Brad Spangler quote on libertarians and the left

"Genuine libertarianism is very much left wing. It's revolutionary. The long and tragic alliance of libertarians with the right against the spectre of state socialism is coming to a close, as it served no purpose after the fall of the Soviet Union and so-called "conservatives" have subsequently taken to letting their true big-government-on-steroids colors fly…. [I]n the period since the demise of the Soviet Union, both the radicals and moderates among the left have been subconsciously seeking a new radical creed to orient themselves upon to replace Marxism…. I believe that radical libertarians … will be most effective when they overcome any lingering right wing cultural contamination of their libertarian views and embrace their inherent radicalism — which is most at home on the left. For as the radicals go, so do the moderates grudgingly follow in small steps…. It's time for libertarians to stop fighting the left and take up the challenge of leading the left."

http://bradspangler.com/blog/archives/283

  Personally I don't see libertarianism as either on the left or the right. It's radically anti-authoritarian. But I think the freedom movement needs a bit more left-leaning focus at this time in order to keep its balance.

Yours in liberty,
        <<< starchild >>>

right wing cultural contamination of their libertarian views?

I agree with you Starchild...libertarianism is neither left nor right, rather it is UP! (on the Nolan Chart, of course)

DRJ

Starchild:

Can you give some examples of a "right-wing" policy that libertarians
(whether big L or small l libertarians) seem to be pursuing that you
find to be altering it's "balance")

[ Attachment content not displayed ]

Derek,

  If you have ever observed a free economic marketplace at work, I would like to hear more about it. If you haven't observed a free economic marketplace, it seems extremely presumptive to imply that most leftists would not do well in one.

  Also, do you really believe that people on the left are more power-hungry than people on the right? Can you point to evidence of that in the 2000 or 2004 elections? The U.S. has been very evenly split between left-socialists and conservatives during the past couple cycles, but who succeeded in achieving power both times? Which party is more traditionally noted for enforcing discipline in party votes, i.e. suppressing individual views in the name of unity, the Democrats or the Republicans?

  I'm playing devil's advocate a bit here, since I'm not absolutely sure you'd be wrong in saying that leftists are more *likely* than people on the right to seek power over others -- I suppose it depends largely on how you define "left" and "right." But comparing people who voted for Bush or Peroutka in 2004 with people who voted for Kerry, Nader, or Cobb, deciding which side is more power-hungry doesn't seem like an easy call to me.

Yours in liberty,
        <<< starchild >>>
      

Starchild:

This quotation pretty much sums up my feelings about today's leftists in America and why I think it would be a horrendous error for Libertarians to in any way start leaning more toward the left.

Those who lack the capacity to achieve much in an atmosphere of freedom will clamor for power. - Eric Hoffer

The leftists I know tend for the most part to be losers in a free economic marketplace. This is why so many of them seek power over others through political means instead.

-Derek

> Starchild:
>
> Can you give some examples of a "right-wing" policy that libertarians
> (whether big L or small l libertarians) seem to be pursuing that you
> find to be altering it's "balance")
>
> > "Genuine libertarianism is very much left wing. It's revolutionary. The
> > long and tragic alliance of libertarians with the right against the
> > spectre of state socialism is coming to a close, as it served no
> > purpose after the fall of the Soviet Union and so-called
> > "conservatives" have subsequently taken to letting their true
> > big-government-on-steroids colors fly…. [I]n the period since the
> > demise of the Soviet Union, both the radicals and moderates among the
> > left have been subconsciously seeking a new radical creed to orient
> > themselves upon to replace Marxism…. I believe that radical
> > libertarians … will be most effective when they overcome any lingering
> > right wing cultural contamination of their libertarian views and
> > embrace their inherent radicalism — which is most at home on the left.
> > For as the radicals go, so do the moderates grudgingly follow in small
> > steps…. It's time for libertarians to stop fighting the left and take
> > up the challenge of leading the left."
> >
> > http://bradspangler.com/blog/archives/283
> >
> > Personally I don't see libertarianism as either on the left or the
> > right. It's radically anti-authoritarian. But I think the freedom
> > movement needs a bit more left-leaning focus at this time in order to
> > keep its balance.
> >
> > Yours in liberty,
> > <<< starchild >>>
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
>

<image.tiff>

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

+ Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.

+ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

+ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

<image.tiff>

[ Attachment content not displayed ]

Derek,

  Interesting conversation! More thoughts below...

   If you have ever observed a free economic marketplace at work, I would

like to hear more about it.

--->DEJ The issue with answering this question is that for you to refute it you merely have to point out a sliver of government involvement in the marketplace to show it is not free. I cannot argue reality against a theoretical ideal.

  You said, "The leftists I know tend for the most part to be losers in a free economic marketplace." Not even "would tend," but simply "tend," as if you were discussing something that is already happening now. I merely meant to point out that you were engaging in speculation, not observation of existing reality. Of course we could (and do, below!) argue about whether or not your speculation is accurate.

If you haven't observed a free economic
marketplace, it seems extremely presumptive to imply that most leftists
would not do well in one.

---> DEJ. Seriously. Just look out into the crowd of a Democratic Party convention and honestly ask yourself how many of those people you would trust with managing your money?

  There's much more to a free marketplace than people who manage money, even in a society with as many money-managers as this one. Why is skill at money management more relevant here than other abilities that might be valued in a free market, for instance the ability of an actor or musician?

How many of them would you qualify as economic successes in what is clearly one of the freest economies in the world (The US), especially in terms of mobility and opportunity of labor. Then take a look at the Republican Party convention. I'll bet you the percentage of people on a government payroll is far lower among the republican party members (even though we control both houses of congress and the white house, and a large majority of the executive branches at the state level. How can this be? Willingness to take a government job is a good proxy for an inability to compete in the private sector.

  You seem to be saying that "success" should be measured primarily in terms of money. When someone dies, would you view his or her life as successful or not based on how much money the person earned? Are you then prepared to argue for, say, Michael Jackson over Winston Churchill?

  But back to your original response. You said "The leftists I know tend for the most part to be losers in a free economic marketplace. This is why so many of them seek power over others through political means instead."

  I find your implication (intended or not, I don't know) that people seek power over others not only in politics, but in the marketplace to be an interesting one. To rephrase your statement, "People who seek power over others and fail to achieve it in the marketplace often turn to politics as an alternate way to get power over others."

  This suggests to me that the root problem is not politics, but rather the desire for power over others. Even if we can prove that wealthy people are less likely than poor people to seek power through politics (a dubious proposition), we cannot assume this means that they are less power-hungry as individuals. It may merely be due to the fact that they already found a way to get power.

   Also, do you really believe that people on the left are more

power-hungry than people on the right?

--->DEJ Yes, if you define power as political power. Rightists tend to pursue this by economic means (getting rich), while leftists tend to pursue this by political means (redistributing wealth through government force).

  I'm glad you already see this distinction. And I'll grant that political power is more dangerous than economic power. But are people on the right any less prone to use government force, when it's at their disposal, than those on the left? I think they just use it for different ends. Looking on a global scale, the extreme left does seem responsible for the worst bloodshed and suffering -- at least in recent history (20th century, say). But most people on the left are not on the extreme left, and comparing the moderate left with the moderate right, I'm not so sure the right comes out ahead. It's also difficult to say what the extreme right would do, given the chance. Since the collapse of the European monarchies, I'd say it's been relegated to a minor role (the Roderick Long article goes into this). I don't think the Nazis were really far right; they came out of more of a leftist background. Extreme right could be the Taliban. But it's important to keep in mind the Advocates Chart; people we tend to think of as extreme left and extreme right tend to meet in the middle down at the bottom of the Authoritarian quadrant. And as Roderick Long said in the article I posted (http://www.mises.org/story/2099):

"While it's an interesting question whether Rothbard and Hess are correct in maintaining that the terms 'left' and 'right' are best understood as still retaining their original 19th-century meaning, how any particular thinker prefers using those slippery labels is not the most important issue. If you want to call the free market a left-wing idea, or a right-wing idea, or a neither-left-wing-nor-right-wing idea, or a left-wing-in-sense-37-but-right-wing-in-sense-49 idea, whatever, go for it — so long as you make clear how you're using it. I like calling the free market a left-wing idea — in fact, I like calling libertarianism the proletarian revolution — but terminology is not the fundamental issue. The crucial point is to track when one of these labels is being used in an authoritarian sense, or an anti-authoritarian sense, or a mixed sense, and not allow any particular preconceived stereotype of 'left' or 'right' to occlude one's thinking as to where one's natural allies are to be found."

Can you point to evidence of that in the 2000 or 2004 elections? The U.S . has been very evenly split between left-socialists and conservatives during the past couple cycles, but who succeeded in achieving power both times?

--->DEJ See my answer above. If government offices exist with power to control people, then if you love freedom you should very actively try to obtain those offices if nothing else than to prevent your enemy from using it against you.

  Yes, but what one does *after* obtaining those offices is where one's true colors reveal themselves. I believe that government control, and even spending, have increased more under Bush with a Republican Congress than they did under Clinton when there was a divided Congress.

Which party is more traditionally noted for enforcing discipline in party votes, i.e.suppressing individual views in the name of unity, the Democrats or the Republicans?

---> DEJ You may think republican, but can you name me just 3 pro-life Democrats in the house or senate without looking it up?

  That's a fair point in favor of the idea that Republicans do not enforce voting discipline more in Congress; I'm finding it somewhat easier to mentally name Republicans I believe are pro-choice than Democrats I believe are pro-life. It does seem to me though, that a widespread perception exists in the media that the Republicans have usually been more unified than the Democrats. Do you believe this perception is false?

Yours in liberty,
        <<< starchild >>>

[ Attachment content not displayed ]

Derek,

  It's not so much that I think the libertarian movement's *policies* are too right-wing. For the most part I think our policies *themselves* are precisely correct. The problem is more that the issues we choose to prioritize, and how we talk about those priorities, have tended to appeal more to modern conservatives than to modern liberals. In order not to get taken over by either the left or the right while maintaining our viability as a true alternative, I think it is very important that we seek to appeal roughly equally to people on both sides of the fence. As much as issues per se, I believe there are also matters of style, tone, and certain patterns of thinking, one of which Roderick Long describes very eloquently below ( http://www.mises.org/story/2099 ), that have led libertarians to lean to the right:

[ Attachment content not displayed ]

[ Attachment content not displayed ]

Have you read the whole Roderick Long piece? http://www.mises.org/story/2099

    <<< starchild >>>

   There&#39;s much more to a free marketplace than people who manage money,

even in a society with as many money-managers as this one. Why is skill
at money management more relevant here than other abilities that might
be valued in a free market, for instance the ability of an actor or
musician?

--->DJ It isn't. This point about artists or musicians is conceded. Anyways, most money managers I know are but sleazy hucksters. I was trying (poorly I guess) to demonstrate that leftists tend to be less able in personal fiscal matters (limousine liberals excluded)

  If they are, I still don't see what difference it makes in this context. It seems to me the logical conclusion you're reaching for with this line of thinking is that libertarians should side not with the right *or* the left per se, but rather with those people who are good at making money, whether it's Michael Moore or Ross Perot, because such individuals will be less prone to seeking political power and control over others to compensate for an inability to make money. I hope my choice of those two examples makes it clear that I don't see it as a convincing argument.

   You seem to be saying that &quot;success&quot; should be measured primarily in

terms of money. When someone dies, would you view his or her life as
successful or not based on how much money the person earned?

From an "economic success" standpoint, which was consistently the point I made, then YES.

  See below.

Are you then prepared to argue for, say, Michael Jackson over Winston Churchill?

---->DEJ Michael Jackson is without question a far greater success economically than Winston Churchill. Remember, Jacko had the incredible foresight to buy the Beatles' song catalog a decade or so back at a price far below it's current value. He's probably a bad example though, since it's falling apart with all his latest misadventures. As far as contribution to humankind, of course Churchill is higher, even if he held government jobs and lived in public housing for most of his adult life, (as George Bush does now.)

  Going back to your original citation of the Eric Hoffer quote that "Those who lack the capacity to achieve much in an atmosphere of freedom will clamor for power," I would submit that overall contribution to humankind is a better measure than economic success of whether a person has "achieved much."

  I would be highly dubious of any argument that people on the political left have made fewer overall contributions to humankind than people on the political right.

  But I suspect that your reading of the Hoffer quote, and what you're really getting at, is more like this: "Those who lack the capacity to make a lot of money in the private sector will clamor for power."

  My response would be that if they are power-hungry in the first place, both those with the capacity to make lots of money *and* those who lack this capacity will clamor for power. If a person happens to be good at making money, his or her desire for power may be sated by this endeavor, though not necessarily -- some of them go into politics later.

   This suggests to me that the root problem is not politics, but rather the desire for power over others\.

----->DEJ I disagree that this is what it suggests. "power over others" through economic means is perfectly fine. My boss has great power over events in mine and my coworker's lives, and my daily schedule. I willingly submit to this arrangement because I calculate that it will bring longer term gains for me. This is very different from the government hacks on the San Francisco planning commission I watched last night on cable. I saw homeowners and developers kowtowing to these "public officials", kissing their asses, just so they could make improvements to their own private property. It made me very angry. That is a manifestation of the leftist's political power over people I'm talking about.

  A libertarian politician who has a great deal of power by virtue of the office she holds is fine, if she can avoid being corrupted by it, because she is seeking to reduce the power of such offices.

  A boss who likes his position because of the pay, or because it gives him a certain amount of freedom, or because it is creatively challenging, is fine too, so long as the power doesn't go to his head.

  But a person who *enjoys* controlling other people, and exercising arbitrary power over them, will tend to make people's lives miserable whether he is a politician or a boss (or a parent). He could usually do the most harm as a politician, because there will be more tools for abusing power at his disposal. But no matter how much or how little room a person has for abusing power in whatever particular role they may occupy at a given point in time, seeking power over others for the sake of enjoying that power is *not* fine.

  Wherever it exists, the desire to control others is a dangerous tendency that constitutes a clear and present potential for abuse. Today's "harmless" power-addicted boss may become tomorrow's sociopath-breeding parent, or society-wrecking politician.

Even if we can prove that wealthy
people are less likely than poor people to seek power through politics
(a dubious proposition), we cannot assume this means that they are less
power-hungry as individuals. It may merely be due to the fact that they
already found a way to get power.

--->DEJ I agree.

   Yes, but what one does \*after\* obtaining those offices is where one&#39;s

true colors reveal themselves. I believe that government control, and
even spending, have increased more under Bush with a Republican
Congress than they did under Clinton when there was a divided Congress.

--->DEJ Yep. Too many big-government careerists in today's republican party. No question about it.

   That&#39;s a fair point in favor of the idea that Republicans do not

enforce voting discipline more in Congress; I'm finding it somewhat
easier to mentally name Republicans I believe are pro-choice than
Democrats I believe are pro-life. It does seem to me though, that a
widespread perception exists in the media that the Republicans have
usually been more unified than the Democrats. Do you believe this
perception is false?

--->DEJ No. I agree Republicans are seen as more cohesive. I don't know for sure if it's true though. Look at the current immigration debate.

  I agree it's an open question.

Yours in liberty,
        <<< starchild >>>