Why is libertarianism considered a "right-wing" ideology?
Because it’s based in private property rights and individual responsibility, with a heavy emphasis on minimal government. Leftists are collectivists by nature.
>>17980532Then why is fascism considered a "right-wing" ideology?
>>17980530Because mainstream leftists at some point went full retard with pure personality cult totalitarianism. Libertarianism is the opposite of that.
>>17980530the right wing left wing paradigm is retarded anyways. It makes some sense when used in American politics because the economic right tends to be conservative while the opposite is true for the left. But that's not always the case, for example in eastern bloc countries alot of communists are also conservative while the more economically right are progressives.A better way to visualize ideologies is with the political compass with an added conservative/progressive axis. So you have a left-right economic axis, an authoritarian-libertarian state axis and a conservative/progressive axis.
>>17980534i don’t know
>>17980534It's only considered right wing in America by boomers. It has always been collectivist in nature and heavily pro-centralist authority.>b-but tradgroyper1776 on twitter said....who cares. It's an Italian ideology. They defined it.
>>17980534Because left and right used to mean the degree to which the government controla the economy. Ameriburgers have turned it into "collectivist for the workers party" and "collectivist for god" which is incredibly retarded.
>>17980547>Because left and right used to mean the degree to which the government controla the economyNo, left used to mean "in favor of wealth redistribution" while right used to mean "in favor of the Crown and Church"
>>17980534fascism is centrist, not right wing, and people who say otherwise are silly
>>17980550That is what retards turned it into, instead of the left-wing economic leash and the right-wing economic freedom they just want to decide who the slave should serve, instead of freedom as an option.
>>17980530Wasn't modern libertarianism invented by mid-20th-century American conservatives to cope with the civil rights movement?
Why is neoliberalism right-wing and neo conservatism left-wing? It's like they're trying to confuse people or something
>>17980585Aren't both considered right-wing?>neolib = Reagan = right-wing >neocon = Bush Jr. = right-wing
>>17980588AI because I'm tired and lazy>Historically speaking, the term neoconservative refers to Americans who moved from the anti-Stalinist left to conservatism during the 1960s and 1970s.
Left-Libertarianism is a thing, and it's basically what a lot of pro-gun Democrats use to describe themselves, although I'm not entirely sure if that's even a particularly appropriate use for that but it is nevertheless a colloquial usage of the term "Left-Libertarian" although if you ask me they're really just Bill Clinton Democrats
>>17980534Because retards think Marxism and Fascism can be placed within the Left-Right spectrum. And Fascism opposed Marxism so therefore it must be far right. People believe this because they are stupid and don't understand what Marxism and Fascism even were
>>17980530>Why is libertarianism considered a "right-wing" ideology?I've got maybe two explanations:-One is libertarianism has perceived "right-wing" consequences in the regard that making a society more "libertarian" doesn't typically provide the general population with more freedom/liberty since in practice the entities most capable of meaningfully capitalizing on less regulation, less government interference, has typically been corporations, police/security groups, and the government themselves. Libertarianism has mostly just presented itself, materially, as a means for powerful entities to rid themselves of public accountability/responsibility. -Libertarianism has been used/meme as an incoherent and selfish self-identified ideology by people who's political affiliation begins and ends with "get off my lawn", but is otherwise subject to change only insofar as to defend an individual's personal freedoms and not necessarily "other" people's freedoms. A lot of people who identify as "libertarians" use it more like a security blanket: they're libertarians in the sense that as long as they're not personally affected by x, or they don't know about y, then really anything is permissible.
>>17980530That flag don't mean shit...covid proved it
>>17980530Every libertarian I know voted for trump this election
>>17980530It's not? Pure Libertarianism is neither right nor left but some Libertarians either lean right or left.
>>17980547Left and Right was more about Hierarchy. Like Anarchism being Left-Wing while general Libertarianism is Right-Wing based on hierarchy and its applications. It’s been defined that way by the people who coined those terms. The French revolutionaries.
>>17980534Mean to queers
>>17980530Because marxists hate them so they get placed on the right
>>17980557Not really but kinda, modern Libertarianism was mainly created by Murray Rothbard from an amalgamation of classical liberal thinkers and groups in the truest sense of the word, they had a brief pragmatic association with conservatives at the time but then the conservatives fucked them over when George W Bush came to power. Then the Libertarians tried to ally with the left in the times of occupy wallstreet but then the left fucked them over with all the socialism and SJW shit. Current Libertarianism is moving towards more Rothbardian Anarcho-Capitalism, returning to its roots in a sense but shunning the left/right unless it pragmatically benefits them, in that sense they are learning pragmatically from the bolsheviks/socialists while using their strategy against bolshevism and fascism.
>>17980530The left-wing became synonymous with government intervention and the good of the whole of society being the responsibility of the individual. People inculcated in that style of thinking see the government as a genuine representation of the good of the society, and view any individual action as either attack or support on every member of the society. Libertarianism rejects both of these stances, and so cannot be what we now consider left-wing, making them right-wing, despite the right-wing believing fundamentally the same things, except in reverse.
>>17980978>Anything that isn't X must be YI know that people pretend to think that but it's bullshit.
Because the current understanding of reality sold to the average college student was carefully crafted by marxists so anything that could take power away from marxists (liberals want a weaker state) they label as dangerous. >>17980988Actually liberalism is probably the greatest hurdle for the communist since it's actually objectively better than it which is why it has taken so long to break the US down. The best they've accomplished is changing the meanings of words to try and associate marxism with liberalism to make being an unapologetic marxist more palatable for the average voter. They did absolutely destroy industry in the US can cause massive inflation and social degeneration by mass importing brown people though. I guess the question is will they be able to convince all these foreign invaders that their version of liberal marxism is better than all the actual pissed off liberals in the west right now
>>17980530>right wing : wanting to go back to an older model of society>left wing : wanting to try a new model of societyLibertarians are mostly right wing economically and politically (like in the 19th century) but with relatively "modern" ethics devoid of traditional christian morality.But as some other anon pointed out, libertarianism can really be anywhere on the spectrum because its core axiom is voluntary consent of the governed.>>17980534Because fascism was born out of the 19th century romantic movement which put an emphasis on the national past. Fascism is literally about reconciling modernity with the national/racial/ethnic past.>>17980547No it didn't. It was literally those who advocated for a new society devoid of the king and those who opposed that project.>>17980554>centrism is when you let the state control the entire nation for the sake of a mythologized pastanon... I..>>17980592Not what neocons usually means. Neocons just means the hawkish conservative liberal in the 2000s who got power.
>>17980530Because vast majority of ye olde institutions and traditions were wiped out by the enlightenment. Then during late 19th century socialism became so popular that liberals and conservatives aligned with each other. Fascism happened as an outlier to this process, but it failed to launch.On top of that, Liberbranianism is an American meme variation of liberalism. USA never really had ye olde institutions and traditions, its thoroughly masonic-liberal project from the start. Hence the only way conservatives differ from liberals is in the relations to niggers, fags and abortions and thus liberals are heavily mixed with conservatives to oppose American leftists (which for some esoteric reason they call liberals).
>>17980530It implies agency and decentralization, so Marxism opposes it.
>>17980530RIGHT WING BASICShttp://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1pi20Rr9_BxBbMIfcZUTTGslfZTifEiCmgoogle drive easy to use interfacedownload the whole blob or pick and choose
>>17980530because all left wing ideologies are based on the state enslaving people >>17980534communist propaganda
>>17980547yuros shit in designated streets and wear women's clothing >>17980599>Left-Libertarianism is a thing, no such thing>and it's basically what a lot of pro-gun Democrats no such thing
>>17980530If you read Hoppe or watch Hoppean video essays ( Which I think Mentiswave is the only one worthy of note ) it becomes kind of obvious why it's right wing.
>>17980534because it ultimately subordinates the nation to the interests of the business owners
>>17980530libertarianism was originally left wing but it failed miserably at doing anything especially once M-Ls started establishing real states. turns out considering having power is inherently evil makes it hard to accomplish your goalsbut eventually euros fleeing persecution brought libertarianism to the US and americans, being delusional bourgeois cocksuckers, turned it into an religious cult completely dedicated to protecting property owners
>>17981320If you read Hoppe without reading Rothbard you're missing the point of Libertarianism, Hoppe is advanced Libertarian thinking.I recommend The Libertarian manifesto, or if you're new to Rothbard anatomy of the state is fantastic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVEBrEjE36kHoppe was Rothbard's most prized student.
>>17981331You know that property was one of the most inherent natural rights according to Locke? Stupid commie.
>>17981325In fascist societies (e.g. China) business owners are subordinated to the government.
>>17981337and do you understand that locke was a liberal and the original libertarians were anti-state socialists?
>>17981348peak langley copechina is a marxist-leninist state. you sound like a retarded librul who calls everything they don't like fascism
>>17981367>china is a marxist-leninist statehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQ5B2xoQQsk
>>17981365Yeah Libertarians stole the word Libertarian from commies, you mad?>>17981348Correct.
It's not. There are both left-libertarians who favor cooperative economics but strong personal freedoms, and right-libertarians who simply favor strong personal freedoms.
any ideology that worships billionares is generally considered as right-wing
>>17982292billionaires didn't exist yet
>>17981294>right wing is when naziKill yourself glownigger
Libertarian is associated with the right because it's fiscally conservative, advocating for spending cuts and tax breaks and overall smaller government bureaucracy. This doesn't have a lot in common with the modern "right wing" government, though.
>>17981021>right wing : wanting to go back to an older model of societyNo, it's about wanting to preserve status quo. It's literally in the name. They "conserve". If they wanted to go back they'd be Revertists.
>>17982325because the republican party was founded by a psychopath
>>17981325literally backwards retard.
There is no common definition is what "right-wing" even means, aside from opposition to whatever is the current left. You can divide the Right into three major ideological blocs based on what tenet they consider their main focus.1. The Economic Right (Libertarians and Classic Liberals)2. The Religious/Cultural Right (Religious Conservatives)3. The Nationalist Right (Ethnonationalists)
When are we as a civilization going to drop the left-right thing? It's clearly not useful as a measure.
>>17984174I think we should honestly. Having your political terminology based entirely on where a couple of french men sat relative to each other is a silly thing.
Probably because most people are paying attention to the economic tenets of Libertarianism.The social tenets are left wing.
>>17984174Depends. What do you consider left wing?>when I can't kill niggersThen no.
The left hates capitalism and the right hates the left. It's that simple.
>>17984174>>17984183I don't think we should.People get lost in the sauce when it comes to this basic dichotomy.Hell, even >>17982658 doesn't understand what the basic difference between left and right are.>>17982658I'll tell you what makes them different. It's to do with hierarchy. The right is more in favor of it, the left isn't so in favor of it. There, it's that simple.
>>17984210>I'll tell you what makes them different. It's to do with hierarchy. The right is more in favor of it, the left isn't so in favor of it. There, it's that simple.Stalin is right wing?
>>17984209Not exactly.democratic socialism and socialism could be looked at as compromises between capitalism and communism.Probably social democracy, but that's a little iffy.
>>17984218Socially: probably. Economically: not so much.
>>17984222Democratic socialism's ultimate goal is explicitly to end capitalism, the only compromise is ditching revolution in favor of democracy. Social democracy is widely understood to be a center to center-left position.
>>17984233>Democratic socialism's ultimate goal is explicitly to end capitalism, the only compromise is ditching revolution in favor of democracyPretty much all the different types of socialism is an exorcise in eventually dissolving capitalism. Which would bring about communism.
>>17984233>>17984245Also, the end result may be a communism of different sorts.
>>17984249all communism is is peak government corruption. They destroy all the institutions and hand the country over to essentially the mafia. That's all the CCP is and also why it's so dysfunctional, because every person in the government is only worried about their internal position in the party and the money they make off of embezzlement
>>17984261The dissolution of the state is a facet of communism as well as the dissolution of currency.Furthermore, the problem with communism (at least as it stands presently) is that all the communist countries are authoritarian.https://www.britannica.com/question/Which-countries-are-communist
>>17981021>for the sake of a mythologized pastthis is wrong. mussolini was a marxist before developing the ideology of fascism. the point of fascism is to have the state mediate the class contradictions of capitalism. it is literally in the middlealso culturally fascists wanted to develop a new culture (especially futurism) while still incorporating stuff of the old, so even by the metric of culture fascists are still centrist, and in fact fascism is true centre. most people who call themselves centrists are simply bugmen npcs that can't think critically about the economy or culture
>>17984630Authoritarianism stems from the destruction of the institutions inherently.
>>17984643You probably shouldn't use Italy to define fascism because they were even bigger larpers than the Nazis
The inherent greed of the fat ape drives wealth up the pyramid, blaming the system is futile. Institutions across the world suffer from the same shit, debating whether its better to have your wealth funnel up to jews or communist or oligarchs is pointless.
>libertarianismSocialism for retarded degenerate Gen X'ers from the Midwest.
>>17980530No regulation or oversight of Greedhead exploiters? Everyone else gets plowed under, except the very Rich; no need for any Justice, and there's no minimum wage or benefits, and no government safety net! The economic rich all but own everyone else! Its real goal is a back-door Fascism!
>>17980547Youre incredibly retarded too
>>17980530We gets dumped on the 'right' by lefries because we're anti-big government, which overlaps with conservatives on economics. But that is a lazy, outdated political spectrum. The real divide is authoritarian vs. libertarian. We are the only ones who are consistently anti-state, whether it is taxing your paycheck, regulating your business, or telling you what you can't put in your own body. The left loves the state for welfare, the right loves it for morality policing. We just want it to leave everyone alone.
>>17980530Muttistan is trying to export their shitty ideology everywhere and as the west becomes shittier the lolberts across the world are aligning with the right to survive. It's a recent thing.They are not even "anti-big government" anymore since the politicians they endorse increase military expenditures and expand the welfare state for servicegoys. It's an ideology that pulls the ladder up for everyone out of spite.
>>17980530leftists are against hierarchical structures and liberalism is a system based on a hierarchical structure.just one created by a market without government intervention.
>>17985428You're
>>17980530right wing = virtue ethics, striving for excellence, people are fundamentally different along several axes, thus treating them differently is justified, by extension hierarchies are good and natural at least insofar they reflect merit, the fundamental social unit is the family headed by the father, eugenics are the best way to shape the futureleft wing = slave morality, striving for equality, people are fundamentally equal among the axes that matter, thus treating them differently is unjust, hierarchies result from oppression and are only good insofar they help dismantle those same systems of oppression, the fundamental social unit is the atomized individual, social engineering is the best way to shape the futureObviously some schools of thought won't fit neatly, valuing excellence over equality in some domains but not in others. Still it is easy to see where the chips fall for most people and movements. Statist vs anarchist is a red herring. The state is but a social technology which can serve different values and masters, which it has. Excellence vs equality is the true line in the sand.
>>17985902> right wing = virtue ethicsAh yeah... The famous paragon of virtue and excellence, donald drumpf. LMAO.
>>17985902>>17985902Sophomore level cereal box reading shite.
>>17984643>"Fascism sees in the world not only those superficial, material aspects in which man appears as an individual, standing by himself, self-centered, subject to natural law, which instinctively urges him toward a life of selfish momentary pleasure; it sees not only the individual but the nation and the country; individuals and generations bound together by a moral law, with common traditions and a mission which suppressing the instinct for life closed in a brief circle of pleasure, builds up a higher life, founded on duty, a life free from the limitations of time and space, in which the individual, by self-sacrifice, the renunciation of self-interest, by death itself, can achieve that purely spiritual existence in which his value as a man consists.">"The Fascist conception of life is a religious one, in which man is viewed in his immanent relation to a higher law—endowed with an objective will that transcends the individual and raises him to conscious membership of a spiritual society.">“The Doctrine of Fascism” (1932) by Benito MussoliniIt's not you fucking retard, at least know the basics before shitting up such nonsense you ape
Here's an actually accurate chart.
>>17980585>>17980588Neoliberalism is economic policy of eliminating state ran services and welfare in favor of privatization and "market solutions" while puppeteering the corpse of the Keynesian state as a "market facilitator" with bailouts and interest rate manipulation and such. This can come in liberal, technocratic "third way" neoliberalism a la Bill Clinton and Tony Blair or more explicitly ideological and social-darwinistic conservative fashion a la Tatcher and Reagan.Neoconservatism is an ultra-hawkish foreign policy of spreading and defending neoliberal economic policy and free trade globally through military force. Not all neoliberals are neocons but all neocons are neoliberals.
>>17986859liberals are anti personal freedom
>>17980530I think libertarianism in the U.S. (represented politically in Congress by politicians such as Thomas Massie and Rand Paul) is really a callback to Thomas Jefferson and the pre-industrial ethic and spirit of the independent yeoman farmer. And part of this is a highly "originalist" reading of the Constitution and its deep suspicion of executive power. Europeans would more likely call it radical liberalism. They have a negative theory of freedom where more state interference = less freedom. They definitely believe in the freedom to engage in commerce.At the time, this was highly progressive relative to the feudal world of Europe in which these people came from. But at any rate, this is more identified as a right-wing ideology today in comparison to modern left-liberalism and socialism. Like the whole concept of "positive rights" where you're not free unless you have a right *to* housing/healthcare/social security doesn't fit into this libertarian worldview.An interesting thing about libertarianism in other countries like Milei in Argentina is that it's very pro-capitalism but also very pro-U.S. in terms of foreign policy. Milei has wanted Argentina to join NATO. But in the U.S., these libertarians are highly suspicious of any "foreign entanglements" because that's what the Founding Fathers thought in the 1790s.
>>17980978>The left-wing became synonymous with government intervention and the good of the whole of society being the responsibility of the individual.I think a big part of it is the rise of modern cities and large industries. The modern left really emerges out of this. And there's always this criticism of libertarians that "oh you're gonna build your own road?" But in Thomas Jefferson's world, you literally built your own road to connect your farm to another road that ended up in a town. This was pre-industrial agrarian frontier America.You see on the right today a lot of suspicion of "experts." It's like "I don't need some experts telling me how to live my life" and "I do my own research." There's deep distrust of any left-wing elite project to socially engineer people. That has an interesting history. A core aspect of the American Revolution and the Jeffersonian ideal is that you "do your own research," because that revolution downgraded intellectual labor to be more on the same level as manual labor. We didn't trust some class of priests or nobles who didn't want to work and did the thinking for everybody else. But nowadays, you can see a lot of (frankly reactionary) attitudes that "doing your own research" is absorbing conspiracy theories or quack remedies. On the other hand, the institutions they rail against can be corrupt.>>17984218>Stalin is right wing?>>17984226>Socially: probably. Economically: not so much.Right and left are always relative in some context. I think within the communist/socialist world and their own specific context, Stalin is more to the right. You have a planned economy in Stalin, but a big part of it was also ending a lot of experiments in the name of social order and stability, which is essentially conservative, and also putting the brakes on supporting communist revolutions in other countries (really).
>>17984210>>17984218>>17984226>>17987115stalin is left wing all the way, he wanted the soviet citizens to be his chattel slaves. left wing ideologies try to install a jewish monarchy and turn the people into slaves
>>17980530Because the whole left / right dichotomy when applied to modern Western politics is fucking stupid. At this point it's based more on who the most recognizable figures of a movement hang out with than anything else.
>>17980530Because the left is broadly define as the pro-equality/pro-socialist policies side and the right is broadly define as the non-lefty side
>>17987561>Constitutionalism is left wing
>>17987621If the people who wrote the constitution saw modern day libertarians' beliefs they would kill themselves out of shame
>>17987670They'd probably start killing minorities
>>17980585>>17987028>>17980592>>17981021There was a high amount of neocons that were discovered to have previously held leftist, particularly Trotskyist views. Obviously commies hate when you compare them to anyone on the right so they immediately went full defensive to deny it all, but there is actually a logical reason why this happened.In the 20th century after the Russian Revolution there were two camps, people who wanted to build up communism in one country (the USSR) and people who wanted to wage continuous war and spread communism as much as possible. Stalin was in the first camp and Trotsky was in the second, and when Trostsky was in power they did all sorts of retarded shit like try to invade Poland and subsequently get their asses kicked. Stalin took power and exiled Trotsky and the rest is history. Since the Soviet Union fell, Stalinism is more or less discredited among anyone who isnt a terminally online discord tranny. However, a lot of Trotskyists are getting a resurgence, since those leftist trannies can claim Trotskyism was never tried since he got deposed. The main argument for Trotskyism nowadays is that the reason "communism in one country" failed is because so many of the smart people and top performers from communist countries left for capitalist countries because they would rather use their inventions to get rich rather than get a medal and a "good job" and still live in the same commie blocks as everyone else. Most people would see this as a good thing, but remember that commies are religiously devoted to communism and would rather force geniuses and hard workers to build their "utopia." Now, if that one communist state conquers the entire world, there is nowhere left to flee to, so those smart and hard working people would have no choice but to "build communism".
>>17988067(cont)Neoconservatism, in contrast to regular conservatism (dont interfere in foreign wars because it is none of our problem) believes in going around and bringing "freedom and democracy" to random third world shitholes (if you're more progressive leaning, additional excuses are that you're granting their women and oppressed ethnic minorities rights). Neoconservatism has a lot of parallels to Trostskyism (we have a perfect system and will spread it by force to "liberate" the unenlightened rest of the world) the only difference is whether that ideal world is communism or liberal democracy. Now, another reason neoconservatism is appealing to leftists and Trotskyites is that they would want the world to truly become monopolar (the US becomes so powerful that it can nab you anywhere on the planet for opposing its will, which is yes untrue because places like Russia or China can still offer some token resistance). If there are no countries that could shield dissidents, a highly interventionist unchallengably powerful USA is essentially a world government, and all they would have to do is then take over that government, and they have the communism (dystopia) they have wet dreams about about
