Left and Right Libertarians Should Unite
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 14 янв 2018
- JOIN our PATREON page and help us explore the ideas of a free society. You will get access to exclusive videos, polls, Q&A's, behind-the-scenes, Learn Liberty merch and so much more. Sign up on / learnliberty
Bret Weinstein, evolutionary biologist and former professor at Evergreen State College, makes the case that those who value liberty-whether we lean right or lean left-should unite in its defense.
Excerpted from Spiked Magazine's 'Unsafe Space Tour' panel discussion at New York Law School.
SUBSCRIBE: bit.ly/2dUx6wg
LEARN MORE:
Democrat vs. Republican is Outdated (video): “There’s this big shuffling of the deck going on in most western democracies,” says Professor Steve Davies, on the global political realignment of globalists vs. nationalists.
• Democrat vs. Republica...
Are You An Ideological Robot? - The Ideological Turing Test (video): A lot of people don’t really understand their ideological opponents. Here’s how to test whether you are the exception.
• Are You An Ideological...
Freedom: Benefits of a Basic Income Guarantee vs. Welfare (video): We spend over a trillion dollars every year on welfare benefits in the U.S.-that’s over $20,000 for each poor person in the country. Prof. Matt Zwolinski asks, would a “Basic Income Guarantee” or “Universal Basic Income” that scraps the hundreds of different bureaucracies currently doling out this money, and simply gives this money directly to those in need, be a compromise that libertarians can get behind?
• Freedom: Benefits of a...
TRANSCRIPT:
Full transcript available at: www.learnliberty.org/videos/br...
LEARN LIBERTY:
Your resource for exploring the ideas of a free society. We tackle big questions about what makes a society free or prosperous and how we can improve the world we live in. Watch more at www.learnliberty.org/.
I am a left-libertarian and seeing people in the comment section denying my existence is fine with me, as long as they don't force their views on me and don't enact law to affect my life then I m fine with it, this is libertarianism, leave everybody alone even if I disagree with them.
Hello I am a right libertarian and I have to say fair point my friend but we are still libertarianism we must stay connected so we can better this great nation of ours
diverse asmr I’m left libertarian as well, but you’re for low taxes and low levels of social programs, gtfo
@@puppy8125 well yes and no
@@puppy8125 I say we need to modify social reforms
@@puppy8125 I mean programs
Forget the problems with uniting left and right libertarians... the idea that the authoritarians aren't united is ridiculous. They squabble about minor differences. But when it comes to the basic principles of "big brother knows best and is good" and "groups challenging the established powers are bad." They couldn't be more united.
Eh, I mean this definitely varies. Authoritarians bicker a lot too, but their bickering surrounds who should rule over everyone.
We aren't. We were the first Nazis targeted. I know you hate us because authority bad, but it it weren't for us, Nazis would still be in power.
@@matthewbledsoe3538 The Nazis targeted many people. Communists, anarchists, LGBT people, Jewish people, etc, could you be more specific as to what group you are talking about? I am assuming you are probably a marxist-leninist or something, if I had to guess. If you are a ML, you are discounting anarchists who fought and died too.
What he meant is that the authoritarian left and right aren't united not in that way
@@llamagames6803 I think Dugin is trying to unite them
Individuals in a libertarian state can chose to more collective community as long as they don't affect another group or individuals
Almost sounds like State's Rights... Utah figured it out.
With exceptions like personal mental and physical health
If you really want to understand Classical Liberalism, you must understand the Harm Principle. If one person's actions don't harm anyone else, government officials must leave them alone also.
That almost sounds like a country
A right-libertarian country (especially an anarcho-capitalist one) would devolve into a system of capital-feudalism, or something like those company towns that used to exist in the old West. left-libertarians, especially libertarian-socialists, understand that both political hierarchy and capitalist hierarchy are coercive and can become authoritarian. Instead of the state or capitalists owning the means of production, we should steer towards a society of worker self-management in the form of worker-councils and cooperatives, and political engagement through bottom-up democracy with things like participatory budgeting and and other forms of small and large scale engagement.
I'd be fine with working with left-libertarians towards shared goals, but it's been my observation that there is a general trend among you to refuse such cooperation.
Well the thing is anarchists view capitalism as authoritarian. That being said why should an anarchist help an authoritarian ableist?
@@Iandar1 And right-libertarians view the seizing / destroying of private property and forcing people into communism / socialism as violations of fundamental human rights. This is what I mean though. Left-libertarians are incapable of working with those who fail their purity test, even when there are overlaps where they agree.
You just explained why we refuse to cooperate. Because....we refuse to cooperate. If we are going to work with you, we want compromise between both of our ideas not simply cooperating with what you want.
@@mothafuckinanarchist5392 I'm not sure you get what I mean. I'm not talking about working together on areas where we disagree, I'm talking about working together on areas where we are already in agreement. Do you want to stop interventionist wars? How about stopping government surveillance on citizens? How about releasing non-violent drug offenders from prison? We would continue to oppose each other on things like economics while working together towards common goals.
Nanofuture87 I’m inclined to work with you on those issues.
Mr. Weinstein needs to explain how a system will redistribute wealth from unwilling participants without the use of coercion to me.
How did your parents convince you to put down the Nintendo controller and come do the dishes?
Threat of a spanking or promise of candy?
kiz oku ...okay. makes sense. But then government never keeps it's promises though. I think left libertarians keep the slippery slope open to the eventual use of force.
Ryan McCoy the police is always enforcing the laws that unwilling citizens are not following.
The two party system is an illusion. There is no democracy.
It's all about managing of public opinion. Keep the people happy, use propaganda or the police force for cases where propaganda is not effective.
Brainwash from a young age through the process of demoralization.
kiz oku ...I agree with what you say. I wrote a response in main thread addressing that issue. Shooting for the sun is like perfect amiable anarchy. Let's shoot for the sun...and we will get the moon. It isn't perfect but it is a step in the right direction. Trying to implement a system of force (socialism) without force is like building a rocket with not enough fuel to leave the atmosphere.
Libertarians sanction use of force when someone violates the NAP (non aggression principal) so when someone violates your basic human right by physical assault, theft or fraud. So that is fine, what we ask is: if the incentive to surrender part of your wealth that you earned with hard work is "you get access to a collective found and use it to pay for services" then what can you do when someone still says no? Take the wealth by force or outlaw private service? Both solution in our eyes seem rather authoritarian.
I'm pretty sure that most libertarians would be okay with the other side's version of libertarianism, provided that the other side phrased it correctly.
The only real issue is land, as long as you can actually establish a border where one side chooses to have collective property and the other private property they can coexist fine
This is the first time for me to hear a libertarian leftist being both againts the Auth left and Auth right.
Stalin and Hitler had around the same numbers of those who died during their reign.
@@iwant2haveu i hope more people will believe both hitler and stalin are tyrants at the same time.
Then they weren't actually a libertarian period.
Anarchism is a political philosophy and movement that is skeptical of all justifications for authority and seeks to abolish the institutions it claims maintain unnecessary coercion and hierarchy, typically including nation-states,[1] and capitalism. Anarchism advocates for the replacement of the state with stateless societies and voluntary free associations. As a historically left-wing movement, this reading of anarchism is placed on the farthest left of the political spectrum, usually described as the libertarian wing of the socialist movement (libertarian socialism).
In a "right libertarian" system, there is nothing stopping a bunch of like minded workers from setting up a worker-run co-op where their labor isn't being "exploited" by the bourgeoisie.
Economic authoritarianism is still authoritarianism .
Unfortunately, if cooperatives became the norm, it would no longer be a right-wing economy.
The point is that it shouldn't be a right or left wing economy, but a free one. If people want cooperatives and other forms of voluntary cooperation, they should be able to have it. If it is competitive and perceived as beneficial to the people that voluntarily use it, then so what?
Valosken voluntary cooperation - right wing, forced cooperation = collectivism - left wing
+Valosken yes it would be. As long as people had economic freedom, it doesn't matter what happens afterward.
William S there actually is. Direct democracy would have power to keep them in place, but corporations could be strong enough to stop tyranny of the majority
Mutualism is the by product and I think that's one of the best ideoglicies .
It definitely has a fair mix of what both left and right libertarians want.
I think Nordic countries have the best model of what a centered libertarian country should look like.
Here's how they can unite. The socialist one can have their community where they share wealth as long as no one is coerced, and the capitalists can have their community where they have capitalism as long as no one is coerced.
@Eric, The Centrist & Nazi's Worst Nightmare You contradicted yourself, can you guess where?
@Eric, The Centrist & Nazi's Worst Nightmare You said that everyone will still have freedom of speech, without violent hate speech. If you attempt to restrict what you consider hate speech, then you are violating the right to freedom of speech. Hate speech is a subset of free speech. You can't say that you promote the set, yet restrict the subset. That is the contradiction. Either free speech is allowed, or hate speech is restricted. You can't have it both ways.
Also, why was your first response to someone questioning what you said was to call them an alt-right narcissistic troll?
@Eric, The Centrist & Nazi's Worst NightmareI'm not sure where you live, but I live in America where you can't be jailed for your opinion. Just out of curiosity, where did you end up when you took that political compass test, because I have a feeling you ended up deep into the authoritarian spectrum, considering that you seem to think people should be jailed for their speech.
@Eric, The Centrist & Nazi's Worst Nightmare The poor are getting richer, they're just too brainwashed to realize their blessings.
@Eric, The Centrist & Nazi's Worst Nightmare The poor are on average getting richer, that is a fact. Social welfare is enough to fund better food and more entertainment than kings used to have not too long ago. Using marginal edge cases as counter examples is intellectually lazy and dishonest, not to mention distorting reality.
In practice right and left libertarians come from polar opposite sets of values. Right-libertarians hence usually find a lot more synergy with conservatives than socialists. In essence, conservatives want to enforce many of these values while libertarians belive they will sort out naturally. Left-libertarians are absoultely different.
Janis L.
Agreed.
Left and right libertarians come from polar opposite ends of the political spectrum.
In fact the expression "right-libertarian" is a contradiction in terms.
@@kevinscott59
Actually, there should be no real difference between "right and left Libertarians." In my opinion, it's really an artificial distinction created by the government to divide Libertarians. The central value of Libertarianism (as the title suggests) should be about letting people do whatever they want to do as long as they don't hurt anybody else. Thus, in a Libertarian "country," people of like-minded political views would be able to come together and establish their own ideal societies. Some people would naturally want to live in collective municipalities governed by syndicates whilst others would want to live in capitalist municipalities in which private property is respected. In a Libertarian "country," there would be room for both types of societies since forcing others to abandon their values is not Libertarian, but rather Authoritarian. So-called "right-Libertarians" should not force "left-Libertarians" to accept property rights because they would cease being Libertarians. So-called "left-Libertarians" should not force "right-Libertarians" to give up their individual property rights because that would be authoritarian. The whole point of Libertarianism (in my opinion) should be that people should be able to live howsoever they would like to live.
Anyways, here's a rough plan on how we could achieve something like that:
We can succeed on uniting right and left Libertarians by proposing that we break society up into municipalities which would have total power to govern themselves as long as they don't deny their citizens basic freedoms and allow people to leave to other municipalities. There should also be a system in which the actual people living in these municipalities can declare their current government illegitimate in case it becomes tyrannical. Under this system, some municipalities could choose to be highly socialistic or highly capitalistic; it depends on what the people living in them prefer. We won't really have a federal "government." Rather, we could have a voluntary federal "state" which would be composed of one person from each municipality selected through a process called Demarchy (lottery process) to avoid corruption, political parties, and to achieve actual representation by our peers instead of by power-hungry politicians. These randomly selected representatives would simply be tasked with protecting people's rights and protecting the nation through a militia. That is, they would decide what to do if the leader's of a particular municipality became tyrannical and would be tasked with declaring war on a nation which attacked us (which is very unlikely). This federal "state" might be funded through a voluntary tax of 5-10% of the total revenue of a municipal government. If a municipal government falls below a certain threshold, they might lose their representative in the federal state but would not lose their rights or their protection. However, municipalities can also choose to unilaterally secede as well and establish their own governance. This way, they would lose their representatives and would lose any benefits they may have garnered from the federal "state."
Kevin Scott, wrong, your handing the economy over to the state style libertarian is the oxymoron here.
@@kevinscott59 It really isn't. If you look at history you'll find that Republicans fought to end the slavery that Democrats (= the KKK) tried so hard to upkeep. That makes the conservatives libertarian, or rather liberal in this instance.
Meanwhile, any coerced taxation is inherently anti-libertarian. The left is also for larger governments while the conservatives are for smaller governments and their decentralization. So conservatives tend to be more libertarian overall.
I don't think you and I understand the same thing by 'right-libertarian'. You seem to think it's about social conservatism/disliking the gays; I think it's about whether or not planting a flag in an alluminium mine and saying "Yay, I found myself an alluminium mine, go me" and proceeding to extract the ore, actually makes the aluminium ore yours.
"not united" is a vast understatement have you heard about WWII
Would have been better off if axis won.
@@sb3424 nobody asked fascist
@@challah4311 Be careful of Je🕎ish subversion in your country. It's already happening... Btw I'm a libertarian.
@@sb3424 hmm doubtful. If there's anything a Jewish person is trying to do I'm my country that nobody else is trying its trying to get Medicare for All passed
@@challah4311 just look up what happened in denmark during the attempt last year to ban omskæring of children under 18. Israel swore to use their allies in the media to fight it, and they did. The bill would have passed, however, Mette barred the other members of her party from voting their conscience on it. You don't think there was a back room deal that went on there? I have no doubt that there was. Start paying more attention.
I disagree with the speaker. Socialistic economic policy undermines the morality of right to property. I don't see how the two sides could unite. Sure...right libertarianism can work...it just needs people to be vigilant at keeping all liberties from being infringed in any small way. The second is to keep alive the concept that if your neighbor does well then so do you...a culture that cares about both self and others at the same time. The authoritarians use propaganda and miseducation to make the masses think we need a state to survive. Why can't we utilize a flood of truth and right libertarian ideology from multiple sources to "indoctrinate" people of the love of liberty and your fellow man and the vigilance to keep it going?
Froo Froo ...yes regarding "right"... that is how it is seen by the younger generations. However fascism is actually a left authoritarian ideology. I'm not in favor of right versus left terminology. I prefer just using libertarian versus authoritarian. That is more accurate imo.
People really need to stop being in denial over fascism being right wing.
Social programs are not socialism.
If the Nazis were socialist, then North Korea is a democratic republic.
gantmj ... it's not a denial of it being right winged. It is more of a denial of the left right paradigm. We really have a scale from authoritarian on one side (left) and individualism on the other (right). There is a lot of miseducation starting mid 20th century on the false paradigm that somehow a collectivist ideology along with a controlling government is somehow next to an individualistic ideology with little to no government. In reality, fascism, like in Italy, and national socialism, in Germany, have many things in common, and technically their goals are also very similar. They just have different ways to achieve similar goals.
gantmj ....also.... Nazism is socialism. They called themselves national socialists...by the way. The word Nazi comes from the German words for nationalism and socialism. And you mention democratic republic as a term for North Korea in your analogy...which you are trying to convey it is not like that in doing so...but however...the irony is....that North Korea is a democratic republic in a way. Ussr was one has well, in a way. A democracy in its mature state is a dictatorship. The irony, I know. And a republic is just a set of rules.
I was labeled as left libertarian but I was not in the redistribution of wealth mentality, I don’t think trickle down works of course. I was focused on the regulation of large and multinational corporations.
LIB UNITY !!!
Cool cool now get back to your house and disperse!
I come from a right-libertarian perspective, and I'm more than willing to work with left-libertarians on some sort of alliance. I have my concerns and want to work to better society. I could be wrong, but I just don't get this sense from my fellow left-libertarians. I sense animosity and resentment, especially in the 2020 climate. I also often get the sense that the state is the answer always, and the market is always the enemy. If the answer to the problem is a guy that unabashedly can state good things about the USSR and Cuba, what self awareness can I expect from an ideology that has these historic atrocities? Does this alliance actually exist? What can I do?
Well, I'm not a left libertarian nor right libertarian but in my humble opinion you got the point wrong of left libertarianism, you make a vast statement, the same way I can just say right libertarians don't mind if there are monopolies out there ruling the world, which I truly want to believe is wrong, but who knows might right libertarism is really that wicked
@@acezaro7927 In a sense the vast generalizations are how we can even have a meaningful conversation. Otherwise, we could become so atomistic that conversation isn't even possible about groups or labels. Right libertarians have to answer the challenge of corporate power. Left-libertarians need to tackle the political authority issue and the entire history of the 20th century of enlightened governments cleansing entire populations of people and the cradle to grave nature of just accepting existing political authority as legitimate or further legitimizing it by entrenching its power even further.
@@timj9775 i have no time to respond but I want to leave you with something. If you are interested, watch Tim pool's discussion with charlie kirk and Vaush. I believe much of what you are looking for is in that video. Cheers
Wrong quadrant. The USSR and Cuba are AuthLeft. Norway, Sweden, Finland and New Zealand are the closest examples to actual LibLeft countries. The Nordic countries top ranks on the happiness index, have strong economies and are great examples of successful mixed LibLeft policies
As a left-libertarian, we get the same feelings off of right-libertarians. And I feel the reason for that are two words: capitalism and socialism. We are so obsessed with these words that we forget that government are taking more and more power. For the time being we need to think more about the political aspects of libertarianism rather than the economic in order to have true Lib Unity. Now regarding the always sees the state as the answer. That is a misconception that is brought upon because of the terms “leftist” and “socialist.” Now the USSR and Cuba are both authoritarian one-party states which are concepts that are the exact opposite of libertarianism regardless of which side of the spectrum you’re one.
Ah yes, right libertarianism. All the best logical fallacies money can buy.
"Authoritarian power is fine, as long as it is held by business owners rather than politicians."
@@frocco7125 that's not how it works lmao
@@distritofederal7187 yes it is lmao. economic power is also power
@@chroma._.5986and why would you or anybody in their right mind think they have a legitimate right to disable others from running a race if they want to run the race of power? And with what enforcement mechanisms? Ah, those of power right?!
Except power in the lefties hands is not power, it’s collective decisions held by a few for the many.
Get your head out of your asses please.
I'm still yet to understand how deregulation of business is bad. How is it a bad thing that business is able to prosper and we are able to be more competitive on a global scale? Have you ever heard of the depression of 1920? Probably not, because the government did nothing to stop the recession in the market was able to naturally correct. The federal reserve was created in 1915 to relieve the common person of the burden of economic downturn and sell offs. 15 years later we experienced the great depression. The worst economic downturn in American history. How is government intervention helpful in any way? This country was founded by people trying to escape a tyrannic government. That is why our government was set up to be small and its job is to protect the rights of the sovereign individual. It allowed capitalism and the free market to flow naturally and that was the beauty that created the world's superpower. I will only sign on to Policy that empowers the sovereign individual.
The issue at hand is that capitalism is the natural way that an economy runs. It's not the most efficient, but a governed economy can and is almost always corrupt. If we took a purist leader who knew what they were doing and could control everything perfectly, we would be more productive as humans than in a capitalist economy. However, those who want to control the economy do it out of rage against capitalism or they have desires to control it for their own benefit.
America wasn't really considered a superpower until after WW1. Even then, we were viewed more as a bumbling giant than the leading nation of the free world. It wasn't until after WW2 that we became the top dog, and by then socialism had taken hold.
I think this is a nice idea but he’s mistaken in not asking why ‘left and right libertarians’, as he says, are disunited, because one side holds capitalism (or at least unrestrained capitalism) as averse to liberty while the other side holds it as essential, so I don’t know how people with anarchist sympathies and economic libertarians could reconcile their differences
That being said it’s obviously important to support each other where we do agree: government surveillance, internet censorship, violation of human rights etc.
He's referring to a broader definition of libertarian as "people who view liberty as being of the highest value." or maybe a better definition, especially for left-wing libertarians: "A society is better if more people live more liberated lives." While economic right libertarians tend to have a very very simplistic view of liberty as simply being "less rules on the government rule book = more liberty", the reality of what makes our lives more free is more nuanced, and hence moderate/leftist libertarianism can exist because governments ARE capable of doing things that make us more free, and have been proven to be effective at many of those things in different countries around the world. Social order and consensus can achieve things that make us more free. Some things we do better together: defend ourselves and defend property rights, choose which side of the road to drive on, decide on standards for our energy grids and even domestic devices, define and enforce health standards, maintain cleaner air and water, the list going on and on, and all of these things let us live more liberated even though they are rules and regulations. If the United States had universal healthcare, a massive government program; it would mean untying healthcare from workplaces, allow people to choose their jobs with their feet more freely, free up businesses (especially small businesses!) from doing the bulk of bureaucracy for providing healthcare for their employees, and give potential entrepreneurs more ability to risk and fail away from pursuing a corporate career. Furthermore, the fact of the matter is that most of us are stupid, and most of us do not have the time and energy in our lives to be experts on everything, and consider every potential danger of every potential decision we could face in our lives. Enacting regulations and standards and social programs are all ways of giving more people more opportunity to spend more of their time doing shit they actually care about-- instead of depleting their time and mental resources defending themselves from greed of the other, and engaged in constant futile exercises in "buyer beware." Do those things sound like more liberty to you? If it does, you would be on the libertarian left-- and if you can imagine those ideas being convincing to some people, than you can imagine the existence of left libertarians. We would tend to call ourselves "progressives." Also, call ourselves "more correct than the right-wing libertarians, because there are more social democratic states that work than there are libertarian states that work."
I think these might help a bit m.ruclips.net/video/9nPVkpWMH9k/видео.html and m.ruclips.net/video/EKfvepim7rE/видео.html also the only semi successful “libertarian” (meaning the entire bottom half of the political compass) movements that have existed are leftist ones see Paris commune and Catalonia Spain in the Spanish civil war prior to WW2. from my knowledge the only right libertarian things that have happened where scams and fell apart immediately.
The thing is if people had self restraint & people weren't assholes, we wouldn't need those government regulations. When people bring up those points about exploitation I am always sitting here scratching my head because never in my life has my goal been to exploit people or my surroundings. But I need to take into account that there are assholes aplenty in our society waiting for the right opportunity to exploit there way to the top. It is an unfortunate truth that I often let slip in my mind. Dreaming of a utopia where people treat each other with respect & dignity is just not realistic. I think that is why I lean right because I look to the right to create order where necessary but ultimately personal & economic liberty are at the forefront of my political ideology.
SugaryPhoenixxx we don’t believe that striving for a more democratic society (at least one that isn’t a sham like it is under capitalism) is being Utopian you might want to read “Socialism: Utopian and scientific” by Friedric Engels
@@Iandar1 most of the Libertarian party in America is right wing. Not a movement tho.
@@ThanosDestroyeryearsago I’d call them neofeudalist since conservatives love their aristocracy.
The left should agree to protect private property, while the right should consider strikes as a cleaning mechanism rather than an act of violence.
Leftists use a different definition of private property. No one wants to take your house or toothbrush. Look up the difference between private property and personal property
It's true authoritarians are far more driven by homogeneity of thought. Libertarians (usually) have a greater flexibility in thinking, which is why changes in positions on the political compass will often go between Authoritarian and Libertarian, as well as Libertarian and Libertarian, rather than Authoritarian and Authoritarian.
I'm all for the Libertarian sectors creating more of a unified front against the Authoritarian Left and Right, but the difference between economic left and right is just as staggering as the A v. L conflict. I find it hard to believe someone could truly be for personal liberties when they are against economic liberties. The ideologies are inconsistent.
What like the economic freedom and liberty for a hypothetical single corporation to become like the 'Shinra' Corporation, and in the process remove 80 per cent of the world's citizenry's freedoms and liberties... The American understanding of Libertarianism is utterly corrupted by American paranoia of communism and socialism.... Which incidentally most Americans would think are one and the same anyway.
Economic liberty is included in personal liberty. One without the other is not true liberty.
@@ponraul1221 That depends solely on wether or not you see capitalism as the right system or not. You don't seem to understand that the left and right fundamentally disagree and thus are never going to unite.
Ducky McDuckface of course I understand that there is fundamentally different thinking. That’s why I’m here saying my side as an example lol
TheLaneSplitter MC the moment someone has the right to private property many others have the right to die which anarchist just plain out reject.
I'd like to hear more about how each side would approach primary education and property inheritance, and military and justice system.
The Lib Left: Freedom to avoid oppression
The Lib Right: Freedom to avoid force
Those two libertarians are quite different thus difficult to unite
I don't know how uniting would work since the systems they promote would benefit different classes: workers vs owners. I don't even own where I live (renting a apartment), so I think in a right libertarian system I would have even fewer rights.
help4343
100 percent correct.
Right-libertarianism promotes the primacy of capital with more or less state intervention.
The Libertarian agenda of the Koch brothers wants private ownership of everything including rivers.
Uniting to smash the state. The state has the monopoly on violence. It's the only real tool big business has to make any change at all. Without gov't, we can finally have the freedom to not associate with big business. Without the state there would be not laws keeping you from creating an AnCom/LibSoc commune or forcing you to engage in capitalism.
A Libertarian Capitalist society allows a Libertarian Socialist society. A Libertarian Socialist society does not allow a Libertarian Capitalist society. The state has much more control over your life than a private multinational corporation does. A private multinational corporation cannot throw you in prison. In the current system, you are perfectly capable of not participating in Capitalism and setting up a commune with crops and a source of water. Multinational corporations use the state to have more power over their competitors and suppress consumer rights. Left Libertarians boast about how they coined the term but most people understand Libertarianism means small government that's there to protect civil liberties and settle disputes. A Libertarian Socialist society would have to use force to prevent people from setting up private businesses or indoctrinating people from a young age into cooperating with their society both are aspects of authoritarianism. Even Noam Chomsky admits Libertarian Socialism is an idealisation.
@@samhirst2830 agree 100%. Left libertarianism is counter-intuitive in my opinion
Anyone here a left libertarian? I have never met one, and wonder how we differ...
How about Kyle Kulinski or Jimmy Dore?
@@professional.commentator They aren't left-libertarians, they're social democrats.
I'm a left-libertarian. I am a free market anti-capitalist and am in favour of decentralized society in which land and industry are communally owned, but people can still do as they please as long as it doesn't harm others.
Jude Lammirato Hate to burst your bubble but free markets are inherently capitalist. And community owned industry and land is socialism aka owning the means of production. So unless you are referring to something along the lines of Libertarian Socialism or Anarcho-Syndicalism, I don't really see how you can be left-libertarian with your beliefs. Btw it is possible for social Democrats to have some overlap with left-libertarians.
@@professional.commentator I _am_ a syndicalist. And free markets are not inherently capitalist. I'd recommend reading about mutualism and occupancy and use property norms.
I actually thought about this the other day, authoritarian left and authoritarian right would be much more different because there would be more policies
If left and right libertarians United that would be the end to the stupid 2 party system. Authoritarians would eventually die out. If we made no parties and just the candidate I would actually vote.
How can a person who advocates the removal of my rights not have the view that me removing them from a heli isn't right?
It's vice versa.
Most of us want people to have MORE rights. We believe everyone should have the right to have an equal say in the workplace and in defining their economic reality, not just those at the top.
@@frocco7125 You already have that right, but you have to do it with your own business or join a pre-existing one that follows this model. I'm all for having more rights, as long as they aren't based on coercing and violating the rights of others.
Libertarian left?
Oxymoronic... Libertarian left are socialists that think that to be slave of a society is to be free.
Enemies are enemies. No matter of they think they are yellow snakes... socialists are always authoritarians. Left, itself, is a tread. Right? Sure, it can tread... but left is always sure to tread.
Is simple: DONT. TREAD. ON. ME. I don't recognize no master other than myself, society is less important than ME.
@@douglasjaramillo3151 ignoring the existence of left-rothbardians, left market anarchists and agorists be like:
@@douglasjaramillo3151 oxymorons can still work and exist, they just create a whole new way of doing things
The concept that something is economically libertarian just because it has people who deal with the economy in a less hierarchical way is based on the presumption that only negative rights exist (meaning the only freedoms you have are to be left alone). However, this doesn't allow for people with virtually nothing to be free as they are immediately in debt for simply trying to live, as appose to the pre-industrial world where there were less people and therefor more resources (ie unclaimed land, soil to grow food, etc). However, when left-libertarians have tried to create a less hierarchical workplace environment, they often empathize to quickly with their authoritarian counterparts, ie Che Guevara and Karl Marx. I would prefer that the libertarian left and libertarian right unite with one another in order to find an economic middle ground that doesn't consist of murdering capitalists, but also doesn't make workers docile to them (like it or not that is what we have now).
This is the appeal to moderation fallacy. If I said that 1+1=4 and you said 1+1=2, should we compromise and agree that 1+1=3?
Also, your premise concerning being born into debt with no way out is fundamentally flawed. Production is the result of the mind. Being poor or in debt is a temporary state to anyone with a mindset on financial freedom. People like you think the only way to make money is to work for other people your entire life rather than working for other people as a stepping stone into working for yourself and then eventually having people working for you. For your premise to be true, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, and Robert Kiyosaki could never have become billionaires, because each of them have been hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars in debt at one point or another in their lives.
HUMANe Mind The CEOs you mentioned don’t usually allow a lot of organization in the workplace, no unions no co-ops, no worker reps on the board, nothing. They even prevent workers from doing this outside the work place by threatening termination. Don’t you see how authoritarian that is? I’m not simply trying to appeal to moderation, don’t take me out of context. I’m saying that my priorities are not economic as much as they are anti-authoritarian so I and only I would be completely comfortable making said compromises.
Mothafuckin Anarchist what does that have to do with being able to become a billionaire today despite being in debt in the past? Your claim was that people born into a capitalist system today would begin life in debt and never have a way out. I just gave you examples that disprove your claim. I never claimed that they were perfect individuals nor did I claim they were socialists. Your current argument seems to be that they they are billionaires who didn’t start out that way, but they aren’t socialists... well duh because socialists don’t become billionaires. Would you prefer I use examples like Musicians, Movies stars, and Athletes who became millionaires without “exploiting” anyone? J.K. Rowling became a millionaire by writing books. She doesn’t have any employees so, who did she “exploit”?
You might be able to claim she became a billionaire by exploiting third world labor for merchandising, but she became a millionaire simply by writing books that sold billions of copies.
HUMANe Mind Sure. You could make that argument about JK.
If you don't support economic liberty you aren't a libertarian
If you support "private corporate tyrannies" you aren't a libertarian.
wut
economic liberty = private corporate tyranny
+Any Dude
more like completely decentralized economic system with many competing corporations as opposed to total government tyranny y'all commies are advocating for
+Any Dude
which could never happen in a 99% capitalist world, unlike in socialism, which, by definition, requires a totalitarian government to redistribute wealth, which is why every single country that has ever tried socialism failed miserably (there's a reason why my political compass isn't all the way to the right). but, even in a 100% capitalist world, you need to somehow beat all competition in order to create a monopoly (which is usually done via government interference and not the provision of vastly superior goods and services, which is cronyism, not capitalism), and i would thus choose "100% capitalism" as opposed to socialism every single time because a 1% chance of a monopoly killing me is much lower than the 99% chance of a totalitarian socialist government killing me for being a kulak (and this choice doesn't account for the vastly better standards of living under capitalism)
Ok now that's good argument the thing is there are things that we need to address first that concern personal liberty than we can deal with economic issues.
What does left leaning libertarian looks like? A unicorn?
Some dude who is high on pot and laying on a couch talking about how we need a universal basic income because clearly, not everyone can get a job in today's economy.
Most I have met are just antifa, unfortunately.
Look up “Libertarian Socialism”
What sound does a unicorn make? Id like to do a good impression but ive never heard one.
Jill stein
"Do you think it would work?" is the dumbest question? Work for whom? That question is inherently collectivist/utilitarian.
I'm libertarian out of practical-ethical concerns, not as a normative-ethical position. I think liberty's nice and useful and I want more of it for me partly just because I like it and it feels unjust when I don't have it (feels, not is), I think it makes societies work smoothly for their individuals, and benefits individuals, or at least clever humanistic individuals, directly through a sense of security and independence. So I find it a pretty relevant question. I can see why normative libertarians would freak out over it though.
also he didn't specify which socialist policy. there are many different types of socialism and even more policies
It's a plain question. It means would everything get substantially worse for everyone.
Libertarians may be united against authoritarians, but even half of one of the major political parties still far exceeds the number of libertarians
Thought this was going to have at least some meaningful dialogue. Had to turn it off at 1:05.
America did work as a libertarian nation, that’s what we were up until the civil war (give or take)
Slavery and less rights for women and blacks is not libertarian
@@truwu8177 is that all you took from the time period of 1776 - 1870s, that's the only difference?
@@Kenulas No of course not, there was less gun control, the USA was more decentralized, and far less state control of people's lives and business. But slavery was still legal, there was no women's suffrage, blacks had far less rights, and minorities were more oppressed. Back then America was more libertarian in some ways and less libertarian in others. Because of this I wouldn't say it was libertarian, just a liberal democracy struggling to find itself.
classical / right wing libertarian* america was not even close to left wing libertarian during those times
@@truwu8177America was libertarian for white straight men.
One of the few things that may divide Left and Right Libertarians may be immigration. Left-Libertarians tend to support more open borders, while a Right-Libertarian would want a more restrictive policy. A Right libertarian would like trump more than a left Libertarian and the left Libertarian maybe supported Gary Johnson more.
Also, keep in mind I am speaking in biological terms for the left and right. However, I don't think libertarians easily fall this category, and for various reasons, I believe that libertarians are able to pull themselves away from the traditional biological left-right paradigm, but may still be influenced albeit to a smaller degree.
Are you kidding? Right Libertarian's love immigrants because of their cheap labor and help of the economy. Right Libertarians hate welfare for illegal immigrants because WELFARE. Also a true Libertarian wouldn't support Trump and his wall because of how much Tax dollars it will take
Ehm. No. What I see is this happening. People are confusing right libertarianism with right-right libertarianism. For example, if your general views are in line with being economically conservative but socially liberal, you are a right libertarian since you put individual liberty because collective control (which includes the government). However right-right libertarians take a more realistic approach to the CURRENT REAL WORLD. For example, a right-right libertarian may support closed borders because we have a welfare state or because of the recognition of bad people wanting to attack innocent people. However, in an ideal world, they would be for open borders. People often confuse these terms.
PaiN ExoTiC there’s no such thing as right right libertarian
@@puppy8125 I explained the difference. If you still cannot comprehend, that's your problem. Not mines.
Its not so much of will it work but who would it work for?
Was that Jonathan Haidt in the audience at the beginning
Jon Haidt is awesome!
im a right leaning libertarian conservative
diverse asmr Gross.
@Jack McCabe what
@@puppy8125 gross what
I'm a left leaning libertarian liberal. *shakes hand*
@@Dubbadizzo86 nice to
Meet you I guess *AWKWARDLY SHAKES HAND*
There's no such thing as the libertarian left.
C W Look up “Libertarian Socialism”
@CW Not all of us do, but i know what you mean.
C W Do you understand Nazi economic ideology?
Michael Wu Do you? What's the difference between the government's name on your deed (socialism) and your name, but the government tells you what to do with "your" property (fascism)? It's the same thing.
To be fair, Nazi Germany was very right leaning socially, but Hitler himself was a kind of centrist.
But we are we just have different ideas
Kinda reminds me of something Glenn Beck said when he was on the Rubin Report. We can unite politically on the values we share and go for 30 years without ever disagreeing with each other.
that can't happen with ancom that'll be the stupidest association for people who believe in private property. I'll rather be in Chile under Pinochet than in Russia or back in my home country of Cuba.
I am somewhat a left libertarian. And right libertarians seem like natural allies to me. But t impression I get from them is that they seem intent on opposing me and allying w right authoritarians .
I actually encounter them praising Trump on libertarian fb groups, and personally, I can't imagine an American politician being any more authoritarian than him.
Some "right-Libertarians" are really no such thing; that is, they are really fascists disguised under the Libertarian moniker. This is why they lick Trump's balls even though Trump is a pathological liar and a wannabe authoritarian. I would consider myself to be more of a right Libertarian but I think we can succeed on uniting right and left Libertarians by proposing that we break society up into municipalities which would have total power to govern themselves as long as they don't deny their citizens basic freedoms and allow people to leave to other municipalities. There should also be a system in which the actual people living in these municipalities can declare their current government illegitimate in case it becomes tyrannical. Under this system, some municipalities could choose to be highly socialistic or highly capitalistic; it depends on what the people living in them prefer. We won't really have a federal "government." Rather, we could have a voluntary federal "state" which would be composed of one person from each municipality selected through a process called Demarchy (lottery process) to avoid corruption, political parties, and to achieve actual representation by our peers instead of by power-hungry politicians. These randomly selected representatives would simply be tasked with protecting people's rights and protecting the nation through a militia. That is, they would decide what to do if the leader's of a particular municipality became tyrannical and would be tasked with declaring war on a nation which attacked us (which is very unlikely). This federal "state" might be funded through a voluntary tax of 5-10% of the total revenue of a municipal government. If a municipal government falls below a certain threshold, they might lose their representative in the federal state but would not lose their rights or their protection. However, municipalities can also choose to unilaterally secede as well and establish their own governance. This way, they would lose their representatives and would lose any benefits they may have garnered from the federal "state."
Anyways, it's much better if right and Left Libertarians came together to advance their agenda, and, in the case of a potential civil war between authoritarian communists and fascists, get a higher chance of victory by fighting against both.
I am a Right Libertarian I would love to ally with Left Libertarians for Social Liberty, and I also want to ally with Republicans for Economic Liberty
Ok so how about this. After we eliminate the state. You and the republicans go to your side and do what you want and us left libertarians can create our socialist paradise.
If only you could see that the left libertarian offers more economic liberty than right does.
Left libertarianism=social liberalism which basically means having a mixed economy with democratic values as well as being socially liberal.
Exactly
if your y axis is authoritarian to anarchist, wbats your x axis?
Libertarian right is not a system it is the absence of a system that the whole point. It's to be as free as possible.
but calling it right is ridiculous..........is capitalism from the right?
robinsss Id say no
I mean, I guess. The far left is socialist.
then the term libertarian right is invalid
you have landed on the problem...........our society has tried to change the definition of ""the left"".............socialist were not originally considered the left.............people like the libertarians were considered the left...............so if we went back to the original spectrum, which we should, then we would have libertarians on the left and conservatives on the right ........these two are much closer to opposites tan socialists and conservatives
I think it's perfectly logical to be a libertarian and a capitalist, while still prefering a system with a few things that are socilaized, such as medicine, electricity, water, infrastructure, etc. It works in my country. It's not perfect, but better than other systems.
From your user name I would assume you are Candian. I would not by any means call Canada a libertarian state - quite the opposite. Few countries like Canada forces and imposes on it's citizens, not only financially to pay for communual service but also as a thought and language police.
@@diegodicannio I agree. It's a flawed system but I think it works pretty well here, compared to a lot of other places.
@@CanadianOptionsTrader Canada has a pretty horrible economy compared more libertarian places like Switzerland or Australia, sure better then the US but the hasn't been libertarian for more than a 100 years now.
If you want to see a successful country using this ideology just reference Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland, or Finland. They are all Libertarian societies, borrowing policy from, both sides of spectrum, in all of them if a politician was caught stealing money, or miss using tax dollars they would actually end up in jail, immediately. The tax rates vary in these countries, Switzerland being the lowest of the group of course, Denmark being one of the highest in the world, but all of these countries have been ranked the top in almost everything, they all function of a small government that only works for the betterment of the people, a highly regulated government that is tracked down to the penny for waste.
Authoritarians have ruined every country ever in history. Americans keep voting for them, and the Libertarian party would shit its self if it didn't select a far far right Libertarian to run for president.
This is actually the most accurate video I've ever watched, Left and Right libertarians generally don't hate each other, and most right libertarians would agree that taxes can be used to make life more convinced, but only through a small government that is highly regulated, and only taxes that benefit the entire population and not just small groups.
America is probably to far gone to get someone in office now that's not authoritarian.
I don't understand the concept of left and right libertarianism
it's bologna that this compass created invented............libertarianism is similar to classical liberalism and as such originally came from the left of the one lined spectrum..........there is no such thing as a right libertarian
take this one..........there's only one libertarian
what does libertarianism have to do with socialism ?
There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil. Ayn Rand
A re-upload with noise reduction would be awesome. The hiss is pretty loud.
Hate the state. Unite the workers as best you can, but unite against the state first! Worst case, I'm wrong, the markets fail, I'd be the first to unite the workers and redistribute the wealth. I hope more people begin to think like this, we have a true common enemy, we simply disagree with the other's economics.
@Humanity Galatica It's inefficient and corrupt, often oppressive.
@Humanity Galatica Things I argue a much smaller and/or different government could do, and most of those things could be done without a government. How about the state backed terror around the world? How about the lack of response to near civil war in many cities in the USA right now?
@Humanity Galatica If the state didn't aid private entities and give them legal protection people would be more likely to know about privately funded terror. Business would have trouble, governments aren't hurt when caught. I have a problem with monopolies of all forms, not just the state.
@Humanity Galatica Ideally the company would be very morally and socially inclined to help their workers and community, but honesty is good too. The government may exist to serve the people but it seems to act more like a business, but it writes it's own rules and doesn't follow it's own rules. I'm not completely sold on abolishing the state, but I want to build up the state as needed, and I don't think it's needed.
Lib unity sounds reasonable
how many have died at the hand of economic libertarians vs socialists?
+Analogy Accepted
"libertarian left is a democratic" that's probably true
"democratic (high freedom)" this, however, is not. democracy is not what guarantees freedom and has always been the exact opposite throughout history (look no further than greek city-states and the roman republic around the consulship of caesar). if "the 51%" can vote to burn your house down or hang your family, you cannot say you being alive and/or owning private property is a universal right (and can thus consider yourself free), but a privilege granted to you by the 51% (which means you have the same level of freedom of a pre-feudalistic slave, and that should be ringing some bells)
"(high freedom) socialism" there is no such thing. you have absolutely no economic freedom and social mobility under socialism, and the things like the first and second amendment rights can be easily revoked by the tyrannical government (which, interestingly, existed in every country that tried to be socialist in history (this should also be ringing some bells))
"socialism...Here are some such countries" none of the countries you listed are (or ever have been) socialist. socialism is, by definition, workers' ownership of the means of production. the countries you listed are practically 100% capitalist, and their only "socialist" policies are a bit more paid leave, welfare and "free" healthcare and education at the cost of significantly higher taxes.
"Or, were you thinking more along the lines of authoritarian and non-democratic socialism" both authoritarian and democratic socialism require a tyrannical government to seize the means of production and redistribute wealth. the only difference between the two is that the democrates think they will be able to somehow keep the government in check after giving it all this power while the authoritarians understand this just cannot be done.
"These would not be libertarian" socialism is inherently anti-libertarian because it, by definition, requires forceful redistribution of wealth, no economic freedom and no social mobility, while also enabling the government to take away your other rights like free speech, the right to bear arms, presumption of innocence or even the rights to life and property.
"I'm not a proponent of socialism, just pointing out that you need to clarify these things" was this enough of a clarification?
Communism hasn't killed enough
This is the dumbest proposal I've ever heard LMAO
The problem is that your trying to fit thing that was created in the abstract first before trying to apply to messy reality, for instance what does the the authoritarian libertarian axis even mean? culturally both authoritarian and libertarian socialists agree on cultural issues if state both authoritarian and libertarian socialists agree on the end goal but disagree on how to get there.
Leftist libertarians are socially liberal, with an economy that favors progressive taxation to support social programs. Right wing libertarians are also socially liberal, but are fiscally conservative. Although their economics differ, they could work together with social issues; such as the legalization of marijuana and prostitution, while weakening the oil lobby.
Thomas Jeffersonian wanted progressive land taxation specifically to push monopolies to sell with the outcome of greater equal distribution of land to create self sufficient sovereign individuals capable of participating in a democratic society. He also surprisingly proposed a total abolition of inheritance to prevent oligarchy plutocracy aristocracy.
We no longer live in an agrarian society so such an idea would need to be reinterpreted. But the principles are clear: a type of equality of condition for productive self sufficiency without coercive exploitative labor which now dominates society.
So although I agree with many right libertarian ideas like legalizing pot, sexual freedom, or ending war and interventionism.
Right libertarians seem to outright ignore that early classical liberals were preoccupied by economic equality of condition and how to achieve it.
I don’t know how it ought to be achieved. But you don’t have equality of condition with billionaires and penniless serfs, that’s feudalism not libertarianism.
If you are in favor of forceful redistribution of wealth, you are not a libertarian. He puts forward a false dichotomy at the beginning. Socialism has been demonstrated not to work every single time. On the other hand, we know that the more economic freedom we get, the more prosperous we become. You cannot compare something that has been proven not to work with something that has not yet been proven it does not work, but all the data points to it in fact working.
How much you wanna bet that, if the Lib left and right united, the left would end up running everything...in a very authoritarian manner.
"Socialism has been demonstrated not to work every single time."
Lol.
Clearly, we do not know whether "socialism" or radical economic freedom have been proven to work or not work, as we have not done the randomized, controlled experiments on entire societies to figure it out, and doing so would be clearly unethical. Perhaps "socialism" is historically associated with other characteristics that are what lead to its apparent failure. Perhaps radical economic freedom is historically associated with other characteristics that are what lead to its apparent success.
However, we do have some thought experiments that suggest that as long as there is any amount of scarcity, we need a free market so that goods get distributed in a way that is conducive to the creation of wealth. Assuming people are rational, we will only buy stuff that benefits us more than it costs us. When a trade happens, both people benefit more than they lose (because they trade rationally in a self-interested manner), and hence trade creates wealth. It is reasonable to assume that people are often rational, and so it is also reasonable to assume that trade often creates wealth.
Would you say that the public school system doesn't work? That is socialized education.
Do entrepreneurs create a lot of wealth? Psychology research tells us that menial work benefits from having monetary incentives, while creative work is actually impeded by monetary incentives. While entrepreneurship involves a lot of menial work, it also involves a lot of creative work. The existence of social safety nets reduces monetary incentive for self-motivated entrepreneurs, allowing them to be more creative. So, on top of preventing human suffering, social safety nets boost entrepreneurial creativity, perhaps at the expense of entrepreneurial effectiveness in menial work. Are the costs worth it? Is coercion ever worth it? What should be socialized? Should anything be socialized?
Obviously, unless we conform to rigid ideology, our public policy must be informed by science.
+ogogo ogpgpg
I don't have a solution. In general, we make better decisions when we have better information. Because experiment reveals causality, experiment allows us to make better political decisions.
You guys have a deep and ingrained hatred of your generalized "left"... I dont mean that to be disrespectful either btw. I'm a Left Libertarian and I have my ideas, sure, but they ARE "Ideas" and how we ALL get ahead in society is COMING TOGETHER DESPITE OR DIFFERENCE BECAUSE OUR FUNDAMENTAL PHILOSOPHY IS INLINE, AND HOW TO SUCCEED SMOOTHLY IS ACTUALLY TALKING SO THESE "IDEAS" OF BOTH SIDES CAPITALISTICALLY REDUCE TO THE BEST POSSIBLE IDEAS, THAT!!! IS WHAT COMMUNICATION IS!!!! The vast Majority of Libertarians on the Left are vehemently open minded individuals whether you want to believe it or not haha
Anyways, Corruption is the ultimate failure of either political side(Authoritarian is ultimately always the outcome of corruption in some way), its a matter of diminishing the potential of corruption on either side of the spectrum. Something that hasn't ever been done on a national scale, that hasnt been disproven ONCE and has been shown in every test to actually have a very strong potential to work is "Universal Basic Income". Neither the left or right has been able to debunk it, rather the most theyve done is bicker over how to implement it. I happen to be on a more conservative side with a few left ideas on how to, where you replace the vast majority of the welfare state. Stop punishing people for trying to succeed, stop paying people for being useless, stop incentivising women to become mothers that live off the government(to be single mothers), EFFECTIVELY end or strongly deteriorate homelessness, heavily cripple corrupt bureaucracy, heavily stimulate entrepreneurship, add consistent velocity of money to the economy and keep businesses competitive and so on ... Iits been heavily supported by the tests that have taken place, though it hasnt been done on a massive country wide scale(I live in Canada) and thus, MAYBE(All evidence shows it holds heavy potential thus far, nothing has legitimately debunked it) it wouldnt work but to deny even trying it is absolutely ridiculous haha
Socialism is coercion. There is no such thing as libertarian socialists.
Explain to me how this is even remotely true
You’re thinking of right libertarian, which is typically what’s though of when someone says libertarian, but we’re including left libertarian, which could include socialists, dumbass.
Socialist - "Of course it would work". Exactly - look everywhere it has been tried, it's worked out so well for Venezuela, etc. As for economic libertarians, "of course it wouldn't work". Actually, the free market typically self-regulates fairly well. I'm not naive to think that all regulation is harming the system or that no regulation at all wouldn't have problems. We know there are short-comings in the system that government can smooth over - particularly where it comes to fair play in the market. But a good deal of all regulation we have right now would be unnecessary if it weren't for government involvement in the first place. Obamacare is a perfect example - the reason health care is so expensive today isn't because of the free market - it's because of government intervention in the 40's surrounding wage caps. And then the government doubling down on businesses providing health care through employment. There is such a third-party payer system that has been in place for so long that there is little wonder that prices have increased. How can there possibly be competition in the marketplace if nobody even knows how much they are paying?
Venezuela's not a communist state. Cuba is.
I am an Anarchocapilist and it would be incredible if both Libertarians in the left and right could unite with the same goal of toppling down the State of minimizing it to the point of almost no existance.
There literally is no reason both sides can't work together.
There is no such thing as "libertarian left" no matter how much those who use such a title want it to be. Not respecting property rights just because you don't approve of them is authoritarian. Advocating for various state programs makes you authoritarian. Just because you want other aspects of your life to be free doesn't mean that you have a coherent sense of individual liberty.
I want to break down your comment a bit because I'm a bit confused as to what you mean at some points. You say that "not respecting property rights just because you don't approve of them is authoritarian". What exactly do you mean by this? Are you referring to eminent domain? Everyone must believe in a certain level of eminent domain, even libertarians. If the government believes they need to set up a police station, but the area they want to set up in is fully controlled by private property owners that don't want to leave, what should they do? They could force out the private property owners without any payment, but that would just be straight up communism. They could let them have their way, but then there couldn't be a police station in an area that needs one to enforce, ironically amongst other things, property rights. The solution is to remove them, yes by force, but to pay them a fair amount. I'm not saying this is a super pleasant solution, it's a lesser of 3 evils, but it's the best way. You also say that advocating for various state programs is authoritarian. Maybe, but before I criticize this point I would like to know your idea of which programs we should and should not have. Do you believe in public education? Health insurance? Welfare programs like Chip/TANP, etc.? Which do you want to get rid of and why?
"What exactly do you mean by this?"
I mean that all violations of property are violations of the NAP and thus not libertarian.
"Everyone must believe in a certain level of eminent domain, even libertarians."
Lol, no we don't. It's just theft, and theft isn't justified just because you really want someone else's land for some other use.
" If the government believes they need to set up a police station, but the area they want to set up in is fully controlled by private property owners that don't want to leave, what should they do?"
Not be a government because government actions violate the NAP. Were you looking for some sort of special exception because an organization calls itself government? Textbook special pleading, mate.
"They could let them have their way, but then there couldn't be a police station in an area that needs one to enforce, ironically amongst other things, property rights."
People decide if they need police, not some third party called government. Second, government isn't needed in order to enforce property rights. Please see David Friedman's Machinery of Freedom. There's a summary right here on RUclips.
"The solution is to remove them, yes by force, but to pay them a fair amount. "
There is no fair amount by force. You're describing armed robbery all the same. It's not justified just because someone else thinks that they "need" the land. If a seller isn't selling, you have no place to dictate something else to them.
"I'm not saying this is a super pleasant solution, it's a lesser of 3 evils, but it's the best way. "
No, it is not. The best way is the voluntary way.
"Do you believe in public education? Health insurance? Welfare programs like Chip/TANP, etc.? Which do you want to get rid of and why?"
I don't believe in any of them because the state always violates the NAP and it's wrong to rob others regardless of the ends you have in mind.
Left libertarians do believe in property rights, but they believe that all property is owned collectively by humanity. Grab the nearest book to you. Who made the pages out of wood? Who planted the tree to produce the wood? Who looked after the cows to make the leather? Who taught that same farmer how to look after his herd properly? Who made the ink in which the words are written? How many thousands of authors was the author who made the book inspired by? Human beings aren't isolated; they rely on each other for everything. So surely then everyone has contributed to the making of the book in some way? This theory is difficult to explain, but if you want to learn more to read The Conquest of Bread.
James Adams
As a left libertarian I can assure you that what you said is completely false. You can respect property rights and still favor left leaning economic ideas. You do this by instead of forcefully collectivising (like what left authoritarians do) you instead group up with like minded individuals and use your resources to found communes and worker co-ops with your own blood sweat and tears. It's called respecting the free market of ideas.
But if you bothered to understand history or politics at all, you'd realize that "libertarian left" has been a political ideology for hundreds of years, compared to the Capitalist PR job that came out in the 50s that is the "libertarian right"
And if you really want to get into the issue of authoritarianism, our modern concept of "private property" only exists because of one of the largest state-sanctioned land thefts in western history, where the Enclosure Acts in England basically took large chunks of common land, land that had no owner and could be used by anyone, separated it into smaller bits of land, which were sold off to the highest bidders.
The rich and powerful used to the state to steal from the people, and in that act, they created modern property rights and class relations. Your property rights only exist because of authoritarianism and theft, and for true justice and liberty to be achieved, it must be undone.
I've only met one person who claimed to be a "left libertarian" and she wasn't really libertarian because she was pro socialism and abortion
chosenone4447 A libertarian is somebody that holds liberty to be the highest value. Socialism enables a government to take money from its citizens and disperse it as it sees fit. However, there are many people that do not wish to give their money to the government because they believe that the government is often inefficient and corrupt. These people have to be coerced into giving up their money, therefore they are of the perspective that their liberty is being infringed. This is why libertarianism and socialism do not mix well, because libertarianism and taxes do not mix well. Also, I don't think Noam Chomsky is a great source. I've listened to him speak to Sam Harris and he was more intent on insulting and embarrassing Sam rather than having an actual discussion. I can't say I respect him as an intellectual.
chosenone4447 I watched a couple of his videos and have listened to what he described as a socialist libertarian. He was just describing Marxism, and claiming that North America had perverted the meaning of the word libertarian. My response: it's just semantics. Most of America believes that libertarians hold liberty as their highest value, Socialism infringes on the individual's liberty. They are incompatible.
The only common *modern* left view that I can think of that is compatible with libertarianism would be climate change. Cap and trade is a libertarian policy that would work well to prevent carbon emissions. Classical liberals however, have a lot more in common with libertarians. Maybe that is the root of our disagreement. Noam Chomsky comes from a generation where being left meant something completely different.
Left Libertarianism is currently the closest label to me on the Compass, feel free to ask me whatever haha I'll answer whatever I'm able xD Communication regardless of idea is the fundamental part of society. You cant learn without a legitimate wrong and you cant be wrong without a legitimate right, its quite literally the laws of the universe lol corrupted ignorance is the source of both right and left extreme, radical political movements.
PS. Keep in mind I'm not a representative of anything lol I just enjoy having an open dialogue. Also, both of us can either be right or wrong haha Personally I dont agree with your blocked out idea of libertarianism as some singular, ultimate form(Not sure if thats what you were saying, but that idea, from how I interpret it as, is an extreme one)
Aaron Pennell
Ok. What do you think of abortion and socialism?
+chosenone4447 libertarians are capitalists period. You can't have freedom without capitalism. The American definition is the only one that matters. And I don't care what Chavez's husband has to say about libertarianism.
Im interested in talking to dr.weinstein about this. I find alot of value in creating a social system like this after we remove globalists from power.
We’ll collab when it comes to take down authoritarianism but then go back away from eachother
It's called Market socialism
Hard pass, bro. Left libertarians can Hoppe outta my helicopter.
lol good one :)
lol
You can't even spell hop right.
Lol pathetic neckbeard
@@seasalt489 You didn't even get the joke, ya neck beard. Maybe look up Hans-Hermann Hoppe
You don't know a lot of left-libertarians xD
Common Law economic system similar to the intent of the Founders. A government limited to protecting you from force and fraud uses civil and criminal courts operating under the Common Law to do so. Any dispute on voluntary contracts, property rights, intellectual property, etc, could be handled under our courts by allowing each party to present evidence in their favor. When the same disputes are handled in Congress, under the Executive Branch, or by federal bureaucrats, conflicts of interest, special interest, political seniority, and family relations prevail over what is right for the country.
@yezede relegen ?
Well its a an incorrect statement, libertarians do not wan't to deregulate everything, they want regulation done by the civil society and not by government bureaucrats.
Lol. No.
This is probably the worst video ever uploaded on this otherwise great channel channel.
this is probably the worst video ever uploaded on an otherwise terrible channel
0:08 Jonathan Haidt in audience?
Holy crap.
Left-Libertarianism is rarely well-understood.
Centrist Left-Libertarianism seems like a contradiction because progressive social-democrats defend social liberties while limiting economic liberty via taxation to fix the systemic inequality of capitalism generated by the relation between those who own capital and those forced to participate in the labor market.
However, on the extreme end of the libertarian left spectrum, you have market anarchism, with a key difference compared to right-libertarianism, different property rights. In Laissez-Faire Capitalism there is a person who owns land and the capital contained on the land (for example factories) and the workers who must participate in the labor market to be able to produce. However, in the Left-Wing Version of Anarchism, aka Market Socialism, the underlying idea is that no one worked for land or natural resources, so these must be used communally and not be property of anyone (similarly to rivers and bodies of water currently) the result is worker democracy in management of resources and instead of corporations you have worker cooperatives, where there is no capitalist to exploit your labor.
Weinstein: Help help! The students we radicalized are attacking ME now!
How has Weinstein radicalized students?
There's no such thing as a left libertarian.
true.......but there's no such thing as a right libertarian either'..........the compass is bologna............there is only libertarian
I don't see the need for 4 quadrants but this quiz is much better..........take this one..............www.theadvocates.org/quiz/
Yes there is
I need more information on how he defines liberty. In America most people endorse liberty, it's one of our founding ideals, but few of those people who are in favor of liberty identify as libertarians.
Good points. There are two camps of libertarians: Portland style leftists and conservative style right. These two camps do not let libertarian to become a major force and unite. Check my video that tries to unite both camps: ruclips.net/video/41MGaTxzPHA/видео.html
I'm a right libertarian. My beliefs are direct democracy and free market. In my opinion they reinforce each other. I could not unite with left libertarians, I just feel like it would destroy my idealization
crony capitalism (what you call the "free" market) is inherently incompatible with democracy
"My beliefs are direct democracy..." except when it's in the workplace- a place where modern day people spend most of their lives at.
Right libertarians: We believe in freedom!
Left libertarians : We do too! Except....
Most salient point is a uniting around liberty. Once a significant (majority?) number of people rally around liberty, and prioritizing liberty of individuals (as opposed to divisive identity politics) policy debates take care of themselves. Not trying to paper over big debates but I think Bret's idea is great as a way to energize a whole new generation.
We need to find something good out of the ash heap of identity politics and the corruption of current left and right politics.
What are those values though? I think the comment section is saying way more than this guy is. All he's done is bash certain economics and say the 'two lefts' should work together.
Makes absolutely no sense
I took that political spectrum quiz. I ended up just about right in the very middle of the two axis, ever so slightly falling in the “libertarian right” quadrant. Our species is highly evolved in many ways, and in equally many ways, very clearly evident in being only two chromosomes away from chimpanzee.
The United States was founded as a *_Republic_* and not a democracy. It’s like no one understands this at all anymore in our country.
What do Libertarians think at FDR I think both Left Libertarian and Right Libertarian dislike him.
I’m myself a Libertarian
I have lot's of questions on how left-libertarianism works. I have been thinking that leftism is authoritarian by definition. Some left-libertarians mind explaining?
They're leftists that are anti-capitalist and anti-statist.
We're anti capitalist. We also don't like state run socialism. Rather a private co-op run companies owned by workers in market socialism.
Authority begins with hierarchy. Left-wing libertarians or social liberterrands. Want to minimize the power and authority of social hierarchies.
Anarchy is anti hierarchy not simply anti-government. Capital creates hierarchy. For capital to exist the state mush first exist.
It is true anarchy, no god, no government, no class, no capital, no patriarchy, no borders and no supreme race.
Sorry, that does not compute. "Leftist libertarians" is an oxymoron.
left libertarianism doesn't exist kthx
I would say there are left and right leaning libertarians. Left would be more for anti-christian morals and right for christian morals. Both those on the left and right are typically statists.
And right-libertarianism is an oxymoron kthx
Christopher Scallio What kind of a political compass are you using? The standard political compass has the X axis as economic freedom. It has nothing to do with Christianity. In fact the constitution of the USA itself states that religion should have nothing to do with politics, doesn't it? I think the OP is right - there can't be such a thing as libertarian left because they are for a small state and economic freedom by definition... unless "left-leaning" is redefined to mean something else.
I haven't watched the video yet btw so there may be something I've missed.
left-leaning means economic democracy.
Any Dude to quote Wikipedia, ""left" is defined as the desire for the economy to be run by a cooperative collective agency (which can mean the state, but can also mean a network of communes)." Now in what way is this democracy?
Also, I've just realized that I had got things backwards about the name of the bottom part of the compass... or there should be a specific name for the libertarians on the right. I'm completely fine with anarcho-capitalists.
I think social policies like Universal Healthcare should be options for the citizens not forced upon them. If you want a private healthcare that is your choice, and that choice shouldn't be taken away. I think trying these ideas out on a state level would be good to start off.
As a lib center I am all fore this.
What is a lib center?
I aligned with Ghandi, perfectly.
when did libertarian party in america become socialist or include them?
The Libertarian Party has a libsoc caucus.
the LP is a hoax
Does it matter? Libertarianism has no prospects. It's clear most of the electorate want economic intervention of some kind. Libertarians whether right or wrong are naval-gazing at best.
No, i don't want to
Something ive been saying myself for years now, i have more in common with my fellow Libitarians who happen to sit on the right as oposed to my position on the left than i do with the authoritarian left, and certainly not the right there. I think people are too focused on left and right being the big divide as its not, its just minor petty things, the big differences occur on the libitarian and authoritarian axis, where the libitarians are far more agreed on both left and right on most things, but the Authoritarians are only in agreement that they want total control, even though they would enact that in very different ways.
This comment section seems to be very niche - US-centric, and therefore...Right libertarians seem a majority. When looking at Libertarianism tradition and literature Left/Socialist is overwhelmingly much more developed/mature. Anarchism is almost always associated with far left, and ANCAP...is really a minor movement with barely any significance in history. I recommend checking out the Zapatistas movement and especially Rojava for some Libertarian Socialist societies in practice nowadays ✌️
Ive advocated for libertarian unity for a long time and Ive given up on it, you can only get so many death threats from people you are trying to help before you just give up.
The Freedom of the individual is only borne through community. Alone, man is but beast. Without the Formation of communes, how may the people safeguard their freedoms and will?
I would like to Get examples of each quadrant, because when I look at the real World, i only see right, left and libertarian. Either people are for economic freedom, or they want the state to control either right leaning or left leaning.
Noam Chomsky