Today's WTF: Left Libertarian Feminists Strike Back at Molyneux

[dalebert]

Seems to me, Libertarian Left would imply a person who believes in a certain amount of social programs.

I often self-describe as a left libertarian. Based on my experience with others who self-describe that way, it means sharing the goals of the left but not the tactics and libertarianism is all about tactics. It's not about where you're trying to go. It's about how you're willing to get there and what you believe will both be ethical and can actually work.

Read this article and you might get an idea why I'd might sometimes choose the term "left libertarian" or "classical liberal" to self-describe.

http://storeyinstitute.blogspot.com/2012/01/why-libertarians-need-to-talk-to-left.html

[dalebert]

Do you actually have a beef with something in that article? Seems solid to me.

Hey Dale, pardon my utter stupidity, but were you serious in your defense of the feminist article or were you being facetious?

So I'm going to interpret that as a "no", that you can't actually find anything in the article that you can actually logically dispute but rather you're just having a knee-jerk reaction to an article by feminists.

I repeat. It was very well-written and made very good points. No, not being facetious. I sincerely liked the article.

[dalebert]

I'm surprised you guys would doubt my sincerity on the subject of feminism and counting myself as a feminist. It's not like I'm doing it to impress women. I don't need to. I don't need shit from them.

I understand not liking the word for the reasons given but if you obsess too much over the word, you just sound like you're making excuses to be dismissive of the actual issues, which are real. That's the word people are using. Go ahead and try to change it, but throw a bone to the issues if you want to be taken seriously.

[alaric89]

Congrats. Having had "feminists" and other progressives try and use force on me I may admit a certain dislike of the ilk. I also can not stand to hear those bitches wanting to ruin men's lives over minutia like many crazies in WOW are want to do. But if you would like to die on a hill defending a article obviously written by a bunch of clueless pussy whipped men more power to ya. In a way we kind of agree. I think libertarian leftist who claim a disdain for property rights are idiots, but many bought the argument that they were welcome to build any fucking commie Paradise they wanted as long as it was voluntary in a free society. Maybe they are salvageable. The ones that just want to squat any old place are lost causes in my opinion, but hey good luck.
I happen to believe that the loony right could maybe be persuaded to follow the NAP as well. They are repugnant, but like That Freedoms Phoenix guy says "Freedom is the answer whats the question." I admit my goals are simpler because I certainly couldn't hide my thoughts on the importance of property rights. Now I would never ask you to read a article defending those shitheads while shitting on a famous libertarian, because I believe you don't like those people very much, and I don't want to waste your time. We should have the same finish line, a free society. I would argue we need to be as inclusive as possible. I would also like to add most of the loony right people I have known were very into keeping their word.

[dalebert]

I think libertarian leftist who claim a disdain for property rights are idiots, but many bought the argument that they were welcome to build any fucking commie Paradise they wanted as long as it was voluntary in a free society. Maybe they are salvageable. The ones that just want to squat any old place are lost causes in my opinion, but hey good luck.

I would agree but I have met anyone who self-describes as left libertarian who doesn't respect property rights. So far, it just sounds like a straw man by people describing what they think a LL is.

We should have the same finish line, a free society.

That's just it. That's not the finish line for me. It's just a very important step in the process. We need a free society to have prosperity and to lift people out of poverty and to resolve our differences peacefully and evolve our cultures in a positive way.

For instance, I would love to end discrimination laws because they're wrong and they actually interfere with social progress. However, if we get to that point, I'll be using every peaceful, free market means at my disposal to end bad discriminatory practices. We aren't at MY notion of the finish line until we're living in a society without racism, misandry, misogyny, homophobia, poverty, etc.

And then think about this. If someone else shares my notion of the finish line (a leftist), you're not going to have as much success in persuading them of the value of a free society (that crucial step as I described it) if you aren't good at persuading them that it will help them get to their finish line better than statism will. If you're spouting off only about the issues that the right cares about and being dismissive of their issues, it won't seem like it's helpful to them at all and they will be fighting you every step of the way.

[Bill Brasky]

Seems to me, Libertarian Left would imply a person who believes in a certain amount of *social programs*.

I often self-describe as a left libertarian. Based on my experience with others who self-describe that way, it means sharing the goals of the left *but not the tactics* and libertarianism is all about tactics. It's not about where you're trying to go. It's about how you're willing to get there and what you believe will both be ethical and can actually work.

Read this article and you might get an idea why I'd might sometimes choose the term "left libertarian" or "classical liberal" to self-describe.

http://storeyinstitute.blogspot.com/2012/01/why-libertarians-need-to-talk-to-left.html

Right.  (I mean "correct".)

I put asterisks where I inadvertently failed to elaborate, and where you seem to have filled the gap.

In other words, we agree in a hasty and not beaten-to-death kinda way. 

I find myself leftist in certain aspects, and conservative in others. 

The article says it nicely in the following:

Most rank and file members of the political left are not hard-core socialists. They aren’t particularly fond of high taxes, but they aren’t sure how else to achieve the just society that seek. Typically, their heart is in the right place, but they don’t understand economics and the incentives that Mises talked about in his book Bureaucracy. They want to do the right thing and don’t know any other way of doing it. They often believe people need to be helped and state power should be used to achieve that.

In modern society, I feel this is basically the "norm" of our culture.  Social platforms that are available, and the availability is ensured through taxation and force.

Its almost as inarguable as gravity.  It simply exists.  People have evolved into that basic structure.

It is because of this that I am a minarchist, out of surrender to an irresistible force of modern human sociology, and an acknowledgement that since it already exists (and is not going away) we might as well utilize the structure to provide for those who are unable to fend for themselves.   

I don't argue that it is entirely correct in its purist philosophical form, but it is probably correct in our modern reality. 

This is moral relativism in action, and its unlikely that I'll ever evolve beyond that because society dictates it impractical.  I don't allow myself a lot of fanciful philosophical what-ifs.  I'm a realist, and this is our reality.  My philosophy is to keep it in-check, rather than see it achieve its ultimate ends. 

The comment I made toward Ken reflects a disdain towards the further left-reaching socialists, who I believe would allow a pure Socialist utopia, who believe themselves to be "left-libertarians", and will continue to drift towards the leftist extreme.

[Tom Foppiano]

So I'm going to interpret that as a "no", that you can't actually find anything in the article that you can actually logically dispute but rather you're just having a knee-jerk reaction to an article by feminists.

I repeat. It was very well-written and made very good points. No, not being facetious. I sincerely liked the article.

Hold on there, buddy. All I did was ask if you were serious. What part of my question seemed like a "knee jerk reaction?"

[alaric89]

I think libertarian leftist who claim a disdain for property rights are idiots, but many bought the argument that they were welcome to build any fucking commie Paradise they wanted as long as it was voluntary in a free society. Maybe they are salvageable. The ones that just want to squat any old place are lost causes in my opinion, but hey good luck.

I would agree but I have met anyone who self-describes as left libertarian who doesn't respect property rights. So far, it just sounds like a straw man by people describing what they think a LL is.

We should have the same finish line, a free society.

That's just it. That's not the finish line for me. It's just a very important step in the process. We need a free society to have prosperity and to lift people out of poverty and to resolve our differences peacefully and evolve our cultures in a positive way.

For instance, I would love to end discrimination laws because they're wrong and they actually interfere with social progress. However, if we get to that point, I'll be using every peaceful, free market means at my disposal to end bad discriminatory practices. We aren't at MY notion of the finish line until we're living in a society without racism, misandry, misogyny, homophobia, poverty, etc.

And then think about this. If someone else shares my notion of the finish line (a leftist), you're not going to have as much success in persuading them of the value of a free society (that crucial step as I described it) if you aren't good at persuading them that it will help them get to their finish line better than statism will. If you're spouting off only about the issues that the right cares about and being dismissive of their issues, it won't seem like it's helpful to them at all and they will be fighting you every step of the way.

I look around and find the know it alls just as annoying and quick on the draw as the racists. You find a way to get charisma and group think out of the mix and I'll help you out. You should leave the echo chamber now and then, there are plenty of anarcho commies who hate property rights. One was trolling this board a while back in fact.

[dalebert]

Hold on there, buddy. All I did was ask if you were serious. What part of my question seemed like a "knee jerk reaction?"

The part where there's an excellent article and instead of saying "They're wrong about X and here's why..." which I've yet to see anyone really do yet who's complaining about it, you just see "something something feminism something" and when I say it's a very well-written article, you think I'm being facetious.

Well, except for people complaining that they're using the word "feminism", and I understand the beef about that but I think it's an argument over semantics that's dodging the substance.

[dalebert]

You find a way to get charisma and group think out of the mix and I'll help you out. You should leave the echo chamber now and then,

What do you even mean by that? What echo chamber am I in? The FSP?

there are plenty of anarcho commies who hate property rights. One was trolling this board a while back in fact.

Hold on there. This person specifically self-described as "left libertarian" or you are labeling him that because left libertarian means commie in your mind? It's sounds like more straw mans to me.

[Turd Ferguson]

Theres only one kind of Libertarian, really. The kind of person that wants to live how they choose and wants other people do the same.


Anything else is just a bastardization of the term. Its something else entirely, which is fine. Just pick some other name to call yourself without putting the L in the title.

[John Shaw]

LEAVEMETHEFUCKALONIAN

I Stand by this label until all liberty people adopt it. No ambiguity.

I also kinda use "Liberty people" and "Liberty type people" a lot. Those are good ones.

LEAVEMETHEFUCKALONIANISM is also acceptable. LEAVEMETHEHECK... and LEAVEMETHEHELL... should probably also be good if kids are around.

Use it. You will never have one of these sidecar conversations picking away at all of the several hundred variations of "You leave me alone and I'll leave you alone."* floating around. All that matters is the "leaving alone" part, anyhow.



*Interesting note - When I was a lil' shit, like, maybe eight or so, (This would have been eight years before I first heard of the liberty thing from my hero, Mark Scott, at sixteen.) the phrase "You leave me alone and I'll leave you alone." was my default verbal defense against bullies. It didn't stop them of course, because they were fuckin' bullies, but it was the first internalization of the concept of the NAP that I came up with on my own. I rarely say that phrase aloud anymore because it comes off sorta juvenile, but it will forever be the default response in my internal monologue as a response to bad people.

My inner child is a pimp and always sez the right thing. My inner child sez "Why can't you just leave me alone and mind your own business?" which is just as valid and coherent question as any that the heavy hitters of the liberty movement have come up with. I mean, all the other stuff is just... explanations. Explanations are important of course, but that core issue of "You leave me alone and I leave you alone." may have been the most intelligent and insightful thing my brain has ever come up with without outside influence. Annoying that it happened when I was eight, but you know, shit happens and there's no accounting for inspiration.

[Cognitive Dissident]

Theres only one kind of Libertarian, really. The kind of person that wants to live how they choose and wants other people do the same.


Anything else is just a bastardization of the term. Its something else entirely, which is fine. Just pick some other name to call yourself without putting the L in the title.

He shoots and scores!

[alaric89]

You find a way to get charisma and group think out of the mix and I'll help you out. You should leave the echo chamber now and then,

What do you even mean by that? What echo chamber am I in? The FSP?

there are plenty of anarcho commies who hate property rights. One was trolling this board a while back in fact.

Hold on there. This person specifically self-described as "left libertarian" or you are labeling him that because left libertarian means commie in your mind? It's sounds like more straw mans to me.

I mean Zhwazi.
http://bbs.freetalklive.com/general/mises'-jeff-riggenbach-shreds-zeitgeist-(sort-of)/
Comments on youtube and fark are full of anarcho communists who want no money or private property is what I meant about echo chamber.
Why are you being so defensive lately Dale?

[dalebert]

Well I don't hang around any such echo chamber. You know what my echo chamber is? You guys and people like you. I've been here for years and you guys know very well I believe in private property and money. I'm a libertarian just as you describe.

You guys all just spouted a bunch of libertarian platitudes. You've been shouting "leave me alone" for how long now and is it getting you anywhere? Is it actually converting people to libertarians who ought to be so that some people might actually take that advice and actually leave you alone? You may as well pray to the libertarian fairy.

All those platitudes completely ignored everything in both articles and all the points I was trying to make which have to do with convincing other people why the tool/tactic of libertarianism is the best way for all of us to reach our goals, even though we have different goals. You're not going to be very persuasive when your communication amounts to demanding that people leave you alone from your bunker in the woods full of guns. There are plenty of people on the left who ought to be libertarians but they want to live in the city with a bunch of people who work together and care for each other. They just don't yet realize that libertarianism is good for that too and people shouting "leave me alone!" aren't going to help them figure that out.

Someone comes along trying to offer some constructive criticism, like the kind in both those articles, and this is the kneejerk response. It's no surprise that the philosophy seems mostly isolated to a fairly specific type. You seem dead set on keeping it this exclusive private club and slapping evil intentions and convenient labels on anyone who isn't there yet. Those of us who don't fit the stereotypical libertarian type, gays, women, racial minorities--we're your ambassadors to the left. These people were once pretty damned close to what we are until socialists hijacked all their issues, and that happened fairly recently.

It just means I can be a bridge. It doesn't mean I'm smarter. I might be completely wrong about any particular topic. But fucking show some respect for my intelligence and have something substantive to say in response to my intended-to-be-constructive criticisms. You guys know I'm no idiot. I'm no anarcho-syndicalist or commie or whatever and I don't need a lesson in what libertarianism is.

So once again, I'll ask it. Does anyone have a substantive disagreement with the article that they can verbalize and respond to? I don't think I've heard even one yet.