@tr00ths33k3r "if you want anything other than self-rule, youre not a libertarian. you want rule by another." Again, libertarianism is not synonymous with anarchism and you are clearly talking about anarchism.
@tr00ths33k3r Stop with the semantics already. Is a Democrat really "democratic?" Or a Republican really concerned with the "republic?" I understand what your position is, but splitting hairs here is not helpful. In a civil society, we often agree on a certain amount of government and a Libertarian's position is the next best thing to an anarchist position. Write whatever you like in response to this, but you are not talking about 99+ percent of libertarians and their political philosophies.
"There are some troubles from which mankind can never escape. . . . [The anarchists] have never claimed that liberty will bring perfection; they simply say that its results are vastly preferable to those that follow from authority.... As a choice of blessings, liberty is the greater; as a choice of evils, liberty is the smaller. Then liberty always says the Anarchist. No use of force except against the invader." --- Benjamin Tucker
@tr00ths33k3r Libertarianism is not, nor has it ever been, as a political philosophy and party, about statelessness. Statelessness is Anarchy. Look up Anarchy in any dictionary and you will find it describes exactly what you are attempting to suggest Libertarianism means. If you want to argue that Libertarians are still Statists, then fine - do that, but don't pretend that Libertarianism is, or should be synonymous with, Anarchism.
Thomas Sowell's essay from 2000 titled, "Poverty and the Left" says: "Most of the leading opponents of the left, in the United States and around the world, began on the left. These include Ronald Reagan, Milton Friedman and the whole neo-conservative movement, as well as ... Friedrich Hayek in Austria." As for Block, he mentions this every other time he speaks. Howard Zinn consistently opposed war so in that case, he was against aggression. P.S. Read Benjamin Tucker everyone.
Why do you assume? Is it not possible that I came to my understanding of the political spectrum through a combination of readings on the matter (e.g. Liggio, Rothbard, Hess, Nolen, Spangler) and introspection upon the innate flaws in both the popular one- and two-dimensional political spectrums? I maintain what I stated previously--that free market libertarianism and voluntaryist communism both belong on the left, while totalitarianism and individualist nihilism certainly belong on the right.
@tr00ths33k3r "...the only libertarian position is anarchism." I see Noam Chomsky has influenced you but even Chomsky believes in some form of government and still refers to himself as an Anarchist (or a supporter of Libertarian Socialism or Social Anarchism). How does that work and fit with what you wrote above?
@xHippieHunter and in respond to your earlier comments about nukes, i'll make the same point that the Iranian President uses and is as follows... If nukes are good, then why is the US stopping the Iranians from having them? And if they are bad, then why does the United States and other 9 or so countries that posses nuclear capabilities have them?
There are actually two forms of libertarianism, right and left. Right libertarianism is anti-state and pro-capitalism. Left libertarianism is both anti-state and anti-capitalism.
First of all, the entire concept of "left and right" is incredibly convoluted and relativistic. You can't just say "left and right" and assume we're talking about the same things. It all depends on what scale you're using. If you're using the modern American scale, then obviously anarchism is not located on the spectrum. However, anarchism has its OWN spectrum with its own left and right. Get it?
Not all libertarians are pro-private property. Left libertarians believe that all people naturally have an equal right to land, and land is not something that can be "owned."
@xHippieHunter what makes you think that if they had nukes, they would want us off the face of the earth? who are we to say who should have nukes? isn't a nuke just a way of making your country impermeable to invasion? who doesn't want that? not to mention the fact that once a county is able to weaponize the nuclear material, it still takes another 30-40 years of research to be able to get ICBM's that could strike long range targets like the US and Europe.
"you have to start at the very beginning" Yes, that is what all Utopians say, both liberals and Libertarians. The reality is, WE ARE HERE, and a realistic ideology is one that can responsibly address that reality.
This is correct. I assert often (to mostly bewildered looks) that it is only when one understands how Democrats and Republicans are truly flip sides of the same coin that one can progress to Libertarianism. That is, if one begins from a position of being enamored of one or the other of these entities that are actually one in the same, posing as dichotomous organizations, but in reality only bickering over details while moving the same ball down the same field in perpetuity.
@IntractableJ thanks A LOT for that information, guess i never though of going to wikipedia. but thats libertarian socialism, id like to know what american libertarianism is.
I never was a right-winger. Most of the "libertarians" and libertarians (the real ones) started out on the left. Thomas Sowell, Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, Walter Block. The only ones I know who were never leftists were Rohtbard and Mises and Rothbard had to befriend the far left during the 60's. Professor Howard Zinn just passed away. There is much in his writings that libertarians can appreciate.
"The terms were apparently first used in the French Legislative Assembly after the revolution of 1789. In that context those who sat on the right side of the assembly were steadfast supporters of the dethroned monarchy and aristocracy - the ancien régime - (and hence were conservatives) while those who sat on the left opposed its reinstatement (and hence were radicals). It should follow from this that libertarians, or classical liberals, would sit on the left." -Sheldon Richman
BeondaPale, a "foreign entity"? I'm perplexed by that statement. I merely aimed to refer to the current police apparatus as what it is: a monopoly maintained through aggression, rather than a market-based system. Contemporary policing is inefficient and more often than not corrupted. Perhaps you see this as a necessary evil, but not all do. My above point was merely that market anarchists believe a market-based system is the most desirable, least detrimental approach. Respectfully, Alex Peak
" Dizzy: My mother always told me that violence doesn't solve anything. Jean Rasczak: Really? I wonder what the city founders of Hiroshima would have to say about that. [to Carmen] You. Carmen: They wouldn't say anything. Hiroshima was destroyed. Jean Rasczak: Correct. Violence, naked force, has resolved more issues in history than has any other factor. The contrary opinion that violence doesn't solve anything is merely wishful thinking at its worst. " ~Starship Troopers
I agree with Reagan when he said "I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism." Me personally I am a conservative and a libertarian. I also think it's silly to argue them both unless you're one w/ liberal leanings. It's more than necessary to have a strong military. In the thing called reality we will have wars against those who wish us harm. I also believe that freedom is represented best by the free market and I believe in the exceptionalism of the individual. Peace.
Although she was one of the first people that taught me about libertarianism, I quickly got tired of her because their is something way too rigid and authoritarian about her. Her fiction books were a chore, the only reason I read them was because it was intriguing to read a libertarian novel. I guess she was good in that she made many people aware of the virtues of capitalism. Murray Rothbard in contrast was witty, extremely knowledgeable, and always seemed to make good points.
so basically the point of this video is that we cannot have freedom unless we stop trying to give freedom to others? or at least trying to destroy those who do not let freedom happen? plz exlain
Libertarianism does hold a class-based theory, which it adopts from classical liberalism. This class theory is, in fact, older than Marx's. Agorism, a revolutionary form of market anarchism, also finds class theory very important. As for natural law, without it, the terms "Justice" and "rights" are rendered meaningless (see Spooner). Without natural law, all we can be left with is the nihilistic creed that "might makes no wrong." (Not that natural law is required to defend anarcho-liberalism.)
BeondaPale writes, "We ALL see the government as a necessary evil." Advocate1234 writes, "[Courts, Military, and Police] are necessary to protect life liberty and property." It's probably worth noting that market anarchists believe protection is a service best provided by private protection agencies rather than government monopolies, that arbitration is best provided by private arbitration firms, and that citizen militias are more desirable than standing armies for international defence.
Brian Doherty makes poses a charming chicken/egg scenario about people who had not yet "figured out themselves" in their opposition to the New Deal, but then goes on to make a fantastic race to hyperbole regarding WFB and his thoughts on eliminating the Soviets. Doherty makes him sound like a neocon, when he truly wasn't. Is it just too much to say that Libertarians had a more traditional liberal view when it came to normalizing deviance as a norm? Why the need to bash Buckley?
@mmac382 What have I "revised?" It is a well known fact that we save all of those countries tremendous amounts of money by placing our garrisons and troops all around the world, but that doesn't mean they couldn't still overspend and they obviously have. Modern day "conservatives" are the ones who are becoming more "liberal," and so-called "compassionate conservatism" is an example. If anything, I am a "classical liberal" and that is quite different than a modern day liberal.
PART II With that said, I don't see any reason why insurance companies or defence agencies would not enter the deed registration industry in the absense of an American state. Clearly, Americans would have a demand for deed registration. Would no one think to supply? Regards, Alex Peak
No, you're assuming an anarchist society would devolve into a free market. Left anarchists would rather have a moneyless and classless society. "Utopian" is a loaded word, and is objectively meaningless. Every idea was once called Utopian. That's no argument at all.
No...both forms of libertarianism are by definition anti-state. Left libertarianism is equivalent to "classical anarchism." Right libertarianism is equivalent to "anarcho-capitalism," which is a much more recent ideology, and many anarchists question whether it even qualifies as anarchism.
The very definition of Libertarianism makes the absence of war impossible. War is not something that will go away, simply because it is within the humans genetics to wage conflicts. It is because mans psychological predisposition to do so. Libertarian’s definition of freedom will not change that. Conservatism at least acknowledges the possibilities or war and tries to address the realities of war. Of course that’s a pipe dream as well because man always finds new was to battle.
I used to be Conservative but my reasons for leaving & becoming Libertarian are: To be Conservative you have to be religious, I am non-religious/secular The Conservatives want to make all porn illegal & I don't think it should be illegal. To be Conservative you have to believe in abstinence. I don't think people should have to get married.
@MarmaladeINFP That's wrong. Libertarianism are not social liberals. Libertarianism believe in minimum or no involvement from the government. Social Liberals believe government intervention has a legitimate role in peoples life.
It depends on what form of conservatism your talking about. Because Conservative Libertarianism is very similar to Libertarianism. But Authoritarianism Conservatism is the complete opposite of libertarianism.
Liberalism to me and why I'm a Liberal is about Freedom and Democracy. Liberal Democracy like America. Where people no matter they're, race, ethnicity, gender, religion, economic status. Has a chance in life to make it to be as successful as they're skills, education and production will allow. That everyone is treated equally under law. Thats why I'm a Liberal and thats what Liberal Democrats have fought for, for over 100 years in America. Liberalism is not Socialism or Democratic Socialism.
My question is: why would we want to end wars? Example: Let's say a ruthless dictator commits mass genocide killing thousands of innocent people on the basis of race or religion. In these cases, the only way to quickly stop the genocide is to use military action. Thus, the premise that war is always bad for humanity, is false.
Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999) Supports anti-flag desecration amendment. (Mar 2001) Voted YES on more prosecution and sentencing for juvenile crime. (Jun 1999) Voted NO on maintaining right of habeas corpus in Death Penalty Appeals. (Mar 1996) Voted YES on making federal death penalty appeals harder. (Feb 1995)
Yeah, conservatives are (supposedly) economic liberals (as in free market capitalists), but they are also social authoritarians. Libertarians actually ARE economic liberals, but they are also social liberals. In short, libertarians are the REAL liberals, whereas American "liberals" are Keynesian social democrats. Conservatives can be allies, but their opposition to change makes me somewhat uncomfortable with them.
Your assuming that genocide is not a form of warfare... The point is not that people can't use force against someone else, the point is that they cannot INITIATE force. In your example it is certainly desireable to use force to stop the genocide, but that's only because force has already been initiated by the dictator. In the bigger picture, it is certainly bad that the ruthless dictator began the war.
@HORNE19730607 - I'm sorry that you were unable to grasp my meaning. These are not simple issues, and some minds are not up to the task. Know your limits.
@BourgeoisRomantic That is an odd statement considering libertarians are social liberals. If a libertarian "really fucking hate liberals", then they hate themselves. Libertarianism that remains true to it's principles is liberalism. However, the sad fact is many libertarians aren't really libertarians and instead often are just disgruntled conservatives.
Expecting someone to pay for me and not investing and planning properly is a very selfish thing for me to do to strangers and I will not bank on it anyway.
Advocate1234 writes, "Its probably worth noting that market anarchists haven't figured out how people can leave their homes under their system." Sir, that's a very false statement. Market anarchists know exactly how to facilitate the easy the leaving of one's home: contracts. Any road company worth dealing with will provide contracts to patrons allowing access for home-owners. I would have thought that goes without saying. Sincerely yours, Alex Peak
Dude get real, most retired people aren't starving. I didn't say anything about not giving to charity. Maybe the government could require an annual percentage to be given to the charity of your choice if you make a certain amount of money. That would reach alot more people than taxes that go to government spending. There alot of options besides the "tax the rich give to poor" mentality we have in this country.
@mmac382 Actually all the intervention has made US oil supplies LESS secure. In part because at least twice the US has lead boycotts against oil-producing nations. To claim that a libertarian president would continue to interfer in the middle east because that's been SO useful in getting oil is bizarre.
This is just bad extrapolation on your part. I never said anything like "human nature is infinitely malleable." But there is overwhelming evidence that it IS malleable. Anyone who's taken a course in neurobiology or physiological psychology will tell you this: so-called "instinct" is very limited; imprinting and conditioning from the environment play a much bigger role in human behavior. In the end, we need to talk less about human "nature" and more about human *behavior.*
Libertarian's are classic liberals but cannot be associated with modern liberals(socialists). To get a real fundamental understanding of the differences between Libertarian's, Republicans(Conservatives), and Democrats(Liberals) you must consider the schools of economics belonging to each. Conservatives/Liberals in the end are the same. Only political details differ. eg: Monetarists, Socialists, Statists, psuedo capitalists(oxymoron) Libertarian Austrian Economists Anarcho-Capitalists
lightwebb, Not all libertarians view government as a necessary evil. About 90% do; the other 10% view it as an unnecessary one. Whereas all free-market anarchists are libertarians, not all libertarians are free-market anarchists. Picture a Venn Diagramme in which the free-market anarchist circle is fully contained within the larger libertarian circle. Yours truly, Alex Peak
@Suarez23 No. Look at the data. Libertarians tend to hold socially liberal values. You are confusing issues. According to the Nolan chart (created by a libertarian), social issues (conservative/liberal) are separate from fiscal issues (libertarian/statist). A govt can be socially conservative or socially liberal... just look at govts around the world. And one can be socially liberal without supporting a large govt. In fact, some of the most socially liberal people are anti-statist anarchists.
In Congress, a strong supporter of the War on Drugs. (Dec 2003) Voted YES on prohibiting needle exchange & medical marijuana in DC. (Oct 1999) Favors the legalization of marijuana for medical purposes. (Jun 2008) Let schools display the words "God Bless America". (Oct 2001) Supports requiring schools to allow prayer. (Jan 2001) Supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer. (May 1997)
we would have extremely low taxes if it wasn't for compulsory tax funded education, so people would be able to afford a private education. If they were out of work, then government aid could help out, but the vast majority of people would be able to afford it. Mail would actually be cheaper if it was privatized.
Yes the US placed an embargo on Iraq oil but do you really think the prevented China France and England from getting Iraq oil? And at gun point? I think you are confused on the term embargo. I just today saw Ron Paul say we need to befreind Iran and countries like Egypt because it will cause them to stop building nukes. Yes he specificaly said make friends. A little niaeve dont you think?
@MaikUniversum technically wrong? you think the state is technically wrong? what is right and wrong but morality? the only place to go here is with the principal, to the specifics, not the other way round. I dont want to convince anyone of the statistical improvement of children under 5 in sweden getting the plague, its almost entirely irrelevant! the only thing that matters to me is that the state is founded on "morality" i disagree with, and as a result i disagree with all its technicalities.
UnicornHead, I fail to see how anyone can honestly believe that conservatives want smaller government. Sure, they're often "for" smaller government rhetorically; but in reality, they crave a government so large, powerful, and intrusive that it becomes virtually impossible to figure out who's worse, the conservatives or the modern "liberals." Murray Rothbard's essay "Left and Right: The Prospects for Liberty" is one work I'd recommend checking out. Cheers, Alex Peak
smb12321, I didn't say anything about libertarians "coming from" the left or right. Rather, I content that all libertarians *are* on the left, that it is impossible to be a right-wing libertarian or to be a left-wing Stalinist. On my scale, voluntaryist anarchists are on the absolute left; minarchists are slightly to their right; classical liberals slightly to *their* right. In the centre are conservatives and modern "liberals." On the far right you find fascists, Stalinists, and the like.
@mmac382 Libertarians also wouldn't be promising Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Israel, or any other country that the US Military would be at their beck and call and those countries would have to invest more of their own money in national defense. Why do you think Europe has so much money to invest in its social programs? Why did Japan and S Korea do so well after WWII and the Korean War? Oh, that's right, the US military. These points are hardly controversial, but many people willingly forget them.
Here is a video explaining the spectrum of anarchism: v=D2qaD1EmzAo Here is Noam Chomsky explaining how right-wing libertarianism is a perversion of the original concept: v=ugq86q9KyPE Or you can just search for "left libertarianism" or "libertarian socialism" on Wikipedia. These are NOT contradictions. If you think they are, then you are ignorant.
I find this interesting...I did NOT come to Libertarian principles through the Republican party. I wound up having no other choice than to believe them, based on the scientific method, as applied to economics. I was raised very much a Democrat. The fiscal realities of big government, particularly when you look at California, are undeniable. Big Government WILL collapse. Period. History won't tell you otherwise.
Randians were a wing of the Libertarian movement by definition just because many of her ideas were Libertarian. Ayn Rand and her movement however was very flawed. First many of her ideas were wrong and some a little wacko. Secondly, the movement was a cult, you could not question her opinions even one iota or you were labeled "irrational". An article by Murray Rothbard on lewrockwell. com gives a very good view inside this cult.
"Capitalism is economic Darwinism, and if nature has told us anything, it's that survival of the fittest is the only system that is truly sustainable." If only reality would fit into neat little sound bites and ideological absolutes...
People don't want to privatize Social Security, they want to abolish it. Why should I have to pay for my neighbor's retirement? Let people who want to save money for their retirement do it and those who don't suffer the consequences. Privatizing U.S. mail, education and social security would reduce huge amounts of taxes and make those the mail and education more efficient.
They only "force" you to do it if you take advantage of the things you're paying for. It's a question of resources. I Hear Hong Kong and China have low taxes...
Conservatives who want to legalize pot... that's about it. Civil rights: LP claims to be for, but in the end would defend corporate property owners in their discrimination. If people have rights to life and liberty, and government should protect us without violating those rights, then what is the problem of social welfare as compared to other protections, like military and courts? If all taxation is theft, then we're anarchists. If not, then what... objectivists?
@NobiscumDeus1 What are these mystical old values you speak of? If you take a close look a social history you realize that society has changed very little over he past few centuries, it has simply become more tolerant to those who do not conform. Besides the government and society are two separate entities. The constitution from my point of view is the best thing we have going for libertarianism because it is a codified expression of libertarian governing principles.
@kylester816 i'm referencing iraq by the dictator remark. both are, in my opinion, countries under attack by the US in an undeclared war with no site in end. wouldn't you want them out of your country too if you were in there shoes?
Conservatism and libertarianism don't necessarily contradict each other. If you are conservative with respects to the early founding days of this nation, you are essentially a constitutional libertarian.
And besides, the only countries that would need to be worried about a nuclear threat would be the local countries in the region. It's not our place to go around telling people on the other side of the world how to live their lives.
One request from all people. Get educated on all sides and point-of-views before making judgements. If you want to make religious judgements, then read the bible, quran, torah, Shruti. If you want to make political judgements, then go read books about communism, capitalism, socialism, marxism, etc. As well as reading up on your history of the Republican and Democratic parties. Just know what your talking about, and don't think that you know what you're talking about is right. Just KNOW!
@IfhBiff You are correct Sowell NEVER embrassed the leftist statist view. He would vote conservative because it was so hard to get a "true" libertarians on the ballot. Murky up there is a perfect name. Liberals like to lay claim to libertarians. They are soley for tyranny
In my view libertarians and conservatives are often one in the same or at least ideologically similar. In order to increase our influence we libertarians need to work within the Republican party ally ourselves with the conservatives to push out the neo-cons.
@tr00ths33k3r Your assumption that the only method of recourse is State run war is inaccurate. By far in most cases other actions are initiated in attempt to facilitate a desired outcome. Examples of said actions would be group admonishments to sanctions and embargo. Your simplification of what detemines a Governent is nebulus and without explanation. It would have been better to explain your defination of Goverment.
Advocate1234, PART I There aren't many anarcho-capitalist countries out there today for us to look at. Some might say that Somalia is anarchist, but I highly doubt anarchism in America or the other modern, highly-industrialised countries would look similar to Somali anarchism, if for no other reason difference in cultural tradition.
More prisons, more enforcement, effective death penalty. (Sep 1994) Supports both pre-emptive and responsive war. (Oct 2008) Regrets voting for the USA PATRIOT Act. (Dec 2003) Bob Barr "On the Issues" (libertarian presidential campaign web site)
That is what charity is for, why don't rich liberals volunteer to give more to the poor personally instead of forcing the less rich to do so unregulated with income tax deductions?
@xHippieHunter did you ever think that terrorism would not exist if we had not installed it in the first place? we trained Osama and his fighters in the Scottish mountains. To this day, Osama is wanted for numerous terrorist crimes but not 9/11. When the FBI was asked why, they responded that there wasn't enough evidence. i recommend watching the 2nd edition of loose change. then come talk to me about 9/11
Eh, if you only want to compare things like economic policies you could say some of the most pacifist and tolerant countries in the world have things in common with Nazi's, but if you're talking about persecution of minorities, no mercy for the weak, extreme nationalism, & imperialist foreign policy the neoconservatives are probably closest
LOL, how about arrest somebody and get him through the court system. We live in a nanny state? I've never met a conservative before who had such an issue with following the laws.
i like libertarians, but i don't agree with that quote. sometimes, you have to stand up and fight. in this case, the abridging of rights for the sake of national survival is warranted. You cannot end all wars. That's just pie in the sky. I think the founding fathers had a good compromise when the wrote the constitution which is a conservative document with strong libertarian influences. Power should not be centralized, but distributed. that's the crux and conservs and liberts agree on it
@NobiscumDeus1 there is nothing more conservative than minding ones own business when no harm is done, libertarianism and conservatism ate their base are one in the same. However even if we libertarians do wish to distinguish ourselves from conservatives, we must recognize that they are our best allies in the fight for restoring constitutional governance to the nation. If we continue to alienate the rest of the right then our cause will be lost.
Yeah, I'm talking about the United States. We don't have old people starving in the streets on a large scale. I'm guessing your talking about private schools in Portugal too? In the United States, our public school system is extremely flawed. This may vary state to state, but I know in Florida, the schools are horrible, especially in the cities. I think most people will agree with me that American private schools are much better than American public schools.
Well they may not want to enforce it but they want to teach it like you said. That's what I disagree with. I don't think people should have to be over 18 just to have sex. Rush Limbaugh & Michael Savage do want to ban porn. Most Conservatives want to ban porn. You just haven't asked them all.
I wonder what true libertarians think about war in Irak, intervention in Afghanistan, or any foreign policies. It seems to me that libertarianism only addresses politics limited to their country (USA, Canada) and haven't developped deep ideas about foreign policy but I may be wrong
@tr00ths33k3r "we already 'live in anarchy' - we always have, and we always will. 'government' is a delusion." Sorry, but I disagree. Furthermore, I think this statement and your general approach is essentially deconstructivist. Okay, sure, chaos abounds and our default is self rule and sustainment, but that does not make libertarianism synonymous with anarchism.
One of the main things people should think about when voting for person is whether they will uphold the Constitution against enemies abroad and within. Especially within. But no matter what party you claim to hail from if you believe in fractional reserve banking being a good thing for Americans then you must be outside your mind. If a candidate believes in banker fascist capitalism instead of people capitalism then that alone is a reason to never support him or her. utube Freedom to Fascism
@Eldeecue 1. communism is bad so thats a compliment :) 2. how can 1 be an anti-state socialist? socialism basically means that the state owns all welath and spreads it "equally" (and among beurocrats) to the ppl through free public services. im serious rly, please explain.
@fanadfilms Off the mark? You could literally spend all day naming some of today's key US conservative intellectuals that were not just leftist & leftist sympathizers,but card-carrying Trotskyites during the 60s(and by their own admission.) And,without a doubt,the contemporary US Libertarian Party in the states is a movement with far-right roots and big plutocrat money.
@tr00ths33k3r "if you want anything other than self-rule, youre not a libertarian. you want rule by another."
Again, libertarianism is not synonymous with anarchism and you are clearly talking about anarchism.
BAM! That's one of the most well thought out reply's to the libertarian movement I have seen on youtube. You are awesome BiggieB99!
That was amazingly put.
@tr00ths33k3r Stop with the semantics already. Is a Democrat really "democratic?" Or a Republican really concerned with the "republic?" I understand what your position is, but splitting hairs here is not helpful. In a civil society, we often agree on a certain amount of government and a Libertarian's position is the next best thing to an anarchist position. Write whatever you like in response to this, but you are not talking about 99+ percent of libertarians and their political philosophies.
"There are some troubles from which mankind can never escape. . . . [The anarchists] have never claimed that liberty will bring perfection; they simply say that its results are vastly preferable to those that follow from authority....
As a choice of blessings, liberty is the greater; as a choice of evils, liberty is the smaller. Then liberty always says the Anarchist. No use of force except against the invader."
--- Benjamin Tucker
@tr00ths33k3r Libertarianism is not, nor has it ever been, as a political philosophy and party, about statelessness. Statelessness is Anarchy. Look up Anarchy in any dictionary and you will find it describes exactly what you are attempting to suggest Libertarianism means. If you want to argue that Libertarians are still Statists, then fine - do that, but don't pretend that Libertarianism is, or should be synonymous with, Anarchism.
Libertarianism is not anarchy.
Thomas Sowell's essay from 2000 titled, "Poverty and the Left" says: "Most of the leading opponents of the left, in the United States and around the world, began on the left. These include Ronald Reagan, Milton Friedman and the whole neo-conservative movement, as well as ... Friedrich Hayek in Austria." As for Block, he mentions this every other time he speaks. Howard Zinn consistently opposed war so in that case, he was against aggression. P.S. Read Benjamin Tucker everyone.
Why is it that when I reply it does not go under the person I am replying to? UA-cam blows
Why do you assume? Is it not possible that I came to my understanding of the political spectrum through a combination of readings on the matter (e.g. Liggio, Rothbard, Hess, Nolen, Spangler) and introspection upon the innate flaws in both the popular one- and two-dimensional political spectrums? I maintain what I stated previously--that free market libertarianism and voluntaryist communism both belong on the left, while totalitarianism and individualist nihilism certainly belong on the right.
@tr00ths33k3r "...the only libertarian position is anarchism."
I see Noam Chomsky has influenced you but even Chomsky believes in some form of government and still refers to himself as an Anarchist (or a supporter of Libertarian Socialism or Social Anarchism). How does that work and fit with what you wrote above?
@kojirodensetsu If someone mugging your neighbor in the street, what would you do? Would you help? Or, would you just stick to your business?
@sakonhagakure you don't understand the ideology do you?
@xHippieHunter and in respond to your earlier comments about nukes, i'll make the same point that the Iranian President uses and is as follows... If nukes are good, then why is the US stopping the Iranians from having them? And if they are bad, then why does the United States and other 9 or so countries that posses nuclear capabilities have them?
There are actually two forms of libertarianism, right and left. Right libertarianism is anti-state and pro-capitalism. Left libertarianism is both anti-state and anti-capitalism.
First of all, the entire concept of "left and right" is incredibly convoluted and relativistic. You can't just say "left and right" and assume we're talking about the same things. It all depends on what scale you're using. If you're using the modern American scale, then obviously anarchism is not located on the spectrum. However, anarchism has its OWN spectrum with its own left and right. Get it?
Advocate1234, I don't know why you assume there would be no record of deeds in the absense of a state monopoly.
Yours,
Alex Peak
Not all libertarians are pro-private property. Left libertarians believe that all people naturally have an equal right to land, and land is not something that can be "owned."
@xHippieHunter what makes you think that if they had nukes, they would want us off the face of the earth? who are we to say who should have nukes? isn't a nuke just a way of making your country impermeable to invasion? who doesn't want that? not to mention the fact that once a county is able to weaponize the nuclear material, it still takes another 30-40 years of research to be able to get ICBM's that could strike long range targets like the US and Europe.
"you have to start at the very beginning"
Yes, that is what all Utopians say, both liberals and Libertarians. The reality is, WE ARE HERE, and a realistic ideology is one that can responsibly address that reality.
This is correct. I assert often (to mostly bewildered looks) that it is only when one understands how Democrats and Republicans are truly flip sides of the same coin that one can progress to Libertarianism. That is, if one begins from a position of being enamored of one or the other of these entities that are actually one in the same, posing as dichotomous organizations, but in reality only bickering over details while moving the same ball down the same field in perpetuity.
@IntractableJ thanks A LOT for that information, guess i never though of going to wikipedia. but thats libertarian socialism, id like to know what american libertarianism is.
I never was a right-winger. Most of the "libertarians" and libertarians (the real ones) started out on the left. Thomas Sowell, Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, Walter Block. The only ones I know who were never leftists were Rohtbard and Mises and Rothbard had to befriend the far left during the 60's. Professor Howard Zinn just passed away. There is much in his writings that libertarians can appreciate.
"The terms were apparently first used in the French Legislative Assembly after the revolution of 1789. In that context those who sat on the right side of the assembly were steadfast supporters of the dethroned monarchy and aristocracy - the ancien régime - (and hence were conservatives) while those who sat on the left opposed its reinstatement (and hence were radicals). It should follow from this that libertarians, or classical liberals, would sit on the left."
-Sheldon Richman
@MaikUniversum and youre very patient and not stubborn at all, thank you for the non-abbreviated debate that ended amicably
BeondaPale, a "foreign entity"? I'm perplexed by that statement. I merely aimed to refer to the current police apparatus as what it is: a monopoly maintained through aggression, rather than a market-based system. Contemporary policing is inefficient and more often than not corrupted. Perhaps you see this as a necessary evil, but not all do. My above point was merely that market anarchists believe a market-based system is the most desirable, least detrimental approach.
Respectfully,
Alex Peak
" Dizzy: My mother always told me that violence doesn't solve anything.
Jean Rasczak: Really? I wonder what the city founders of Hiroshima would have to say about that. [to Carmen] You.
Carmen: They wouldn't say anything. Hiroshima was destroyed.
Jean Rasczak: Correct. Violence, naked force, has resolved more issues in history than has any other factor. The contrary opinion that violence doesn't solve anything is merely wishful thinking at its worst. " ~Starship Troopers
I agree with Reagan when he said "I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism." Me personally I am a conservative and a libertarian. I also think it's silly to argue them both unless you're one w/ liberal leanings. It's more than necessary to have a strong military. In the thing called reality we will have wars against those who wish us harm. I also believe that freedom is represented best by the free market and I believe in the exceptionalism of the individual. Peace.
Although she was one of the first people that taught me about libertarianism, I quickly got tired of her because their is something way too rigid and authoritarian about her. Her fiction books were a chore, the only reason I read them was because it was intriguing to read a libertarian novel. I guess she was good in that she made many people aware of the virtues of capitalism. Murray Rothbard in contrast was witty, extremely knowledgeable, and always seemed to make good points.
so basically the point of this video is that we cannot have freedom unless we stop trying to give freedom to others? or at least trying to destroy those who do not let freedom happen? plz exlain
Libertarianism does hold a class-based theory, which it adopts from classical liberalism. This class theory is, in fact, older than Marx's. Agorism, a revolutionary form of market anarchism, also finds class theory very important. As for natural law, without it, the terms "Justice" and "rights" are rendered meaningless (see Spooner). Without natural law, all we can be left with is the nihilistic creed that "might makes no wrong." (Not that natural law is required to defend anarcho-liberalism.)
What is funny is that James Madison later on in his life started moving right of constitution, becoming more Jeffersonian. I love that.
BeondaPale writes, "We ALL see the government as a necessary evil."
Advocate1234 writes, "[Courts, Military, and Police] are necessary to protect life liberty and property."
It's probably worth noting that market anarchists believe protection is a service best provided by private protection agencies rather than government monopolies, that arbitration is best provided by private arbitration firms, and that citizen militias are more desirable than standing armies for international defence.
Brian Doherty makes poses a charming chicken/egg scenario about people who had not yet "figured out themselves" in their opposition to the New Deal, but then goes on to make a fantastic race to hyperbole regarding WFB and his thoughts on eliminating the Soviets. Doherty makes him sound like a neocon, when he truly wasn't. Is it just too much to say that Libertarians had a more traditional liberal view when it came to normalizing deviance as a norm? Why the need to bash Buckley?
@mmac382 What have I "revised?" It is a well known fact that we save all of those countries tremendous amounts of money by placing our garrisons and troops all around the world, but that doesn't mean they couldn't still overspend and they obviously have. Modern day "conservatives" are the ones who are becoming more "liberal," and so-called "compassionate conservatism" is an example. If anything, I am a "classical liberal" and that is quite different than a modern day liberal.
PART II
With that said, I don't see any reason why insurance companies or defence agencies would not enter the deed registration industry in the absense of an American state. Clearly, Americans would have a demand for deed registration. Would no one think to supply?
Regards,
Alex Peak
No, you're assuming an anarchist society would devolve into a free market. Left anarchists would rather have a moneyless and classless society. "Utopian" is a loaded word, and is objectively meaningless. Every idea was once called Utopian. That's no argument at all.
No...both forms of libertarianism are by definition anti-state. Left libertarianism is equivalent to "classical anarchism." Right libertarianism is equivalent to "anarcho-capitalism," which is a much more recent ideology, and many anarchists question whether it even qualifies as anarchism.
The very definition of Libertarianism makes the absence of war impossible. War is not something that will go away, simply because it is within the humans genetics to wage conflicts. It is because mans psychological predisposition to do so. Libertarian’s definition of freedom will not change that. Conservatism at least acknowledges the possibilities or war and tries to address the realities of war. Of course that’s a pipe dream as well because man always finds new was to battle.
There were many founders that could be classified as minarchist libertarian, which is basically my line of thought.
I used to be Conservative but my reasons for leaving & becoming Libertarian are:
To be Conservative you have to be religious, I am non-religious/secular
The Conservatives want to make all porn illegal & I don't think it should be illegal.
To be Conservative you have to believe in abstinence. I don't think people should have to get married.
@MarmaladeINFP That's wrong. Libertarianism are not social liberals. Libertarianism believe in minimum or no involvement from the government. Social Liberals believe government intervention has a legitimate role in peoples life.
It depends on what form of conservatism your talking about. Because Conservative Libertarianism is very similar to Libertarianism. But Authoritarianism Conservatism is the complete opposite of libertarianism.
Liberalism to me and why I'm a Liberal is about Freedom and Democracy. Liberal Democracy like America. Where people no matter they're, race, ethnicity, gender, religion, economic status. Has a chance in life to make it to be as successful as they're skills, education and production will allow.
That everyone is treated equally under law. Thats why I'm a Liberal and thats what Liberal Democrats have fought for, for over 100 years in America. Liberalism is not Socialism or Democratic Socialism.
My question is: why would we want to end wars? Example: Let's say a ruthless dictator commits mass genocide killing thousands of innocent people on the basis of race or religion. In these cases, the only way to quickly stop the genocide is to use military action. Thus, the premise that war is always bad for humanity, is false.
Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
Supports anti-flag desecration amendment. (Mar 2001)
Voted YES on more prosecution and sentencing for juvenile crime. (Jun 1999)
Voted NO on maintaining right of habeas corpus in Death Penalty Appeals. (Mar 1996)
Voted YES on making federal death penalty appeals harder. (Feb 1995)
Yeah, conservatives are (supposedly) economic liberals (as in free market capitalists), but they are also social authoritarians. Libertarians actually ARE economic liberals, but they are also social liberals. In short, libertarians are the REAL liberals, whereas American "liberals" are Keynesian social democrats.
Conservatives can be allies, but their opposition to change makes me somewhat uncomfortable with them.
Your assuming that genocide is not a form of warfare...
The point is not that people can't use force against someone else, the point is that they cannot INITIATE force.
In your example it is certainly desireable to use force to stop the genocide, but that's only because force has already been initiated by the dictator. In the bigger picture, it is certainly bad that the ruthless dictator began the war.
@HORNE19730607 - I'm sorry that you were unable to grasp my meaning. These are not simple issues, and some minds are not up to the task. Know your limits.
@BourgeoisRomantic That is an odd statement considering libertarians are social liberals. If a libertarian "really fucking hate liberals", then they hate themselves. Libertarianism that remains true to it's principles is liberalism. However, the sad fact is many libertarians aren't really libertarians and instead often are just disgruntled conservatives.
Expecting someone to pay for me and not investing and planning properly is a very selfish thing for me to do to strangers and I will not bank on it anyway.
Advocate1234 writes, "Its probably worth noting that market anarchists haven't figured out how people can leave their homes under their system."
Sir, that's a very false statement. Market anarchists know exactly how to facilitate the easy the leaving of one's home: contracts. Any road company worth dealing with will provide contracts to patrons allowing access for home-owners. I would have thought that goes without saying.
Sincerely yours,
Alex Peak
Dude get real, most retired people aren't starving. I didn't say anything about not giving to charity. Maybe the government could require an annual percentage to be given to the charity of your choice if you make a certain amount of money. That would reach alot more people than taxes that go to government spending. There alot of options besides the "tax the rich give to poor" mentality we have in this country.
@mmac382 Actually all the intervention has made US oil supplies LESS secure. In part because at least twice the US has lead boycotts against oil-producing nations. To claim that a libertarian president would continue to interfer in the middle east because that's been SO useful in getting oil is bizarre.
This is just bad extrapolation on your part. I never said anything like "human nature is infinitely malleable."
But there is overwhelming evidence that it IS malleable. Anyone who's taken a course in neurobiology or physiological psychology will tell you this: so-called "instinct" is very limited; imprinting and conditioning from the environment play a much bigger role in human behavior. In the end, we need to talk less about human "nature" and more about human *behavior.*
Libertarian's are classic liberals but cannot be associated with modern liberals(socialists).
To get a real fundamental understanding of the differences between Libertarian's, Republicans(Conservatives), and Democrats(Liberals) you must consider the schools of economics belonging to each.
Conservatives/Liberals in the end are the same. Only political details differ. eg:
Monetarists, Socialists, Statists, psuedo capitalists(oxymoron)
Libertarian
Austrian Economists
Anarcho-Capitalists
lightwebb,
Not all libertarians view government as a necessary evil. About 90% do; the other 10% view it as an unnecessary one.
Whereas all free-market anarchists are libertarians, not all libertarians are free-market anarchists.
Picture a Venn Diagramme in which the free-market anarchist circle is fully contained within the larger libertarian circle.
Yours truly,
Alex Peak
@Suarez23 No. Look at the data. Libertarians tend to hold socially liberal values.
You are confusing issues. According to the Nolan chart (created by a libertarian), social issues (conservative/liberal) are separate from fiscal issues (libertarian/statist). A govt can be socially conservative or socially liberal... just look at govts around the world. And one can be socially liberal without supporting a large govt.
In fact, some of the most socially liberal people are anti-statist anarchists.
In Congress, a strong supporter of the War on Drugs. (Dec 2003)
Voted YES on prohibiting needle exchange & medical marijuana in DC. (Oct 1999)
Favors the legalization of marijuana for medical purposes. (Jun 2008)
Let schools display the words "God Bless America". (Oct 2001)
Supports requiring schools to allow prayer. (Jan 2001)
Supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer. (May 1997)
we would have extremely low taxes if it wasn't for compulsory tax funded education, so people would be able to afford a private education. If they were out of work, then government aid could help out, but the vast majority of people would be able to afford it. Mail would actually be cheaper if it was privatized.
Yes the US placed an embargo on Iraq oil but do you really think the prevented China France and England from getting Iraq oil? And at gun point? I think you are confused on the term embargo. I just today saw Ron Paul say we need to befreind Iran and countries like Egypt because it will cause them to stop building nukes. Yes he specificaly said make friends. A little niaeve dont you think?
@MaikUniversum technically wrong? you think the state is technically wrong? what is right and wrong but morality? the only place to go here is with the principal, to the specifics, not the other way round.
I dont want to convince anyone of the statistical improvement of children under 5 in sweden getting the plague, its almost entirely irrelevant! the only thing that matters to me is that the state is founded on "morality" i disagree with, and as a result i disagree with all its technicalities.
UnicornHead,
I fail to see how anyone can honestly believe that conservatives want smaller government. Sure, they're often "for" smaller government rhetorically; but in reality, they crave a government so large, powerful, and intrusive that it becomes virtually impossible to figure out who's worse, the conservatives or the modern "liberals."
Murray Rothbard's essay "Left and Right: The Prospects for Liberty" is one work I'd recommend checking out.
Cheers,
Alex Peak
smb12321,
I didn't say anything about libertarians "coming from" the left or right. Rather, I content that all libertarians *are* on the left, that it is impossible to be a right-wing libertarian or to be a left-wing Stalinist.
On my scale, voluntaryist anarchists are on the absolute left; minarchists are slightly to their right; classical liberals slightly to *their* right. In the centre are conservatives and modern "liberals." On the far right you find fascists, Stalinists, and the like.
Great video, I learned a lot.
@mmac382 Libertarians also wouldn't be promising Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Israel, or any other country that the US Military would be at their beck and call and those countries would have to invest more of their own money in national defense. Why do you think Europe has so much money to invest in its social programs? Why did Japan and S Korea do so well after WWII and the Korean War? Oh, that's right, the US military. These points are hardly controversial, but many people willingly forget them.
Here is a video explaining the spectrum of anarchism:
v=D2qaD1EmzAo
Here is Noam Chomsky explaining how right-wing libertarianism is a perversion of the original concept:
v=ugq86q9KyPE
Or you can just search for "left libertarianism" or "libertarian socialism" on Wikipedia. These are NOT contradictions. If you think they are, then you are ignorant.
I find this interesting...I did NOT come to Libertarian principles through the Republican party.
I wound up having no other choice than to believe them, based on the scientific method, as applied to economics. I was raised very much a Democrat.
The fiscal realities of big government, particularly when you look at California, are undeniable. Big Government WILL collapse. Period. History won't tell you otherwise.
Randians were a wing of the Libertarian movement by definition just because many of her ideas were Libertarian. Ayn Rand and her movement however was very flawed. First many of her ideas were wrong and some a little wacko. Secondly, the movement was a cult, you could not question her opinions even one iota or you were labeled "irrational". An article by Murray Rothbard on lewrockwell. com gives a very good view inside this cult.
"Capitalism is economic Darwinism, and if nature has told us anything, it's that survival of the fittest is the only system that is truly sustainable."
If only reality would fit into neat little sound bites and ideological absolutes...
People don't want to privatize Social Security, they want to abolish it. Why should I have to pay for my neighbor's retirement? Let people who want to save money for their retirement do it and those who don't suffer the consequences. Privatizing U.S. mail, education and social security would reduce huge amounts of taxes and make those the mail and education more efficient.
They only "force" you to do it if you take advantage of the things you're paying for. It's a question of resources. I Hear Hong Kong and China have low taxes...
Conservatives who want to legalize pot... that's about it. Civil rights: LP claims to be for, but in the end would defend corporate property owners in their discrimination. If people have rights to life and liberty, and government should protect us without violating those rights, then what is the problem of social welfare as compared to other protections, like military and courts? If all taxation is theft, then we're anarchists. If not, then what... objectivists?
@NobiscumDeus1 What are these mystical old values you speak of? If you take a close look a social history you realize that society has changed very little over he past few centuries, it has simply become more tolerant to those who do not conform. Besides the government and society are two separate entities. The constitution from my point of view is the best thing we have going for libertarianism because it is a codified expression of libertarian governing principles.
@kylester816
i'm referencing iraq by the dictator remark. both are, in my opinion, countries under attack by the US in an undeclared war with no site in end. wouldn't you want them out of your country too if you were in there shoes?
the opposite of Conservative is not libertarianism, its liberal. The opposite of libertarianism is authoritarian
Beautiful.
Conservatism and libertarianism don't necessarily contradict each other. If you are conservative with respects to the early founding days of this nation, you are essentially a constitutional libertarian.
And besides, the only countries that would need to be worried about a nuclear threat would be the local countries in the region. It's not our place to go around telling people on the other side of the world how to live their lives.
One request from all people. Get educated on all sides and point-of-views before making judgements. If you want to make religious judgements, then read the bible, quran, torah, Shruti. If you want to make political judgements, then go read books about communism, capitalism, socialism, marxism, etc. As well as reading up on your history of the Republican and Democratic parties. Just know what your talking about, and don't think that you know what you're talking about is right. Just KNOW!
@IfhBiff You are correct Sowell NEVER embrassed the leftist statist view. He would vote conservative because it was so hard to get a "true" libertarians on the ballot. Murky up there is a perfect name. Liberals like to lay claim to libertarians. They are soley for tyranny
In my view libertarians and conservatives are often one in the same or at least ideologically similar. In order to increase our influence we libertarians need to work within the Republican party ally ourselves with the conservatives to push out the neo-cons.
There is nothing right-wing about free-market libertarianism, just as there is nothing left-wing about Stalinism.
@tr00ths33k3r Your assumption that the only method of recourse is State run war is inaccurate. By far in most cases other actions are initiated in attempt to facilitate a desired outcome. Examples of said actions would be group admonishments to sanctions and embargo. Your simplification of what detemines a Governent is nebulus and without explanation. It would have been better to explain your defination of Goverment.
Advocate1234,
PART I
There aren't many anarcho-capitalist countries out there today for us to look at. Some might say that Somalia is anarchist, but I highly doubt anarchism in America or the other modern, highly-industrialised countries would look similar to Somali anarchism, if for no other reason difference in cultural tradition.
More prisons, more enforcement, effective death penalty. (Sep 1994)
Supports both pre-emptive and responsive war. (Oct 2008)
Regrets voting for the USA PATRIOT Act. (Dec 2003)
Bob Barr "On the Issues" (libertarian presidential campaign web site)
That is what charity is for, why don't rich liberals volunteer to give more to the poor personally instead of forcing the less rich to do so unregulated with income tax deductions?
@fanadfilms
Thank you.
Your comment proves my point.
@xHippieHunter
did you ever think that terrorism would not exist if we had not installed it in the first place? we trained Osama and his fighters in the Scottish mountains. To this day, Osama is wanted for numerous terrorist crimes but not 9/11. When the FBI was asked why, they responded that there wasn't enough evidence. i recommend watching the 2nd edition of loose change. then come talk to me about 9/11
Eh, if you only want to compare things like economic policies you could say some of the most pacifist and tolerant countries in the world have things in common with Nazi's, but if you're talking about persecution of minorities, no mercy for the weak, extreme nationalism, & imperialist foreign policy the neoconservatives are probably closest
For once you make a comment that's actually close to sensible.
LOL, how about arrest somebody and get him through the court system. We live in a nanny state? I've never met a conservative before who had such an issue with following the laws.
i like libertarians, but i don't agree with that quote. sometimes, you have to stand up and fight. in this case, the abridging of rights for the sake of national survival is warranted. You cannot end all wars. That's just pie in the sky. I think the founding fathers had a good compromise when the wrote the constitution which is a conservative document with strong libertarian influences. Power should not be centralized, but distributed. that's the crux and conservs and liberts agree on it
@NobiscumDeus1 there is nothing more conservative than minding ones own business when no harm is done, libertarianism and conservatism ate their base are one in the same. However even if we libertarians do wish to distinguish ourselves from conservatives, we must recognize that they are our best allies in the fight for restoring constitutional governance to the nation. If we continue to alienate the rest of the right then our cause will be lost.
Yeah, I'm talking about the United States. We don't have old people starving in the streets on a large scale. I'm guessing your talking about private schools in Portugal too? In the United States, our public school system is extremely flawed. This may vary state to state, but I know in Florida, the schools are horrible, especially in the cities. I think most people will agree with me that American private schools are much better than American public schools.
Well they may not want to enforce it but they want to teach it like you said.
That's what I disagree with.
I don't think people should have to be over 18 just to have sex.
Rush Limbaugh & Michael Savage do want to ban porn. Most Conservatives want to ban porn. You just haven't asked them all.
I wonder what true libertarians think about war in Irak, intervention in Afghanistan, or any foreign policies. It seems to me that libertarianism only addresses politics limited to their country (USA, Canada) and haven't developped deep ideas about foreign policy but I may be wrong
@tr00ths33k3r "we already 'live in anarchy' - we always have, and we always will. 'government' is a delusion."
Sorry, but I disagree. Furthermore, I think this statement and your general approach is essentially deconstructivist. Okay, sure, chaos abounds and our default is self rule and sustainment, but that does not make libertarianism synonymous with anarchism.
One of the main things people should think about when voting for person is whether they will uphold the Constitution against enemies abroad and within. Especially within. But no matter what party you claim to hail from if you believe in fractional reserve banking being a good thing for Americans then you must be outside your mind. If a candidate believes in banker fascist capitalism instead of people capitalism then that alone is a reason to never support him or her.
utube Freedom to Fascism
@Eldeecue 1. communism is bad so thats a compliment :)
2. how can 1 be an anti-state socialist? socialism basically means that the state owns all welath and spreads it "equally" (and among beurocrats) to the ppl through free public services. im serious rly, please explain.
@fanadfilms
Off the mark?
You could literally spend all day naming some of today's key US conservative intellectuals that were not just leftist & leftist sympathizers,but card-carrying Trotskyites during the 60s(and by their own admission.)
And,without a doubt,the contemporary US Libertarian Party in the states is a movement with far-right roots and big plutocrat money.