And what is a left libertarian? How do the two coalesce into a ‘Libertarian Party’ in other countries?
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.
They are suspiciously knowledgeable about age-of-consent laws.
I just rewatched an old video of Joel Haver’s where jokers a groomer
name a state, Batman. Any state.
uh, Mississippi
16 with parental consent. Mmm!
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.
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
They do not care about other people, only themselves. They despise things like social programs.
The term confuses me in politics: it seems to have too many meanings; and even the agreed definitions are flexible.
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?
their podcast diet usually
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.
