Creatures of the economic right and social left, please show yourselves...

I hope no one thinks I am too forward here, but I would like to post a poll. I would like to get a feel for who I am talking to here, and perhaps collect some allies along the way.

After perusing many of the posts, I see that many people here are on the political left, socially and economically, as I used to be. I'd just like to post this poll to find out how many allies I have here.

Thanks

Edit: Of course, anyone can post on this thread, but I am not terribly interested in responses by partisan Republicans who cheered on BushCo for 8 years, voted for McCain/Palin, and are only now interested in true conservative principles because Obama is in office.

[Caine]

Your poll choices have some rather serious overlaps. Probably should have made it multi-choice. And included an option for people who aren't any of them but want to see the poll results without clicking it.

Originally Posted by Caine

Your poll choices have some rather serious overlaps. Probably should have made it multi-choice.

No, I wanted to find out what term people prefer. Yes, a paleo-conservative is nearly identical to a classical liberal, but some people prefer to refer to themselves as one and some as the other. Making it single choice forces the polled person to choose what term he (or she) thinks best describes him (or her).

And, if this forum works like other vbb forums, you can see the results by clicking the link that says "view current results" or something like that.

[Caine]

Originally Posted by The AntiFrederalist

No, I wanted to find out what term people prefer. Yes, a paleo-conservative is nearly identical to a classical liberal, but some people prefer to refer to themselves as one and some as the other. Making it single choice forces the polled person to choose what term he (or she) thinks best describes him (or her).

You want to know which has the most aesthetic appeal?

And, if this forum works like other vbb forums, you can see the results by clicking the link that says "view current results" or something like that.

Yes, but it redirects you to another page, so you can't see them at the same time as the thread.

Originally Posted by Caine

You want to know which has the most aesthetic appeal?

No, I want to know how people of the economic right and social left on this forum self-identify.

Moreover, these little nuanced differences do say quite a lot about the person's intellectual background. If he calls himself an anti-federalist, then he is more likely than not to be well versed in the writings of Henry, Samuel Adams, Jefferson, Monroe etc. If he self identifies as a Rothbardian, he probably has read For a New Liberty and/or The Ethics of Liberty. If he self identifies as a paleo-con, he probably reads Pat Buchanan, or maybe some of the earlier (true) conservatives, like Albert Jay Nock or John T. Flynn.

Get it?

[Caine]

Originally Posted by The AntiFrederalist

No, I want to know how people of the economic right and social left on this forum self-identify.

Moreover, these little nuanced differences do say quite a lot about the person's intellectual background. If he calls himself an anti-federalist, then he is more likely than not to be well versed in the writings of Henry, Samuel Adams, Jefferson, Monroe etc. If he self identifies as a Rothbardian, he probably has read For a New Liberty and/or The Ethics of Liberty. If he self identifies as a paleo-con, he probably reads Pat Buchanan, or maybe some of the earlier (true) conservatives, like Albert Jay Nock or John T. Flynn.

Get it?

Not really. For example I don't see any distinction between a Rothbardian and an anarcho-capitalist.

Originally Posted by Caine

Not really. For example I don't see any distinction between a Rothbardian and an anarcho-capitalist.

There are several different flavors of anarcho-capitalist: People who are Rothbardians and base their anarcho-capitalism on natural law; people who are Friedmanites (as in David, not Milton Friedman) and base their anarcho-capitalism on utilitarianism (something Rothbard was against); and those who base their anarcho-capitalism on Objectivism, as in the book, The Market for Liberty by the Tannehills.

[Mr. B]

I voted libertarian. My heart is with the anarchists, but my mind won't commit to it. I'll settle for the minimal state, as described in Robert Nozick's magnum opus "Anarchy, State and Utopia".

Here was my score on that crazy, and very biased, Political Compass test:

Economic Left/Right: 8.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.05

Originally Posted by Caine

Not really. For example I don't see any distinction between a Rothbardian and an anarcho-capitalist.

Hey, you got me thinking, though. I perhaps should have offered the three different kinds of anarcho-capitalism (or four, if you count Dr. Robert Murphy's anarcho-capitalism -- which he bases on the high points of the other three kinds).

Another thing, that might have been challenging, but perhaps fun, would be to list them in order from more authoritarian to the least authoritarian. I suppose Paleo-con would be the most authoritarian, since paleo-cons believe in international protectionism and heavy handed immigration policies, and anarcho-capitalism would be the least authoritarianism.

[Mr. B]

Well, for what it's worth, I scored:

EL/R: 5.50
SL/A: -4.82

[Caine]

Originally Posted by The AntiFrederalist

Hey, you got me thinking, though. I perhaps should have offered the three different kinds of anarcho-capitalism (or four, if you count Dr. Robert Murphy's anarcho-capitalism -- which he bases on the high points of the other three kinds).

You should certainly have stuck Objectivism in there.

Another thing, that might have been challenging, but perhaps fun, would be to list them in order from more authoritarian to the least authoritarian. I suppose Paleo-con would be the most authoritarian, since paleo-cons believe in international protectionism and heavy handed immigration policies, and anarcho-capitalism would be the least authoritarianism.

People's definitions of authoritarianism tend to vary a lot. Imposing a system of natural law with no requirement of consent seems extremely authoritative to me. Rothbard simply replaces governmental authority with moral authority (and not just any moral authority, his own moral authority). However, it is not authoritarian, because that is technically a seperate form of government.

I do not consider "authoritarianism" to be a useful political label when applied to anything but a system of government. Even then, it is more useful to use more detailed labels like "dictatorship" and "oligarchy". Using it as a measure of other systems of government is confusing and usually misleading.

Originally Posted by Caine

Imposing a system of natural law with no requirement of consent seems extremely authoritative to me.

I am not aware of anyone who endorses such a thing.

Originally Posted by Caine

Rothbard simply replaces governmental authority with moral authority (and not just any moral authority, his own moral authority).

No, Rothbard explains the ancient concept of natural law, and boils it down to two basic laws:

1) Do all that you have promised and
2) Do not encroach on other people, or their property, without their consent

In Rothbardian anarchism, nothing is imposed on anyone. Both of his books on the subject are online for free, in both pdf and in audiobook form, if you would like to read them.

[wufwugy]

nm

[Caine]

Originally Posted by The AntiFrederalist

I am not aware of anyone who endorses such a thing.

Of course you are. You demonstrate it in your next sentence:

No, Rothbard explains the ancient concept of natural law, and boils it down to two basic laws:

1) Do all that you have promised and
2) Do not encroach on other people, or their property, without their consent

Those are two laws that apparently should be imposed without the consent of the governed, because they are "natural".

Claiming that (2) is a "natural law" is actually self-contradictory. Imposing it on me encroaches on me without my consent, does it not? I certainly have never given explicit consent for anyone to ban me from encroaching on anyone else.

In Rothbardian anarchism, nothing is imposed on anyone. Both of his books on the subject are online for free, in both pdf and in audiobook form, if you would like to read them.

I have read enough of his work to know it is philosophically unsound, because under no circumstances would I agree to such a system of government. Therefore, if it existed, it would impose on me.

Originally Posted by Caine

Of course you are. You demonstrate it in your next sentence:



Those are two laws that apparently should be imposed without the consent of the governed, because they are "natural".

Claiming that (2) is a "natural law" is actually self-contradictory. Imposing it on me encroaches on me without my consent, does it not? I certainly have never given explicit consent for anyone to ban me from encroaching on anyone else.

I have read enough of his work to know it is philosophically unsound, because under no circumstances would I agree to such a system of government. Therefore, if it existed, it would impose on me.

Rothbard never suggests imposing anything on anyone. Rothbard specifically says that if a group want to create a communist enclave, within the stateless society, he doesn't have a problem with that, provided they aren't coercing anyone to join. Moreover, he also says that if someone just really, really needs a government, they have the option of hiring people to tell them what to do, and take money from them to pay for the service.

Nowhere in Rothbard is there even a hint that he thinks natural law should be "imposed" on someone. I can't even imagine someone saying that, as it makes no sense.

[Caine]

Originally Posted by The AntiFrederalist

Rothbard never suggests imposing anything on anyone. Rothbard specifically says that if a group want to create a communist enclave, within the stateless society, he doesn't have a problem with that, provided they aren't coercing anyone to join. Moreover, he also says that if someone just really, really needs a government, they have the option of hiring people to tell them what to do, and take money from them to pay for the service.

Nowhere in Rothbard is there even a hint that he thinks natural law should be "imposed" on someone. I can't even imagine someone saying that, as it makes no sense.

I don't want an enclave, I don't want a private government, I want a state society.

Rothbard's system would impose on me. There can be no other way. All governments impose on people, even the ones that claim they are intended to remove all imposition.

Originally Posted by Caine

I don't want an enclave, I don't want a private government, I want a state society.

Rothbard's system would impose on me. There can be no other way. All governments impose on people, even the ones that claim they are intended to remove all imposition.

I suggest you abstain from holding strong opinions about things you don't understand. <edit>

I also recommend a nice dictionary. Oh look, here's one.

[Caine]

Originally Posted by The AntiFrederalist

I suggest you abstain from holding strong opinions about things you don't understand. <edit>

I also recommend a nice dictionary. Oh look, here's one.

What do you believe I do not understand? What definition do I lack?

It is also against the rules to call people dumb here.

[Tammuz]

Well I'm economically right-wing by Swedish standards, not really sure if I am by American standards. And I'm socially liberal, certainly by both Swedish and American standards.

Though I haven't solved the puzzle if it because of consequentialist/utilitarian reasons, or because freedom having an instrinsical value (i.e a value in itself), or because of some combination of both. Or merely because I like it so.

Originally Posted by Caine

What do you believe I do not understand? What definition do I lack?

It is also against the rules to call people dumb here.

I don't recall calling you dumb.

[Caine]

Originally Posted by The AntiFrederalist

I don't recall calling you dumb.

Fine we'll let the mods sort it out then.

Now please tell me what definition I lack, or do not understand.

Originally Posted by Caine

Fine we'll let the mods sort it out then.

Now please tell me what definition I lack, or do not understand.

Here's a hint: nothing you said was accurate.

Edit: it's not fair of me to not give at least some specifics here: Rothbard's "system" is totally voluntary. It supposes a breakaway group. You don't have to breakaway with them. And if once you get there, you don't like it, you can leave. There is no imposition of anything. It is certainly not a government, especially going by Prof. Hoppe's definition of government: A territorial monopolist of ultimate decision making power, and assumed in that, a monopolist of taxation.

[Caine]

Originally Posted by The AntiFrederalist

Here's a hint: nothing you said was accurate.

Edit: it's not fair of me to not give at least some specifics here: Rothbard's "system" is totally voluntary. It supposes a breakaway group. You don't have to breakaway with them. And if once you get there, you don't like it, you can leave. There is no imposition of anything. It is certainly not a government, especially going by Prof. Hoppe's definition of government: A territorial monopolist of ultimate decision making power, and assumed in that, a monopolist of taxation.

Ah but that is a purely theoretical situation is it not?

Rothbard made no attempt that I am aware of to form such a breakaway group, and instead involved himself in US national politics.

Certainly it is not contradictory if this libertopia is purely voluntary, but that also means that you cannot argue for a representative democracy to adopt such a system, and you cannot argue issues within a representative democracy using rothbardian reasoning.

No representative democracy has adopted the rothbardian natural laws, so anything you have derived from such laws is of no consequence unless you exist in one of these fictional libertopian colonies. It makes no sense for Rothbard to try to encourage the adoption of his concepts in a place where the laws he derived them from did not exist. It makes no real sense for him to involve himself in politics at all.

Originally Posted by Caine

Ah but that is a purely theoretical situation is it not?

Rothbard made no attempt that I am aware of to form such a breakaway group, and instead involved himself in US national politics.

Certainly it is not contradictory if this libertopia is purely voluntary, but that also means that you cannot argue for a representative democracy to adopt such a system, and you cannot argue issues within a representative democracy using rothbardian reasoning.

No representative democracy has adopted the rothbardian natural laws, so anything you have derived from such laws is of no consequence unless you exist in one of these fictional libertopian colonies. It makes no sense for Rothbard to try to encourage the adoption of his concepts in a place where the laws he derived them from did not exist. It makes no real sense for him to involve himself in politics at all.

They aren't Rothbardian laws. They aren't his concepts. These laws date back to the early middle ages. They were in the minds of the founders of this country. It's the natural law. Haven't you ever heard of it before? Literally all of the founders I have read spoke and wrote of it. Many of them complained about legal positivism because it was anathema to the natural law.

Why on earth would you suppose that these are Rothbard's concepts? They are the very founding principles of this country. This is why many of the Revolutionary generation considered the Constitutional Convention to be a coup de'tat. They viewed the Constitution as a step backwards in the history of American liberty. Rothbard viewed it as an about face.

Here, of course, I am assuming you are American. You might not be.