Free Republic

What’s left to say? Dem goons do Dem bidding.

Probably contains illegal images.

Science is only valid when it confirms the left’s talking points today.

That’s a good corner to be in for a comedian who actually wants to practice his craft. Burr’s just forfeiting future late night talk show host job offers.

>What I would love the most is if I’m in my basement with my sweats on

At least have the decency to wear real pants while you’re conducting the deep state.

I can’t see how one can.

A strong skepticism of the prevailing mixed economy defines what is a left libertarian.

Their beliefs on ownership are particularly nuanced. Natural resources such as land, oil, and trees can be subject to collective ownership. While left libertarians respect private property more than most of the prominent forces on the left, they do not fully eschew collective forms of property ownership.

Voluntary co-operatives, communes, and other worker-driven arrangements can be used to empower workers and allow them to enjoy material benefits without having to face capitalist exploitation.

Going back to natural resources, individuals in a leftist libertarian order can still use the aforementioned commonly-owned goods. But there’s a catch: The use of such resources can only occur after society grants these individuals permission. In order to gain permission, individuals must make a payment to society at large.

The Intellectual Basis for Left Libertarian Economic Thought

Such logic is inspired by the thought of 19th century economist Henry George, who pushed for a land tax. George’s views on property rights were somewhat unique by United States standards, which tended to be more rooted in classical liberalism or free-market conservatism. In contrast, George saw land as a commonly-held resource and could not be held exclusively by an individual.

This conception of land ownership stood in contrast to the views of John Locke, who believed that land could be privately owned and homesteaded by individuals. Lockean views of private property tend to be more prevalent among Republicans, right-wing libertarians, and other classical liberal adjacent movements.

The Overlap and Differences Between Leftist Libertarians and Anti-Property Movements

Left-wing libertarians have a lot in common with collectivist and Marxist views on private property, at least in a conceptual sense. Although the similarities have limits. Advocates of collectivism on the authoritarian left are more likely to use state power to achieve their ends at the expense of individual freedom.

At the end of the day, left libertarians come in all shapes. They don’t generally dismiss the insights of Marxism and incorporate some of the anti-property beliefs of the renowned left anarchist thinker Pierre-Joseph Proudhon.

Proudhon is widely viewed as the father of the political philosophy of anarchism and is famous for his quip “property is theft.”

Like libertarian socialists, the libertarians of the left go beyond concepts of self-ownership and stress the need for voluntary institutions that close inequality gaps. Left-wing libertarians sympathize with economic redistribution of resources, albeit in a voluntary manner to correct disparities in inequality.

American philosopher Gary Chartier is a prominent anarchist who blends certain facets of libertarian thought with an anarchist agenda to create a stateless society. Chartier’s brand of anarchism doesn’t take a statist approach to addressing the question of allocating resources, but his vision for a stateless society remains rather unique.

Simply put. Could have saved us a lot of trouble.

American libertarian philosopher Samuel Edward Konkin III coined the term agorism. To understand the principles that define agorism, we must look towards the ancients.

The word is derived from the Ancient Greek word (Ancient Greek: ἀγoρά), which refers to an open space where people can assemble and engage in commerce at in a polis— the Ancient Greek word for city-state (πόλις).

Konkin admired free markets and was part of the budding libertarian movement of the 1970s. His sympathies for libertarianism and anarchism made him a natural opponent of the modern-day state. SEK3 was particularly inspired by the works of the Ausrian School economist Ludwig von Mises and his acolytes who pushed for free markets.

The Debates Within the Libertarian Movement on Strategy

In addition to creating a political movement, Konkin gained fame for coining the term “minarchism”, which refers to a form of libertarianism that advocates for a minimal state.

Konkin was functionally an anarchist in his approach to the state. He viewed the state as an immoral entity that not only stifled economic progress but also transgressed on basic human liberties.

In the libertarian movement’s embryonic stage, there were constant debates about how liberty should be ultimately secured. Some libertarian figures advocated for traditional political methods to advance these ideas. The Libertarian Party was viewed as the primary vehicle for effecting change in the traditional political sphere.

There were other libertarians who agreed that the political route was the only way for their ideas to become politically relevant. But they held one caveat: Libertarians should run in the Republican Party. They reasoned that the GOP had libertarian factions within it and a mainstream party with its resources could propel those ideas to new heights.

Others focused on educational means of spreading their message through think tanks, educational institutions, and general culture. Certain schools of libertarianism inspired by Friedrich A. Hayek’s Intellectuals and Socialism, firmly believed that the diffusion of ideas is paramount towards generating change.

Why Ideological Splits Still Matter

There were obvious ideological splits among libertarians as well. There were minarchists, who believed in a minimal state, and the anarchists, who opposed the concept of a state. The latter were more averse to traditional activism, while the former was not afraid to participate in party politics and take part in mainstream academia.

Anti-state individuals have been allured by the unique nature of agorism. What excited them about this free-market philosophy was how it offered a unique opportunity for them to put their principles in action. By carrying the agorist flag, these individuals see market interactions as vehicles of societal liberation from state coercion

The Konkin vs. Rothbard Debate on How to Achieve Liberty

Konkin rose to prominence around the same time as Murray Rothbard, the leading exponent of anarcho-capitalism of that time, became the intellectual pillar for libertarianism.

Apart from his radicalism, Rothbard was known for his political eccentricism. Rothbard was willing to forge alliances with both the Old Right and the New Left. The free-market stalwart was a political junkie through and through. He was fascinated by the intrigue of 20th century politics in America.

Rothbard advocated for conventional political action to advance libertarian ideas. He was initially a strong supporter of the Libertarian Party and saw political parties as vehicles to realize substantial political reforms in the United States. Konkin, by contrast, was not a fan of party politics.

The founder of agorism was of the view that playing in the direct politics game only perpetuates statism. Konkin’s political philosophy focused on direct action in the real world and avoided the political arena altogether.

They want to rile up rioters, so they make martyrs of the people rioters most closely identify with.

Gotta get that BIG BIDEN ENERGY to change the momentum.

No significant differences in ideology, although I suspect someone who identifies as conservatarian can probably bench press a lot more weight than a paleolibertarian.

Paleolibertarian thought emerged out of a well-established classical liberal tradition that put private property and market activity on a pedestal. The “paleo” qualifier is used due to how the paleo libertarian ideology has its origins in classical right-wing thought.

19th century classical liberalism and the Old Right largely influenced paleos. British historian Lord Acton is among the most prominent intellectual role models for paleos due to his opposition to centralized state power. This tradition of pro-small government views would be maintained by the Old Right in the first half of the 20th century. It became known for its opposition to the centralized managerial state and the missionary foreign policy the U.S. adopted since World War I.

Several politicians such as Howard Buffett and Senator Robert Taft and writers such as Garet Garret and Albert Jay Nock espoused these principles. Paleos would later champion the aforementioned figures’ ideas.

Many proto-libertarian pundits and theorists started to gain notoriety during the New Deal. Although she was no libertarian, the Objectivist author Ayn Rand would also be a major source of inspiration for many paleos. Her free market beliefs made her popular across the majority of libertarian sects.

The Rothbard/Rockwell Duo

Figures such as the historian Murray Rothbard and Lew Rockwell, the founder of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, were instrumental in developing this segment of libertarianism. Both men were influenced by the Austrian school of economics and were actively involved in the advocacy of anarcho-capitalism.

Their compilation of essays in the Rothbard-Rockwell report became the main guide for spreading Rothbard’s message of free markets, private property, and traditional western culture in the 1990s. Although the paleo movement is not exclusively anarcho-capitalist, its undeniable that pro-capitalist strains of anarchism have largely shaped its overall ideology.

The Schisms Within Libertarianism

The libertarian movement experienced a significant rise in the 1970s and quickly witnessed the Libertarian Party emerge as America’s leading third party. The Koch brothers, Charles and David, helped form the Cato Institute along with Murray Rothbard in 1977 –– signaling a promising new age for libertarians. However, it was not able to keep itself together for very long. Infighting due to disagreements on strategy and philosophical differences caused the movement to fissure. One of the most infamous splits was the Koch-Rothbard split in the 1980s.

In large part due to differences regarding libertarian strategy, Rothbard began to clash with his fellow Cato board members and eventually criticized the 1980s Libertarian Party presidential ticket of Ed Clark and David Koch for not taking radical stances on the issue of taxation. This led to Rothbard’s expulsion from the Cato Institute in 1981

From there, Rothbard teamed up with Lew Rockwell, Ron Paul’s former Chief of Staff, to form the Mises Institute. Even after Rothbard’s death in 1995, the paleo sect continued to remain a force within libertarianism. Rockwell’s website, which was founded in 1999, has been the hub of paleolibertarian discourse. It features notable writers such as Karen de Coster, Thomas DiLorenzo, and Tom Woods, among others.

The Paleo’s Break From Conservatism

The Cold War temporarily united libertarianism with conservatism through the “fusionist” movement, which coalesced around the issue of preserving a market-based economy and resisting a totalitarian state. However, once the Soviet Union collapsed, this alliance started to gradually collapse.

Many libertarians became skeptical of the Right’s interventionist streak that came about with the rise of the neoconservatives. Additionally, conservative’s inability to roll back the administrative state made libertarians realize that this movement was not following through with its rhetoric. In light of this, a number of libertarians became convinced that aligning themselves with the acceptable Right and neocon adjacent groups was no longer a fruitful strategy.

Those people need to go places. They’ll just have less money for other essentials – queue the need for more social programs and services, i.e. taxes.

What is the government if not the dominant gang?

Statists commonly believe that the government must play a central role in the means of production. They may reason that the private sector is unable to function within a vacuum of government influence; perhaps it will violate the rights of the citizenry, or pose a threat to the hegemony of the state itself.

Economic planning, a common facet of socialism in which the government actively decides how resources will be allocated among its citizenry, is a common feature of statism. Subsidies, which are sums of money granted by the state to help an industry or certain businesses, are also common in statism.

As explained above, a statist might technically only want a government which offers a police department and a guy with a shovel who is paid to fill in potholes. The title of “statist” is more frequently reserved for someone (typically a politician) who believes the government should have more legal power over its citizens and influence in business.

The individual is no longer their own master under statism – at least not entirely. Rather, they are subject to a system that purports to serve a higher goal. Whether that goal is the advancement of a race, religion, ideal, or even the expansion of the state’s borders is ultimately up to the whims of the ruling elites (typically politicians).

Examples of Statism

The rather loose definition of statism means it applies to several forms of government. Socialism, communism, national socialism, feudalism, fascism, tribalism, apartheid, theocracy, and even democracy are all examples of statism.

At face value, these systems share little in common, but they all seek to direct how their citizens’ collective efforts are spent. The goal of communism is common ownership of all things; thus the product of a citizen’s labor goes in part or in whole toward the good of all (or in practice the good of the political elite).

The goal of feudalism is ultimately to benefit the king; thus the serf tilling the field pays rent to their vassal who in turn provides military aid to the crown. The goal of theocracy is to benefit God; because God has little use for gold, which He can make as easily as snapping His fingers, the church benevolently accumulates it on His behalf.

Technically speaking, every American politician is a statist. Although he is very much in favor of limiting government interference in private life to the greatest extent possible, Ron Paul’s political view that the “proper role for government in America is to provide national defense, a court system for civil disputes, a criminal justice system for acts of force and fraud, and little else” includes several state-run services.

As American politics become more left-leaning, so too do they frequently become more statist. Hilary Clinton’s 2016 platform included imposing a tax on high-frequency trading and direct government intervention in the free market.

Bernie Sanders’ pledge to transform America’s energy system into 100 percent renewable energy, although environmentalist in tone, would needless to say have required massive bureaucratic intervention. And Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s promise to illegalize capitalism while forcing all white, cis males to wear bomb collars is arguably just a tiny bit statist as well.

Final Thoughts

In her essay War and Peace, Ayn Rand wrote “The differences among statist systems are only a matter of time and degree; the principle is the same. Under statism, the government is not a policeman, but a legalized criminal that holds the power to use physical force in any manner and for any purpose it pleases against legally disarmed, defenseless victims.”

Statism exists wherever government exists – it is the degree to which statism is exercised which makes it reprehensible or not. But if one accepts that a person is a free and rational creature, whose sole obligation is unto themself, then any agency which forces them to behave a certain way or spend the product of their labor toward the advancement of any goal which they have not voluntarily accepted as their own is necessarily unjust.

What is statism? In essence, it is whenever any authority exerts control over your life. But doing away with statism entirely would quite possibly require the elimination of the entire world population minus one.

Seriously, why would you stop for the police if you’re not required to? Can’t blame the reprobates for taking full advantage of a city which is tailored to meet their desires.

Any religion which doesn’t mind my business is A-OK by me.