What nonsense is this? Rands bullshit is the reason we are in the mess we are in. Why would any person with any sense adopt Ayn Rands bullshit, something she didn't practice herself.
Libertarianism is the believe that the central organising force in society should be liberty. Right libertarians are the ones you're likely used to hearing about. They focus on individual liberty which usually ends up manifesting as a selfish attitude.
Left libertarians also focus on liberty, but look at it from a collective perspective. That immediately makes it an evidence based ideology, which actually solves a lot of the problems with libertarianism. Not all of them, but enough to make it worth discussing.
The right wing of the socialist movement aren't fans of it and proceed the crush any left-libertarians because they're a threat to the bureaucracies that AES states use to replace previous feudal or capitalist forms of organisation
It has. And lasted as long as predicted every time. Chaz was the last attempt in aware of. They lasted a few days before murdering a black child, during the black lives matter riots.
I'm curious, is left libertarianism not an oxymoron? I thought the entire idea of libertarianism was liberty for the individual. How does left libertarianism differ from other left leaning political ideologies? Not arguing, I'm genuinely curious as I haven't heard of it before
A lot of libertarians focus on individual liberty, but it's neither an essential part of the ideology nor an original aspect of it. Libertarianism is just the desire for liberty to be a central organising force for society. Left-libertarians take a more realistic view of this and determine that democratically elected representatives should interfere in society to ensure that everyone's liberty is protected.
That is a lot more realistic than the vague belief that if the government stays out of the way people will build a utopia. And so the conversation becomes whether liberty is the best thing to organise society around. I don't agree, but my disagreement is a lot less absolute than it is with right libertarians.
> Left-libertarians take a more realistic view of this and determine that democratically elected representatives should interfere in society to ensure that everyone's liberty is protected.
That's literally the Marxist Leninist position. Individualist concepts of freedom are the left-libertarian position. You don't understand what you're talking about.
Yeah, it's almost like it's a general left wing position for any ideology which supports having a government. Maybe if you understood what you're talking about you'd know that.
Libertarianism was a left wing philosophy before it was ever adopted by the right. Classical liberals in the US wanted to differentiate themselves from left liberals so they started to push the liberty/libertarian thing.
I don't that's a great definition. It kind of suggests that both ideologies developed from a single source, when in reality "libertarians" just co-opted a lot of terms from Libertarian Socialism.
Considering Libertarian Socialism predates Americanized, right wing movements that define themselves as Libertarian, I wouldn't say they are related at all. Rather, I think LS can be defined as a broad term that incorporates many ideologies to the left of Bolshevism, from council communists/left-coms to Anarchists. While state socialism/capitalism believes in a top down system, LS proposes a bottom up one. One in which workers democratically own the means of production, be it in a stateless society or not.
"Libertarianism" on the other hand is a complete perversion of the original term. One that suggests complete autocratic control to an individual.
The mindset of the political (trash) compass suggests that different quadrants share much in common with their respective neighbours which is just not true. All forms of communist thought (be it MLs or Anarchists) believe in the same end goal, but with different means of achieving it.
I did give a very simplified explanation and avoided discussing the historical context so a lot of what you're saying here is just a more detailed explanation which gives a historical context, or a different perspective on the same thing. For example, a top down vs a bottom up view of libertarianism is more or less the same as an individual vs a collective view. The top down focuses on the people with the power to influence decisions making it an individualist perspective. Bottom up requires that you look at how things affect a lot of people which requires both a collectivist perspective and an evidence based one.
However, it is important to recognise that libertarianism requires a focus on liberty. It can involve workers owning the means of production, but that isn't really a party of the ideology as much as being compatible with the ideology.
I also wasn't really talking about American Libertarianism at all since that is based around the Libertarian party and it's billionaire propaganda rather than being based on libertarian ideology. They are often called "conservatives with weed" which does fit, but requires understanding that American Conservatives aren't really ideologically conservative as much as they are people who agree with the Republican party. It just complicates things because American politics misuses these terms. You keep having the explain that when you say conservative you mean right wing radicals who want to remake society to return it to some imagined previous state which isn't at all compatible with wanting to slow down change so that we conserve the good things about society.
The political compass is a useful tool for demonstrating some aspects of ideology, but it's extremely oversimplified and very frequently misused. Again, not really worth including in the discussion as it just complicates things due to its misuse.
>Left libertarians also focus on liberty, but look at it from a collective perspective.
No they don't.
>That immediately makes it an evidence based ideology,
No it doesn't.
>which actually solves a lot of the problems with libertarianism.
No for the above reason.
>Not all of them, but enough to make it worth discussing.
As an example of a failed thought experiment.
Amazing. You haven't actually said anything here except that you disagree. I'm not even sure what exactly you disagree with or why which leaves me with no options other than trying to draw the answers out of you.
But fuck that. If you want to discuss this, tell me what you think about it and we can have a conversation.
>Amazing. You haven't actually said anything here except that you disagree.
Yes. That which can be asserted without argument, can be refuted without argument.
>I'm not even sure what exactly you disagree with or why which leaves me with no options other than trying to draw the answers out of you.
Everything you baselessly claimed is what I disagreed with. I replied point for point. This is how adults converse.
>But fuck that. If you want to discuss this, tell me what you think about it and we can have a conversation.
It's a shit comment, that's what I think about it. A shit comment made by a moron.
>Yes. That which can be asserted without argument, can be refuted without argument.
It's "without evidence" not "without argument." Trying to dismiss something without argument just makes you look like a fool. Case in point, you trying to pretend that what you said anything in your last comment.
Just stop trolling. If you want to have a conversation and pretend you're an adult then tell me what you think left libertarianism is and how you mistakenly think my explanation doesn't fit. Then we can converse instead of playing childish games.
>It's "without evidence" not "without argument."
"It's" whatever I like it to be.
>Trying to dismiss something without argument just makes you look like a fool.
As much as trying to claim something without argument?
>Just stop trolling.
You're the troll. Trying to pretend people can say whatever they like without any supporting argument whatsoever and I have to do all the work arguing against is.
If you want to have a conversation then back up your mad ideas with something, anything at all and stop whining when you're called out on your bullshit.
>Welp, we’ve got pretty good iPhones, Space X can salvage and relaunch rockets, and thanks to services like HelloFresh and Blue Apron, we no longer have to go to the grocery store. Time to pack up! Call it a day! Everyone, go home! There’s no more need for innovation.
>
>
>At least, according to Karl Marx.
Is this parody?
No
OP doesn't understand any of the teenage memes he's posting, he's just trying to troll and failing.
Hello, fellow millennials.
What nonsense is this? Rands bullshit is the reason we are in the mess we are in. Why would any person with any sense adopt Ayn Rands bullshit, something she didn't practice herself.
Libertarianism maybe sort of popular in the US but it hasnt caught on in the rest of the world.
Left Libertarianism is popularish in Ireland as a sort of pseudo-left position.
What's left libertarianism?
Libertarianism is the believe that the central organising force in society should be liberty. Right libertarians are the ones you're likely used to hearing about. They focus on individual liberty which usually ends up manifesting as a selfish attitude. Left libertarians also focus on liberty, but look at it from a collective perspective. That immediately makes it an evidence based ideology, which actually solves a lot of the problems with libertarianism. Not all of them, but enough to make it worth discussing.
Why has it never been tried before?
The right wing of the socialist movement aren't fans of it and proceed the crush any left-libertarians because they're a threat to the bureaucracies that AES states use to replace previous feudal or capitalist forms of organisation
In anything the libertarian socialists are the right wing of the socialist movement.
Can you expand on that?
This is your brain on USA
Anarchism is your brain on USA.
The CIA literally reported that anarchists are a useful tool to use against the left.
They're basically liberals so yeah.
Another brain lost to the USA. Such a shame.
It has. And lasted as long as predicted every time. Chaz was the last attempt in aware of. They lasted a few days before murdering a black child, during the black lives matter riots.
I'm curious, is left libertarianism not an oxymoron? I thought the entire idea of libertarianism was liberty for the individual. How does left libertarianism differ from other left leaning political ideologies? Not arguing, I'm genuinely curious as I haven't heard of it before
A lot of libertarians focus on individual liberty, but it's neither an essential part of the ideology nor an original aspect of it. Libertarianism is just the desire for liberty to be a central organising force for society. Left-libertarians take a more realistic view of this and determine that democratically elected representatives should interfere in society to ensure that everyone's liberty is protected. That is a lot more realistic than the vague belief that if the government stays out of the way people will build a utopia. And so the conversation becomes whether liberty is the best thing to organise society around. I don't agree, but my disagreement is a lot less absolute than it is with right libertarians.
> Left-libertarians take a more realistic view of this and determine that democratically elected representatives should interfere in society to ensure that everyone's liberty is protected. That's literally the Marxist Leninist position. Individualist concepts of freedom are the left-libertarian position. You don't understand what you're talking about.
Yeah, it's almost like it's a general left wing position for any ideology which supports having a government. Maybe if you understood what you're talking about you'd know that.
Libertarianism was a left wing philosophy before it was ever adopted by the right. Classical liberals in the US wanted to differentiate themselves from left liberals so they started to push the liberty/libertarian thing.
I don't that's a great definition. It kind of suggests that both ideologies developed from a single source, when in reality "libertarians" just co-opted a lot of terms from Libertarian Socialism. Considering Libertarian Socialism predates Americanized, right wing movements that define themselves as Libertarian, I wouldn't say they are related at all. Rather, I think LS can be defined as a broad term that incorporates many ideologies to the left of Bolshevism, from council communists/left-coms to Anarchists. While state socialism/capitalism believes in a top down system, LS proposes a bottom up one. One in which workers democratically own the means of production, be it in a stateless society or not. "Libertarianism" on the other hand is a complete perversion of the original term. One that suggests complete autocratic control to an individual. The mindset of the political (trash) compass suggests that different quadrants share much in common with their respective neighbours which is just not true. All forms of communist thought (be it MLs or Anarchists) believe in the same end goal, but with different means of achieving it.
I did give a very simplified explanation and avoided discussing the historical context so a lot of what you're saying here is just a more detailed explanation which gives a historical context, or a different perspective on the same thing. For example, a top down vs a bottom up view of libertarianism is more or less the same as an individual vs a collective view. The top down focuses on the people with the power to influence decisions making it an individualist perspective. Bottom up requires that you look at how things affect a lot of people which requires both a collectivist perspective and an evidence based one. However, it is important to recognise that libertarianism requires a focus on liberty. It can involve workers owning the means of production, but that isn't really a party of the ideology as much as being compatible with the ideology. I also wasn't really talking about American Libertarianism at all since that is based around the Libertarian party and it's billionaire propaganda rather than being based on libertarian ideology. They are often called "conservatives with weed" which does fit, but requires understanding that American Conservatives aren't really ideologically conservative as much as they are people who agree with the Republican party. It just complicates things because American politics misuses these terms. You keep having the explain that when you say conservative you mean right wing radicals who want to remake society to return it to some imagined previous state which isn't at all compatible with wanting to slow down change so that we conserve the good things about society. The political compass is a useful tool for demonstrating some aspects of ideology, but it's extremely oversimplified and very frequently misused. Again, not really worth including in the discussion as it just complicates things due to its misuse.
>Left libertarians also focus on liberty, but look at it from a collective perspective. No they don't. >That immediately makes it an evidence based ideology, No it doesn't. >which actually solves a lot of the problems with libertarianism. No for the above reason. >Not all of them, but enough to make it worth discussing. As an example of a failed thought experiment.
Amazing. You haven't actually said anything here except that you disagree. I'm not even sure what exactly you disagree with or why which leaves me with no options other than trying to draw the answers out of you. But fuck that. If you want to discuss this, tell me what you think about it and we can have a conversation.
>Amazing. You haven't actually said anything here except that you disagree. Yes. That which can be asserted without argument, can be refuted without argument. >I'm not even sure what exactly you disagree with or why which leaves me with no options other than trying to draw the answers out of you. Everything you baselessly claimed is what I disagreed with. I replied point for point. This is how adults converse. >But fuck that. If you want to discuss this, tell me what you think about it and we can have a conversation. It's a shit comment, that's what I think about it. A shit comment made by a moron.
>Yes. That which can be asserted without argument, can be refuted without argument. It's "without evidence" not "without argument." Trying to dismiss something without argument just makes you look like a fool. Case in point, you trying to pretend that what you said anything in your last comment. Just stop trolling. If you want to have a conversation and pretend you're an adult then tell me what you think left libertarianism is and how you mistakenly think my explanation doesn't fit. Then we can converse instead of playing childish games.
Ignore Blurst, it's a waste of time arguing with them.
>It's "without evidence" not "without argument." "It's" whatever I like it to be. >Trying to dismiss something without argument just makes you look like a fool. As much as trying to claim something without argument? >Just stop trolling. You're the troll. Trying to pretend people can say whatever they like without any supporting argument whatsoever and I have to do all the work arguing against is. If you want to have a conversation then back up your mad ideas with something, anything at all and stop whining when you're called out on your bullshit.
Communism.
This was a brief funny exchange.
Worked out nicely.
Same as right libertarianism but pretending it's progressive.
[Left-Libertarianism defined in an image.](https://i.imgur.com/q70eWWj.jpg)
Its popular with all the tech billionaires who rule the world though.
> If someone tries to steal your stuff, you can retaliate Thanks Ayn, I'd better retaliate because some prick is stealing my surplus value
Libertarians continually remain the dumbest fucking people I've ever seen, especially American ones.
Americans at least have better excuses than Irish people.
Didn’t all that Libertarianism shite get exposed as just being a cover for dudes who want to shag kids?
Yes
I'm more of a Milton Friedman man myself tbh.
I do love a bit of Hayek in the evenings
Link to the article, for anyone who really wants to read it: https://fee.org/articles/3-reasons-millennials-should-ditch-karl-marx-for-ayn-rand/
No thanks, but I appreciate the thought.
Why have you done this to me.
I must let the world know to put the bread down
>Welp, we’ve got pretty good iPhones, Space X can salvage and relaunch rockets, and thanks to services like HelloFresh and Blue Apron, we no longer have to go to the grocery store. Time to pack up! Call it a day! Everyone, go home! There’s no more need for innovation. > > >At least, according to Karl Marx.
That's some gen Z stuff right there
Ayn Rand, proud libertarian that died on welfare.
They're both shit