Apparently it's becoming ever more popular to create crossbred mutant coercive philosophies and then attempt to smuggle them into unsuspecting minds by incorporating the "libertarian" label.
A recent article, "Politics not as usual – second look" warned of other groups hijacking the libertarian brand and contorting its meaning into whatever some budding ideologue wants it to mean.
First, modern collectivists took the liberal American founding ideals of individualism and strictly limited government and turned it bottoms up so that today the liberal label means the opposite of the Founder's liberalism; the oxymoron of "group rights" as opposed to individual rights and massive intrusions into virtually every aspect of the personal and private lives of individuals by an elitist-run government with nearly unlimited power.
Monday came the announcement that earlier in the month a Danish group founded Libertære Socialister, translating literally to "Libertarian Socialists" and describes itself as oriented towards "syndicalist, anarcho-communist and collectivist anarchist currents."
.jpg)
From left, Joseph Stalin, Thomas Jefferson, Bozo the Clown. Anyone
who can embrace "progressive libertarian" or "libertarian socialism"
should have no problem with the absurdity of "Stalinist-Jeffersonian-
Bozoian Libertarianism." (all images from Wikimedia Commons)
None of this sounds even remotely libertarian to American ears. It's as though a group got together and started the "African-American Ku Klux Klan". Or maybe "the Holy Church of Blessed Atheist Catholics." Or perhaps "the La Leche League of breastfeeding men."
Or started a group with the self-contradicting designation of "progressive libertarian" as a misguided guy already has.
At its simplest, libertarianism means maximizing freedom for all and minimizing government intrusions into the affairs of free and sovereign individuals. The anarchist form of that means total freedom and zero government. To all libertarians it means uncoerced, voluntary interactions amongst people. It means free trade, free travel, free thought. It means capitalism in its individual, non-government corporatist form.
The only way that any manner of "socialist libertarianism" can exist while incorporating the inherently coercive elements that define socialism, communism, and syndicalism is for individuals to freely give themselves over to the collective, in which case it's no longer libertarian.
So why can't these people be content with just calling themselves Socialists or Communists or Syndicalists and quit pretending to be libertarians?
The answer, apparently, is that more and more people are seeing the spreading popularity of libertarian ideals and want to twist the concept to further their own ends, which inevitably includes hoodwinking the unwary.
In a libertarian society people are free to voluntarily pool their money, buy and hold property in common, and as long as all individuals retain the right to join and unjoin at will, they can set up any kind of voluntary Marxist Leninist Maoist Castroist Whateverist collectivist society they want.
But it cannot, by definition, be a hyphenated libertarian society because their ism, as in all isms except the libertarian ism, absolutely requires coercion to make it work.
While libertarians will always tolerate voluntary collectivists, those same collectivists will never tolerate libertarians.
So c'mon people, if your philosophy is so great why don't you just call it what it is and stop trying to smuggle it into people's minds by pretending that it's something else?
And that goes for American progressives, too. When will you admit that your beliefs can't possibly work unless they're forced onto everyone by the power of the government's gun?
No person can ever legitimately claim the name "libertarian" without first curing oneself of the obsessive-compulsive disease of power lust, commonly known as "initiation of force."
Get the latest libertarian news from the All Libertarian All The Time news source:
The Libertarian News Examiner.
Comments
Another reason people may be taking libertarianism's name in vain is because all over the western world people are getting sick of the available political choices. Here in the U.S. disaffection with Democrats and Republicans is overwhelming, and "libertarianism" is the only viable 3rd choice. What you describe of what we've seen so far is nothing compared to the onslaught of what we will see very soon, as more and more people try to shape the 3rd choice to be whatever they want it to be. There's a bit of a paradox in that, for those who are easily amused. After all, these people are only exercising their individual rights and freedoms, aren't they?
I think you're missing the historical perspective. The term Libertarian was being used by socialists back in the 19th century. Almost everywhere in the world today it still has a socialist connotation. As an example Chavez (in Venezuela) and Evo Morales (in Bolivia) recently celebrated the Libertarian call (Can't link the news source I recently saw here) surely these kids are not Ayn Rand fans nor read Heinlein, no?
So, it's a bit unfortunate that the Libertarians in this country chose a political label that was already used, partly because they felt that the term Liberal had already been co-opted. I wish they had found something better, but alas it is what it is and we must live with the confusion, though I find for the most part I don't have to explain myself too much about what I mean when I say: I'm a Libertarian.
Which all comes back to the point that to get your point across we must give the full definition each time we use a label. It is unfortunate. I have laid out all my definitions, and even my "definition of myself" for all to see. It is here: tinyurl.com/kmcmanigal
About as stupid as "AntiWar Libertarian." An oxymoron if there ever was one.
How in the bloody hell can someone call themselves a "Libertarian" and allow our enemies the Islamo-Fascists to conquer the United States and institute wholly un-libertarian Sharia Law?
Libertarians are supposed to stand for Drug Legalization, Tolerance of Homosexuals, Legalize Prostitution, No Censorship, not for Burqas, Hangings of Gays, Stoning of Prostitutes, Outlawing of Booze, and Death to anyone who insults Muhammed.
Excellent analysis, Garry - especially since you've apparently ticked off some of those same "etc.-libertarian" types who believe that only they have (and of course can enforce) a lock of what "libertarian" means. (Folks like the ones over at RRND, for example.) Yeah, people are free to call a dog's tail a fifth leg, but that doesn't mean that dogs have five legs.
wow. this is REALLY hilarious.
before the term "anarchist" was coined, anarchists called themselves libertarian socialists, as opposed to Socialists and Communists who supported a state. this was in the 1800s.
the fact that whatever idiot wrote this now thinks that libertarian socialists are "stealing" the word libertarian from HIM is total hilarity.
this loser's complete lack of historical knowledge is incredible and makes him a total laughingstock.
there is no such thing as an anarcho-capitalist, because anarcho = WITHOUT RULERS and capitalism = BOSSES (masters/slaves).
this is so pathetic.
american libertarians are the ones misusing the word, not the other way around. i mean seriously, a google search would've saved us all a lot of trouble:
"Libertarian socialists—the first political activists to adopt the term libertarian in the mid-19th century—are usually anarchists or left communists, opposed to arbitrary structures of authority and hierarchy in personal relations and the larger social order."
from the wikipedia "libertarianism" entry
Syndicalists and anarcho-communists were the first to use the term 'libertarian.' This is a fact, and it makes the rest of the article a lie.
Saying that "Monday came the announcement that earlier in the month a Danish group founded Libertære Socialister" is dishonest, since there have been millions of cases of anti-authoritarians using the term before that... before the Libertarian party ever manipulated the word.
The writer of this article is either rewriting history or is too stupid to do a quick fact check.
some historical context would be helpful here. here you go: hxxp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian#Origins
as far as i'm concerned, that's as far into the quagmire i'm willing to step. "libertarianism" is such a messy, volatile, nonsensical mixture of various wingnuts that the majority of those who identify as such (there are plenty) can't even elucidate what it means to them.
bah anarchists have always got the red fascists pushing from one side and the league of confused wingnuts pushing from the other (i'm including randroids, 9/11 truthers, larouche-ites, etc. in the latter camp).
I believe John Henry Mackay (1864 – May 16, 1933), a man well acquainted w/ some early leaders of American Libertarianism, once said that he found Libertarianism by going left until he reached its most extreme terminus and could go no further. The author of this article is not exceptional as an American unfamiliar with the globally more widespread and historically older usage of libertarianism with the meaning "anarchism" -- on which topic check out for example infoshop.org/faq/index.html , especially "Section H - Why do anarchists oppose state socialism?" (i.e. yes, you can be left and anti-state power/libertarian; there is in fact such a thing as "libertarian socialism").
libertarian has meant socialist for at least 150-200 years. How can you be free when a capitalist owns the property you need to survive? Anyone who values freedom must oppose capitalism. In the 1970s the "Libertarian" party hijacked the term libertarian to apply it to the theory that "if you minimize or eliminate that state, you end up with capitalism". This makes no sense at all because capitalism depends on the state in order to employ violence to enforce the contracts and property "rights" of the ownership class and to keep the workers for taking over the means of production.
A real libertarian will oppose all forms of unjust hierarchy. The State, Capitalism, and organized religion.
I thought libertarians were those pervy oldschool french dudes like the marquis De Sade. Or perhaps they're those people you check out books from?
Seriously, you've got to be kinda thick to not realize that the term Libertarian Socialist has been in existance for well over a hundred years, and that it refers to a particular branch of anarchist thought.
While I feel bad for piling on, I'd like to reiterate that Libertarian Socialism is an older term and concept than any type of "Libertarian capitalism"
As Bakunin put it: LIBERTY WITHOUT SOCIALISM IS INJUSTICE; SOCIALISM WITHOUT LIBERTY IS SLAVERY.
Further, if wikipedia can betrusted: "The French anarchist communist Joseph Déjacque was the first to employ the term libertarian in a political sense in May 1857, in an 11-page pamphlet" if you can beat that I'll apologize for being a bozoterian.
Actually, it's you guys who stole the term and perverted it. "Libertarian socialist" has a history going back to Joseph Dejaque in the mid 19th century and was synonymous with "anarchist". You guys have only been around since 1971, and took a term that had been in use by anarchists for over a century.
Nice try.
That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.
Kim says: "That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves."
Spoken like someone who is completely ignorant about everything libertarians stand for. Libertarianism means maximum individual liberty and minimal government interference with that liberty. Police and slavery are both completely anathema to libertarianism.
It is as ridiculous as obsessing over "Islamo-fascists" as a greater threat to individual freedom than those who supposedly "protect" us from the "Islamo-fascists". "War" is the biggest government business and the greatest threat to human life and liberty. You can not be for war and be for freedom. Period. Call yourself whatever you want, but the rest of us will just point and laugh at your lack of consistency.
And to the brittle socialists- Socialism *may* have been an improvement over the status quo a LONG time ago, and in that case I can see where the term "libertarian" could have been used by some of them quasi-hon
(ran out of room)
And to the brittle socialists- Socialism *may* have been an improvement over the status quo a LONG time ago, and in that case I can see where the term "libertarian" could have been used by some of them quasi-honestly, but that is not the case any longer. Now socialism is one of the greatest abusers and violators of individual freedom and sovereignty. It is just another swamp in the land of authoritarian control-freaks.
Kent is just as ignorant as the writer of this article is. Neither of you have looked up the term 'libertarian socialist' or any of the historical context. Look it up. Look it up. Before you go on making yourself look any less intelligent, look it up.
Libertarian Socialism was a new term for me. I also found it contradictory at first, as I understand Libertarian to come from the root: "Liberty", and Socialism to be: "State or collective ownership of the means of production". The former word describes a condition of being free from control, and the latter requires force or coercion by some people over others in order to be accomplished, unless all producers freely donate their output.
So in essence, the combination of words seemed to imply a group that advocated the freedom to take other people's stuff. One simply has to define output as common goods rather than private property, and "theft" becomes "access to production". One is not taking other peoples' stuff; one is helping oneself to goods and services in the common domain.
After brief research, I found little to disabuse me of this perspective.
Perhaps a Libertarian Socialist could tell me if I have this wrong?
Great article, Garry. Call us what you will, and if we have to explain ourselves, and modify our labels. so be it. We can do that. The idea will flourish!
Great article, Garry! If we have to modify, hyphenate, or explain our label, so be it. We can do that. The philosophy is worth the effort.
the corporate take over of government he have right now is the natural and inevitable out come of your so called laissez-fair "free trade/free enterprise". Murray N. Rothbard was a moron who wanted to privatize all roads, private courts/police and even all land and water. so tell me in the name of laissez-fair capitalism and what you call “individual liberty,” what can stop one man who is within his “rights” from buying up everything and creating a strong government to protect himself from political dissent?
and please don't be so dense as to say a constitution
As long a person is trading freely - without violence or threat of violence - why should my view of how much I think he should own be relevant? He's trading with voluntary partners. He needs these partners to continue to expand his holdings.
This view breaks down when we fail to distinguish between voluntary trade and appropriation by force.
Most (American) Libertarians would agree that initiated force is properly reserved to government. That is government's primary (and perhaps singular) functions. Government should respond when a private citizen forcefully confiscates the productive output of another citizen.
What a ridiculous article. Please read a book or something and inform yourself before attempting to discredit an entire political ideology that has existed for decades.
Libertarianism has nothing to do with the economic left-right spectrum. There are collectivist/socialist libertarians, and neo-liberal/capitalist libertarians. There is nothing absurd about either, even if you disagree with one side. Libertarianism is the opposite of authoritarianism, not the opposite of leftism.
What I want to know is "Why does this matter?" Why does it matter who used the term first, or what combinations someone wants to put it in, today? To me, the key points in today's libertarianism are maximizing individual liberties without infringing upon the liberties of others, and minimizing the role the state plays in individual lives.
The reason people attach other modifiers to the basic "libertarian" description is that people are individuals, and not all individuals agree with every aspect of a political ideal. This is as true for politics as it is for religion. How many "true" libertarians do you know, who are 100% for every point in the current party platform, in every instance? How many democrats or republicans or greens support every point in their parties' platforms, 100% of the time? People are people, and not ants. Thus, people will modify a political ideal to suit their own needs and tastes, just as they will do with religious ideals. This is not wrong; it is natural
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!