Libertarian-Left

I do not understand this concept whatsoever. Isn't left wing economics about forcing people to share their resources? How can that be libertarian?

Left - right is collectivism vs individualism

"Everyone should just be nice and give their shit to other people!"

Dude, progressives share about 50 percent of the issues with libertarians. Now, that doesn't mean the rest of their beliefs aren't fucking terrible, right, but to suggest that progressive politics is opposite to libertarianism is soooo stupid.

We share the same beliefs as the Scandinavian countries, which the right wing loves to blast as socialist hellholes, even though they are the happiest countries on Earth. Places where the government actually takes care of its citizens. This is left libertarianism.

my understanding is that left libertarian trends towards the abolishment of gov for socialist and anarchist society, where lib right is the drastic reduction of democratic governance.

Both sides dramatically increase personal liberties. Left doesn't necessarily mean gov. payouts and universal healthcare.

Politics isn't a square, it's a triangle.

left libertarianism was the original libertarianism and the only real libertarianism

>Places where the government actually takes care of its citizens

No, politics are a 4D sphere.

>Scandinavian countries
>socialist
read a fucking book

I said the right wing likes to blast them as socialists. The Scandinavian countries are progressive, social democracies.
I don't see an argument.

It's due to the way in which they perceive what being libertarian means. For them, equity without a state is freedom. For right wing libertarians, equality without a state is freedom. If the left-lib is to look at the right-lib, they see fascists who don't support freedom. If the right-lib is to look at the left-lib, they see fascists who don't support freedom.

>I don't see an argument.
Muslim immigration and refugees.

>Scandinavia being socialist
>libertarians wanting a government
>government being libertarian

how can anyone force someone to share something if private property eliminated?
When all resources are in collective property from the start noone is being "forced to share".

They think they can achieve a property-free society without having to use force.
In other words, they are deluded.

no more deluded than ancaps

DUDE WEED
DUDE GAY MARRIAGE
DUDE ABORTION

The idea of any society existing without some form of government is retarded. Commies, anarchists, ancaps, they're all naive as hell.

That's up down you retard

Isn't right wing economics about forcing the working class to give the elite their resources?

'We don't need a government, a corporation, or a bourgeoisie class to tell us how to grow our food, run our factories, and not try to take away people's rights.'

You can't comprehend that?

can't have individual freedom without economic freedom. green square doesn't exist

Rightwing libertarianism is privatization of government to for-profit companies.

Leftwing libertarianism is privatization of government to guilds & industry-standards bodies.

No, that other user was right, left is collective while right is individualistic.

Collective-statist: Socialist
Collective-libertarian: Anarchist
Individualist-statist: Fascist
Individualist-libertarian: Classical liberal

The libertarian axis is purely social. If you’re more towards the libertarian side, you’re fine with free speech, gay marriage, abortion, etc. The left right axis is economical. If you’re left you’re more in favour of collectivist economics. It’s pretty simple to understand.

That fits perfectly well within right-libertarianism though, you have the freedom to share your own money as you see fit and try persuade others to do the same. The left disregards the persuasion part and just gets the state to do it at gunpoint, which is why left-libertarianism isn’t a thing.

They are under the illusion that all resources will magically appear when needed or every person is going to work an equal amount of time and effort.

Your mom mother's a whore

>The left disregards the persuasion part and just gets the state to do it at gunpoint

With what guns, considering the populace would be free to own them as well?

A good patriot is willing to sacrifice himself and his children on the altar of the Nation. The political right is not individualistic.

That’s just another reason why it’s a retarded ideology that makes no sense

The lib-left doesn't believe you should have your own money, and that wealth should be owned collectively instead. They're just libertarians that don't believe in property rights.

I don't see how it's not a thing when it clearly exists. Left leaning libertarians are socially libertarian in the sense of not caring about what people do in their private lives, e.g. they're fine with abortions, sexual education, religion being a private matter the freedom of it, etc. - they do however believe that the economic side of things needs a state to make sure that things work out and if need be force people at gunpoint to do its bidding.

In the same sense you can be right leaning libertarian who thinks that the state has no business in interfering with two people doing business but who also believe that fags should be hung from trees and that it's fine keeping blacks as slaves.

Whether you call that libertarian is besides the point, the point is that you can take a libertarian ideology and only apply it to a subset of everything.

That's a simplistic view of the right. The right is more motivated by honor and duty, which are concepts that are more prevalent in places like agrarian communities where your individual reputation is basically your life within the village.

The main difference between the right-collective and the left-collective is that in the left, there's this belief that the strong should fend for the weak (to each according to his needs). By contrast, in the right-collective, there's a belief that the weak need to toughen up to keep up with the norm, lest they be left behind.

Where's monarchism there?
>inb4 with fascism
I don't want to be associated with those centric cucks

so in this case
the center is the ideal

You're completely misusing the word "libertarian"

>I believe in gay marriage, I'm socially libertarian!

lol wtf

does Sup Forums even know what it means to be a libertarian anymore

But where do you draw the line between the individual and a company? Does little Suzy get to keep her lemonade stand? Or will it be stomped on and put through a wood-chipper because Suzy forgot to fill in Safety Regulations Form 337A6 that ensured all of the nails in the stand her dad built for her are correctly secured as per state standards?

With fascism. The monarchy is free to do as it please but the people arenr

No, that's not how things are.

The right wing collective is a collective bound by blood, the left wing collective is bound by class. Both are expected to take care of their own - in particular of their needy - because otherwise there is no point in being part of a collective in the first place if it does not provide security.

Individualistic ideas are ideas born out of luxury in the minds of people who were handed everything and are thus under the impression to not be in need of their fellow countrymen and the nation to belong to.

You can simply define that a business is a business if its sales exceed a certain amount if it has employees, etc. - but the practicalities of it are none of my business as they are irrelevant to the argument. The argument is: you don't need to apply a set of ethics rigorously. You can easily apply it where you see fit. For example: I can run a completely fine capitalist state but ban Jews from doing business in it. It would work just like any other capitalist state, except that a certain demographic is not allowed.

Fascist are centrist cucks that can't make up their mind about inequality.
>peoples of the world are different
>but I'm a part of the master race so I must automatically be better
No, you fucking PEASANT. Not to mention that monarchy becomes more libertarian as higher in the hierarchy. Included eugenics program is just a bonus.

>higher in the hierarchy
Oh great. So the 50% of the peasants will be slaves or serfs to the nobles, man, I love libertarianism.

The difference between right and left is if they accept peoples private spheres or not.

The difference here being individual responsibility versus collective responsibility.

No, left-wing politics sees the state as being in servitude of the people. It exists for the people and that is the only excuse for it to exist. The right fetishize the state/nation/race and consider the people to be in its servitude. Left and right has nothing to do with economics.

Personally, I don't care. I'm merely saying there are people out there who overlap with Libertarians in some way and consider themselves "socially libertarians". Whether the label makes sense or not is besides the point.

>but who also believe that fags should be hung from trees and that it's fine keeping blacks as slaves.

then is not libertarianism, you can´t be right leaning libertarian with those ideas (unless you believe that no one has the right to impose those ideas yet that is strange) regardless of what some people call themselves.

Guys, get it right, left-right is economic freedom, up-down is the meddling of the state in the rest of the issues.

delusional

Agreed. Both groups are pretty delusional, running around with their cute ideas while pragmatists lie left and right, get elected, and reap the benefits.

>implying all those peasanta deserve freedom

they are usually the open borders libertarians

See .

Neither do you.

>implying the degenerate oligarchs are worthy of leading

That's why the king chooses personally who belongs to nobility.

Nepotism does not insure that the best are chosen to lead.

It means "I want the freedom to do as I please and the government to come in to prevent the consequences"

Left right in my mind is where one draws the line between compassion and responsibility.

kibbutz

Left-libertarian not coming up on Bing anymore? You can take 2 minutes to read Wikipedia, faggot.

Because having taxes and public services doesn't make you an authoritarian state.

Of course, but you're not allowed to say that. It's obviously just the natural order of things, remember?

Why is a minimal state protecting individual liberties and a collectivized economy instead of private property rights more implausible than a right-wing libertarian state?

As long as you believe the collectivized economy can be efficient enough to keep everyone happy the way right libertarians believe that private property rights will keep everyone happy, they are on equal footing