And what is a left libertarian? How do the two coalesce into a ‘Libertarian Party’ in other countries?
The views of the US Libertarian Party are essentially summarized by “taxes and regulations are bad” with few other guiding principles. As a party, it is largely separated from any sort of political theory (even libertarian political theory), and sort of relies on a politically disenaged and uninformed populous who vote for the people promising lower taxes and legal weed without really understanding that the Libertarian Party’s approach to “taxes and regulations are bad” are primarily in favor of large corporations rather than individuals. They posture themselves as a true alternative to the Democratic and Republican parties when practically they want most of the same stuff Republicans want for the most part, with token acceptance of progressive social ideas.
Libertarianism more broadly is an ideology that believes that individual rights are the most important thing to creating a better society. This can be left wing (extending individual rights to include things like the ability to use land and other natural resources without being limited by property ownership) or right wing (believing that the right of the individual includes the right to accumulate wealth and power through accumulation of capital), and the distinction primarily depends on the approach to ownership and property. Libertarianism differs from Anarchism in that libertarians believe that a state is required for maintaining and guaranteeing individual rights through the use of laws and courts, and defending those rights from external threats via military action.
All in all, my personal view is that libertarianism, along with anarchism and other “min-archist” movements, is unable to answer the question of “how do you prevent someone from accumulating material and social power and using that power to enforce their will upon others?” For many libertarians the answer seems to be that social norms in a libertarian society would prevent people from doing this and that they would be able to withstand external attacks from groups that do not hold their views. I do not believe this, and I think that human nature means that some people will always want to gain control over others through whatever means they can, and that only a government can effectively combat these tendencies. Social norms are powerful and are a required part of a functioning democracy, but ultimately the law, backed by the ability to apply the use of force in a way agreed upon by the public, is what allows the weak to resist domination from the strong.
Thanks! This was the very thorough answer I was hoping for!
They do not care about other people, only themselves. They despise things like social programs.
Libertarians in the US want small government on three axes: they want to eliminate programs (e.g. welfare, retirement or universal healthcare), public utilities (e.g. electricity, highways), and regulation (e.g. antitrust, banking laws.) in economic terms, it’s very right-wing, since it’s pure unadulterated capitalism. usually they want government to “stay out of the bedroom and the boardroom” though, so they’re often progressive on civil liberties. unfortunately, many self-styled “libertarians” are socially conservative, or care only about their freedoms.
Left Libertarians see both the State and Corporations as oppressive power structures, and want to reign both in. think Anarchists, but not as radical. most favor decentralized, collective government with lots of direct democracy. New Hampshire is the most right-libertarian state, while Vermont is the most left-libertarian.
the Libertarian Party in the US is ridiculously disorganized because organizing Libertarians is like herding cats. afaik there aren’t really unified Libertarian parties anywhere in the world, though maybe e.g. the Pirate Party would be close?
Really? NH the most right-libertarian? Can you elaborate on this please?
The views of the US Libertarian Party are essentially summarized by “taxes and regulations are bad” with few other guiding principles. As a party, it is largely separated from any sort of political theory (even libertarian political theory), and sort of relies on a politically disenaged and uninformed populous who vote for the people promising lower taxes and legal weed without really understanding that the Libertarian Party’s approach to “taxes and regulations are bad” are primarily in favor of large corporations rather than individuals. They posture themselves as a true alternative to the Democratic and Republican parties when practically they want most of the same stuff Republicans want for the most part, with token acceptance of progressive social ideas.
Libertarianism more broadly is an ideology that believes that individual rights are the most important thing to creating a better society. This can be left wing (extending individual rights to include things like the ability to use land and other natural resources without being limited by property ownership) or right wing (believing that the right of the individual includes the right to accumulate wealth and power through accumulation of capital), and the distinction primarily depends on the approach to ownership and property. Libertarianism differs from Anarchism in that libertarians believe that a state is required for maintaining and guaranteeing individual rights through the use of laws and courts, and defending those rights from external threats via military action.
All in all, my personal view is that libertarianism, along with anarchism and other “min-archist” movements, is unable to answer the question of “how do you prevent someone from accumulating material and social power and using that power to enforce their will upon others?” For many libertarians the answer seems to be that social norms in a libertarian society would prevent people from doing this and that they would be able to withstand external attacks from groups that do not hold their views. I do not believe this, and I think that human nature means that some people will always want to gain control over others through whatever means they can, and that only a government can effectively combat these tendencies. Social norms are powerful and are a required part of a functioning democracy, but ultimately the law, backed by the ability to apply the use of force in a way agreed upon by the public, is what allows the weak to resist domination from the strong.
Decades of propagandization
The left supports collectivization of production, the right supports private ownership of production.
More libertarian left tendencies often want the means collectivised in the hands of localised workers, rather than the collective org being a national-scale bureaucracy.
I’m aware that the anarchist-adjacent left wants more cooperative, decentralized production than large scale, planned production, but as juxtaposed with right libertarians, who want private property and at most a nightwatchman state, the difference is still in how ownership is spread. I don’t agree with any libertarians, but it’s a pretty fair appraisal.
Right libertarian: doesn’t want to be oppressed by the law
Left libertarian: doesn’t want to be oppressed by the law, nor by capital neither
The private ownership of production is what makes them right-wing.
Left-libertarianism would be anarchism I guess but I’d never call and anarchist left-libertarian
the whole libertarian/authoritarian axis doesn’t really describe things well because it’s a caricature. On the left Marxists and anarchists have similar end goals, the abolishing of class society, but a diversity of strategy as to how to get there. On the right, they are united in reaction and to the extent that any are “libertarian” it’s purely out of self interest.
They are suspiciously knowledgeable about age-of-consent laws.
Libertarians are an odd bunch these days. They claim to be against “big government” but they want to privatize everything which would essentially make giant corporations into a new authoritarian government.
The love to talk about being able to take your business elsewhere if you don’t like the service your getting, but that doesn’t do a lot of good if your house burns down because you were behind on your fire protection plan and no one will come to put it out.
It’s basically become an entire party that believes the idea that “survival of the
fittestwealthiest” should be the only lawYeah, the whole “taking your business elsewhere” is bullshit in the modern world. It might work in a town without internet that has 3 barbers; sure, you take your little protest purchase to another barber maybe it has an impact.
But I’ve lived in a neighborhood for 6 years where my internet connectivity choices have been Comcast, or DSL. That’s not a choice. When the only competitor is equivalent to no service, it’s not competition; it’s a monopoly.
In my opinion what defines libertarianism overall is being non-statist and a belief in markets dictating all of life.
Left libertarianism is just progressive on social issues.
being non-statist
Yes.
and a belief in markets dictating all of life.
No.
Lots of libertarians critique both markets and the state (e.g. Murray Bookchin or Nestor Makhno).
The defining feature is just a critique of state power.
critiquing both is what makes you a left libertarian.
Not sure who Maknho is so thanks for the name drop I’ll check their work out, but as far as I know, Bookchin was a lefty anarchist. I always assumed his later ‘libertarian phase’ was just another label that he’d eventually disavow as well but that his critique of the state also went alongside his critique of the market.
Can you refer me to other libertarians who are particularly anti-market, in the American context?
Bookchin was a lot of things in his life, including a zionist, by the end he had renounced anarchism in favor of his own thing. Although he has had some decent critiques, that sort of behavior has made it hard to take him too seriously.
I would recommend David Graeber frankly if you’re looking for American context anarchism.
It’s a damned shame bookchin wrote a terrible article filled with wild distortions of history of israel/palestine. It goes without saying that people should just not go to bookchin to have an accurate or rigorous framing of middle east’s history and society. Ok, he inspired autonomous democratic movements like rojava, but that’s beside the point of it all and more linked to his social theories of democracy rather than any concrete understanding of history - as far as I know he never studied the history of the middle east in any serious depth.
His social ecology essays are filled with interesting stuff and did have some very good critiques of different environmentalist currents, he did have some strange critiques of Marx at times, but I still respect some of that work even if I may not agree with much of it. His views on zionism is another story though, not excusable. The silver lining is (as far as I know) it was just that one article.
The term confuses me in politics: it seems to have too many meanings; and even the agreed definitions are flexible.
First you have to understand this: Anti “big government” sentiment is basically built and drilled into the American psyche, from birth and in school. We were founded on a rebellion against a king, and that hasn’t changed much.
I like to think it distinguishes us. Even as we plunge into autocracy, many openly hate the government, and many Trump supporters openly hate government.
And this is where the American Libertarian Party is coming from. It’s the party of Adam Smith, of hoarding weapons for an armed rebellion against the govt if necessary, of old school homesteading and bootstrapping, of free trade, of minding your own business. I like to think there’s overlap with Warren Buffet’s “sensible business” kind of philosophy, which I am sympathetic to. It’s a bit anarchic, like left wing libertarianism. I know because I have family that expresses some of this.
…It was not prepared for corporate oligarchy.
It was not built for complex, technical modern systems of society.
It was built for low tech entrepreneurs/businessfolk to resist foreign kings, not engagement-driven propaganda from within.
Hence I know registered American libertarians that buy into, say, climate denial, even when they’re very scientific minded people, or conspiracy theories against Democrats while giving Trump a pass. They were essentially a wing of fiscally conservative Republicans for a long time until the whole party got consumed by MAGA, and drug other beliefs in.
It’s contextual: government can be used for right-wing or left-wing purposes, and people opposed to those uses can use libertarianism as a justification whether the actual policies they’re opposing are right- or left-wing. But that means people with right- or left-wing sympathies can selectively target policies they disagree with on purely sectarian grounds, while disingenuously claiming libertarianism as a motivation.
