Libertarian is not left on social issues

[CapnAwesome]

I get so tired of hearing people say that being a libertarian is being economically right and socially left. While I'm not an economic libertarian at all, I am a social libertarian and there is a giant world of difference between being left on social issues and being libertarian on them. I would say in the most general terms libertarians believe that the government shouldn't be involved in social issues at all. Where as on the left it's the government that allows people to do so and so action and they believe that as many people as possible should be allowed to do it.

If you take some important beliefs that people think libertarians and liberals share, you find that there is a world of difference in them. For example gay marriage. The left normally applauds the government 'allowing' more people to marry. For a libertarian the government shouldn't be involved in marriage in the first place. Not only should gay people not get marriage certificates, nobody should. Much less there shouldn't be any social advantage to being married than to being single. The government shouldn't be involved at all. There is a world of difference in that.

If you take something like marijuana legalization. Liberals arguments often involve around how if it were legal then the government can tax and regulate it. Where as a libertarian would believe that it's just not the governments business what we put in our bodies. Again, a world of difference in both the philosophical approach and the end result.

Not to mention hate speech laws, which derive from the social left and are about as un-libertarian as it gets.

I think there are few issues where libertarians are actually socially left and I get annoyed when people think to lump libertarians as socially left. I think it part it's actually libertarians fault as they've been describing themselves this way to try to market themselves better to the American public, who identify more as socially left and economically right even though libertarians are really neither of those things.

[Dystopia]

honestly I've seen liberals using the libertarian argument so it's hard to distinguish labels.

If you take some important beliefs that people think libertarians and liberals share, you find that there is a world of difference in them. For example gay marriage. The left normally applauds the government 'allowing' more people to marry. For a libertarian the government shouldn't be involved in marriage in the first place. Not only should gay people not get marriage certificates, nobody should. Much less there shouldn't be any social advantage to being married than to being single. The government shouldn't be involved at all. There is a world of difference in that.

I fundamentally disagree with this - A certificate is super important because it constitutes evidence in case of divorce or any other legal procedure, otherwise your contract will be treated as void - What next - Will people be allowed to marry without signing papers? Why not abolish marriage altogether then? I think there should be advantages in being married depending on the socio-economic conjuncture - If there's a lack of young workforce the State should promote natality and give benefits to couples, and if there's too many people the government should simply raise taxes on married couples with more kids. The reason why you can marry in the first place is because the government allows it - Certainly there is a law saying that you can marry and how marriage contracts work, are signed, the legal form of the contract and how many witnesses are necessary, who can marry who (for example minors can't marry) - Everything is subjected to regulation and marriage or other forms of contract are not an exception, since the State has interests to get parties to sign contracts, at the very least because it fulfils people's freedoms.

[Cato]

Libertarianism, like any other 'ism, isn't immune from the inevitable fracturing of its original intellectual basis. It evolves and changes in accordance with the changing emphasis demanded by the needs it attempts to address and the individuals that constitute its unofficial membership. Like you, I struggled with what I perceived to be a strict Randian justification for economic tyranny and its rationalization of a system of morality that attempted to justify it. 

There are people that give this substantial consideration. I'm going to recommend a blog that seriously argues for the common good from a libertarian perspective: Bleeding Heart Libertarians. I endorse the dialogue this blog hosts, but cannot endorse any particular view on issue since it is they typically present multiple arguments on issues ranging from basic income to polygamy. I have no affiliation with the site; just playing matchmaker between your stated frustration and a source that might alleviate it to some extent. I find the frequent counterpoint refreshing.

About:

 Bleeding Heart Libertarians is a blog about free markets and social justice. All of us who blog at this site are, broadly speaking, libertarians. In particular, we are libertarians who believe that addressing the needs of the economically vulnerable by remedying injustice, engaging in benevolence, fostering mutual aid, and encouraging the flourishing of free markets is both practically and morally important. The libertarian tradition is home to multiple figures and texts modeling commitment both to individual liberty and to consistent concern for the marginalized, both here and abroad. We seek here to revive, energize, and extend that tradition—to demonstrate that contemporary libertarians can, in addition to their traditional vindication of individual liberty, offer effective, powerful, and innovative responses to the problems of economic vulnerability and injustice and to their social, political, and cultural consequences.

http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/

It's as close to a 'classical liberal' site I have found.

[Minimalist]

For a libertarian the government shouldn't be involved in marriage in the first place.

Is that because libertarians do not have the foggiest clue what marriage means in a legal sense?

[Tiberius]

The libertarian view of social issues is similar to the left's view of social issues in outcomes, which is why it is easier to say "socially left" when describing positions, but the implementation differs. Both libertarians and liberals believe gay marriage should be legal (that is, the government should not prohibit it), however whilst liberals want the government to outright legalize it, libertarians believe marriage should be a union between two people that shouldn't have to involve state recognition in the first place. Similarly, both libertarians and liberals want marijuana legalization, with liberals believing it should be taxed by the state as cigarettes are, and libertarians believing that the government shouldn't be taxing cigarettes in the first place.

The hate speech issue is an interesting one, because it's one where liberals have bastardized their own view of a freedom, namely freedom of speech. Liberals like to say they support free speech, but when they support laws against hate speech, their positions contradict each other. A libertarian would argue that you cannot support freedom of speech and also support laws against hate speech, because hate speech is protected due to freedom of speech. The whole point of freedom of speech is that you should not be arrested for something you say.

[Cato]

The hate speech issue is an interesting one, because it's one where liberals have bastardized their own view of a freedom, namely freedom of speech. Liberals like to say they support free speech, but when they support laws against hate speech, their positions contradict each other. A libertarian would argue that you cannot support freedom of speech and also support laws against hate speech, because hate speech is protected due to freedom of speech. The whole point of freedom of speech is that you should not be arrested for something you say.

Evidence of liberals bastardizing the concept of free speech is most evident in the proliferation of 'free speech zones' on college campuses. This after adopting the inane widespread practice of inserting 'trigger warnings' in syllabi announcing the potential for the slightest reason to take offense.

The best defense of free speech as it pertains to the shackles employed in our institutions of higher learning was commissioned by the University of Chicago.

In a word, the University's fundamental commitment is to the principle that debate or deliberation may not be suppressed because the ideas put forth are thought by some or even by most members of the University community to be offensive, unwise, immoral, or wrong-headed. It is for the individual members of the University community, not for the University as an institution, to make those judgments for themselves, and to act on those judgments not by seeking to suppress speech, but by openly and vigorously contesting the ideas that they oppose. Indeed, fostering the ability of members of the University community to engage in such debate and deliberation in an effective and responsible manner is an essential part of the University's educational mission.

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/free-sp...-committee

The entire statement is well worth the read for anyone passionate about free speech.

[Dystopia]

People seem to have wrong ideas on free speech - One of them is that it is an absolute principle, as if any principle was absolute at all - The other is when people think banning speech they don't agree with is a good idea and create double standards. Free speech is a right like any other, and therefore it is restricted when necessary. Free speech doesn't mean I need to allow you into my house to listen your opinion, or even listen to you at all. Free speech does not mean freedom from consequences of what you say. Free speech does not mean any entity needs to allow you to give public lectures on what you think about subjects. Free speech does not mean private entities can't restrict speech as they please according to their longterm goals. And lastly, free speech doesn't encompass the right to defamation and direct incitement to riot, violence and hatred, as it disturbs public order.

On marriage - This is when I start thinking libertarians don't understand the purpose of the Law. The law is founded upon authority, which belongs to the strongest entity we have known in history - The State. If you can marry, that means there is a Law passed by the state or redefined by courts of law allowing you to get married. It isn't as simple as signing the papers - There are rules, restrictions, specific procedures and behaviours you must have - This depends on jurisdiction. Marriage isn't just a contract, it is one that requires personal commitment to someone else. When you marry, you are indirectly being recognized by the State as married and you are registered as such in your ID card (this depends on the country) because there are a shitload of legal issues like inheritances, matrimonial regimes and so on that are regulated by law and provide benefits and disadvantages for parties.

Even if you merely exercise private activities, any private activity only happens because the State passed a law saying you can do it. You can't do something that goes against the Law. To argue that people should be able to "create" marriage only by themselves without something defining what it is means basically that anything can be called a marriage and thus we're better off just abolishing the institution altogether.

Evidence of liberals bastardizing the concept of free speech is most evident in the proliferation of 'free speech zones' on college campuses. This after adopting the inane widespread practice of inserting 'trigger warnings' in syllabi announcing the potential for the slightest reason to take offense.

I mostly agree with the concept of warnings a priori because there's many people traumatized by past events and generally we, as a society, can predict some descriptions and image that can trigger someone, like warfare, rape, murder, violence, bullying, alcoholism (explicit), etc. It's for the same reason movies, videogames and TV series come with a warning when there's violence.


Captain, you've described yourself as slightly conservative but I think this position (assuming you support it) is strongly against conservatism as it creates the idea that your actions exist isolated and don't impact anyone else.

[Tiberius]

People seem to have wrong ideas on free speech - One of them is that it is an absolute principle, as if any principle was absolute at all - The other is when people think banning speech they don't agree with is a good idea and create double standards. Free speech is a right like any other, and therefore it is restricted when necessary. Free speech doesn't mean I need to allow you into my house to listen your opinion, or even listen to you at all. Free speech does not mean freedom from consequences of what you say. Free speech does not mean any entity needs to allow you to give public lectures on what you think about subjects. Free speech does not mean private entities can't restrict speech as they please according to their longterm goals. And lastly, free speech doesn't encompass the right to defamation and direct incitement to riot, violence and hatred, as it disturbs public order.

I agree with everything you say in this paragraph except one:

"And lastly, free speech doesn't encompass the right to defamation and direct incitement to riot, violence and hatred, as it disturbs public order."

Rioting and violence are both actions which are illegal on their own, so making laws which ban direct incitement to do those things makes sense. Hatred however is not illegal, nor should it be, because "hatred" is such an abstract concept and making it illegal would literally make it a thought crime. There is no reason to make hate speech a thought crime, because any actions which stem from it (violence, etc.) are already illegal.

[Dystopia]

I'm not really saying you can't insult people or hate on them, but inciting violence trough hatred should be illegal. If I call for killing the jews, I am telling people to kill other people because of their race, and chances are some morons will believe my rhetoric and do it - This is disturbing to public order, and therefore shouldn't be something we allow under the pretence of "freedom". As for hate, sure hate anyone you want, you can come out as racist sexist bigot that it helps the rest of us - But rest assured, you are responsible for the consequences of going out showing your swastika tattoo. Essentially, what you seem to be saying is that you can drop a burning cigarette on the ground but can't be blamed for the fire because you didn't really "start it". Even in your premises, some degree of hate speech will always be a crime - I.e. When someone directly calls for violence ATM or something like that, because even if nothing happens we're better off not taking chances, and it is justified.

[Tiberius]

My point is, there is no reason for an extra law making hate speech of that kind illegal, because it's already illegal (via the incitement to violence). Calling for the killing of anyone is already illegal, so making a law specifically for the calling for the killing of <insert group here> based on basically arbitrary choices is useless. It also has a side effect of making anyone not in <insert group here> wonder why <insert group here> has a special law in the first place, and the feeling of alienation / special treatment that comes with that.