Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Thoughts on Libertarianism

Left and right are problematic terms for a number of reasons. I place my politics in a collectivist sphere, whereas right libertarians are individualist. It’s solidarity versus egotist selfishness.
tbh I increasingly think left and right are pretty good terms. More or less for the reasons you give.

I used to tie myself up when describing my own politics. Libertarian socialist was one label I went under, to stress that my version of socialism doesn't necessarily involve an overbearing 'nanny state', while equitable access to health care, education, housing and other basic needs is in and of itself a huge part of freedom, a prerequisite for it.

Nowadays I've simplified that back to 'socialist'. It says what I want it to say - if people think I desire the curtailing of personal freedom, that's their mistake (we can work that out later). But the word 'libertarian' has been hijacked. It just confuses the issue to include it.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Ax^
tbh I increasingly think left and right are pretty good terms. More or less for the reasons you give.

I used to tie myself up when describing my own politics. Libertarian socialist was one label I went under, to stress that my version of socialism doesn't necessarily involve an overbearing 'nanny state', while equitable access to health care, education, housing and other basic needs is in and of itself a huge part of freedom, a prerequisite for it.

Nowadays I've simplified that back to 'socialist'. It says what I want it to say - if people think I desire the curtailing of personal freedom, that's their mistake (we can work that out later). But the word 'libertarian' has been hijacked. It just confuses the issue to include it.
Personally I'd say I'm a left libertarian. But I see that as separate from the left, which I would say is statist (and authoritarian tbh) so not for me. I'm also happy with ultra-left.
 
Last edited:
Personally I'd say I'm a left libertarian. But I see that as separate from the left, which I would say is statist so not for me. I'm also happy with ultra-left.
I understand the distaste for “leftist” and “ultra left” because of the connotations of statism, but I’m comfortable with being libertarian left. I have no aversion myself to being described as left wing. I see anarchist communism as a subsection of socialism. I’m allergic to such phrases as “beyond left and right”, which are fascist themes. In those circumstances I’m firmly left.
 
In my ignorance I am wondering how they ran the town into the ground. What is it specifically about Libertarianism that did this? I am trying to understand it.
They got elected into key positions on the council and then starved it of funding. See below.

They couldn’t pass some of the initiatives they wanted. They tried unsuccessfully to withdraw from the school district and to completely discontinue paying for road repairs, or to declare Grafton a United Nations free zone, some of the outlandish things like that. But they did find that a lot of existing Grafton residents would be happy to cut town services to the bone. And so they successfully put a stranglehold on things like police services, things like road services and fire services and even the public library. All of these things were cut to the bone.”
“By pretty much any measure you can look at to gauge a town’s success, Grafton got worse. Recycling rates went down. Neighbor complaints went up. The town’s legal costs went up because they were constantly defending themselves from lawsuits from Free Towners. The number of sex offenders living in the town went up. The number of recorded crimes went up. The town had never had a murder in living memory, and it had its first two, a double homicide, over a roommate dispute.”
 
One of the key things that right libertarians choose to ignore is that humans are a social animal and our successes as a species (in evolutionary time) have come through our ability to cooperate. We need community, we need mutual endeavour, our mental well-being requires collectivity.

Please note that is not to say we are perfect and don’t have the capacity for evil. We do. It’s just that we are apes not sharks.
 
One of the key things that right libertarians choose to ignore is that humans are a social animal and our successes as a species (in evolutionary time) have come through our ability to cooperate. We need community, we need mutual endeavour, our mental well-being requires collectivity.

Please note that is not to say we are perfect and don’t have the capacity for evil. We do. It’s just that we are apes not sharks.
Sharks cooperate too. ;)
 
One of the key things that right libertarians choose to ignore is that humans are a social animal and our successes as a species (in evolutionary time) have come through our ability to cooperate. We need community, we need mutual endeavour, our mental well-being requires collectivity.

Please note that is not to say we are perfect and don’t have the capacity for evil. We do. It’s just that we are apes not sharks.
Indeed. And we are also conditioned in this sort of society against being social animals and for the worst aspects to be dominant and not to trust each other. We have long been condtioned to be negative about ourselves and our potential as humans. Rutger Bregman explores this in one of his books - Humankind : A Hopeful History. Its a good read.
 
Last edited:
I see anarchist communism as a subsection of socialism.
This is my take on the word socialism as well. For me it is, or should be, a broad church of those who believe in collective solutions to societal problems, as opposed to those who might talk about 'hard-working families' as the largest unit of concern. imo that provides a decent way to spit up left from right, with r/w starting at some point to the left of Keir Starmer.

Of course the truth is that everyone believes in collective solutions to societal problems when push comes to shove. But some people - Tories, Keir Starmer - seem to consider them to be some kind of last resort only to be employed when individualism has failed.
 
Google isn’t a location, it’s a way of searching. Saying “from Google” is a bit like quoting a source in an essay and writing in brackets afterwards “from a book or journal the librarian helped me find”.

The reader needs to know which book or journal. Both so they can find the quote and see it in context for themselves if they wish, but also because that information can help the reader understand the bias of the author (there is always a bias), the veracity of the claim (if there’s a claim), the quality of the research behind the claim (if there has been research), and so on.

For example, you introduced Neil Peart to us as journalist and writer. In fact he was a drummer and lyricist for a rock band. (He also wrote memoirs, I understand). I haven’t read his memoirs, but I remember his lyrics from the bands albums in the mid 70s because my aunt (my mother’s youngest sibling, my mum being the oldest of a large family, making my aunt more akin to a cousin to me) was a huge fan at the time and I heard the lyrical themes repeatedly. They were right wing, and in my opinion, in quality, very juvenile.

For example:

The Trees

There is unrest in the Forest
There is trouble with the trees
For the Maples want more sunlight
And the Oaks ignore their pleas.

The trouble with the Maples
(And they’re quite convinced they’re right)
They say the Oaks are just too lofty
And they grab up all the light
But the Oaks can’t help their feelings
If they like the way they’re made
And they wonder why the Maples
Can’t be happy in their shade?

There is trouble in the Forest
And the creatures all have fled
As the Maples scream ‘Oppression!’
And the Oaks, just shake their heads

So the Maples formed a Union
And demanded equal rights
‘The Oaks are just too greedy
We will make them give us light’
Now there’s no more Oak oppression
For they passed a noble law
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet,
Axe,
And saw…
Yes I have been a RUSH fan since I was 14. I thought Peart, RIP, would prefer to be spoken of as a journalist writer. It was what he was into later in life and said he would like to be one. Well, he was! I mean I have read most of his books and some of them definately are. He was a wonderful person, I used to follow his blog, it was superb, and I miss him everyday. The trees is supposedly about the spanish civil war.
 
I understand the distaste for “leftist” and “ultra left” because of the connotations of statism, but I’m comfortable with being libertarian left. I have no aversion myself to being described as left wing. I see anarchist communism as a subsection of socialism. I’m allergic to such phrases as “beyond left and right”, which are fascist themes. In those circumstances I’m firmly left.
I wouldn't call myself a leftist, but ultra-left seems OK to me and I quite like that term. And yeah, what I believe in is definitely a type of socialism.
 
Last edited:
Does Libertarianism apply more to North America than the UK because of the nature of the united states?
 
Bit of a mix up between individuality and individualism. Anarchist communism embraces individuality but is the enemy of individualism.
I know what you mean but I guess I'm using a different meaning for the word individualism - just to be different and annoying :)
 
Last edited:
Does Libertarianism apply more to North America than the UK because of the nature of the united states?
Id say so. It exists here too, as a fringe movement, even stands in elections. But its more mainstream over there. Some might say mainstream tories here are libertarian, but they dont wearbthe pabel pn their sleeve and are usually more authoritarian imo.
 
If anything, that just makes it even worse.

Well done, though. If that's true, Peart is in the running for the award for the worst piece of art ever inspired by the Spanish Civil War.
It may not be. I read it somewhere. I prefer the lyrics to the trees to be what they are about, which is the Canadian forests.
 
How come so many right wingers talk about shrinking the state then?
danny la rouge has largely covered this. For all the rhetoric of shrinking the state the fact is that capital and the state have become increasing symbiotic. Far more laws are passed by governments these days than previously.

When the enclosures happened they did not happen in spite of the state but because of it. The state was vital to the removal of the commons.
Likewise the modern state is vital to the removal of modern commons. Public services, or rather the profitable parts of public services, are not being transferred to capital in the face of the state but via it. States use capital, just as much as capital uses the state.

~150 years ago if capital wanted a railway line it then capitalists could go out and build one. That's not possible these days, capital requires the UK state to build HS2.
 
Last edited:
They’re fine if others are using the same metric as oneself. I don’t think Serene is. They seem vague on the whole thing.
Serene repeatedly starts these kind of threads and repeatedly shows themself to be very vague, confused and wilfully ignorant about all aspects of the discussion. I wouldn’t let the words of Serene sway you on this one
 
Btw, just wanted to say that I am interested in council communism at the moment (which is a type of libertarian communism), but am kind of unfamiliar with it (especially the economic side of it) and need to try to learn more about it.

It seems to me, unless I'm not focussing enough on it myself, that maybe theres not enough of a focus on the economic side of things with anarchism (and maybe that anarchist economics are kinda vague) and I am interested in the economic side of left libertarianism and need to learn more. It also seems to me that maybe theres more of a focus on the political side of things though, when the economic side is also very important (though ofcourse the economic is also politcal).
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom