>there is no good or bad, there is only what society accepts at a certain point in time
Can you give good examples for this? It's easy to find things that were not accepted centuries ago even decades but that are now accepted. (Fagotry is one)
However I can't think of one that was accepted before and not now (other than political incorrectness but that's highly subjective)
libertarian left doesn't make any sense.
>we want the government to stop interfering
>but we also want a highly regulated economy!
>and we want the government to enforce diversity quotas,hate speech laws, and anti-discrimination laws
>but srsly gov't, stop meddling in people's affairs!
>unless they're christian bakers
Fags. tattoos, sex out of wedlock, abortion, drugs, just about anything the left moralfags for.
>I can't think of one that was accepted before and not now
physical punishment
death penalty
arranged marriage
duels
>libertarian left doesn't make any sense.
There's no such thing and anyone who thinks they are this is wrong.
Glorious.
How about public hangings or lynchings?
Oh I got one that wasn't excepted before but now seems to be encouraged. Being an actual commie.
Libertarian left is like a very unstable woman who tells you that she loves today and tomorrow kills your kids
Good ones. I am so blind by our society I couldn't think of that as ever being acceptable
>However I can't think of one that was accepted before and not now
Loli-lovin
>we want the government to stop interfering
>but we also want a highly regulated economy!
The same principles that apply to social interactions don't necessarily apply to economic interactions though. The position is that the government should work to promote the well being of its people and that is only ever able to be achieved via a free market with reasonable regulations and an expansive social safety net as well as minimal government involvement in the private lives of citizens.
>and we want the government to enforce diversity quotas,hate speech laws, and anti-discrimination laws
That's an authoritarian left position
>unless they're christian bakers
I don't want gays discriminating against Christians either but what your saying is an authoritarian left position
That's what I'm saying. There's no such thing as libertarian left because left-wing policies require authoritarianism.
>I don't want gays discriminating against Christians either but what your saying is an authoritarian left position
Realize that anti-discrimination laws are not libertarian.
>That's what I'm saying. There's no such thing as libertarian left because left-wing policies require authoritarianism.
On the compass though authoritarianism only refers to the social role that government should play. Your taking libertarian by its common definition and not what is meant on the compass.
What the pic and all libertarians fail to recognise is that the lib left doesn't necessarily see coercion of peaceful individuals as always being bad, it is worth it to take some amount of money from wealthier individuals if it means that less people will die as a result. Ultimately I would prefer to live in a world where we didn't have to do this and my ideal scenario would be some form of anarchy however it simply won't ever be practical.
The pic also mixes definitions. The 'libertarian' in libertarian left only refers to social issues and nobody has ever claimed otherwise.
So left-libertarianism is high taxes but you're allowed to ban black people from your restaurant?
you know, i wouldn't have read that if it wasn't an image
Yes. Although actual left-libertarian parties rarely support the latter
But if they don't support the latter, then they're not left-libertarian.
It'd be like saying "I'm right wing, but I think the means of production should be shared"
Sup Forumstards are pretty smart
>But if they don't support the latter, then they're not left-libertarian.
Yeah they're not in the very bottom left corner but the compass is a spectrum and you can hold certain views of opposing quadrants whilst still being squarely in one quadrant provided you side with the quadrant on most issues.
>It'd be like saying "I'm right wing, but I think the means of production should be shared"
Thats a far broader point though and requires that many policies be implemented in order to be achieved. Its more like saying "I'm right wing, but I think a GST should be implemented"
I would say the right to free association is pretty damn significant. Anti-discrimination laws and things of that effect are straight-up government-enforced morality. For that reason, I would say that being against it inherently disqualifies someone from being considered libertarian. Just as arguing for shared means of production automatically puts you on the left side of the spectrum, regardless of other views.
Monarchy used to be accepted.
>I would say the right to free association is pretty damn significant
The parties typically deny freedom of association in very narrow instances though
>Anti-discrimination laws and things of that effect are straight-up government-enforced morality
I'd say its more of a practical measure. If a hospital refuses to care to someone on the basis of their race and they die there was clearly great unnecessary suffering that could've been avoided.
>intellectual wasteland
All this graph shows is that the creator was not smart enough to actually understand his opponents position