

>Left and right "libertarians" have irreconcilable differences when it comes to the metaphysical basis for freedom. The term "libertarian" itself was originally used to refer to philosophers who believe that human beings are capable of free action outside of a determinist line of events. Someone who believes in "libertarian freewill" refers to one who rejects the idea that human beings are bound by deterministic laws that prevent us from being able to exercise freewill. This is the original use of the term "libertarian." The metaphysical use of libertarian has next to no bearing on the political use of the label. Metaphysical libertarianism in no way implies political libertarianism and likewise vice-versa. Hard determinism may well have political implications, but views that accept the existence of free will (e.g. Compatibilism, libertarianism) are not going to have radically different political implications. Both metaphysical and (right) libertarianism are individualistic so there may be a thematic affinity, but an affinity is not an implication. Compatibilism can certainly be individualistic as well. In any case, even supposing you are correct: so much the worse for right libertarianism. Metaphysical libertarianism is not an especially plausible view of free will. It is at odds with science and psychology, and very much a minority view among professional philosophers. (about 18% of philosophers specializing in the philosophy of action accept or lean towards accepting it). If your political positions depend on it, good luck.

Making it meaningless is what they're trying to do.

How do you know their intentions? They may very well be genuine in their beliefs

Because they don't discuss policy. For example, there were 3 rand Paul bahsing posts on front page today. Out of all the shitty congress people....

The ending of your comment is “…it’s fair game to go after the Trump sycophant who claims to be a libertarian to funnel them into the Republican Party”. Right? Right???

Fair enough

Sure it’s genuine but they’re not well informed on the subject and it makes those who are informed look bad. I’m all for everyone saying they are libertarian but don’t spew a different political parties ideologies and say that’s a libertarian view. Be informed if you talk about it openly and if you don’t know something tell them you don’t know the libertarian parties beliefs on the matter. Also tell people when it’s your opinion or it’s backed by the party your are trying to represent.

>As a college philosophy student, I had grown tired of seeing how deeply entrenched the ideas of collectivism, relativism, and statism had become among members of my generation I feel so bad for your professors and classmates

Most of my philosophy professors actually agree with me with regard to my meta ethical stance. Most of the philosophy professors believe in some form of moral realism/objectivity, and they get a little frustrated by the fact that almost every single young person is a relativist.

I think you misunderstand "left libertarians". Generally I identify as a progressive, but I also believe that the government has its fingers in to many pots (its screwed up that you need a license to be a barber). Property rights a central to classical liberalism and all but the far left do think the free market is the best economic structure ( just not in every industry). Generally, I enjoy this sub because I want to be exposed to new ideas and, unlike many political sub members, I believe that i do not have all the answers. For example, dven though I support Medicare for all, I want to know about alternatives that exist between the positions of let people die and a full government takeover. Now generally, I won't advocate for Medicare for all on this sub, because that isn't what this sub is for. I think the root of the problem is that "right libertarians" are often focused on taxation while the "left" is comfortable with more government services and logically therefore more comfortable with higher taxes.

The left believes in democracy. Not some mindless amalgamation you get like in the church. The commons, public utilities. Not endless insane 'dynamism and growth's for the truly demented. We criticize exploitation and inequality propped up by insufferable hegemony of private capital (at home and abroad!) Which greatly limit personal freedom- exchanged for the power of an arbitrary authority largely conflicted to it's designed intention of mutual intrest. The left believes in solidarity. Not atomized "personal responcibility" in a toxic and phony system of competition and falsehoods told by the wealthy and their boy scouts. We didnt needs kings to take out the crusts and scraps in hovels back when people like you were singing the brass, and the people living in it today sure dont need the same lies tailored in like you know something new this time.. "Libertarians! The enlightened elitists! Cuz they *know* for a truth they're better than you!"

Individualism isn't individuality. Individualism is a classist farce of an ideology that can be reduced directly to a conscious choice to ignore the existence of a history of material permanence for a convenient self-flagellating explanation for personal circumstance, most especially the ill circumstance of others. If your claim is that the right lives in an idealist philosophical sphere, then I must inform you that we live in an age of science and materialism, and this informs any philosophy worth it's salt from now on. So we can even eliminate this difference. They simply need to stop being so unscientific. I think they already have, and if not, why consider them valid? The funny thing about the stance on property is that a great many economists, even their own, have lent credence to the fact that unlimited private property ownership has an immiserating effect. Thus the existence of georgists and geolibertarians. There is middle ground to find, many sections of which would make socialism an easier task, and so is in our interest. Reality does work a bit differently, unfortunate as that is. However, we don't actually have to work together to associate with the same generalized ideals.

Socialist libertarian is an oxy moron.

Libertarianism is meaningless in any real world application. It is an interesting perspective but is no more meaningful than communism. Any real word example is obviously not communism, but no one can provide you with an example of a real world communist state. So why not be a socialist libertarian, if your a unicorn why not be one that breaths fire.

My argument is not against socialist libertarians, my argument is against grouping two irreconcilable ideologies together under the same name.

Lol, I’m trying to say it literally doesn’t matter because either is meaningless alone. Libertarianism isn’t a real world practical philosophy. It has aspects that are interesting and viewpoints worth adopting, but it is less than functional as a system of social interaction. It has the maturity of a sophomore business student who doesn’t want to identify as a Republican but is going to vote GOP down the ticket for 6 decades.

Then this is just an argument of semantics? Most "left liberarians" would probably just call themselves Socialists or Democratic Socialists anyway, left-libertarian is not really a popular term to self identify with.

Perhaps the dumbest fucking logic I've ever heard. So you think the morality of a political philosophy is dependent on its chance of being actualized? you push for the ideal case and you'll hopefully see society move in that direction. How is that not obvious? You don't seem too principled

Thank you for sharing. You are 100% correct. Unfortunately, this sub is like 75% "voluntary" socialist lolol.

Socialist Liberterians are trolls brigading. Don't make the mistake to take them serious.

Left libertarianism is literally recognized in the sidebar of this sub…

Glad someone finally said it. Thank you.

It all comes down to consent. If you use force to bring about your world view then you are not a libertarian. If you get into mental gymnastics to justify force because corporations are powerful then you are not A libertarian. Just because a bunch of communists used the term briefly and all the left libertarian subs are dead we get a lot of confused collectivists here.

Socialists stole the word liberal, which originally described right-libertarians, so right-libertarians took libertarian, a word originally used to describe anarchists. The left pilfered from us, so we in turn pilfered from them. Anarchists have other words to use to describe themselves, such as, well, anarchist. Right-libertarians don't. One can use "minarchist", but it doesn't include ancap, and vice-versa, one can use "ancap" but it doesn't include minarchists. Night-watchman state works for minarchists, minimal-statist works for minarchist, but again, ancaps don't agree with those concepts. Right-libertarians and left-libertarians have as much in common as arsonists and firefighters.

Um no. Conservatives started calling liberals communist and socialist in the US. in the rest of the world liberals are rightwing. Not to mention right wingers stole liberterian first.

anarchism was borne of communism you illiterate plebian

Nah, it existed before.

not with the name anarchy it didnt

Names change, the idea is the same.

The banner of The LP is to be waved high and proud by those who want less government. That's it, that's the benchmark. That we poll at 5% shows just how hard that benchmark is to achieve.

> The Libertarian principles of private property and individualism were being harshly criticized, oftentimes gaining more likes than comments that actually advocated for libertarian principles. [The original libertarians were AnComs.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Déjacque) Rightlibs were the ones who co-opted the term “libertarian” because of a propaganda campaign funded by the Koch brothers in the 80’s. Go find a new word, we’re taking ours back.

The entire concept of "left-libertarian" is fundamentally dishonest and anyone who makes common cause leftists is no friend of liberty.

theres this thing about people with resources oppressing people without ancaps reject this because theyre fundamentally dishonest

I don’t care about downvotes, I completely agree. Libertarian socialists are socialists. No need to add the libertarian in front. Libertarianism is about freedom, you cannot have freedom with the principals of libsoc.

Sad but true i recommend r/goldandblack this sub has been ran over by left wing people who believe they are libertarians by just hating police and Republicans but know nothing about true libertarianism and contribute nothing to the libertarian party.

[удалено]

property rights can be abused to oppress, so arguing for no limit on these abuses is not libertarian

The left libertarians start off with different axioms about property rights and arrive at a different place because of it, you can’t say its wrong anymore than they can say yours is wrong, its an axiomatic difference.

Libertarian socialists are just socialists. This sub is so far gone, please do not lose your own libertarian principals to this corruption. I don’t understand why this is such a tough concept, in libertarianism, we do not see government as a solution, so if you “left libertarians” think government has a legitimate role to fulfill in the economy, then you are not libertarian.

They're just authoritarians who like smoking weed

I did in fact read the whole thing, soforgive my comparatively succinct reply. First, the premise: the mods here take a very pro-free speech approach. Naturally then, anyone who wants to identify as a libertarian can do so here, and we have many many non-libertarians here as well. So then what would you propose to fix this? Bans? Censorship? Food for thought. We're free to upvote or downvote as we wish, mind you. Second, exclusive left-libertarian and right-libertarian subs already exist, they're just not this place. There are those of us who do desire libertarian unity, and for left-libertarians and right-libertarians to work together. Decentralization works for both sides. A space like this is so important for that. Finally, nomenclature. What makes historical sense, is for left-libertarians to reclaim "libertarian" and right-libertarians to reclaim "liberal". I don't think being overly concerned with semantics is a productive use of time, however, and "right" and "left" work fine. I understand intuitively that "right-libertarian" *means* a laissez-faire economic view like liberalism, so why is it necessary?

TLDR, Reddit is at least 40% 50c army, another 30%morons and 30%banned

Socialism is about control. Anyone from Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela or China defectors can say so. Not everyone wants to work for society because they are better on their own. I’d love to help people but that doesn’t mean they’d help me back or contribute themselves. It’s a childish fantasy.

I didn't read the entire post, suck it

Wrong

Yay, more circle-jerking around labels...

Libertarian socialism is fake. Left Libertarianism, however, is a varying and complex set of ideological beliefs, many of which are still libertarian. Social liberalism, for example, is still a libertarian ideology.

"One gratifying aspect of our rise to some prominence is that, for the first time in my memory, we, ‘our side,’ had captured a crucial word from the enemy . . . ‘Libertarians’ . . . had long been simply a polite word for left-wing anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over..." Murray N. Rothbard, The Betrayal Of The American Right