Most of the libertarians I know, and I know a bunch, are right wing extremist anarchists. Libertarianism aligns far more closely with socialism than it does with either capitalism or communism but it’s been co-opted by extreme right plutocrats to disrupt society for their own authoritarian ends.
Right-wing Anarchy is an oxymoron. They claim to be anarchists because Anarchy is cool, but they’re just liberal LARPers.
One gratifying aspect of our rise to some prominence is that, for the first time in my memory, we, ‘our side,’ had captured a crucial word from the enemy . . . ‘Libertarians’ . . . had long been simply a polite word for left-wing anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over…
Murray N. Rothbard
The fight over “libertarian” is probably lost at this point (at least in public discourse), but it’ll be a cold day in Hell before I accept their claim on Anarchy.
Do you think the Koch brothers are closeted liberals? Rand Paul? They’re just pretending to want to pay no taxes, take away all employees rights, implement healthcare and education only for those who can pay for it? Allow the poor to die from easily treatable ailments or from hunger?
If you think that modern libertarians are closeted liberals you are very out of touch with modern libertarians. Either that or you’re make bad faith arguments to try to derail legitimate criticism.
And every person who had ever said, “I’m not racist” definitely isn’t racist?
He can call himself whatever he wants but wanting to take away workers rights, collective bargaining, consumer protection, public education, healthcare, etc clearly shows that he is definitely not a liberal.
Unrestrained capitalism is not liberal any more than squatting and claiming the squat is a sovereign state is not anarchy.
You’re arguing against common and established definitions. That’s fine, but please just be explicit about that, rather than going on a rant where you try to paint me as unreasonable.
I don’t think you know what ‘liberal’ means if you actually think libertarians are that. The only similarity is in the name which is frankly yet another example of their dishonesty.
In the mid-20th century, American right-libertarian proponents of anarcho-capitalism and minarchism co-opted the term libertarian to advocate laissez-faire capitalism and strong private property rights such as in land, infrastructure and natural resources. The latter is the dominant form of libertarianism in the United States. This new form of libertarianism was a revival of classical liberalism in the United States, which occurred due to American liberals’ embracing progressivism and economic interventionism in the early 20th century after the Great Depression and with the New Deal.
They’re liberal LARPers.
Most of the libertarians I know, and I know a bunch, are right wing extremist anarchists. Libertarianism aligns far more closely with socialism than it does with either capitalism or communism but it’s been co-opted by extreme right plutocrats to disrupt society for their own authoritarian ends.
Right-wing Anarchy is an oxymoron. They claim to be anarchists because Anarchy is cool, but they’re just liberal LARPers.
The fight over “libertarian” is probably lost at this point (at least in public discourse), but it’ll be a cold day in Hell before I accept their claim on Anarchy.
Do you think the Koch brothers are closeted liberals? Rand Paul? They’re just pretending to want to pay no taxes, take away all employees rights, implement healthcare and education only for those who can pay for it? Allow the poor to die from easily treatable ailments or from hunger?
If you think that modern libertarians are closeted liberals you are very out of touch with modern libertarians. Either that or you’re make bad faith arguments to try to derail legitimate criticism.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Koch
Not “closeted”, no.
I call myself a magical sugar plumb fairy.
Am I a magical sugar plumb fairy.
If you want. We could use a bit more magic in the world.
And the DPRK is democratic?
And every person who had ever said, “I’m not racist” definitely isn’t racist?
He can call himself whatever he wants but wanting to take away workers rights, collective bargaining, consumer protection, public education, healthcare, etc clearly shows that he is definitely not a liberal.
Unrestrained capitalism is not liberal any more than squatting and claiming the squat is a sovereign state is not anarchy.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
You’re arguing against common and established definitions. That’s fine, but please just be explicit about that, rather than going on a rant where you try to paint me as unreasonable.
I don’t think you know what ‘liberal’ means if you actually think libertarians are that. The only similarity is in the name which is frankly yet another example of their dishonesty.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism
Relevant part: