No.76538
Would you call libertarianism a right-wing ideology, or "neither left nor right?"
Image semi-related.
No.76539
>posting shitty neo-wojaks
gtfo
No.76540
Left-libertarianism is an oxymoron, right-libertarianism is redundant.
No.76542
>>76540
That's not what I'm asking, though. Regardless of how idiotic the left-libertarians are, would you consider libertarianism to be right-wing, OR le big-brained intellectual "neither left nor right?" I've met people suggesting the latter, mostly citing "The Three Languages of Politics," suggesting that the libertarian mindset is fundamentally different than the conservative one.
No.76545
>>76542
Anything you could accurately describe as libertarian (in the modern sense of the word, >inb4 commie WE WUZ LIBERTARIANS N SHIET) would be right leaning or centrist at the very least.
>the libertarian mindset is fundamentally different than the conservative one
That holds true for Neocons, but there are plenty of similarities and overlap between outright right-libertarianism and paleo-conservativism.
No.76561
It's right wing, no questions about that.
No.76565
>>76538
Libertarianism is right-wing.
Going by the modern political compass, it has to be; far-right is 100% free markets, and far-left is 100% planned economy. Libertarianism is only reconcilable with the right.
Going by the traditional definition, where right is about preserving an older, meritocratic social order, while the left is egalitarian and focused on social "progress", libertarianism is still indisputably a right-wing ideology. It's certainly not left-wing, since equality cannot be reconciled with liberty, and it has to be right-wing, since a society founded on non-aggression will naturally lead to a meritocratic social order (since people will always have high standards for who they associate with, when not forced to do otherwise).
No.76567
>>76565
The economic left isn't about "equality" though, it's about sharing. Yes that is retarded, but folks due share. See: cucks.
No.76571
>>76567
It's not about "sharing" or "equality," it's about collective ownership.
No.76578
>>76567
Hence, I cited two different definitions of left and right.
The modern one (red, blue, green, purple one) has left and right in purely economic terms, so shit like equality, sharing, collective ownership, etc. don't technically enter into it, even if a planned economy is instituted with those principles in mind.
The "layman" understanding of left and right, if you will, defines the left as egalitarian and the right as meritocratic. It's in terms of social structure, rather than economic terms. Incidentally, this is why I prefer the modern political compass, since it's in much more concrete terms (like a pH scale) than the standard wishy-washy talk of mainstream politics.
No.76579
>>76571
That's the retard tier of leftism. But since politics likes to drift toward extremes that inevitably happens, like Stalin seizing the farms.
No.76603
>>76578
>defines the left as egalitarian and the right as meritocratic
but thats ass-backwards
right is about inherited priviledge, from Divine Right of kings and nobles to the liberal-bourgeois mountains of money they can reinvest for perpetual profit and thus inherit success
the left is about positive freedom, where things like education and a reasonable quality of life are open to all based on ability and merit rather than the right familial connections or wealth. in a socialist society no great man or woman has to waste their life McSlaving and can instead concentrate on their expertise in arts or sciences.
>muh china, soviet union, party elite
even with the party cardres forming a priviledged group, the educational standards achieved by socialists more or less everywhere are staggering compared to capitalist countries of similar developmental level. also Mao was an idealist shit I'm not going to waste my breath defending his faith in magic
No.76606
>>76603
>right is about inherited priviledge, from Divine Right of kings and nobles to the liberal-bourgeois mountains of money they can reinvest for perpetual profit and thus inherit success
>the left is about positive freedom, where things like education and a reasonable quality of life are open to all based on ability and merit rather than the right familial connections or wealth.
<dude lmao it's not about economic policies
<the right is shit, you can tell because I've made up my own definition as for what right-wing means
>in a socialist society no great man or woman has to waste their life McSlaving
Except for when they have to slave.gov to support the socialist programs propping up the populace. r u stoopid?
>the educational standards achieved by socialists more or less everywhere are staggering compared to capitalist countries of similar developmental level.
<murder/imprison all of your country's intellectuals
<teach remaining retard-tier peasants basic education
<thereby technically producing a massive increase in ""educational standards""
<this is considered good
<the commiefag thinks this is a good argument for socialism
>also Mao was an idealist shit I'm not going to waste my breath defending his faith in magic
Bitch you're not breathing you're typing
No.76607
>>76606
of course its about economic policies you mong, the economic policies stem from different view of society, man and the world.
property rights - negative freedom - right-wing
human rights - positive freedom - left-wing
now go read some political theory, young brainlet
>Except for when they have to slave.gov to support the socialist programs propping up the populace. r u stoopid?
<doing whatever work that self-actualises you and is to your strengths that is also socially necessary is the same as wasting your time selling burgers to retards because some porky needs their 5th yacht and you need money to survive
>rest of the post
that's a really nice strawman you built there, shame you went and destroyed it. Look at levels of education in Imperial Russia compared to Soviets in 10-20 years, Nicaragua, Cuba, the parts of India governed by commies etc. Same with levels of public health.
if you want purges of intellectuals then you go to Mao or Pol Pot but as said before I have no interest in defending their idealism
No.76609
>>76607
>nicaragua
>Cuba
>intellectual
Did I reading this right cause pretty sure that's not what those places are known for. In fact arent those places infamous for poverty and death?
No.76610
>>76609
Well, compare them to countries with similar levels of economic development. Cuba for example is the best-educated country in the region despite its relatively low GDP and perpetual blockade by the US. Cuban doctors are also quite famous worldwide.
Nicaragua was mostly reference to the massive literacy campaigns the Sandinistas enacted during and after the Civil War. The civil war where the US funded the right-wing death squads known as Contras against a leftist government that had overthrown a US-backed murderous repressive dictator, mind you.
No.76613
>>76609
also re: Cuba
Basically the only country in the world with a high HDI and a sustainable ecological impact
No.76649
>>76607
>slaves are self actualized and do socially necessary work
interesting standpoint, unfortunately I dont believe men can be owned and stand against slavery
No.76653
>>76609
>Did I reading this right
Yes, you did, what he means by that is "who cares if everything about that country is shit as long as they have good doctors", just like how the Soviet Union was great just because they rounded up a bunch of kolhozniks into factories and sent dogs into space, ignoring the fact that had Russia taken a different course with free markets and a fair government, they would have been a proper European first-world country and probably colonized Mars by now.
No.76675
>>76607
>Look at levels of education in Imperial Russia compared to Soviets in 10-20 years
Education in the USSR was abysmal. The poor Soviet children even thought socialism could work. :^)
>>76613
>HDI
This damn thing again? It's a measure of how scandinavian a country is, basically. Last I checked, it measures health, education, and wealth, and rates them both from 0 to 0.333. However, with health, you reach the 0.333 quite easily, as the thing caps off at 82 or so. Wealth, I think something quite similar. But education, that's where a country can shine among the competition. And how is education measured? By how much time is spent in educational facilities on average. So, if you want to score high on the HDI, you don't want an immortal race of millionaires, you want a quite healthy, quite rich population that spends twenty years in school. It's not even required you end up with any good philosophers for your effort, or even with skilled workers, it's enough if you let your populace sit in school learning the ABC over and over again.
Socialist countries always fare quite well on measures of education in general. Everyone there can read, everyone went through ten years or so of schooling, and university is subsidized, and that's enough to warrant a top score on most indexes. Of course, what you cannot measure quantitatively are things like how profound and beautiful a country's poetry is, if the people have found a healthy balance between hope and skepticism, or if they're cultured. The beauty of simple villagers speaking three dialects, knowing folk dances and folk songs and how to play two instruments, that's lost on an index, but that they cannot read, that will instill dread into the hearts of the professors at Harvard, who lament the fate of every skilled worker who nevertheless cannot read The Idea of Justice.
No.76695
>>76613
>HDI
Statistics such as longevity and the literacy are nationally reported without independent verification.
No.76762
>>76603
>right is about inherited priviledge
Citation needed.
>the left is about positive freedom
Citation needed.
>the educational standards achieved by socialists more or less everywhere are staggering compared to capitalist countries of similar developmental level
I don't see how educational standards are a measure of success, but regardless:
Citation needed.
No.76879
What Liggio said. Throne and Altar on the right, liberty on the left, socialism a confused middle.
No.76896
>>76607
>property rights - negative freedom - right-wing
Would you be ok with me coming to your house and taking your computer?
No.76913
>>76879
>implying most rightwingers are religious or monarchists
No.76921
No.76925
>>76610
You're either underage, a bot, naive, or just plane dumb but one thing is certain. You have not the slightest idea as to what you're talking about nor are you capable of forming your own thoughts as your posts all read like something some one who is trying to present in a class project. Please grow up kid.
No.76936
>>76925
>clarifying your position by providing examples makes someone naive or a bot
This is some high level autism.
No.76939
>>76921
I like to rent out my personal property when I don't use it, does that make it private or personal? What if I run a B&B out of my guest room?
Your definition is retarded and arbitrary, like most socialist nonsense.
No.76942
File: 0445754f97626b7⋯.jpg (Spoiler Image, 129.49 KB, 720x960, 3:4, 6c440ec902a445f47dc18117e5….jpg)
>>76939
>he rents out his soiboipussi when he doesn't use it
LMAO!
No.76943
>>76942
>when he doesn't use it
>doesn't use it
>implying
No.76945
>>76939
Both are personal.
>the term private property refers to capital or the means of production, while personal property refers to consumer and non-capital goods and services.
I don't see how this is an arbitrary definition.
No.76950
>>76945
You're missing the point. "Personal" items can easily become capital investments, and factors of production can likewise be used for personal means. Forbidding one but not the other is retarded.
No.76959
Libertarianism is fascism for cucks. Address the real issues faggots.
No.76961
>>76959
Fascism is communism for people who hate niggers and jews. Address the real issues faggot.
No.76967
>>76538
I'd say libertarianism, as in little l libertarianism, is neither left nor right. That being said, I think consistent libertarias will always edge towards being a "right-wing" ideology. I'd include left-libertarians, mutualists, syndicalists, etc. into the overarching "libertarian" tent, but within that tent there's different booths, and they're certainly staying far the fuck away from the rational cafe and pub.
No.76973
>>76967
mutualists are either commie fucks, or ancaps that sperg out over self employment and worker owned co-ops.
No.76976
>>76973
>mutualists are either commie fucks
No.
>or ancaps that sperg out over self employment and worker owned co-ops.
Partially yes.
No.76987
>>76976
>you're not allowed to give out loans or buy someone else's labor or rent out your property
>but we're totally all for freedom and liberty
No.76989
>>76967
>left-libertarians
Are closet socialists that don't want to admit it, their ideological relation to libertarianism proper is spotty at best.
No.77011
>>76538
>libertarianism
>a right-wing ideology
<libershit
<anything but kosher
Cucks can't be right-wing.
>>76961
Shill or retarded
No.77012
No.77021
>>76987
>you are not allowed to enslave or murder random people
>but we're totally all for freedom and liberty
No.77024
>>77021
slavery and murder infringe on liberty
No.77035
>>77024
And who is gonna stop me? The State? Soyboys with faggy bowties?
If you give people freedom, if you remove the moderation that keeps them in line(state), they will do what they please. What do alpha males like to do, anon? What do women do whatever possible, anon?
Anarchists btfo once again.
No.77039
>>77035
>And who is gonna stop me?
Your local militia and all your neighbors with rifles.
No.77041
>>77039
>implying I don't have my own gang who is much better trained, experience and equiped
What now, faggot? Nature follow it's course and I rape your women?
No.77043
>>77041
>my dad could totally beat up your dad
ok
No.77044
>>77043
Answer the quetion loser. This is ascenario that could and will happen in your anarco paradise.
No.77062
>>77024
so does wage labour
No.77064
>>77044
(((Anarcho-capitalists))) have no plans of transition, they unconsciously recognize that their society could only work on a deserted island with a dozen of fanatic followers of their ideology that's why they constantly jack off to Crusoe economics and space colonization.
No.77078
>>77064
some billionaire purchases land in africa and buys a few nukes from Pakistan. done
No.77079
Libertarianism is Conservatism but without religion or a strong underlying foundation.
Atheists don't believe in God, therefore no morals, ethics, values, sanctity of life, marriage, etc. But they could still believe in freedom. Hence Libertarianism.
>Conservative: I believe in freedom because ____
>Libertarian: I believe in freedom because freedom
Conservatives view freedom as a means to an end, whereas Libertarians view freedom as an end itself.
No.77082
>>77079
Libertarians view freedom as a means to an end, but it recognizes that your end is not necessarily my end and gives everyone the ability to choose their own end. I just want my wife and my land and my books. Take your wars and your ethnostates and whatever (((ideals))) you deem worth robbing me over and fuck right the hell off
>>77062
>voluntary interaction infringes on liberty
No.77083
>>77079
Conservatives value whatever the system currently is.
No.77101
>>76538
That depends on whether you're referring to the original libertarians or the ones who hijacked the term a few decades ago when the US gov't effectively outlawed the far left. It speaks volumes that the left has been opposed by statists at every turn while right-"libertarianism" has seen tremendous support from the ruling class.
No.77178
>>77083
no
some of them are monarchists
No.77195
>>77178
those are reactionaries
reactionary: go back
conservative: stay here
liberal: more freedom for the bosses
leftist: actual freedom for everyone
No.77196
>>77101
The way I've come to frame it is as positive and negative individualism.
The original libertarians believed in the positive flourishing of the individual. His freedom was to be actualized in meaningful form. It wasn't simply about making choices, but about deciding what choices to make, and having the ability to meaningfully make them. Independent of the existent order.
Right-libertarianism is basically the opposite. The individual or liberty aren't ideals in any sense of the term, they're merely presupposed. Taken as an axiom so that people can easily be disciplined. If you fail within the existent order, it's out of your own free choice. No one has to care about that. You have no right to complain.
Individuals aren't protected. What's protected is property. Right-libertarianism ought to be more properly called propertarianism. The absolute subjugation of the individual to property and whatever agency rules over it.
These may be individuals of course, but that's rather arbitrary. They certainly don't represent individuals in general. Plenty of people don't own very much, certainly not any landed estate. And conversely, much land is owned by faceless corporations, owned by conglomerates, owned by trust funds, owned by insurances, owned by other corporations. The individual – who, we have to note, were originally oppressive capitalists stealing land – is eventually left out of the equation.
I have no idea how anyone defending this ideology can call himself a proponent of liberty. The inversion of terms is quite striking. Only something as extensive as the American propaganda machine can get this done.
No.77197
>>77195
>leftist: actual freedom for everyone
aka all starve equally (+more freedom for the new ruling party class)
No.77198
>>77197
It's striking how the only arguments right-wingers have at this point are embarrassing attempts at guilt by association. I mean, this is a textbook example, isn't it?
No.77200
>>77198
>Communism has never been tried
No.77201
>>77064
>what is agorism, pan-secessionism, seasteading, or micronations on terra nullis
>>77101
>libertarianism has seen tremendous support from the ruling class
No.77202
>>77101
>Chomsky: The free market leads to tyranny. Never mind that the only tyrannies we actually know about are all state governments.
The fact that his charlatan has hoodwinked so many people with his blatant bullshit speaks to the utterly sad state of 21st century western academia.
No.77204
>>77200
Well, it's been tried once in the form of Marxism-Leninism, which a bunch of people then copied. The attempt failed very tragically, but it's still only one attempt. No one ever allowed any other attempts to get off the ground.
>>77201
>what is the koch brothers?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqI_7wHuDEE
>>77202
Yeah, it's like having a powerful democracy really helps in avoiding tyranny. Who would have thought?
No.77208
>>77204
Where's the currency backed by precious metals? Where are the schools teaching children about praxeology? Why is mainstream economic thought almost entirely following Keynes? Why was Ron Paul repeatedly given the shaft by the Republican party?
No.77223
>>77208
The ruling class isn't unified in backing libertarianism. I think of it mainly a ruse to get a portion of the population on their side when they need it. Like when a regulation is bothering them, they can just reach out to the libertarians. Get plenty of backing to push the law. Like they did with net neutrality. Simple trick really.
Some capitalists have more of an interest in libertarian policy than others. Like those in increasingly regulated industries. Erm… *koch* *koch*
They aren't actually going to dismantle the state. They need the state and know it. Capitalism as we know it would just die if we did that. Not that it's even feasible. If you tried, some capitalist would set up his own state institutions. That's just common sense.
No.77229
>>77223
>Like when a regulation is bothering them, they can just reach out to the libertarians.
The "elite" you're kvetching about are the biggest proponents of those regulations, dumbass. They can just eat the cost and their smaller competition is regulated out of existence. Contrary to your fantasies, the wealthy elite aren't enemies of the state and its regulation, but more often than not the first to suck at the government teat.
No.77234
>>77223
>trying to convince me to give up soy
Nice try (((bro)))
No.77273
>>77229
>libertarians in charge of reading comprehension
Of course they love sucking out of the government's teat, unless the government actually starts providing to the people. That's less titty for them. So they produce useful idiots like you to help them out.
They support libertarianism only when it fits them, and very often it does. I'm just repeating myself here.
No.77335
>>77273
>They support libertarianism only when it fits them
When exactly have they done that, dearie? Where are all these pro-libertarian billionaires hiding?
No.77338
>>77335
I can name a shit ton of billionaire progressives, only a few billionaire libertarians though.
No.77365
>>77101
>original libertarians
Rothbard is confusing libertaires and libertarians. Libertarians, both metphysical and political origins, predate libertaires.
Also, your quote mine excludes:
< But now we had taken it over, and more properly from the view of etymology — since we were proponents of individual liberty and therefore of the individual's right to his property.
No.77366
>>77204
How are the Kochs libertarian?
No.77372
>>77273
This is usually an argument against Objectivism where it is observed that Ayn Rand collected Social Security.
Where you are compelled to participate in a government program you should be allowed to receive the benefits. It's just bad economics to not take advantage of it.
The discussion should be why we are forced to suckle at the government tittie.
Isn't it pragmatic to take advantage of a program that you were forced to participate in?
No.77461
>>76945
So if I start a little garden and grow tomatoes thats my personal property. But if I expand my garden and hire someone with my own money (also personal property), the land is magically transmuted into private property (which is not mine)? Am I following correctly?
No.77462
>>77035
First off people have the right to self defend, and organize in groups to do so. So you'd have to contend with my recreational M134. Then you'd have to contend with my buddys' recreational 40mm Bofors. And finally you'd have to contend with our private police force's Apache helicopters.
Even if you somehow manage to get past all these layers of defense and rape my wife, you'd probably be ID'd, in which case your name and face would be spread around to all the other local covenants, as well as to the McFBI. So people would at the very least refuse to associate you but more likely give you a free bullet to the chest.
So you'd have to flee to covenants which don't have extradition, which would be full of other rapists and murders. So enjoy being raped and murdered forever.
No.77506
>>77462
>muh Private Apache
please stop the kekles are murdering muh sides
No.77507
>>76538
It is neither left nor right, but instead based upon desiring liberty, both personal and economic, above all else. It really should be placed on a scale to measure between liberty and authority.
No.77586
support for capitalism is right wing you brainlet
No.77601
>>77461
>Am I following correctly?
Yep. While your veggie patch is small enough for one person to tend to effectively, it's not worth stealing… err, I mean seizing and therefore remains your personal property. After all, anyone who took it from you would just have to work on it themselves to get any benefit out of it. Once you've invested in it, and expanded your operation, it becomes private property. Whoever seizes it (for the good of the collective, of course) can get at least one decent harvest of tomatoes from it before they destroy it through mismanagement and neglect. It's worth stealing, so that means you're a kulak or bourgeoisie or whatever, and all of your property is illegitimate.
No.77623
>>77199
He's ok. I liked how he told Lenin to fuck off.
No.77642
Right Wing means that hierarchies are inevitable, natural, or desirable. Libertarianism by today's definition would fall under this category, since support for capitalism/markets suggests that there will be at least some social hierarchy. "Left"-libertarians(not socialists but cosmotarians for example) would still be right-of-center. Libertarians who advocate for "Left-wing Market Anarchism" ie cooperatives and unions would still be advocating for a market economy and thus would still technically be right-of-center.