Opinion Is Libertarianism/Anarchy left or right?

[Islam Imamate]

Because it's the logical consequence and goal of Communism. What keeps left libertarianism and anarchism to the left is their collectivism and holding all things in common. That even makes sense to a left winger so this shouldn't be all that hard to digest.

That axis is absolutely defined by statism, you have to be either blind or retarded not to see that. It makes no mention of either left libertarianism or left anarchism so I'm explaining to you why it would remain there and when statism can't explain it collectivism vs individualism can. Hell even the left wing perspective could draw that divide between equality and inequality and that spectrum would STILL make sense.

Or you could go ahead and explain why left anarchism/left libertarianism are not extreme left ideologies while right libertarianism and ethno-facism are somehow completely justifiably labelled as extreme right.

I'm not saying that anarchism isn't extreme left, in fact I'm specifically pointing to that to show you that it undermines your axis defined by statism where more the left equals more statism. How then can two ideologies that advocate for a stateless society then be on the far left of an axes where the left call for more statism? To make it work you're trying to then conflate statism with collectivism but that's just jumbling things. You can have collectivism without a state and individualism with a state, in fact you pretty much need one for the latter as the only societies that have enshrined individual rights have been modern nation-state societies which developed the most invasive and pervasive states the world has ever seen. Collectivist societies are actually better able to exist without a state since they rely on one another rather than an alienated state.

 

[Sherlockian]

Libertarianism is goddamn stupid is what it is. We all hate burdensome beaucracy but don't cut off your nose to spite your face. There's always been government and to want there to be pay toilets and private roads just because you don't want to admit you were allowed to succeed because of the common effort of your countrymen and women in creating a stable environment through government is silly at best.

I'm left wing but if you want to talk about streamlining beaucracy I'm all for it but Lulz at Libertarianism.

 

[Jack V Savage]

To protect and serve the people from both internal and external threats is well within the government's purview to a conservative. You seem to be conflating a classical liberal with a libertarian it's a common error that you have made in the past.

I didn't say anything about classical liberals or libertarians. Just pointed out that the right in America favors a stronger gov't. I understand that people who favor a stronger gov't think that it's in the purview of the gov't to be stronger.

The American political spectrum is just a subset of the overall one, with the right favoring more hierarchy and authority and the left favoring less.

 

[EL CORINTHIAN]

I'm not saying that anarchism isn't extreme left, in fact I'm specifically pointing to that to show you that it undermines your axis defined by statism where more the left equals more statism. How then can two ideologies that advocate for a stateless society then be on the far left of an axes where the left call for more statism? To make it work you're trying to then conflate statism with collectivism but that's just jumbling things. You can have collectivism without a state and individualism with a state, in fact you pretty much need one for the latter as the only societies that have enshrined individual rights have been modern nation-state societies which developed the most invasive and pervasive states the world has ever seen.

I literally just went over this.

That graph, which is not mine btw, is defined by statism. Agreed?

Im am now explaining to you why left anarchism and left libertarianism remain on the extreme fringes of the left since that graph made no mention of it. Perhaps i should have been clearer but yes you have to add collectivism in order to understand why those remain there ideologically speaking. There is no question that the further left you go the more society collectivizes and the further right you go the further it individualizes....or in left speak the more inequitable society becomes.

But your issue is that you cannot explain those two via statism. Fair enough. Understand the collectivist/individualist divide and all of a sudden it will makes sense.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I literally just went over this.

That graph, which is not mine btw, is defined by statism. Agreed?

"Statism" isn't really a thing, though. No one says, "we need a bigger state because big states are awesome." People say, "keeping the lower orders in line is a legitimate purview of the state, but providing for the general welfare of the population is not" and other people say, "the gov't breathing down our necks is bad, but regulating pollution is part of the legitimate purview of the state."

 

[EL CORINTHIAN]

I didn't say anything about classical liberals or libertarians. Just pointed out that the right in America favors a stronger gov't. I understand that people who favor a stronger gov't think that it's in the purview of the gov't to be stronger.

The American political spectrum is just a subset of the overall one, with the right favoring more hierarchy and authority and the left favoring less.

You were questioning how my comment didn't make sense from the american perspective and brought up a larger police and foreign policy presence as if to equate that to "big govt" which fundamentally makes no sense since it's literally within their purview to do so. Strengthening the intended functions of government isn't antithetical in any way to a conservative or the right and it's also not an admission of wanting "big govt" since its scope of influence hasn't been expanded. You are obviously using libertarianism as your starting point other wise why would that confuse you?

 

[EL CORINTHIAN]

"Statism" isn't really a thing, though. No one says, "we need a bigger state because big states are awesome." People say, "keeping the lower orders in line is a legitimate purview of the state, but providing for the general welfare of the population is not" and other people say, "the gov't breathing down our necks is bad, but regulating pollution is part of the legitimate purview of the state."

No it's only a thing when you say "wanting big gov't" It's within you to understand this but its going to be cyclical like it always is with you.

 

[Jack V Savage]

You were questioning how my comment didn't make sense from the american perspective and brought up a larger police and foreign policy presence as if to equate that to "big govt" which fundamentally makes no sense since it's literally within their purview to do so.

Again, no one thinks that "big gov't" is good for its own sake, and everyone thinks that big-gov't policies they favor are right and good.

Strengthening the intended functions of government isn't antithetical in any way to a conservative or the right and it's also not an admission of wanting "big govt" since its scope of influence hasn't been expanded.

Of course it is. How are you even defining "big gov't" in a way that makes that a controversial statement?

 

[Jack V Savage]

No it's only a thing when you say "wanting big gov't" It's within you to understand this but its going to be cyclical like it always is with you.

I understand very well that the revised spectrum in that chart is incoherent.

 

[grimballer]

Doesn't really work, because no-one would call neofeudalism (despite being "progressive" in the sense of a continuation of current trends) or reactionaries who promote a revolutionary change to a fantasy idealised past that never existed, "left wing". Also most individualist anarchism (mutualism etc) was left wing, precisely because of it's egalitarian approach to maximising individual freedom. It was not "centrist" because it believed in no government.

I used that other model

To avoid confusion.

Everybody agrees that historically

Right = authority/conformity
Left = liberty/individualism

so moving from From right to left (BE to C) government gets smaller and ppl enjoy more individual rights and freedoms.

At C it would be anarchy where in theory there would be no government and ppl will enjoy maximum individual rights and freedoms.

in reality we know that doesn’t work and without some type of government the strong will just establish their own autonomous zone and rule over it.

So C is basically not sustainable and some type of government is required.

So the argument is the smaller the government the better it is for individuals.

The further left you go (AD) however the government becomes bigger but this time it’s in the name of “equality”.

Increasing the size of the government will again lead to the decease in individual rights and freedoms and that goes against liberty and individualism.

 

[grimballer]

The status quo vs change is a better metric for left and right, because historically most left wing governments were revolutionary and had to change the status quo, but I would call it progressivism(revolutionary) vs conservatism.

For example, the Soviet Union in the 80s was a conservative left wing State. Nazi Germany in 1933 was a revolutionary or even progressive (opponents would call reactionary) far right movement.
The Nazis changed the status quo, putting a corporal in charge, getting rid of nobles and rich Jews. But instituted a right wing State in place. See what Hitler and other Nazis said about a true conservative in Franco:

but another important aspect is

individualism vs conformity

in theory you could have an authoritarian state enforcing individualism, but most likely scenario is it will enforce conformity.

so it can either enforce strict class society or strict classless/everybody’s equally equal society.

In both cases it will go against individualism.

 

[Jack V Savage]

but another important aspect is

individualism vs conformity.

That axis would put liberals on one end but both the right (moderate to far) and the far left on the other end (the same as each other).

 

[ultramanhyata]

I used that other model

That was once Tucker Carlson's go-to model, also.

 

[EL CORINTHIAN]

Again, no one thinks that "big gov't" is good for its own sake, and everyone thinks that big-gov't policies they favor are right and good.



Of course it is. How are you even defining "big gov't" in a way that makes that a controversial statement?

I understand very well that the revised spectrum in that chart is incoherent.

pish posh.

once you start dissecting comments to obfuscate from the original point we start going circular.

Wrap it up. What is your main gripe with what im saying or at least what is the point you intend on establishing?

 

[grimballer]

That axis would put liberals on one end but both the right (moderate to far) and the far left on the other end (the same as each other).

yes, classical liberals (today’s libertarians) would be on one end

today’s republicans, somewhere in the middle, but closer to libertarians

and today’s left (progressives) on the opposite side.

 

[Jack V Savage]

pish posh.

once you start dissecting comments to obfuscate from the original point we start going circular.

Wrap it up. What is your main gripe with what im saying or at least what is the point you intend on establishing?

The point was very simple. The graph is incoherent, and the right in America favors bigger gov't.

yes, classical liberals (today’s libertarians) would be on one end

today’s republicans, somewhere in the middle, but closer to libertarians

and today’s left (progressives) on the opposite side.

Hmm. Is your understanding that today's Republicans are more tolerant of non-conformists than progressives? I'd think they're actually on the far end of demanding conformity. And classical liberals are just liberals.

 

[djacobox372]

Anarchy isn't left or right, it's it's own breed of crazy.

 

[sickc0d3r]

To protect and serve the people from both internal and external threats is well within the government's purview to a conservative. You seem to be conflating a classical liberal with a libertarian it's a common error that you have made in the past.

So how is that stuff not “big government” compared to, say, funding universal health care? Isn’t it just a difference in priorities, any of which are expected to be enforced by the government?

 

[grimballer]

The point was very simple. The graph is incoherent, and the right in America favors bigger gov't.



Hmm. Is your understanding that today's Republicans are more tolerant of non-conformists than progressives? I'd think they're actually on the far end of demanding conformity. And classical liberals are just liberals.

Today in terms of demanding conformity and wanting to use the government to achieve it?

absolutely. Republicans are more tolerant than progressives. Only a partisan hack would deny it.

also what’s called “liberal” today is not the same thing as classical liberal.

classic liberals are closer to today’s libertarians.

 

[EL CORINTHIAN]

So how is that stuff not “big government” compared to, say, funding universal health care? Isn’t it just a difference in priorities, any of which are expected to be enforced by the government?

Because it's the governments original intention to protect and serve the community from both internal and external threats. Being stronger in relation to these functions does not denote an expansion of their purview but a strengthening within it.

Funding of universal health care would be an addition to their original intention and therefore an expansion of their purview.

But of course there is a difference in priorities and how we exercise government power from its outset to deal with issues later on.