From Wikipedia:

Quote :

"Libertarians embrace viewpoints across that spectrum ranging from pro-property to anti-property, from minimal government to openly anarchist... The word libertarian is an antonym of authoritarian."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

Where do left and right libertarians converge and where do they differentiate?

Any given online political quiz contains two axes: libertarian vs authoritarian on one axis, and some variation of left vs right on the other.



As a libertarian, I fear consolidation of power - whether that be of a government, a business or a union.

Libertarians should find common ground in one aspect: opposing authoritarianism. The DNC and RNC are both clearly forms of authoritarian power.

At this time, shouldn't a third party form that incorporates both left and right libertarians within its ranks? Or are political parties contrary to libertarian principles in general?

[Edited on August 20, 2009 at 12:46 PM. Reason : ]

8/20/2009 12:46:31 PM

When third parties have broadly appealing ideas that could steal away parts of a bigger party the ideas tend to get adopted by bigger parties, so I'm not sure I see another big party taking off any time soon.

One of those political tests said I was on the verge of being a libertarian (being socially liberal, & fiscally somewhat moderate with a leaning more towards equality of opportunity than equality of outcome... some of the things I like about the ACLU make me also like some parts of libertarianism), and I respect them more than most republican ideologies. But most libertarians I've met in practice tend to end up acting just like republicans. Like BJ Lawson who ran for congress & lost recently. When I talked to him he seemed like a decent guy with some views on civil liberties that I could related to, but Lawson being anti-federal grants to the research triangle, anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, & his opposition to federal funding for education just didn't sit well with me.



[Edited on August 20, 2009 at 1:00 PM. Reason : .]

8/20/2009 12:59:58 PM

The only hope libertarianism has, at least for now, is in the Republican party. Unfortunately, the libertarian message is often at odds with the GOP, who seem to want to force their morality on the rest of us.

It isn't possible, under the current system, for a third party to gain a substantial amount of power.

[Edited on August 20, 2009 at 2:47 PM. Reason : ]

8/20/2009 2:46:28 PM

^Well Lawson at least isn't going to support the republican trying to follow in his foot steps in taking on Congressman Price.

Quote :

"There is another Republican candidate who has declared his intent to contest Price in NC-04. While he was kind enough to seek my endorsement, we fundamentally disagree on the value of the Federal Reserve and its communist, debt-based money. Plank 5 of the Communist Manifesto details how we have been turned us into Wall Street’s debt slaves, and until we correctly diagnose our underlying economic illness, the mad scientists in Washington and on Wall Street are simply making things worse. His defense of this unsustainable system is understandable, as he is a currency trader previously employed by Societe Generale — the French bank that profited handsomely from your (and my) bailing out AIG. Caveat emptor."

I would be interested in seeing a libertarian run as a democrat the way they often do as republicans, just to see how well they would do. They are supposed to have overlaps with both parties, but if they only ever run on one side they start to look just like republicans with a more pc name.

8/20/2009 3:13:28 PM

Quote :

"Left-libertarianism combines the libertarian premise that each person possesses a natural right of self-ownership with the egalitarian premise that natural resources should be shared equally. Left-libertarianism holds that unappropriated natural resources are either unowned or owned in common, believing that private appropriation is only legitimate if everyone can appropriate an equal amount, or if private appropriation is taxed to compensate those who are excluded from natural resources. This contrasts with right libertarians who argue for a right to appropriate unequal parts of the external world, such as land."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism

there are obvious reasons why left libertarianism is just as impracticable as right libertarianism.

8/20/2009 3:27:39 PM

^^Republicans are supposed to stand for limited government, and they did at one point. Most Libertarians that run as Republicans today will argue that mainstream republicans are not real Republicans. A libertarian couldn't find a home in the democrat party. Democrats do not stand for individual freedom anymore than the current Republican party does.

The real problem is that people judge on party label. People are dumb enough to never, ever vote for a Republican, and always vote for a Democrat, or the reverse. I constantly see people criticizing individuals like Peter Schiff and Rand Paul for running as Republicans. They'll make comments like "Run as an independent, you're just giving the evil republicans more power." Unfortunately, when you do that (run as an independent), you simply split the conservative vote and guarantee that the democrat incumbent wins. This is a two party system, and you have to work within that system if you want to make a difference.

8/20/2009 3:38:58 PM

Quote :

"there are obvious reasons why left libertarianism is just as impracticable as right libertarianism. "

its worked before

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_communities




(while some of those in the list may not fall directly under "left-libertarianism" they are pretty damn close)

8/20/2009 3:47:12 PM

oh.... this thread is so amusing in light of this recent event...


Summary:

The (libertarian) CEO of (liberal) Whole Foods wrote an op-ed about how he wants health care reform, but Obama's plan sucks. The (liberal) customers now are boycotting the store in droves. Why? Here's what he said:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204251404574342170072865070.html

Quote :

"•Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover. These mandates have increased the cost of health insurance by billions of dollars. What is insured and what is not insured should be determined by individual customer preferences and not through special-interest lobbying. •Enact tort reform to end the ruinous lawsuits that force doctors to pay insurance costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. These costs are passed back to us through much higher prices for health care. •Make costs transparent so that consumers understand what health-care treatments cost. How many people know the total cost of their last doctor's visit and how that total breaks down? What other goods or services do we buy without knowing how much they will cost us? •Enact Medicare reform. We need to face up to the actuarial fact that Medicare is heading towards bankruptcy and enact reforms that create greater patient empowerment, choice and responsibility. •Finally, revise tax forms to make it easier for individuals to make a voluntary, tax-deductible donation to help the millions of people who have no insurance and aren't covered by Medicare, Medicaid or the State Children's Health Insurance Program. "

Here's what the liberals said:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/17/whole-foods-fight/

Quote :

"“the bottom line for me, reading Mackey’s op-ed, is that by shopping at Whole Foods I’m giving money to a Republican and I am supporting by proxy a donation to the RNC and to health scare front groups like Patients First. I don’t give money to Republicans, so I will have to cross Whole Foods off my list.”"

Quote :

"So is it a shock he just came out with an idiotic and harmful statement about health care? No. Is it an outrage? Yeah. Does it necessitate a boycott of WFM? I don’t know. . . ."

The Boycott Whole Foods Facebook group:

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=119099537379&ref=search&sid=613829154.2008204298..1





See that? That's the treatment that Libertarians get from Democrats.

Apparently, the Democrats are to stupid and arrogant to convert to libertarian, or even consider it valid in any way, shape, or form. Just like Republicans.

Bottom line: People don't care what you say, only that you agree with them. Let this be a lesson to you all.

[Edited on August 20, 2009 at 5:47 PM. Reason : ?s]

8/20/2009 5:46:00 PM

^I for one am as democratic as you get and I have not joined the boycott group, and I know others in the democratic party arguing against the boycott or at least not participating. All in all, with money being free speech, & free speech being a liberty I like to engage in, I am okay with the boycott happening even if I find it to be silly & have no plans to join the facebook group even if 21k+ others have. I think it is perhaps a better outlet for frustrations than going to a group meeting between a representative & his or her constituents & shouting to the point that only your side gets heard.

Interesting discussions they're having over there: "Return Shopping Bags for Refund"

8/20/2009 5:55:38 PM

Quote :

" All in all, with money being free speech, & free speech being a liberty I like to engage in, I am okay with the boycott happening even if I find it to be silly & have no plans to join the facebook group even if 21k+ others have."

I don't think anyone is saying that they don't have a right to boycott, or is even accusing you of being especially sympathetic to said boycotts, but the fact that someone who recognizes the common goal (expanding access to affordable, high-quality care) but proposes a different ends gets basically written off by a large swath of liberals (particularly those of the netroots variety) as a stock Republican or worse is a little distressing.

I don't expect everyone to agree with his ideas - far from it. But to act as if the idea of putting forward a genuine counter-proposal to achieve a common goal puts him in the same league as those A) defending the status quo or B) Screaming "death panels!" is absurd, and exactly what these morons are doing.

I mean, we hear all the time about how libertarians should have just as much common cause with liberals, but the minute a libertarian proposes something different than orthodoxy when the Democrats are in power, they pretty much get crucified. All this in spite of the fact that Whole Foods is easily one of the most progressive corporate entities out there and has donated generously to fashionable liberal causes.

If this isn't demanding complete and total adherence to liberal orthodoxy, then what exactly is?

8/20/2009 6:03:34 PM

^^ My point was more that the lies they're all spreading about the WF CEO are despicable. Everything I read from them makes me think "you didn't read his original op-ed did you?"

Why, as a Democrat, should you be a-okay with such a boycott? What are the reasons the boycott is based on? Do they make any sense? Are they justifiable?

Did the WF CEO say anything about people not having the right to health care?
He was perfectly clear that he agrees with the point that Obama keeps making - something needs to be done. He was practically invited by the president to come out with this.
Then, he very amicably states why he disagrees with the current plan.

So, is your political line established by advocating general democratic ideals, or by adherence to a specific plan? If it's the former, then John Mackey should be a poster child for the left leaning libertarian. The problem is - the left threw him out of the boat. Are you ok with your fellow democrats ostracizing this fellow? Really?

[Edited on August 20, 2009 at 6:10 PM. Reason : ]

8/20/2009 6:09:17 PM

There's no solid idea for what a libertarian actually is for anyone to conform to or rally around. Just look at how DrSteveChaos butts heads with earthdogg.

And I think i've only been to one Whole Foods ever, and it was only because it was in walking distance of where I was. Other than that, I don't care about whole foods. I wouldn't boycott on the basis of the op-ed though, that's just dumb (but within the rights of the people who do feel the need to boycott).

[Edited on August 20, 2009 at 6:37 PM. Reason : ]

8/20/2009 6:35:36 PM

I'm still pretty confident a well-represented 3rd party will not be viable in the 2012 Presidential Election...ie I'm 99.999999999999% sure a Dem or Rep will be President next term

8/20/2009 6:37:51 PM

Quote :

"I wouldn't boycott on the basis of the op-ed though, that's just dumb (but within the rights of the people who do feel the need to boycott)."

Hey, it's what a company gets for catering to a crowd of whiny gullible morons. That'll show the free market to ever do that again... follows from what you said there.

8/20/2009 7:16:55 PM

Here we have a company that caters to the far left. The CEO of the company makes a sharply conservative op-ed in a prominent news outlet about a fiery issue and their customers react appropriately.

Yes, the views he expressed in the article (well-reasoned for the most part imo) can be considered "Libertarian", but there is nothing distinctly Libertarian about it. It's basically the same argument many moderate conservatives are making.

It's not unusual or unacceptable to let your politics affect where you shop. I haven't eaten at Chik-Fil-A in ages, and would wholly support a boycott on them for having anything to do with Focus on the Family. Unfortunately, the Whole Foods boycott is probably more a result of the exaggerations and fire-poking from liberal pundits, than from outrage based on facts, which is sad.

[Edited on August 20, 2009 at 8:38 PM. Reason : libertarians sabotaged my grammar]

8/20/2009 8:31:03 PM

Peter Schiff will win in 2012

8/20/2009 9:15:21 PM

^^ I wouldn't consider that op-ed "sharply conservative," it is just of a different opinion that what the boycotters perceive "the democrats" plan to be.

8/20/2009 9:20:28 PM

I perceive the typical WF shopper to be stongly in favor of universal health care. Mackey's op-ed is decidedly anti-universal health-care.

8/20/2009 9:34:46 PM

I would imagine that the people who can afford to shop at whole foods also have the money to pay for health care. If anything, they would agree wholeheartedly with the recommendations he made to lower health care costs in the private sector.

8/20/2009 10:14:26 PM

Quote :

"Mackey's op-ed is decidedly anti-universal health-care."

How do we define "universal health-care?" Strictly speaking, if we define it as, "everyone has access to high-quality, affordable care," it seems like one is not bound by logical necessity to a government solution alone, which appears to be Mackey's intent.

On the other hand, if we define it narrowly as "single payer / public option / etc." then fine. But this definition makes "universal healthcare" a very loaded term. Meanwhile, as has been pointed out by the CBO and others, even Obama's plan doesn't really fit the definition of "universal."

8/20/2009 10:29:56 PM

Quote :

"Peter Schiff will win in 2012"

Even when it becomes painfully obvious that he's been right all along, Democrats will still think the only answer is to spend more. Somehow, the inflation will have been the fault of the "free markets," not irresponsible government action and the federal reserve.

8/20/2009 10:55:55 PM

Couldn't ya'll have hijacked one of Hooksaw's threads? I know I've seen this Whole Foods discussion debated in another thread already.

Anyway,

Quote :

"When third parties have broadly appealing ideas that could steal away parts of a bigger party the ideas tend to get adopted by bigger parties, so I'm not sure I see another big party taking off any time soon."

Quote :

"It isn't possible, under the current system, for a third party to gain a substantial amount of power."

Quote :

"This is a two party system, and you have to work within that system if you want to make a difference."

The perception I had when creating this thread was that left libertarians mostly distrust powerful corporations and right libertarians mostly distrust powerful government. The RNC and DNC are both very powerful corporations that are heavily involved in the government and the democratic process.

I would think that both forms of libertarians would inherently refuse to participate within the current constraints established through these corporate-government entities.

8/20/2009 11:43:02 PM

more like

LOLertarians in 2010

amirite?

8/21/2009 12:46:06 AM

[Edited on August 21, 2009 at 12:46 AM. Reason : ]

8/21/2009 12:46:36 AM

Quote :

"The RNC and DNC are both very powerful corporations that are heavily involved in the government and the democratic process."

Yes, but the RNC and DNC only came about due to the struggle that was already present between both parties. One side of the political debate isn't just going to sit back while the other side raises more money/has superior organization, and as a result, wins elections.

Quote :

"I would think that both forms of libertarians would inherently refuse to participate within the current constraints established through these corporate-government entities."

If they're satisfied with never winning elections, and having close to zero political influence...then yeah. You can't change the system if you're not willing to work with it. It would be nice if you could take a principled stand and stay out of party politics, while still having an effect on things. That's just not how it is, though.

8/21/2009 1:55:00 AM

Quote :

"At this time, shouldn't a third party form that incorporates both left and right libertarians within its ranks? "

How do you reconcile these two camps? There are HUGE differences between an economic and a social libertarian.


Many Libertarians with a capital L are oblivious to this. Most social libertarians have no more interest handing more power and influence over to corporations than to government.

8/21/2009 9:51:57 AM

http://www.pirate-party.us/

8/21/2009 10:07:37 AM

^^
There are huge differences between the Democrat and Republican parties too, but they seem to reconcile theirs when barring third parties from participating in presidential debates.

Quote :

"Many Libertarians with a capital L are oblivious to this. Most social libertarians have no more interest handing more power and influence over to corporations than to government."

You may need to elaborate on this point; I'm just not sure what you meant to imply. Many Libertarians are oblivious to the differences between themselves and left libertarians?

I agree that social libertarians do not desire giving more power to corporations than to government. Would economic libertarians require that as part of a political settlement?

[Edited on August 21, 2009 at 11:31 PM. Reason : ]

8/21/2009 11:20:31 PM

Mike Gravel, a democratic primary contender in the recent presidential election who would become a libertarian, made his fellow democrats answer tough questions about their stances on war related issues. I don't know the if the future of the libertarian party is death by absorption into a larger party, but I know the democratic party can use a few of them to keep 'em honest.

8/22/2009 1:29:01 AM

I think that a lot of economic libertarians would make this argument to social libertarians worried about corporations increasing in power:


By ending subsidies to many of these corporations, bringing troops home from bases around the world, ending entangling trade agreements and reigning in the FED's manipulation of the dollar you would see these corporations cease to be as lucrative as they are now. Some may even argue that huge multinationals would have to become smaller companies to survive.

whether or not this is true remains to be seen. They would also make the argument that as soon as a corporation infringes on your rights, you could sue the pants off of them. (I dont always agree with this part of the argument, it could take a lot of time, money and lawyers to sue a large corporation, not something most of us have access to)

8/22/2009 10:39:06 AM

Quote :

"They would also make the argument that as soon as a corporation infringes on your rights, you could sue the pants off of them. (I dont always agree with this part of the argument, it could take a lot of time, money and lawyers to sue a large corporation, not something most of us have access to)"

If a corporation infringes upon your rights, there should be a way to rectify that. If there's not a way, that's a problem. That's a primary (and legitimate) purpose of government - to protect the individual's rights. An individual shouldn't need to hire a bunch of lawyers to not get violated by a corporation.

Quote :

"Many Libertarians with a capital L are oblivious to this. Most social libertarians have no more interest handing more power and influence over to corporations than to government."

This is where I don't really see the conflict here. Why does it have to be "protection from corporations" *or* "protection from government." The libertarian should want both. It's not a simple matter of "handing power" to corporations or government. Corporations don't exist to protect your rights - governments do. So, of course you're going to give more power to the government when it comes to accomplishing that goal - right and left libertarians should agree on that.

[Edited on August 22, 2009 at 1:17 PM. Reason : ]

8/22/2009 1:14:46 PM

^ Im going to say right now that they will not.

8/22/2009 4:06:46 PM

That may be true, I'm not sure. Perhaps some "right libertarians" could voice their opinion on it. Most libertarians that I hear of are not talking about eliminating government, but minimizing its power in areas where it has no business being. If they disagree with the premise that government's purpose is to protect the rights of the individual, then that's alright. I'd be interested to know what they think the purpose of government is, and why they call themselves libertarian at all.

8/22/2009 6:39:42 PM

^^

8/23/2009 12:42:19 PM

So is right libertarianism supposed to a wholesale stripping down of government's power? Isn't that simplifying things a bit too much? Do they not believe in the rule of law, and having a government that can enforce laws? I thought that was what separated anarchists from libertarians.

8/23/2009 3:31:52 PM

No, that's what sets right libertarians from Roosevelt republicans.

8/23/2009 4:51:59 PM

I was repressed and expelled from the boycott wholefoods group due to my dissension

8/26/2009 9:53:36 AM

well anyway, group got deleted it seems

[Edited on August 26, 2009 at 10:14 AM. Reason : ]

8/26/2009 9:57:04 AM