Wednesday, December 10, 2008

Where I Stand Or Something

The left-libertarian vs right-libertarian war continues!!!

Where do I stand in all of this? I'm beginning to think I'm more of a 'plumb-line' radical libertarian, like Walter Block.

I agree with left-libertarians on some things and right-libertarians on others.

On the corporate form / limited liability arguments, I tend to agree with right-libertarians.

While I think the size of firms in the free market is irrelevant, I ultimately fall somewhere between right-libs and left-libs on the issue.

On immigration, religious idiocy, and cultural conservatism (blind hated of all minorities), I agree with left-libertarians. To be honest though, I really don’t care as much about these issues as most left-libertarians seem to. I also sometimes get annoyed by the overbearing PC police on their side. (If you think criticizing Lincoln is “racist,” then you’re simply an idiot.)

I identify more with individualist anarchism than the "Old Right" (and am also more influenced by it) so I guess I'm a left-libertarian in that regard.

On corporatism, I'm with the left-libertarians. I think it’s a far bigger problem than most right-libertarians do (though I think the left-libs can sometimes get pretty nit-picky on the issue).

IMHO, the vast majority of anarcho-communists are statist social democrats in disguise, and the left in general is pretty hopeless--except for some of the mutualists! So I'm probably with the right-libertarians on that.

And that's where I, stand. Just thought I might as well kick these random thoughts out there, because I had to comment on the whole thing sooner or later.


anarcho-mercantilist said...

I actively oppose left-libertarianism. Their positions such as anti-big business, anti-corporations, egalitarianism, are nothing but purely semantic propaganda attempts in order to attract the anarcho-collectivists and the contemporary left into libertarianism. The left-libertarians redefine corporations as a state charter, and redefine egalitarianism as "equal total liberty," in order to use these labels as semantic propaganda in order to "promote" that libertarianism actually opposes corporations and supports egalitarianism, as much as leftists do.

This in just a failed attempt to use irrational propaganda instead of educating about the theory of the free market. Using surface-level semantic labels to justify libertarianism (libertarians oppose capitalism and big business in order to attract anarcho-sydicalists into libertarianism); instead of educating about the rational theory of the free market; is a failed attempt to promote libertarianism.

Another example of propaganda set by left-libertarians is their redefining of the term "democracy" to mean "individual autonomy," in order to promote that libertarianism is "democratic." This is another failure. They, again, promote that libertarism is "democratic," but they use a different definition, which is surface-level semantic propaganda.

I support educating others about the consistent and complete theory about the free market, not merely empirical nor semantic arguments in favor of the free market. In that way, individuals would become immune of empirical arguments against the free market; and so that they would not believe in future empirical "failures" of the free market conspired by insiders (such as another Great Depression).

This is why I oppose "allying" with anarcho-collectivists, mutualists, geolibertarians, and leftists. I support the purity and consistency of the libertarian philosophy. I support converting others to libertarianism one-by-one, not shallaw mass-propaganda.

Cork said...


To a large extent I agree with the comments in your post, which is why I don't consider myself a left-libertarian (despite my Tucker/Spooner sympathies). I'm not going to promise lefties that nobody will make a profit, get rich, or be happy in ancapistan. I'm not going to distort the English language to make it sound appealing to them. It's just asinine.

Mutualists are probably allies. They just have trouble taking thier principles to their logical (anti-collectivist) conclusions IMO.