Why is Left-Libertarianism not discussed ever?

Why is Left-Libertarianism not discussed ever?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=EO68Kvb9fD4
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Because it's fucking retarded even by Sup Forums's NEETsoc standards.

youtube.com/watch?v=EO68Kvb9fD4

no such thing

you are a degenerate

...

If you're going to demand a small government at least do the people a service and not leech off of it

Because the Soviets BTFO them back in Catalonia in the 30s

How so? Moderate Left Libertarianism is just a desire for maximum individual liberty and social equality, as well as government programmes.#

Extreme Left Libertarianism is Anarcho-Syndicalism; a system wherein the workers control the means of production and unions organise labour and distribution of goods

because you cannot discuss something people don't like in an echochamber

Some of us advocate no government, and some of us advocate a welfare state with maximum individual liberty (i.e. maximum sexual liberty, an end to the drug war, etc)

> maximum sexual liberty
what do you mean by that ? (even as a Belgian I'm firmly opposed to pædophilia)

>liberty
>equality
pick one
the moment someone in a anarchocommunistic society decides to have his own property, the society falls unless if they use force to prevent him from doing that which is the opposite of having liberty

Well, for example, equality for gay people, trans people, straight people, and sexually fluid people.

I'm firmly opposed to pedophilia too. It's a violation of rights.

>I'm firmly opposed to pedophilia
>implying there is or should be any debate regarding pedophilia

I'm not an Anarcho-Communist, I'm a Liberal with some Marxist sympathies in relation to critique of Capitalism.

> if someone decides to have his own property
which you can reformulate as : decides to take the right to exclude someone else from its (perceived) rightfull clay

also, one could argue that even in an anarchocommunistic society law and its enforcement could (and should imo) exist

Further, how are liberty and equality mutually exclusive?

(s)he was answering my question
see

So, what you think about the Northern part of yer island's situation?

No such thing

You can't have a strong state and libertarianism

Much like all forms of collectivism it relies on sloganeering, rhetoric and platitudes with no hard set rules or numbers or even a plan. You can see even in this thread any attempts at it are met with not my real collectivism.

Why would I work if I possess means of production?

I'm a Republican. I think we should have a 32 county Republic, although I don't accept terrorism as the solution. We need a political solution.

But what if the majority of people in Northen Ireland wish to remain British?

>literal clinical retard

MEANS!

the questions should be asked in regards to the state's structure in itself and not its policies (i.e. how democratic and transparent the state and its institutions are, which one should be transparents which one should not, etc.)

during the keynesian era the state was quite interventionist and liberal in relation to the people, we knew growth and social progress

>decides to take the right to exclude someone else from its (perceived) rightfull clay
But somehow forcing someone to share his things with others is rightful? You yourself are violating his rights if you do that.

Secondly, you can't have an anarchic society with laws because that completely goes against in its nature. The word anarchy comes from the Greek word anarchia (αναρχία) which means disorder. The moment a community uses force then it stops being anarchic

They're not mutually exclusive, but we're talking about when you use them to the maximum extent. You can't have equality in a completely libertarian society because then who will force it?

because it would improve your standard of living, literaly see the whole proto-industrial period

It can't exist. You cant say you want freedom, yet be against private property in the same breath.

You can have a welfare state and maximum individual liberty.

Then that's their wish.

>maximum individual liberty
>wants government intervention

You don't see any contradictions in this? Don't call yourself a libertarian, you fuckheads already ruined the term "liberal" and now you flock to this one, ruining it too.

>Who will force it?
The State. Are you seriously trying to suggest that anti-discrimination laws are opposed to liberty? Are you telling me equal pay laws for women are anti-liberty? I see them as increasing liberty. It prevents oppression.

To be honest, is there any difference between Northern and Southern society? I heard that Catholics were treated like niggers in the South of the United States during most of the X Century in Northern Ireland, but I doubt that still happens

Left - equality more important than justice, those who work harder and are better won't necessarily have better outcomes. This optimizes for harmony, not effectiveness.
Liberalism - respect of every individual's situation and rights, trending towards equality.

So I do think they can be compatible. Both oppose Hierarchy, which is the cornerstone of "Right" politics.

Considering the left means you're for making laws that benefit the group over the individual, then you're going to have authoritarianism in regards to individual freedom.

The psyche that is for a welfare state also wants to be protected from scary gunz, mean words and thoughts/ideas, and individual agency.

Who said I'm against private property? That's Marxists. And even then, Marx didn't mean private property in the sense of housing, or anything you own. He meant it as in businesses and means of production.

Because left-libertarianism is contradictory. You can't implement leftist policies without a strong authoritarian power to enforce them. That applies to both social and economic leftist policies, mind you.

Anarcho-capitalism is retarded for other reasons, but at least it's not fundamentally self contradictory.

>I'm a Liberal with some Marxist sympathies
Unironically kill yourself

Fuck off, the Left coined the term Libertarian long before the Right stole the term. You stole the term Libertarian from us.

Government is not inherently anti-liberty. Government is only anti-liberty when Conservatives are heading it.

Perhaps you need to understand what Libertarianism actually is, then you'll realize that's a dumb question.

Kind of like, why doesn't anyone talk about 'space fish'?, you know fish that live is space.

Marx was a retarded jew and none of his ideas make a lick of sense whatsoever

You need a strong state to have socialism because people won't voluntarily participate in a system where they have to use an inferior economic system unless they're forced to.

I guess putting a gun to your head and forcing you to give me 200USD would increase liberty since I would be free from having to work for food this month.

>state existing in an anarchic system
nigger I already explained to you why that's impossible

>decides to take the right to exclude someone else from its (perceived) rightfull clay
CLAY? So owning something is taking away from the whole is what your saying?Your saying no one has the right to own anything?You are then saying that anyone who attempts to own something should be taken in by the law?How is this libertarian?There is no liberty here.

So the Left can't be Individualist now? Are you one of these people who thinks the Left is just Collectivist and the Right is just Individualist? What black and white thinking. That's Collectivist in and of itself to say "Oh, you're a Left Libertarian so that must mean you're a Collectivist"

Business is private party... Someone takes on the risk to create it and pay people.

The people didn't do anything to own the production. All they do is benefit from it. You can make laws to not make it basically slave labor. But punishing people for taking risks and taking away all their power is counter productive.

Listen to me. This is real freedom, freedom to own property, make a profit, make your life. The West, so afraid of strong government, now has no government. Only financial power.

The whole left/right dichotomy is retarded to begin with. Liberal was a term for what is now libertarians until you authoritarian fuckers claimed it for yourself trying to promote your authoritarian ideas as somehow pro-liberty.

Fuck off, government boot licker.

> But somehow forcing someone to share his things with others is rightful? You yourself are violating his rights if you do that.

I'm agreeing with your point of view, I was formulating an other perception closer from Ostrom point of view.

> you can't have an anarchic society with laws
well one could argue that there are "natural laws" like the golden rule "don't do to others as what you don't want them to do to you"
starting from this point of view, it depend on where you're looking from
- is it exclusion and therefore a violation of other's people right ?
- is it protection of individual property, and therefore rightful ?

in absolute terms, both are correct i'd say

Legit question: are you the black socialist Irishman that made a AMA some months ago on Sup Forums?

It's not supposed to. The whole idea of it is to convince people to give up all their rights for a communist state. Then the kikes just keep all the power.

because it ends up like some kind of pervert psychotic christianity utopian thinking

Who said this had anything to do with ancoms? Besides, Liberty kind of enforces equality, no? It's all about equality of opportunity, not outcome.

Hory shetu i'm outta here.This was a good laugh.

>authoritarian

in 1900, 90 percent of Americans were self-employed; now it’s about two percent.

You sound like an enormous fucking faggot

Hold on, which Left Libertarian policies actively attack liberty? The welfare state helps the poor and provides support for workers and unions protect worker's rights. Also, who just got gay marriage legalised here and in the U.S.? That's right: Leftists. What have Right Libertarians ever done to progress individual liberty? The Left has done it all for the past forty years since the days of the sexual revolution

We have a huge government in the west. Government influence has only grown since the first world war We are taxed at 50-55% in Sweden on top of 25% sales tax on nearly EVERY good or service. Go back to your little bubble.

>implying Catalan doesn't get BTFO just by existing
>implying Catalan even deserves to share a peninsula with the Basque master race

Is this bait?

Forcing other people to pay for you isn't liberty.

Marxist alienation makes total sense. People being put into compartmentalized jobs with such a degree of specialization (eg, soldering a specific chip over and over) that they can no longer see their own work in the product they make, and thus feel alienated from it and the work. That compared to a craftsman who can see himself in every aspect of the finished product, or at least a critical part of it.

>Are you seriously trying to suggest that anti-discrimination laws are opposed to liberty?
Yes.
Are you telling me equal pay laws for women are anti-liberty?
Yes.

>Please allow me to explain how theft isn't authoritarian

Not an argument

No, I'm white

How many times do I have to say I'm not an Anarchist?

The red pill is that government is a tool for ((financial)) power. In 1945, corporations paid 50 percent of federal taxes. Now they pay about 5 percent.

Define theft in this context

>Liberty kind of enforces equality, no? It's all about equality of opportunity, not outcome.
you're going to have to explain further what you're talking about

>Claim to advocate for liberty
>Openly supports stealing from others

Left libertarianism is the most retarded political ideology there is.

Nightwatchman state libertarianism is the ubermensch.

Dealing with unironic marxists isn't worth my time. Here's a simple imagine. Read it then fuck off back to /leftypol/

>What have Right Libertarians ever done to progress individual liberty?
Hello There!

Really there's no debate, true
I think we're all in agreement on the subject:
Pedophilia and bestiality is literally the only motivation behind libertarianism, I think we all know that
>pic related

That's terror

>Not an argument

Mate, I'm on your side, but do not bring in anything to do with mollymeme, here.

I'm not a Marxist, for fuck's sake. Can you read?

Yes government is terrible, it should be minimized.

I am! And I can say you are both retarded, looking at this thread.

I was stating a point of view that I've heard few times while arguing with commies weeaboos.

I'm fully opposed to any end of basic private property, but I'm in favor of a more state-controlled gestion of the means of production which does heavily impact the socio-economic development of our societies and ultimately are legal-safeguards for private initiative

Abolished, plz

The welfare state is an attack on liberty, you just answered your own question.

Why is the Welfare State an attack on Liberty, where do you think the money comes from? Santa?

There is no Left or Right Libertarian, only Libertarian.

>Why is Left-Libertarianism not discussed ever?

Because it's a contradiction in terms. Left-wing economic policies involve redistribution of resources based on the assumption that they are unfairly distributed. This means taking resources from those who have them and giving them to those who do not.

Taking involves force. This violates the NAP, which is the death knell of the entire ideology, but not the only fatal flaw.

The other major logical flaw is the assumption that those who have more resources have them unfairly, because this contradicts the notion of individual liberty. People are not the same, as people have the freedom to make choices in their lives. This freedom includes the freedom to make stupid choices which logically result in less success in life and less resources available to you. Like for instance, taking some ridiculous interpretive dance program in college and blowing $100k on tuition without gaining any useful education. Only an example, but you get the idea.

Lastly, any redistributive government is necessarily very large. First of all, they have to maintain the power to strip resources from those who have resources, necessitating that the government be able to wield more physical force than the richest in the society - by definition this means that the government remains the most potent violent force. Secondly, the government must have the ability to know how resources are distributed so they know who to take from and who to give to. This necessitates a massive bureaucracy.

So the logical form of left-libertarianism is a massive government that violates individual liberties and uses coercive force to rob their citizens, i.e. the very opposite of libertarianism.

Please do not mention this embarrassing concept ever again.

Oh yeah, fuck the disabled people and the poor, am I right? Muh guns, dude! Haha :)

>Why is Left-Libertarianism not discussed ever?

The collapse of union membership and peasant societies combined with people getting hooked hard on globalism means its not that viable of a movement anymore (and it was hardly viable in its own time)

That image fails from the get go left libertarians are against involuntary hierarchy not coercion you are describing pacifists. Its a pretty embarassing lack of understanding of what is very easy political ideology to take down.

Right's aren't real
The only natural rights that exist are called the laws of nature
The rest is made by and enforced within a community

Rightwing anarchism is an oxymoron

The power vacuum would just get filled by HUGE financial institutions. A national government is infinitely better than the fucking IMF, while neither is good. You see libertarian ideologies have this idea of indepenently making your living, owning property, running a store, and not being bothered. There is NOTHING wrong with that! There is a difference between that and the huge inhuman organizations that actually hold power.

...

>not an argument
Give me your money

please don't bump commie threads, newfags.

No, you cannot. For example, if you live in Canada you do not have the freedom to choose which medical practitioner you visit. Private medical facilities are banned. You see the government assigned physician, or you don't get medical care.

Doesn't matter if you can afford private care, you aren't allowed to partake of it. If you are rich and need a blood test you have to stand in line for six hours just like everyone else.

>i'm
kek kuk

go back to leftypol

>Governments start genocides
>Governments start wars
>Government create famines
>Government silences you
>Government steals your property
>Government create people dependant on welfare

VS.

>A private company offers you goods or services that you can decline if you want

Which is worse? What is your basis for thinking government is somehow "humane" while private businesses are "inhumane"?

>This is what Rightists actually believe
Yeah, I'm sure the 1% definitely got what they have through their own hard work! Why does a welfare state necessitate huge government in your mind? All we're asking for is social housing, some welfare and back to work/education programmes, and some programmes to help addicts and those in need. In fact, Conservatives are the ones who employ huge government with their support for the drug war and anti-social equality stances.

The affront to liberty is oppression. And without government, disabled people would have nothing, people could be discriminated against based on arbitrary characteristics like skin colour, gender, etc, and Corporations would force people to work for fuck all pay

Because its shit.
Saged

>Conservatives are the ones who employ huge government with their support for the drug war and anti-social equality stances.
AHAHAHAHAHA
> discriminated against based on arbitrary characteristics like skin colour, gender, etc, and Corporations would force people to work for fuck all pay
KEKEKEKKEKEKEKEKEKEKEK

Mostly because there's not much discuss -- it's already clear that left libertarianism (the original libertarianism, mind you, before Americans perverted it) is the solution.

Really, we're just waiting for everyone else to catch up.

...

...