Isn't it funny how all of a sudden everybody is "libertarian"?

[CommonSensePLZ]

This peeves me so much.

Under the Bush years, prior to that and apparently still to this day in the mind of Jon Stewart "Liberal" was a bad word here in America. It was just like a curse word: Everyone knew it as a "bad word" but didn't even know what hell it meant.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal (not that you guys don't already know)
Oh no! They're gonna make me not be afraid of things that are a little bit different than I'm use to, save me, mommy!

But now, anti-liberalism seems to have somewhat decreased, but now EVERYBODY is calling themselves "libertarian." People whose views are to the extreme right like Glenn Beck and almost the entirety of the tea party, a rebranding and even more radical downgrade of the conservative movement, and even people whose views are more to the left like Jon Stewart and the guy I wanted to vote for in the last election Mike Gravel.

WTF? This hodgepodge seems to kind of negate whatever meaning "libertarian" had, which BTW was very close to liberal:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/libertarian

So now we have people like Beck using a word that almost groups people who actually follow it with phonies like him because they know it's a likeable concept and lets them dodge the terrible things they did under their actual political doctrine conservatism. Argh! FML

[ck4829]

1. I love it how a person can be against abortion, GLBT rights, ending the war on drugs, etc.

But if they're against the government giving out welfare checks, then that somehow makes them "libertarian".

"Conservative Libertarian", there's a shorter word, it's called "liar".

[mucifer]

2. I wonder how many of these "liberterians" want the government to leave immigrants alone.

[Odin2005]

3. Libertarians are Republicans that smoke pot.

[Dramarama]

5. I've heard

"democrats with a degree in economics" but I guess CLinton put that to rest

[unblock]

4. it's just the right wing catapulting the propaganda...

... again.

[Touchdown]

6. You ever taken their insipid little compass quiz?

Desperately leading questions to make sure you're a Libertarian after you leave.

[MisterP]

7. guns, paranoia, hatred of society, and implicit love for capitalism

"libertarian" fits the 'baggers nicely

[Duer 157099]

8. I have always understood Liberterian to mean

someone who thinks that the ONLY function of government is to provide a well-equipped military. Period.

That's how I've always known I wasn't one.

[Radical Activist]

9. Libertarianism was always a corporate front for an anti-government agenda.

It's no surprise that other conservative corporate front men like Glenn Beck would adopt the label.

[underpants]

10. The supposed run from "liberal" is a creation of talk radio, RW "news" (and MSM which follows them)

I never stopped calling myself a liberal

it is funny how "Repubican" and "conservative" are suddenly poison.

[ericinne]

11. I have a different definition.

Seems to me the Libertarian movement has been hi-jacked by neo-cons. Too ashamed to admit they are Republicans.

To me, Libertarian has always meant paleo-consevative, constitutionalists... surprisingly close to progressivism when it came to the role of government, but just a few social policy's to the right. IMO, The TRUE Republicans, not the neo-con, RNC®™, Lobbyist influenced, corporate ass kissing, I got mine, so fuck all you, piece of shit racist scum of a party we have to put up with these days.

Seems to me, the only way to counter people who are disgusted with their own party and want to leave, would be to hijack THAT "libertarian" term as well.

Keep the sheeple cattled up better that way.

[Meldread]

12. I would define myself as a "Left Libertarian"

It is unfortunate that the word has been hijacked by so many different groups of people. I would think of myself as Left Libertarian as it best describes my philosophical leanings when it comes to governance and power in general.

At the core, Libertarianism is neither right nor left. It's a concept of individualism vs collectivism. The Libertarian by and large promotes individualism, whereas the Authoritarian (the philosophy that directly opposes Libertarianism) supports a more collectivist approach.

These two things are neither right nor left. To take an example, we might all here agree that hate speech is wrong. Yet, how to solve the problem will no doubt cause disagreements. Some might take the collectivist point of view, believing that since hate speech is wrong that it must be outlawed. On the other hand, someone else might take the individualist point of view and determine that while hate speech is wrong, it should not be outlawed as all speech should be - at least in theory - free.

That's just a simple example of the difference between collectivism and individualism. It does not necessarily rule out compromise, nor does it rule out that someone who is primarily an individualist might take the side of the collectivist on certain issues.

Libertarianism is a philosophy that grew out of individualism. It has two primary schools of thought which, while occasionally agree, don't really like each other very much.

In the first school we have the moralist libertarians. They believe that ANY initiation of force against another individual is wrong. It is a philosophy largely built upon the old axiom do unto others as you'd have them do unto you. It is from this group that you hear things such as taxes are theft.

Indeed, if you believe that any initiation of force is wrong then taxation is theft if you do not wish to pay. If you refuse to pay taxes, the government can take various actions against you. One might say that, "Well you get a vote! So you get a say in who we elect and therefore how the money is spent!" This is true, but at the same time a moralist would counter with this scenario: Assume that you are being robbed. There are three men who have taken all of your money. Yet, to be fair, they will hold a vote on how to spend your money, and since it was yours you will also get a vote. Obviously, this is not a situation that most people would find agreeable, and to the moralist, this is how they view most of the governments actions.

You may get various moralists to say that they believe in a strong military, or this or that... but when you ask them how it is paid for the ideas are not really all that sound. In reality, libertarian moralism leads to anarchism which is an extreme form of individualism that believes that NO GOVERNMENT should exist at all.

The second school, the school that I would most closely identify with, are the consequentialist libertarians. These libertarians do not really have any "moral" principle that guides them. It is a simple belief in individualism. If you want a way to define them broadly you might say that they believe in a non-intrusive government that focuses on providing the maximum amount of freedom possible for each individual, allowing him or her to follow his own destiny, his or her own values, so long as he or she does not interfere with others attempting to do the same.

Obviously, the consequentialists can agree and disagree on various issues within their own circle. One might believe, for example, that a large military is necessary for the defense of freedom of all individuals. Another (such as myself) might believe that a large military provides the government with a license for imperialism, and therefore whatever illusionary freedom a large powerful military might provide is undermined by the governments own natural inclinations to use such a weapon at their disposal – wasting the lives of its citizens and requiring exorbitant amounts of unnecessary taxation to fund it.

As should be clear, while both consequentialists might believe a military of some size, even a small one, is necessary to some degree, the moralist, if he were to stay true to his belief that any initiation of force is wrong, and therefore oppose any taxation to create any sized military (effectively making a government run military non-existent) – would therefore be in diametrical opposition to BOTH consequentialists.

Libertarianism in the United States is often most closely identified with economic issues. The reality is that it encompasses all forms of government, and while a right leaning libertarian might focus more on the economic side of things, as a left libertarian I focus more on the social side of things.

Therefore, I support such things as a humans right to do whatever they want with their bodies. This would include, but not be limited to: having an abortion, engaging in sex with whomever they want for whatever reason they want, marrying whomever you want and as many whomevers you desire, the ability to ingest any substance known to mankind no matter how poisonous to your body (ending the war on drugs), the ability to access end-of-life care to die with dignity, etc.

That would only scratch the surface. Most people who would hear half of what I believe on social issues would perhaps identify me as a crazy liberal extremist nutjob. The reality is if we were to look at the world in totality or just the United States and Europe we'd find that those who call themselves "liberal" here in the States are really more centrist in nature, whereas those who would generally be identified with the modern right would be considered to the EXTREME right, and those here on the extreme right would be considered the fringe. Our politics has been moving rightward for decades.

In the end, I suppose the differences between many here when it comes to left and right, is that I do not view the scale as just left or right. Left or right might be good enough for economic issues, with the left supporting more collectivist government intervention in the economy, and the right preferring something more akin to a free market. When it comes to social issues, however, it might be better to consider things in an Authoritarian vs Libertarian frame. The authoritarian would support policies that are more collectivist and conformist in nature, which would be what we know as Conservatism. The Libertarian would support social policies that allow individuals to make such choices themselves, which would be what we commonly think of as liberal social policies.

The reality, however, is that today liberals often differ on economic policy more than social policy. Some self-identified liberals might support a strong socialist or even communist agenda. Other self-identified liberals might support the general principles behind the agenda, but disagree and favor a more free market approach. But this should never be considered in black and white terms, as it is always filled with tons of grey. It may be the difference between advocating for a British style healthcare system (in which everything is owned and controlled by the government) vs a modified French style healthcare system (which has attempted to implement free market principles within their system).

This is the reason I've taken to calling myself a left libertarian. I use left to differentiate myself from the crazies on the right who are primarily moralists or at least close enough. I use libertarian to differentiate myself from those on the left who might find themselves supporting authoritarian policies.

[Meldread]

15. This thread is a perfect illustration of what I was writing about above.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8206114">This thread is a perfect illustration of what I was writing about above.

The thread deals with a situation regarding a French Muslim woman who wore a full face veil that covered everything but the eyes while driving. The comments in the thread clearly illustrate the divide among the left between the individualist libertarian line of thought and the collectivist authoritarian line of thought. You have one group who believes that the French government should ban the burqa entirely, even for women who willingly choose to wear it simply because of what it stands for and how others might feel. Then you have another group who believes that so long as wearing the burqa is a choice - and the woman isn't forced to wear one by the men - then the government should stay out of it.

My opinion as a left libertarian is as follows: A woman is entitled to wear whatever she deems appropriate. This could be a scandalous outfit that barely leaves anything to the imagination or it could be a burqa. Either is irrelevant from a governmental prospective. There is only one question that needs to be asked in regard to this particular practice, and that question is: Was the woman forced to wear it or does she wear it out of her own desire? If it is the former then she has a right to be protected from a man who would force her to do something against her will. She has a right to not be enslaved. If it is the latter then it is not up to the government to decide.

It is within the rights of the government to pass a law explicitly stating that no woman shall be forced against her will to wear a burqa. This upholds freedom and choice. It is also within the rights of the government to pass a law that explicitly bans individuals from driving on the roads who wear things on their face that limit their field of vision. This could be a burqa, but it can also be a costume mask, or some type of exotic eyewear. This law is valid because it protects the safety of the other drivers on the road. If a woman willfully choses to wear a burqa, then like all choices it has consequences and one of those consequences would ensure that she is not allowed to drive while wearing one. The rights and safety of the other drivers takes precedent over the rights of the individual.

While I may personally believe all that the burqa stands for is deplorable; I also know that there are many women who would willingly chose to wear it. My opinions are irrelevant and should have no impact on the life of another individual. No one should have to live up to my standards, nor anyone elses except their own. If they wish to wear a symbol of enslavement, and act as slaves, then so long as they chose it - then well, that's their choice.

This is why the differentiation is important. The need for separation between the authoritarian liberal and the libertarian liberal is necessary.

[Dr Morbius]

17. Perhaps the whole political spectrum is just a false construct.

Used collectively to help mold our views into safe, reliably predictable forms which in turn supports the two-party system. I hold opinions many consider quite conservative, and I self-define as a liberal. Perhaps a liberal moralist; I am a liberal because I care. I bet most people can select from the conservative column a few things with which they broadly agree, and also can pick things from the liberal column that they support. I don't believe in the spectrum, really; I think it's been overlaid upon us and we should reject it.

In your excellent post, you define left-leaning libertarians thus:

If you want a way to define them broadly you might say that they believe in a non-intrusive government that focuses on providing the maximum amount of freedom possible for each individual, allowing him or her to follow his own destiny, his or her own values, so long as he or she does not interfere with others attempting to do the same.

I would like to state that I've held pretty much this view for a very long time myself, and I defined it as liberalism. With the small exception that I would change "non-intrusive" to "minimally intrusive". Liberalism doesn't require an authoritarian state; that's a myth perpetrated by the right. Liberalism holds (among other things) that when people elect governments, those governments can act in a manner and provide the services that the people want. If the people want their government to provide public education, government should be "allowed" to do it. I see government as a tool. Most Americans see government as a threat. Well, government is a very sharp tool, and yes, it can do harm. But properly wielded, tools build things. Great things, sometimes. As long as the American people are still able to vote out their representatives, a government that is large and effective cannot grow to tyranny. When, however, the press is all bought up by a small handful of powerful groups, and the people no longer can trust that their vote is counted as it was cast, there is profound danger. But I digress.

The most significant point I want to make is that there's room for you under the liberal umbrella. A lot of self-described liberals and progressives hold a perspective much like your own. Liberals rarely agree on anything anyway. The main point, I believe, which I'd like to make is that liberals don't necessarily like big government either. I want efficient and effective government that accomplishes the goals of the people, while not interfering with the freedom of the people. A libertarian feels government should not be too helpful, but I believe the same. We just define where "too helpful" lies differently. :)

[Meldread]

21. I agree 100%.

I agree entirely that the whole American political spectrum is a false construct, but modern politics is always filled with so many labels and you're either with us or against us type of terminology, that I've had to carve out my own niche. Before coming to DU I just considered myself a liberal, and I believe there is still plenty of room in the tent for someone like myself. However, in my time here I've come to understand that while most people would consider themselves liberal, and I might even agree with them on 98% or more of what the problems were - the way to solve the problems is where the disagreements arose.

The disagreement almost always seemed to be centered around the government. We both agree that government is a tool, even a useful, and at times necessary tool. I think everyone here would agree with that. The problem arises when someone takes that tool - as if it were a hammer - and then for every problem they see a nail.

My natural gut instinct is always to distrust authority. It's something that is practically bred into my very bones. That authority can be anyone, from a boss to the police, or the government. It is as I said one of my core beliefs that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. It is almost in my mind a temptation to abuse power. I don't believe most people enter positions of authority and power with the intent to abuse or cause harm. However, in their pursuit to do what they believe is the right thing, the moral thing, the temptation is to push aside opposition through any means necessary. This could range from silencing others free speech, to intimidation, to even outright thuggery. In the end those with the power find some way to justify it.

So my natural inclination is always to resist empowering a single or small group of individuals to make the rules for the many. When I do agree that it is necessary to empower an individual or group with the authority over others, my next natural inclination is to find some way to place that power in check and balance it out. In my mind this is a good - even absolutely essential thing - as those with power will ultimately use it in ways that few would approve. There are very few individuals who have ever lived who could adequately restrain themselves from being "corrupted" by power to do what they think is "right", and I don't even count myself among them.

To give a movie / book analogy, it's like the One Ring from Lord of the Rings. Gandalf summed it up well when he turns to Frodo, who is trying to give Gandalf the One Ring and says: "Don't tempt me Frodo! I dare not take it. Not even to keep it safe. Understand Frodo, I would use this Ring from a desire to do good. But through me, it would wield a power too great and terrible to imagine."

To give a real world analogy of what I think the proper role for government is: I think it is acceptable for the government to build the roads and highways, but the government has no right nor authority to own or control all of the vehicles and their passengers that make use of them. The government may set safety standards for those roads, but those standards must apply to everyone equally and avoid - to the best of its ability - from favoring one group over another (within reason).

My belief is that government should strive to have a limited role in the day-to-day life of the average citizen. That it is acceptable to provide an adequate social safety net if the majority of citizens agree that such a thing is desirable. That all government, small or large, should actively be required to be free of unnecessary bureaucracy and waste, with the goal of being both efficient and effective at the job they're assigned to perform.

I think this does at times put me at odds with some individuals here, but I also think those who think like me are a sizable minority (or perhaps a somewhat silent majority).

[upi402]

13. Republicans a proven epic fail

So the media touts this fantastical BS on us lost and impressionable plebes.

[Ratty]

20. Yup. Nazi, right-wing shits now ashamed to call themselves republicans

Libertarian seems more reasonable and less anti-intellectual.

[BlooInBloo]

14. It's just shit that dim people like to say. Further evidence of our stupid, stupid country....

As if any further evidence were needed.

[Turborama]

16. In the mind of Jon Stewart "Liberal" is a bad word?

What. The. Fuck?

[LeftishBrit]

18. 'Libertarian' seems now to mean what used to be called in the UK, 'laissez faire economics'

Until quite recently, 'libertarian' when used in the UK meant 'pro-civil liberties' and did not imply right-wing economic views. Now that our political discourse has become more influenced by American than French terminology, we do use the word more in the right-wing sense. But I am always puzzled by the assumption that civil liberties and laissez-faire economics are in any way associated with each other. Perhaps the assumption is just because the Soviet bloc countries had neither. But plenty of other countries have had either of these without the other.

[skepticscott]

19. "Libertarian" means

"If there were no government to keep order and to prevent people from infringing on the rights or endangering the safety of others, I would still be tough enough and savvy enough to come out on top. For those who wouldn't be...tough."