What's the difference between left-wing and right-wing libertarians?

I seriously have no idea. Was hoping some other anons could enlighten me a bit.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trotskyism
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Left libertarians are people who want to do nothing all day and want society to support them doing this where as right libertarians want little restrictions and regulation so they can do as much as they want

ACTUAL HONEST REPLY INCOMING:

Left libertarians see capitalist structures and the state as both oppressive forces that subjugate citizens.

Right libertarians (who got their name from left libertarians) think that the state's power is illegitimate, but are fine with corporations doing whatever they like (as long as everybody respects private property).

>Left-Libertarians
Had bully/parental issues
>Right-libertarians
Only had bully issues

so basically, left-libertarians see capitalist structures as coercive, and believe that be controlling them they are actually increasing liberty?

Right wing libertarians believe in limited theocratic social controls(sexual deviance, drug use, vargrancy/homelessness ets), total or near total abolition of social programs and minimal restrictions on corporate/business activity(IE corporations are people and holds the rights of people)

Left wing libertarians believe in minimal social controls(no murdering, raping or pedophiling etc/ social controls only in the case of violation of anothers rights) Some, optional participation, social programs and more strict restrictions on corporate activity(Corporations are NOT people they are contractually generated organizations of people and thus do not have their own rights)

This precisely but it is not the only distinction, left-libertarians view corporate structure as inherently predatory, unscrupulous and expansionist and thus a threat to the liberty of individuals.

Left wing libertarians are sjws who want to smoke weed all day.

Right wing libertarians are philosophers no one will ever listen to (because better alternatives exist)

Left wing thinks you're leaving people alone cause it's ethical.

Right wing realizes you're leaving people alone cause they'll just kill themselves off along with what ever rationalizing they used to justify their degeneracy.

Left libs are NOT sjws because SJWs are inherently coercive. SJWs, Progressive, I dentity politics people all of them are Authoritarians, they want the state power struture to enforce their ideology, that runs DIRECTLY against the very core of libertarian thought.

The very heart of libertarian ideology is that the compulsion of an individual by any means is an inherently immoral act that must be minimized or eliminated entirely. Libertarians despise progressives at least as much as Nat-socs and Neo-cons so do, if not more they tar us with their tyrannical methods by association while claiming to wave the banner of freedom while they trample and destroy everything we believe.

Left libs are very oftern "dude weed lmao" but they are almost never "gibs me dat" and they are certainly never "check your privledge"

>Right Libertarians
Capitalism (Right-wing aspect) + Small Government (Libertarian aspect). Seek limited government restrictions across many, if not all, aspects of the country, particularly economic intervention. They believe that government is inherently inefficient and antithetical to individual liberty, hence libertarianism. These people desire maximum property rights, low taxation and deregulation.

>Left Libertarians
Retarded, half-baked gyps who believe that the the government can be a means to quell society's ills via increasing taxation on the wealthier. In the same breathe, they advocate for less government intervention within the lives of individuals, but fail to realize that ever increasing levels of taxation and regulation exacerbate big business corruption of the lawmaking branches of government. These people seek immediate gratification rather than the deferral of benefits at the expense of society... but most of them don't realize that they're worthless cunts.

Reminder Greg Johnson belives the state has the right to enforce racial equality.

*I mean Gary Johnson

coherence.

I feel like you all Identify left wing authoritarian progressives and "tax and spend" liberals as libertarians. Thats simply not true.

Anyone who advocates increasing taxation in support of government spending is simply not a libertarian. Anyone who demands that other pay for them is not a libertarian. Anyone who thinks they have a right to be useless on someone elses dime is not a libertarian. These are all positions which advocate increases in government power, which is the opposite of being a libertarian. Saying the government should take and give according to the demands of the people makes you categorically not a libertarian.

I voted for GJ in 2012 becasue romney was that fucking repulsive, but I voted for McCain in 08 and and Trump in 16.

Gary is wrong on a lot of things and I honest do not like him, he is a shitty libertarian, hes basically a centrist who believes in slightly less power than blue team and red team.

Appeal to the stone.

>Appeal to the stone
only for idiots and roaches

This is the only correct answer in this thread.

You know whats funny, the amount of venom and dismissive handwaving and attempted suppression directed at libertarian leftists combined the the total lack of facts as to why the ideology is wrong,

It's almost like you know that there's no rational argument to made against the idea of individual liberty that doesn't end up with you looking like an authoritarian who wants to ell people what they can or cannot do based on your biases and social taboos.

it's mainly that it's so obvious why they're wrong that them still sloshing in socialist shit deserves some stoning

the most basic natural right is self ownership: you only belong to your own self

then, as an extension, comes material ownership: that which you own, you spent part of your life earning, and is thus equivalent to said part of your life

and finally, the non aggression principle: you only benefit from natural rights as long as you don't start and deny those to others

left "libertarians" don't believe in the second one (which is incompatible with believing in the first one) and their sissie ways makes them too weak to apply the counterpart to the third one (ie "don't grant me the benefit of natural rights, and you're gonna sufffer")

that makes them akin to savage animals at worst, and a fucking joke at best

Taken to its extreme logical conclusion, right-wing libertarianism means essentially anarcho-capitalism. Society is governed by the non-aggression principle, which is enforced by privately run police forces that offer their services for a fee. Everything that does nothing to infringe on another's personal property or body is legal, and any interaction between consenting adults is permissible. In other words, things like child pornography (the possession of it, not the creation of it), public heroin use, and setting up bear traps around your house would all be legal.

Taken to its extreme, left-wing libertarianism is governed by the concept of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." People can make things and exchange them with others, but they must always be willing to give them to others who need them in order to survive. Some would go so far as to say that that the very concept of property is theft, as everything belongs to everyone. In other words, it's anarcho-communism with a similar degree of civil liberties to that of right-wing libertarianism, but without the idea of personal property.

Moderate right-wing libertarianism is a laissez-faire free market society in which the government exists only to protect individuals from (1) external forces, (2) each other, and (3) itself.

Moderate left-wing libertarianism is a society in which the government's role in the economy ranges from anywhere between heavy regulation (ostensibly to protect the citizenry) to complete control over the production of goods. As with moderate right-wing libertarianism, the government cannot dictate to the people what they can and cannot do so long as they're not harming anyone else.

That's because most left wing libertarians ignore the fact that when the government plays a large role in the economy, it must necessarily begin to play a larger role in the life of the individual in order to maintain its efficacy. Any far-left society that values civil liberty can be destroyed by one bad apple running things, as the scope of his influence over the government makes it extremely easy for him to seize control.

If you want civil liberty, you need a small government. The more involved in the economy a government is (aka the further left you go along the spectrum), the greater the risk of that government destroying civil liberty in the name of equality, or just out of a reckless desire for power.

You are mislabeling, anyone who believes in material confiscation is not a a libertarian, They are a socialist authoritarian.

You can have a a social program, with voluntary funding and voluntary participation without violating liberty. Its called charity and nothing prevents the government from participating in it if the funding is given by choice.

You are not talking about Left libertarians, you are talking about progressives that attempt to hijack the term, I am talking about left libertarians, and In people who believe in individual liberty, property rights, and all the other nice ideas libertarianism offers while also saying "its ok to help the poor and its pretty important to not imprison or murder people for being socially different from you"

You act as though thinking in leftist terms is automatically going to be socialist wealth redistribution terms.

What I'm trying to tell you is the the constitution of the US is the holy grail of left lib ideology and our only real objection to it is that it did not enshrine property rights well enough.

The governments large role in the economy is a failing of the modern government not a necessary evil. I agree small government is necessary but smaller is better, the bigger a governent gets the more it tramples freedoms, no exceptions. And in particular the more territory, capital(via taxation) and economic leverage the government possess the more likely it is to to attack liberty in the interest of protecting that leverage.

Government interest in the economy is inherently destructive and must be curtailed.

We the people have to pay for the government, but it is our right and duty as the sovereign citizens of the nation to ensure both the government and the payment are as small as will realistically keep the nation free from tyranny and safe from outside invasion. The purpose of the federal government is to protect the liberties of it citizens, it does not have an internal mandate for existence.

Exactly my point.

Many left-libertarians say they want the government to monitor the economy to prevent corporations from exploiting people, but that the government should stay out of peoples' lives. Yet that kind of statement completely ignores the fundamental reality that in order to regulate the economy, the government must necessarily limit peoples' liberties. If the government gets to dictate what I can and cannot sell, how much I must pay my employees, and under what circumstances I'm allowed to do business, it curtails my personal freedom.

Left libertarians purport to believe that the government should not be allowed to interfere with consensual interactions between adults, yet all three of those instances I listed above ARE interactions between consenting adults. If you buy something from me, you're consenting to my terms of exchange. If you're my employee, you've consented to do the work I ask of you for the wage I've agreed to pay you. If we both agree to do business in a particular place or at a particular time, that's a consensual agreement. Yet left libertarians want to give the government the final word on whether or not such interactions are permissible.

That's the fundamental issue with the entire ideology: it's logically inconsistent.

sweet post, and very informative. yet no matter how i see it, left-libertarian sounds extremely coercive to me

the only way it seems justifiable, is if you think that there is no such thing as property, everyone on earth belongs to all human beings, and that claiming something as your own is theft. it's a weird idea

Right libertarian
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

Left libertarian
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trotskyism

Get reading.

It's completely logically consistent. They want gibs but they don't want to have to give others more gibs than they get.

well this thread has been insightfulcheers

>difference between left-wing and right-wing libertarians?

ACTUAL TRUTH

There is no such fucking thing. A libertarian believes in LIBERTY.

Left and right are myth to keep people distracted and fighting, it is ultimately about who the power rests with.

(pic related)

there is no such thing as a right wing libertarian.

There is no such thing as a right wing or a left wing libertarian, just libertarian. The political compass all of you like to use is wrong. Pic related is a better representation.

left wing liberarianism is fucking retarded because their ideal society would require everyone agrees to live like hippies with no oposition.

Socialism NEEDS to be enforced, requires a society to be totally cleansed by FORCE. There's no liberty in socialism until there's no one left that wants property or personal freedom.

"right" wing libertarianism believes in voluntary cooperation and property rights, the basic negative rights needs to be granted by avoiding people from neglecting other people's basic rights, basic negative rights do not need to be enforced. Rather any breaches in negative rights are required to be punished. And that is arguably doable not by authority but by voluntary cooperation and sights of this in civilized society happen every day today (like that neightbor patrol George Zimmerman's closed community had)

A human being in order to have freedom requires no other men to be able to enslave them
a man, in order to have life requires no other men to be able to kill him.
A man, in order to have property requires no other men to be able to cheat him out of it.

all the other bullshit left libertarians believe needs to be granted for free requires to be taken from somebody else, literally they require a brach in all the rights right wing lbiertarians/ancaps believe.


>Free healthcare necessarily requries someone to pay for it (limited property rights) or a state able to enslave health personnel so that it literally has no cost (limited liberty)

libertarians believe in every man to be able to live by its own means and that society itself should be in principle capable of VOLUNTARILY helping those who can't.

All libertarians are left-wing.

care to elaborate man?

left wingers can't GET duplicated numerals
HA! GOTEM'

so is the green square basically people who advocate for VOLUNTARY collectivism?

???

The origin of the Left / Right political spectrum as a concept dates back to the French revolution. In the lead up to the revolution the King of france called together the Estates General to seek a political resolution to the problems facing France. Those who support the monarchy, the church, and other traditional institutions of French society sat to the King's right, while those who wanted to tear down French society and replace it with a more "rational" system of government based on various new ideologies sat on his left.

The Left / Right divide is not a matter of individualism vs collectivism or libertarianism vs authoritarianism. The Left / Right divide is about ideology vs culture. Any ideologue who wants to tear down some traditional aspect of society (whether that's the State, the church, or Private Property) is by definition a Leftist. The Right does not follow ideologies, it seeks to preserve cultures.

are you aware that the historical conception of the term has no meaning in today's context?

It would be like, calling republicans liberals today because ironically they are more in line with liberalism than today's liberals which are one step away of being full blown authoritharian commies.

Left libertarianism is an oxymoron

>the historical conception of the term has no meaning

Spoken like a leftist. History is what gives language meaning and context.

Pro tip: once you've been reduced to semantic debate, you've already lost.

Also, Republicans (or at least their leadership) are classical liberals, not conservatives. Anyone who describes himself as an "ideological conservative" is not actually a conservative. There are few truly conservative voices in American politics today.

The actual left right dichotomy is zero government on the right, and max big government on the left. A left wing libertarian is a contradiction, as libertarianism is pretty far to the right

This shit about conservatives being right and liberals being left is some Jewish word manipulation to narrow people's political spectrum

>Spoken like a leftist. History is what gives language meaning and context.

You are not prancing around in old english or Elizabethan are you? Language evolves. Whether you like it or not.

>Pro tip: once you've been reduced to semantic debate, you've already lost.

I'm not even debating with you about this, I asked you to elaborate and you did. I replied something else because, again, whether you like it or not. In today's context right vs left has a more "capitalism vs socialism connotation" I agree the spectrum is not binary and I agree the term "right libertarianism" is dumb. but there are those who identify themselves with both left-right libertarians and in that context that's what OP asked.

>Also, Republicans (or at least their leadership) are classical liberals, not conservatives. Anyone who describes himself as an "ideological conservative" is not actually a conservative.

Agreed, but no one calls them liberals.

I feel like it's legit in very few circumstances, like those small rural collective communities. But it certainly doesn't occupy as big of a spot as left-authoritarianism.