2

Could the libertarian right and libertarian left ever unite under a common goal of getting rid of big government?

Submitted by conishuser in AskRaddle

So me and a friend are "members" of these two "sides" per say, we were talking and we got to wondering if these two sides could ever unite to defeat the government even if they would both have radically different end goals for what the new society would look like.

Overall me and my friend concluded its possible that if we were in this situation there is roughly a 50/50 chance we would work together, but we would probably both be constantly afraid one was going to kill the other.

So the question here is, would any of you personally be willing to work with the libertarian right to defeat government, and if not you do you think others would?

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

14

Faolinbean wrote

No, because their goals are disgusting and I'm not going to help them achieve any part of it

If it somehow could be guaranteed that whatever came out of this unholy alliance was for sure going to be the ancom utopia we hope for instead of like, enslaving people into hardcore capitalism with no rules, then maybe. maybe.

10

edmund_the_destroyer wrote

My view is that the libertarian right leads to big government anyway. If you somehow try to dismantle big government but leave strong property laws in place, the oligarchs will just buy themselves a new big government.

As far as I can tell, that's the story of the 19th century American industrial revolution in a nutshell. Basically none of the regulations around business or worker rights that we have today existed. The mine owners, factory owners, rail owners, and oil well owners basically bought local legislators, law enforcement, and judges and then enslaved the rest of the population.

10

ziq wrote

No because capitalists and big government are synonymous. One doesn't work without the other. What's the point of taking out the state without also taking out it's masters?

-8

conishuser wrote

one could also say the same thing about communists though. Pointing to examples such as stalin. At the core of each ideology this would be untrue for both examples however, but you would be correct in saying this is what both examples usually devolvolve into.

7

ziq wrote (edited )

Stalin practiced capitalism, same as you. And he was damned good at it, too. I'm surprised you lot don't idolize him for being so good at making a massive profit off of workers labor. He was even more successful than Lenin, another great capitalist.

2

edmund_the_destroyer wrote (edited )

You have a common misunderstanding of communism. Someone more knowledgeable on the topic can correct me, but this is how I understand it:

Karl Marx's idea was that first the working class would unite and establish a socialist government to dismantle all of the capitalist class institutions, and then the socialist government would relinquish power to allow each individual community to govern itself independently with little or no central government left. The individual self-governing communities represent communism. Communism is not a strong central government. The problem is that once the socialist government has power, it never relinquishes it. Hence Stalin, and Mao, and so forth. Socialism fails into authoritarianism.

Anarcho-communists want to get to communism without going through Marx's intermediate (and in their view, inescapably doomed to fail) socialist step. We dismantle capitalism and centralized government directly without creating a centralized government to do it for us. One of the most famous early Anarcho-communist philosophers was Mikhail Bakunin, who told Marx that socialism would fail in the 1860s - fifty years before Stalin took control.

Anyone care to correct me on that? Did I screw up anywhere?

6

selver wrote

Sure, if we can start with the elements of the State that exist to protect property.

4

ziq wrote (edited )

Best answer but as a lolbertarian, they prob think the state isn't needed to protect property because they can use buttcoin to buy a private army (aka become the ruler of a state / kingdom themselves)

4

selver wrote

I'd like to think that it'd be too expensive for them to do that for very long, and it would open up all sorts of new possible tactics. It's likely corporations would be fucked if they had to pay for all the services the State provides them for free, if people decided to start fighting them at least.

3

PerfectSociety wrote

they can use buttcoin to buy a private army (aka become the ruler of a state / kingdom themselves)

Right, and then they laugh at us when we point out that this is essentially Neo-Feudalism. You have to make yourself a loyal appendage to some rich oligarch who can actually afford a private army - like Eric Prince and Blackwater.

6

tranarchy wrote

Could we convince some amount of ancaps into aiding with or at the very least not hindering leftist activities? Probably.

Should there be some kind of synthesis or "big tent" organization that includes both self-professed right-libertarians and left-libertarians? No. They are ideologically contradictory.

If right-libertarians want to aid anarchists, socialists, and communists, no strings attached, they are certainly welcome to, although I don't see why most of them would. If they want to attach strings, then how is it aid?

3

noordinaryspider wrote (edited )

I've had some interesting conversations with Libertarians and also learned useful information with them. I can get along with them as acquaintances and even develop real respect for them that I could never feel for Republicans or less extreme members of the right.

Could I work with them to defeat the most toxic elements of the State?

Have I done so in the past? It was kind of unavoidable not to completely "otherize" them while homeschooling children as a low income single mother in the '90s and '00s. The liberals just assumed I would want to enroll my kids in a charter school's homestudy program for the $1,200 per kid per year stipend for shiny pretty "cirricular" and herded me off to where they thought the riff raff belonged.

https://a2zhomeschooling.com/thoughts_opinions_home_school/public_home_school_programs/

So I learned to find common ground with the Libertarians. We defeated some bills together. Dug some textbooks out of the trash together. Raised our kids together. Lost our religions together. Escaped some toxic marriages together. Lived through some history together.

Ultimately we failed. Maybe you don't see it that way since "homeschooling is one of the fastest growing markets for the charter school and publishing industries" but the word doesn't mean the same thing any more.

https://coinsh.red/p/We_Stand_For_Home_Schooling.html

The Corporations won. I can't tell you how to homeschool your children. I don't have the slightest idea how to even get on the waitlist for that program or whether you even qualify for it unless you buy a house in a more upscale neighbourhood.

And you're asking me if I can imagine working with these people to save a country or a world when we couldn't even save an obscure small grassroots fringe movement for extremely minor personal social change?

3

martasultan wrote

I think I would work with mutualists or Georgists, and a lot of right-libertarians align closely with mutualism. Other than that, there isn't much a chance once you start moving further right.

4

heckthepolice wrote

Yeah, the "libertarian" right can kinda be divided into two broad categories: there's the misguided folks who actually are interested in freedom but don't really understand that there are better options than capitalism, who are closer to Georgism, mutualism, individualist anarchism, etc. than to fascism and can potentially be reasoned with, and the awful cryptofascist ancrap types, who I don't think we should bother with at all. So it really depends on how exactly you define "libertarian right" (which is an oxymoron anyway)

2

martasultan wrote

Basically that, yeah. I still have the thesis that they're either misguided anarchists or fascists who haven't yet read Mussolini.

2

Ant wrote (edited )

The libertarian right isn't libertarian, last I checked. Your businesses are state structures, your landlords' domains are states, your private security are cops.

2

rot wrote

Depends on the libertarian. Most are "progressive" liberals who just don't like taxes. Some care about a few social issues and have no belief in ending the state, just lowering property tax or whatever.

ancaps are a waste and some are fash.

When I think of libertarians I think of Dale Gribble. Some could become lib socs but they're not really libertarians they just think they are.

3

rot wrote

Short answer: No; not if they're committed to that shitty "ideology"

1

ziq wrote

Dale is kinda Alex Jonesish tho. More far right than lolbertarian right.

0

MrPotatoeHead wrote

American's aren't ready for anything other than far left and far right extremes at this time. Anger seems to be popular. Maybe in a couple of years the US will grow tired of extreme bickering and find some sort of middle ground, one where the people wake up and stop voting for who the two big parties tell them to vote for, lobbyists are outlawed, and corporations stop overpaying the crooked CEO's they have. Maybe.

5

rot wrote

Ah yes the middle ground between Anarchy and fascism. If only we could take some elements of communism and some elements of capitalism and combine them but that has never happened :P

Why are centrists so bad at history?

4

GaldraChevaliere wrote

That'd imply there was any righteousness in a middle ground between freedom and slavery to begin with.

3

edmund_the_destroyer wrote

The fact that you're calling Democrats far left is a sign that the far right is the current victor.

The Clintons and Obamas are miles to the right of FDR, and FDR wasn't a socialist or communist.