Forum Post: How to Unite Leftists and Libertarians?
Posted 13 years ago on Nov. 21, 2011, 7:02 p.m. EST by zorno
(386)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
It seems to me that two of the main factions of OWS are Libertarians and Leftists, ranging from moderates to environmentalists and communists. How can a program or policy suit all these ideologies? Sometimes it almost seems as if ideologies were invented to keep the people divided.
I consider myself a moderate democrat, and believe in the revival of the policies of Roosevelt and JFK. Namely, Glass Steagall reorganization for the financial system, and a national bank to make low interest rate loans for infrastructure development. Also, I believe a space program should be an important aspect of economic development, since it proved to be so profitable for the economy under JFK.
Libertarians probably believe in these kind of developments as well, except that they think the private sector should make decisions about them and invest the money. I would argue though that corporations are designed to serve a private good, while economic development is a public good and therefore something the government is obligated to handle. This would be because of the constitutional mandate for the government to promote the common good.
Can the two polarities of OWS reach some consensus on these issues?
I don't believe they can really. I mean, I accept that there are those here who support the libertarian candidate - but I don't believe they really understand what it is they are supporting.
Anyone today who is for smaller government is by definition a deregulationist. Deregulationists seek to eliminate curbs to economic growth - curbs specifically put into place by the government for the public good.
They are not above using tactics of deceit to achieve their aim - even to the point of ensuring that if regulation is to pass then it is ineffective - whether through the budgetary process or by the careful twisting of their legalese.
I for one, cannot support the libertarian cause as I currently understand it.
no, Ron Paul did not for the repeal of glass-steagall. Libertarians like me want the appropriate regulations and not the innappropriate ones. Unfortunatley the inappropriate ones far outnumber the appropriate ones.
All very good points.
Liberatarians pretty much subscribe to two schools of thought when it comes to economics the Chicago school and the Austrian school, niether have very much to do with liberety unless what you mean by liberety has to do with starving in the street like an animal or catching cholera from your tap water because there are no more saftey regulations with regard to the the water supply. Thats if you can even afford your water bill. I don't think these ideals are compatible with what this movement is about.
There are Left and Right Libertarians. Libertarian ideals are private property and non-aggression. Most libertarian sects, though not all, are anti-government and anti-corporate because they see they recognize corporations receive property illegitimately through the use of government force.
I'm a left liberatarian.
Cool. You know, the association of Libertarianism with The Right is a historical artifact of a strategy adopted by prominent Libertarian thinkers several decades ago.
No less than Murray Rothbard criticized the Libertarian movement for pitching freedom to the free spirits...that was preaching to the choir. The hard part was to pitch Libertarianism to "the bulk of Americans,” who “might well be tight-assed conformists, who want to stamp out drugs in their vicinity, kick out people with strange dress habits, etc"
Rothbard's view was that Middle America was "tight-assed" but nonetheless the majority, and as such needed to be worked with.
A poster below indicated that only the Center in the Country really matters.
Libertarians thought the same back in the 60s and 70s. It was decided decades ago to stake Libertarianism on a strategy to align with the Right in an attempt to influence the "tight-assed" majority of America.
Now Libertarianism can't seem to live down its association with The Right.
That is a distortion of what most libertarians stand for. Libertarians are not anarchists. We believe in some regulation. We believe that the role of government is to protect us from each other and not from ourselves.
We believe in individual liberty and property rights which is why we don’t think the government should tell us what we can eat, drink, or smoke.
The Libertarian Party in the US founded on the basis of classical liberalism which is a philosophy committed to the ideal of limited government, liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.
We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.
Consequently, we defend each person's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings.
Thanks for this, JoeTheFarmer. I am also a libertarian. I am really amazed at what I read on this site about libertarianism. The hate, vitriol and plain misunderstanding of what libertarianism is boggles the mind. It's not as though the position you posted represents some moderate off-shoot of libertarianism and the rest of the libs are a bunch of looneies. Your definitions is pretty much the classic and all libertarians I know would subscribe to these beliefs.
I think OWS and libertarians have much more in common than most OWS seem to realize. However, if they keep calling me a racist, corporate loving, selfish evil nut-job, I'm going to find it very hard to engage in conversation much less support the cause.
No kidding. I can't believe when the reasonable libertarians say, "hey, let's work together on this so we can have a better outcome." Some people on the left(probably the extremists) get their panties in a bunch, start foaming at the mouth and sling prejudiced remarks about ALL libertarians.
They say we can't work together because we don't believe what they believe. Last I checked I do when it comes to wall st. and I wouldn't be wasting my time here if I didn't
Ah... somone who gets it an does not think we will all start using heroin if RP is elected.
I had heard someone say that the Austrian school was developed as an economic justification for the latter day Austro-Hungarian empire. Have you ever heard anything about that?
Is the the Chicago school related to the University of Chicago? I've heard some pretty bad things about it.
I'm not sure about that connection with the Austrian school but I am pretty sure that one of the original proponents of the school died with in the last thirty years, so I doubt it. The Chicago school of economics was developed by Milton Friedman at the University of Chicago. His ideas about economics were applied to Chile when that blood thirsty son of a bitch Pinoche overthrew the democraticaly elected government. It resulted in Chile spiraling into an economic depression. It only recovered after some key industries were re nationalized. Even today Chile has one of the most unequal distributions of wealth in the world. Ask one of those Chilean students who are protesting the privatized education system there how popular the Chicago school of economics is in Chile.
Thanks for telling about that, I didn't know that it was Libertarian economics in Chile, I thought it was just free market thinking.
Its the same thing. Liberatarians in the American sense are freemarket fundamentalists. Freemarket fundametalism is really a better discription of their belief system. Liberatarian was originaly a term that was applied to anarchists. I don't usually like to use wikipedia as a reference but i think that this article is a pretty good representation of what libertarianism was originally envisioned as.
A number of Libertarians here have expressed interest in collaboration. Have you seen their posts? If so, what do you think?
Well I think there may be some room for colaboration when it comes to foreign policies but when it comes to domestic issues involving the "free market" I don't want to deal with them. Here is the link to that article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
It's called the Austrian school because it's main thinkers: Eugen von Bohmwerk, Freidrich Hayek, Luwig von Mises...are all from Austria.
Look at what Milton Friedman and his followers at the U of Chicago did to Latin America! We can't allow a hands-off attitude with corporations - they are too powerful and a disease to society! They will destroy the globe. Destroy corporations and let the workers run their own workplaces!
Actually Milton Friedman may have been the best friend that socialism has ever had. After thirty years of the Chicago school look at how many center left governments there are in latin america today.
"Destroy Corporations and let the workers run their own workplaces!" -See Kevin Carson's "Organization Theory: A Libertarian Perspective." Available online for free.
Corporations are creatures of government. A "free-market", that is, an exchange system free from coercion or the threat thereof, would likely result in the demise of the corporation as we know it.
We can adopt what is logical from each side. Libertarian views of not wanting government to interfere in our social lives, such as Don't tell me who I can marry, or women's rights to chose over the government. And we can adopt liberal views on more regulations on highly risky banking activity such as derivative swaps and risky hedge fund gambling. Those seem llike logical concepts that would make for a better country. regulating banks is really just keeping the banks out of my pensions. so really it is quite libertarian depending on which side you are protecting.
See, the thing is though, there is an ideology that is libertarian on social issues and for government regulation and safety nets. It's called liberalism.
Not quite at least not by the old definition of conservatism, conservatives used to not want to get involved in peoples social issues, conservatism used to mean interpreting the constitution conservatively that is literally what was written, allowing all freedoms as described by the constitution. conservatism used to have a different meaning before Reagan realized he could tap into the religious base. It used to be religious people believed in helping all people in need. So things keep changing with each presidential candidates reinterpretation of the party. I think the founders of the parties would not recognize their own party today.
I don't know if you misread or are countering that my definition is conservative, not liberal. I would argue that conservatism used to just be moderate liberalism, IMO. Good wiki piece on the liberalism I subscribe to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_the_United_States
The "new" liberalism, though, is known for wanting to protect people from themselves.
In fact, even in the early 20th century, prohibitionists were considered "progressives" - improving society through law & government.
Things like outlawing salty food or regulating the amounts of salt and fat in food drive libertarians crazy.
Even the labeling laws drove libertarians crazy! <<<<<<< and this is why we think you are pro-corporate, libertarian-people-posting-in-this thread.
As someone who considers themselves left-libertarian (and the Political Compass test says I am) - I wouldn't want fatty/salty food outlawed, but I do want it to remain labeled. Free market fundamentalists consider labeling laws too intrusive on business, amirite?
Obama wanting to police the internet, create an internet driver's license, etc is another example of liberal "nanny state"-ism.
Obama is more of a neoliberal than a liberal, please keep that in mind. On the big issues, he's up with the free-trade, market-based-solutions, socialized-losses-privatized-gains agenda. He's for doing whatever it takes to protect the corporations, hence the policies you mention and other abuses of civil liberties. Austerity and the police state for the many, the best of socialism (bailouts, subsidies, military adventurism) and libertarianism (deregulation, privatization, etc) for the few/corps.
Even his supposed social policies are handouts to the corporations.
True, case in point Obamneycare.
yes but is it for minimal regulation?
Libertarians want to put a price tag on everything in the World.
We don't care for that.
Nope.
They are pretty much diametrically opposed. Libertarians are NOT part of the movement. They are what this movement is trying to stop. So no. there is no consensus to be found. Sorry.
Are you down with this:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/make-a-stand-join-the-clan/
yes, but the only way to do it is issue by issue one issue at a time. We have to work on consensus per issue, and do that via a purple dialog- which means educating each other round robbin until the conflict dissolves under the pressure of truth. In short only working on a political platform can genuinely unite us.
Thats why i have been calling for that to happen since the beginning.
http://occupythiswiki.org/wiki/THE_99%25_POLITICAL_PARTY
http://occupythiswiki.org/wiki/Main_Page
http://www.followthemoney.org/?gclid=CMbY87bB-qsCFUPt7Qod9HE8mQ
http://maplight.org/us-congress/guide/data/money?9gtype=search&9gkw=list%20of%20campaign%20donations&9gad=6213192521.1&9gag=1786513361&gclid=CP61oYbB-qsCFQFZ7AodcTF0jw
http://www.opensecrets.org/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/our-new-wiki/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/non-violence-evolution-by-paradigm-shift/
Libertarians would tend to be more inlined towards the tea party.
Actually the Libertarians started the Tea Party and then the GOP Republicans and the Koch Brothers took it over. The right wing holy rollers grabbed hold and derailed the whole movement in 2009.
The tea party actually started in social media with a call to "send a tea bag to congress" to protest George W Bush and the first round of bail outs.
Unfortunately Libertarians are mostly ignored in this country and cannot get elected. That is why Ron.Paul moved to the Republican Party. If you watched any of the debates you will notice he is different from all the others.
In fact he is the only candidate that defended the OWS movement and the protesters. He slammed Herman Cain in the OWS movement in this debate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqau48Wz4O0&t=0m5s
I would think so, but I have met a few here, and some people do talk about trying to find common grounds between the two. From what I can see, the only commonality is both recognize that there is something wrong with the establishment today.
that something is fascism
The libertarians and far left aren't the key to anything anyway; Washington and Wall Street are much more frightened by the possibility of a coalition of less ideological, more mainstream types. A coalition of 'center rights' and 'center lefts' may sound much less dramatic but would be far more potent. Besides, there's nothing 99% about the far left and libertarians; they're a tiny percentage of the population.
I can see your point. I think of myself as center left pretty much. What about you?
I advocate what might be called a non-ideological, 'empirical' politics; I'm not concerned with where a position is on the political spectrum or who supports it or attacks it but rather whether it is reasonable and fact based. So, depending on the issue and who I'm talking to and the subject I may be seen as being leftward or rightward or centrist. I think there are reasonable positions across the political spectrum, and therefore don't limit myself to any pre-conceived stretch of it.
Simply clarify the end goal.
e.g. Goal: a post scarcity sustainable society with humanitarian ideals at its forefront.
As for the means, that remains to be discussed as many still suffer from affluenza, cling to hatred, misunderstand our capabilities, and avoid personal responsibility.
The Political Compass Test - helpful and fun if you have never taken it before:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/test
Vote for the Libertarian Candidate who has fought the banking system in the US for 30 years....If I type his name my post will be deleted!
lol... When I type in Ron Lawl.... This site misspells Lawl.... wow
Ron Lawl is the clear Candidate that OWS would support!
Even Ralph Nader supports Ron Lawl. He realizes there is a serious convergence.
Ron Lawl has been fighting the banking Cartel for over 30 years.
That's interesting, this site always misspells Ron's last name. I though it was just me. Maybe it has something against him.
A System-Changing Solution for the OWS Movement?
http://my.firedoglake.com/letsgetitdone/2011/11/20/a-system-changing-solution-for-the-ows-movement/
Zorno,
I think Leftists and Libertarians can unite and build coalitions on topics of common concern. Ending War and Corporate Welfare and restoring Civil Liberties being some topics that come to mind.
I feel pleased that you think Leftists and Libertarians can cooperate. I am also curious as to what you think Libertarians are all about. Speaking as a self-described hardcore Libertarian, I'm not quite sure some of your talking points speak to me.
I'd like to offer a few thoughts on Libertarians, so as to better understand where the opportunities for cooperation are most likely to lie.
Libertarianism has a wide political spectrum all its own. I think it'd be helpful for a Leftist to know which species of Libertarian is most amenable to cooperating with the Left.
The two things that are common to all Libertarian sects are 1) a belief in private property 2) a belief in non-aggression.
On point 1) it is worth noting that almost all libertarian sects do not view the Status Quo as a system representing justly acquired property...what to do about that is THE historical question. The degree of adherence to point 2 separates the small government/'minarchist' schools from the 'anarchist'/'pacifist' schools.
Many people think Libertarians are cold-hearted because they are against social welfare programs.
While it is true that most Libertarians would like to do away with social welfare and replace it with private action, most are concerned with ending Corporate Welfare first.
Secondly replying to the charge of cold-heartedness a Libertarian would point out that Social Welfare cannot be administered without resorting to State violence. The Libertarian rejects the initiation of force, either privately or via proxy. Libertarians prefer that the community take private & direct action in this regard.
Only consensual acts are morally legitimate in the Libertarian mind. This is where Libertarians and Progressives disagree, for Libertarians see the mechanism of the State as a violent means.
Where for most Means and Ends are two separate things, for almost all Libertarian sects they are one-in-the-same; the means used define the end realized. Libertarians understand the intent of the Progressive but cannot agree to the violent means (use of the State).
So with regard to "Libertarians probably believe in these kind of developments as well" , ie "revival of the policies of Roosevelt and JFK. Namely, Glass Steagall reorganization for the financial system, and a national bank to make low interest rate loans for infrastructure development." ... you might be hard-pressed to find any who will support you.
Want to End the War in Iraq, Afghanistan, on Drugs, bring the American Empire to a close, End Corporate Bailouts, End Subsidized Agri-Business, End the Monopoly on Money,...then a Libertarian is your natural ally.
I hope this is interesting and helps encourage dialogue
whateverwhatever
here's something that can unite 99%
http://occupywallst.org/forum/make-a-stand-join-the-clan/
this isn't about parties
Interesting, I had met a few libertarians here recently, but none have shown up to express their opinion here.
Hey zorno, guess you spoke a little too soon about that, huh?
Libertarians believe in minimal government. You really think they could mesh with liberals? Think about it.
Libertarians want an ineffective government.
Your proof?
They have the desire to sell snake oil, unimpeded.
Proven by Mr. Pauls desire to allow the sale of homeopathic remedies. That's snake oil.
No more labeling laws or efficacy requirements.
Let the corporations pee in the stream, and you can sue 'em if you can. But no class action suits.
Among other things, that would make for a pretty ineffective government.
You are right. Let's just assume that a libertarian would just bring anarchy. So let us presume that a Leftist government is in power. Please describe the ensuing paradise.
I'm sorry.
Paradise is what the libertarians think they have going for them.
I only strive for a more perfect union.
They HATE unions.
I'm sorry. But you didn't answer my question. More perfect union? What is that supposed to mean?
It's from some old document.
Sounds better than selling snake oil.
Still not an answer.
Strive for increased unity between the States.
A more perfect union.
I feel we are currently heading in the other direction.
Thanks for the answer. So do you mean a stronger Federal government?
Stronger? Yes! Without a doubt. In a World gone crazy, it needs to be strong and nimble.
Bigger? Not if we do it right.
Much has happened, that has begun to separate the States. That has to change, or we will weaken as a nation.
I have been surprised by some of the interest in this topic that Libertarians have expressed here.