Libertarians can be left or right. What they have in common is that the government should have limited powers, but what they disagree with is what type of limited powers it should have. Rightist libertarians believe in laissez faire capitalism (their main name in economics is Ludwig von Mises), while leftist libertarians believe that corporations should be put at more scrutiny by the government.
Small correction: Leftist libertarians is usually another term for anarchism. I.e. There shouldn’t be neither governments nor corporations, but rather decentralized, self-governed communities and worker-owned cooperatives.
The way I learned it is that anarcho-socialism is the extremist version of leftist libertarianism. A moderate libertarian doesn’t mind the existence of a government, as long as it is limited. As for the anarchists, I know that they exist and I know that there are both on the left and the right, but I don’t have interest in reading their literature (it might be a cool theory to read, but the fact that it is so far from practice makes my interest in it practically vanish).
I’ve never heard any libertarians be referred to as “moderate”. As far as I understand it, “libertarianism” already includes a radical worldview. Wanting less government an simultaneously more government control IMHO sound a bit oxymoronic.
As an anarchist myself, of course I disagree with your stance on the practicability on anarchism. ;)
Well, looks like conversation is impossible then. Unless you have better sources, those two words are not 100% the same. Anarchism is a specific word, coming from the greek anarkhia, meaning “without a ruler”. Libertarianism, on the contrary, is a more broad word, since liberta is latin for “freedom”.
I don’t know about Mental Outlaw specifically, but there’s a vein of FOSS YouTube influencers who are very American libertarian in nature. And the important thing to understand abour american libertarians is they are largely fascists. They fly don’t tread on me and pro cop flags together. Its not that theyre anti authority. They’re pro authority beating up minorities. Does that make sense?
And the important thing to understand about american libertarians is they are largely fascists.
So let me get this straight, the people that are always complaining that the government should have less power and interference into people’s lives and want guns for regular people in case the government starts oppressing them are aligned with… checks wikipedia “a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.”?
I don’t agree with the libertarian view and think it’s way too ignorant of the nature of Man and society, but I think that in your ramble of buzzwords you just created a very cute incoherent contradiction.
This is abjectly wrong. I was, for a brief period of time, a delegate in the part for California. To simplify, it would be closer to a sort of anarchy light. With the minimalist amount of government allowed to exist.
What are his political stances?
Guns, mostly.
😂
Pretty right-leaning.
Right wing libertarian, to be a bit more precise.
There is no such thing. Libertarian means centrist, and right wing means, well, right wing.
Libertarians can be left or right. What they have in common is that the government should have limited powers, but what they disagree with is what type of limited powers it should have. Rightist libertarians believe in laissez faire capitalism (their main name in economics is Ludwig von Mises), while leftist libertarians believe that corporations should be put at more scrutiny by the government.
Small correction: Leftist libertarians is usually another term for anarchism. I.e. There shouldn’t be neither governments nor corporations, but rather decentralized, self-governed communities and worker-owned cooperatives.
The way I learned it is that anarcho-socialism is the extremist version of leftist libertarianism. A moderate libertarian doesn’t mind the existence of a government, as long as it is limited. As for the anarchists, I know that they exist and I know that there are both on the left and the right, but I don’t have interest in reading their literature (it might be a cool theory to read, but the fact that it is so far from practice makes my interest in it practically vanish).
I’ve never heard any libertarians be referred to as “moderate”. As far as I understand it, “libertarianism” already includes a radical worldview. Wanting less government an simultaneously more government control IMHO sound a bit oxymoronic.
As an anarchist myself, of course I disagree with your stance on the practicability on anarchism. ;)
Well, looks like conversation is impossible then. Unless you have better sources, those two words are not 100% the same. Anarchism is a specific word, coming from the greek anarkhia, meaning “without a ruler”. Libertarianism, on the contrary, is a more broad word, since liberta is latin for “freedom”.
You’re confusing liberal with libertarian.
And I’m curious: What is “right wing” in your opinion?
I don’t know about Mental Outlaw specifically, but there’s a vein of FOSS YouTube influencers who are very American libertarian in nature. And the important thing to understand abour american libertarians is they are largely fascists. They fly don’t tread on me and pro cop flags together. Its not that theyre anti authority. They’re pro authority beating up minorities. Does that make sense?
So let me get this straight, the people that are always complaining that the government should have less power and interference into people’s lives and want guns for regular people in case the government starts oppressing them are aligned with… checks wikipedia “a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.”?
I don’t agree with the libertarian view and think it’s way too ignorant of the nature of Man and society, but I think that in your ramble of buzzwords you just created a very cute incoherent contradiction.
Means to an end. It’s don’t tread on me, not don’t tread on anyone.
This is abjectly wrong. I was, for a brief period of time, a delegate in the part for California. To simplify, it would be closer to a sort of anarchy light. With the minimalist amount of government allowed to exist.
Based, mostly
Based and tech pilled