Right-wing Libertarianism

Haiku

Makes the ganglia twitch.
Right-wing libertarianism has always been a deeply authoritarian political philosophy.

It claims to value liberty in some general and all-encompassing sense above all other principles, but the particular types of freedom libertarianism seeks to defend and extend are always, tacitly and implicitly, forms of liberty for the few at the expense of the many. Thus libertarianism stands for the unfreedom of the majority.

The most important thing to grasp about libertarian thinking, however, is that its particular, very narrow, understanding of liberty is an indication of its class basis. Liberty is defined almost exclusively in terms of private property rights. When approaching issues such as progressive taxation, trade unions, welfare and economic regulation the libertarian will present all of these things as threats to individual liberty. But whose liberty in particular do these things plausibly threaten? All of these measures, in fact, can be regarded precisely in terms of the expansion of freedom – for employees, the poor, the unemployed and so on.

But it's not merely class hierarchy that libertarianism implicitly defends – it's also committed to other forms of domination. Take "race" for example. Libertarian thought has been marked by a distinctly racist dimension from its very beginning. It is entirely in keeping with libertarian tradition, then, that Ukip is radically hostile to immigration and to "multiculturalism" (a familiar dog-whistle term for the racist right).

Ukip is also committed, of course, to the defence of uncompromising heterosexism. ... In both cases – immigration and gay rights – Ukip is seeking to tap into an aggrieved sense of rightful superiority on the part of relatively privileged groups and to bolster it through various forms of discrimination against inferior others.

http://m.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/19/ukip-conservatives

The author is writing about the right-wing, anti-EU UK Independence Party, but the right wing libertarian antipathy towards gays and immigrants reveals their authoritarian streak which applies to much of our republican base also.

I think he's hit it on the head...very good description of what we're dealing with in this country.
 
The author is writing about the right-wing, anti-EU UK Independence Party, but the right wing libertarian antipathy towards gays and immigrants reveals their authoritarian streak which applies to much of our republican base also.

I think he's hit it on the head...very good description of what we're dealing with in this country.

Your guy has no clue about libertarian thinking.
 
yeah I don't even know where to begin. it's like OP said something like "libertarians enjoy drinking their own piss and punching grandmas"
 
Libertarians despite their name are not liberals.They are very conservative on most issues.It your liooking for radical liberals you go to the Progressive party or the Green party.
 
Of course they aren't liberal and they are authoritarian. It's very plain to see.

Between Libertarians, Republicans and Democrats who do you think comes closest to supporting your position on legalising drugs? Between Libertairans, Republicans and Democrats who comes closest to supporting your position on foreign policy?

I don't think you understand Libertarians all that well based on your comments.
 
The author is writing about the right-wing, anti-EU UK Independence Party, but the right wing libertarian antipathy towards gays and immigrants reveals their authoritarian streak which applies to much of our republican base also.

I think he's hit it on the head...very good description of what we're dealing with in this country.

So you and the author don't believe in private property rights?
 
Libertarians despite their name are not liberals.They are very conservative on most issues.It your liooking for radical liberals you go to the Progressive party or the Green party.

You can twist these labels around anyway you want. They don't really mean anything past your use and it is simply a mistake to use them to try to comprehend the entirety of one persons views. They can put you in the neighborhood and that's about it.

For instance, Progressivism can be said to be quite illiberal. Early progressivism was often used as a way to make many socially conservative views sound scientific. The progressive era eugenics is a good example. Many progressive fought for public schools as a way to imbue immigrants with Protestant values. Teddy Roosevelt was pretty racist and would be more at home with Dixie, bravo and ILA than most modern progressives.

I think, modern libertarians can be divided into what I would say are true libertarians (high degree of moral individualism) and the Federalist pretenders. There is overlap but they are distinct. True Libertarians are opposed to discrimination against alternative lifestyles, minorities and quite supportive of immigration. The Federalist pretenders don't actually care about individual rights and think their majoritarian positions would be more politically effective at the local and state level.

Libertarians support federalist principles because they believe it is a practical way guard against the concentration of power and simply because the realities on the ground vary from one location to the next. The federalist pretenders support it because they hope to concentrate power, but find it hard to sell their hate at the national level.

I am ooposed to all forms of welfare simply because it does not work well. Especially, when it is given a sense of entitlement. For instance, the welfare given to farmers is usually accompanied with some happy crap about how they are the backbone of America. No, they are welfare recipients dependent on the productive efforts of others. The welfare given to bankers is supposedly necessary to capitalim rather than being anithetical to it. The welfare given to the elderly is accompanied with a lie that they paid for it.

I am okay with a minimal social safety net but people shouldn't be emboldened to feel they have a right to it.
 
Haiku, don't confuse authority with merit. The freedom in question is that from low achievers' suppression of others' achievement (under the false pretense that this is some kind of plunder).

This kind of complaint about the better off may resonate in England, which is a class society. But it's a bullshit argument in the USA.
 
Thom Hartmann does a BINGO!!! Of course that's all they are...and they're authoritarian.

do you even know what authoritarian means? Because from your statements I am not sure that you do. What part of wanting a smaller non-interventionist government is authoritarian to you?
 
yeah I don't even know where to begin. it's like OP said something like "libertarians enjoy drinking their own piss and punching grandmas"

I heard that too, but doubt if it is true.

Most self proclaimed libertarians are just embaressed Republicans.

My main complaint with real libertarians is that they believe that businesses will regulate themselves to the benefit of the USA.

Libertarians are also not for us being the police force for the world.
This I agree with.
 
I heard that too, but doubt if it is true.

Most self proclaimed libertarians are just embaressed Republicans.

My main complaint with real libertarians is that they believe that businesses will regulate themselves to the benefit of the USA.

Libertarians are also not for us being the police force for the world.
This I agree with.

i do agree that there are many embarrassed republicans that might call themselves libertarians, but those people aren't actually libertarians, they are just stealing the name for themselves. I have never seen a libertarian not endorse gay marriage or ending the drug war, two things that are very anti-authoritarian.

Libertarians have actually been way out in front on social issues, far ahead of democrats.
 
Back
Top