What Would Be Your Definition of a Libertarian Progressive?

[vcczar]

What Would Be Your Definition of a Libertarian Progressive? 

One definition might be the supposed Left Libertarianism of Noam Chomsky and Gore Vidal, but the libertarian aspect seems to mostly be in regards to non-intervention and opposition to things like the Patriot Act. Chomsky and Vidal (when Vidal was alive), seem to otherwise embrace progressive domestic policies. They both championed Dennis Kucinich, who was and is pretty much a hybrid of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. I should say that Sanders also opposes war and the Patriot Act; yet, Sander isn't considered a LW Libertarian. 

Going back to 1912, the Progressive fight between La Follette and Roosevelt could be one of Libertarian Progressivism vs National Progressivism. 

I think ideally, I'm something of a Libertarian Progressive, if you remember by advocacy for what I call an "Exception Clause" and "Opt-Out Clause." 

Anyway, if a Libertarian Progressive was said to exist, what do you think that might be in its purest form? 

[Timur]

Would Ron Wyden, Mike Gravel, Tulsi Gabbard, or Glenn Greenwald be in this category?

Edited January 5, 2022 by Timur

[vcczar]

16 minutes ago, Timur said:

Would Ron Wyden, Mike Gravel, Tulsi Gabbard, or Glenn Greenwald be in this category?

Definitely not Wyden. Don't know anything about Greenwald. Gravel definitely and Gabbard is arguably. Gabbard is just really weird, ideologically speaking. 

[Timur]

25 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Definitely not Wyden. Don't know anything about Greenwald. Gravel definitely and Gabbard is arguably. Gabbard is just really weird, ideologically speaking. 

I just remembered that there was also Lincoln Chafee...

[Timur]

Just now, Timur said:

I just remembered that there was also Lincoln Chafee...

In fact, Ontheissues.org classifies him as a Libertarian-leaning Progressive

[MrPotatoTed]

I’m not sure that progressive libertarianism makes sense.  You either believe in every man for himself, or you believe in reaching down to lift up those in worse circumstances.  There are steps in between, to be sure, but not overlap.  
 

Then again, this is coming from someone (me) who has described his own beliefs as “Dick Cheney Democrat — I believe in freedom for all, and killing those who disagree.” Ha.  So, take my critique with a grain of salt.

 

if anything, maybe it’s like the people who say things like “I’m a fiscal conservative, social liberal”, because they want to cut benefits/entitlements but they’re trying to not be racist about it.

[vcczar]

16 minutes ago, Patine said:

I'm not even sure what Libertarian or Progressive are supposed to MEAN anymore in this rhetorical pasta. Clarity of definition is REALLY needed first.

Here's how I define a Libertarian - A person who believes that personal liberty should be free of government regulation as a fulfillment of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. 

Here's how I define a Progressive - A person who believes government is of, by, and for the people and aught to be used for ethical/moral purposes and to fulfill philosophical ideal of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all its citizens. 

The issue is that there's a contradiction here. Libertarians tend to see the idea of government as evil and inefficient. Progressives tend to see the idea of government as good and more efficient than a decentralized alternative to fulfilling goals. I think both are hand-in-hand in regards to anti-war, anti-National Security state, pro-reform, anti-corruption, and dislike of establishment politicians. Both are aiming for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but they have differing ideas on how that is achieved. 

The difficulty is that liberty, freedom, happiness, "life," etc. cut two ways. I was watching a documentary recently about a man that was obsessed with Christmas. He moved to a small community in Idaho so that he could cover his house in Christmas lights and invite thousands of "pilgrims" to come see the lights. Music, food, entertainment, etcetera all present as well. It was so popular that buses were busing people to his house. 

The issue is that he was in a neighborhood that was part of a housing association. The neighbors were nearly unanimous in that they didn't want the Christmas festival there because it was loud, it blocked the streets so they couldn't get in and out of their driveways, it filled their streets with thousands of people, and it carried on for several days. The Housing Association claimed he violated their agreement. He claimed religious reasons and turned it into a fight for religious liberty and personal freedoms. 

Keep in mind that this is a conservative, Christian neighborhood in Idaho. This Christmas fanatic was spinning them to be atheistic, pro-regulation neighbors. In the process, he was turning some of the hordes of visitors against his neighbors, who now believed it was an atheistic community of liberals. He even got help from the Three-Percenters, a group that helped storm the capital on Jan 6th. His claim for "personal freedoms" and "religious liberties" completely encroached on the freedoms and liberties of his 100 or so neighbors. 

He sort of represents how I think about a huge portion of Libertarians. I see it as egocentric--and often heartless--selfishness. The thing with Progressivism is that it is the opposite of that since it's generally about catering to the mass of the population. The most selfish thing about it is that it generally taxes the rich more than the poor, but a lot of that money goes to services that they and their family will be able to use as well. 

One thing that might make me more of a Libertarian Progressive is that I prefer Progressivism to be done at the state level. I'd have a federal alternative to state programs that serve as a kind of pace car. If a state is meeting or exceeding the pace car, I wouldn't federally intervene in their state, but if they cannot keep up or refuse to keep up, then I intervene. I would make allowances for states in which they refuse to keep up and the people in need in that state support that refusal. For instance, if large districts in Mississippi are having something of a healthcare crisis or high unemployment, I would need them to support their state government's stance of refusal for federal interference. Basically, if the state government refuses to help a portion of it's citizens in this instance, then it is negligence in my opinion. I'd be happy to give that state money to do it themselves if they have a progressive-oriented plan in carrying it out. 

[vcczar]

1 hour ago, Patine said:

Tangential, and related, question. Are Housing Associations and Neighbourhood Watch organizations considered to be a form and level of, "government," of some sort of recognition, in the U.S., or, "consensual private initiatives," like farming co-ops in other parts of the world are (including Alberta as a major feature of it's history - the United Farmers of Alberta period of Provincial Government, three Premiers between the end of the Liberal period in 1921, until the massive electoral upset that brought the Social Credit to power in 1935, relied heavily on farming co-ops for support)?

I don't know. @MrPotatoTed might know more as he's more of a suburbanite. 

[MrPotatoTed]

1 hour ago, vcczar said:

Here's how I define a Libertarian - A person who believes that personal liberty should be free of government regulation as a fulfillment of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. 

Here's how I define a Progressive - A person who believes government is of, by, and for the people and aught to be used for ethical/moral purposes and to fulfill philosophical ideal of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all its citizens. 

The issue is that there's a contradiction here. Libertarians tend to see the idea of government as evil and inefficient. Progressives tend to see the idea of government as good and more efficient than a decentralized alternative to fulfilling goals. I think both are hand-in-hand in regards to anti-war, anti-National Security state, pro-reform, anti-corruption, and dislike of establishment politicians. Both are aiming for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but they have differing ideas on how that is achieved. 

The difficulty is that liberty, freedom, happiness, "life," etc. cut two ways. I was watching a documentary recently about a man that was obsessed with Christmas. He moved to a small community in Idaho so that he could cover his house in Christmas lights and invite thousands of "pilgrims" to come see the lights. Music, food, entertainment, etcetera all present as well. It was so popular that buses were busing people to his house. 

The issue is that he was in a neighborhood that was part of a housing association. The neighbors were nearly unanimous in that they didn't want the Christmas festival there because it was loud, it blocked the streets so they couldn't get in and out of their driveways, it filled their streets with thousands of people, and it carried on for several days. The Housing Association claimed he violated their agreement. He claimed religious reasons and turned it into a fight for religious liberty and personal freedoms. 

Keep in mind that this is a conservative, Christian neighborhood in Idaho. This Christmas fanatic was spinning them to be atheistic, pro-regulation neighbors. In the process, he was turning some of the hordes of visitors against his neighbors, who now believed it was an atheistic community of liberals. He even got help from the Three-Percenters, a group that helped storm the capital on Jan 6th. His claim for "personal freedoms" and "religious liberties" completely encroached on the freedoms and liberties of his 100 or so neighbors. 

He sort of represents how I think about a huge portion of Libertarians. I see it as egocentric--and often heartless--selfishness. The thing with Progressivism is that it is the opposite of that since it's generally about catering to the mass of the population. The most selfish thing about it is that it generally taxes the rich more than the poor, but a lot of that money goes to services that they and their family will be able to use as well. 

One thing that might make me more of a Libertarian Progressive is that I prefer Progressivism to be done at the state level. I'd have a federal alternative to state programs that serve as a kind of pace car. If a state is meeting or exceeding the pace car, I wouldn't federally intervene in their state, but if they cannot keep up or refuse to keep up, then I intervene. I would make allowances for states in which they refuse to keep up and the people in need in that state support that refusal. For instance, if large districts in Mississippi are having something of a healthcare crisis or high unemployment, I would need them to support their state government's stance of refusal for federal interference. Basically, if the state government refuses to help a portion of it's citizens in this instance, then it is negligence in my opinion. I'd be happy to give that state money to do it themselves if they have a progressive-oriented plan in carrying it out. 

Ha, that's an interesting situation with the Christmas guy.  Especially if he moved there for that express purpose, it's baffling that he would want to move to somewhere with a HOA in place, which is all about uniformity.  We refuse to buy houses with HOAs because of that kind of thing.  That said, I'm Team HOA in this case -- I'm all for you having your religious freedom...but if your religious freedom means there's a bus blocking my driveway, we're about to have ourselves a Holy War.  ;c)

Main problem with your state plan is that no state would agree to do anything out of their own budget if the punishment for refusing is that they receive more money from the federal government. Haha.  At which point, you don't have a state plan -- you have a federal plan.

 

[MrPotatoTed]

1 hour ago, Patine said:

Tangential, and related, question. Are Housing Associations and Neighbourhood Watch organizations considered to be a form and level of, "government," of some sort of recognition, in the U.S., or, "consensual private initiatives," like farming co-ops in other parts of the world are (including Alberta as a major feature of it's history - the United Farmers of Alberta period of Provincial Government, three Premiers between the end of the Liberal period in 1921, until the massive electoral upset that brought the Social Credit to power in 1935, relied heavily on farming co-ops for support)?

To my knowledge, it's handled like a contract -- you agree to abide by the terms and bylaws and whatnot, and if you fail to do so, you are fined for violating the contract.

[MrPotatoTed]

Just now, MrPotatoTed said:

To my knowledge, it's handled like a contract -- you agree to abide by the terms and bylaws and whatnot, and if you fail to do so, you are fined for violating the contract.

And if you're wondering "Well, why would anyone sign it?", the upside is that you don't end up with neighbors who graffiti their own house and leave broken cars on their unmowed lawns and whatever else, which would have ruined your own home's value when you're looking to sell.

But for us, it's not worth the hassle of getting fined for mowing our grass too short or whatever.  We've been very fortunate to live in a neighborhood where everybody takes pride in their homes to the best of their ability -- succumbing to peer pressure sometimes, maybe, but not with the threat of a fine behind it.

[vcczar]

3 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

But for us, it's not worth the hassle of getting fined for mowing our grass too short or whatever.  We've been very fortunate to live in a neighborhood where everybody takes pride in their homes to the best of their ability -- succumbing to peer pressure sometimes, maybe, but not with the threat of a fine behind it.

I would get fined so often. I have no interest in mowing yards or anything like that. 

[Zenobiyl]

Calvin Coolidge. Libertarian in the modern sense of the word. Progressive in the old sense of the word (4th party system).

[jvikings1]

5 hours ago, MrPotatoTed said:

To my knowledge, it's handled like a contract -- you agree to abide by the terms and bylaws and whatnot, and if you fail to do so, you are fined for violating the contract.

HOA's are not entirely contractual. In some cases, they are considered a governmental entity of their own. For example, it is very difficult for an HOA to ban political canvassing in the neighborhood even if a neighborhood rule is in effect. They basically have to shut the neighborhood off from anyone to do that.

[MrPotatoTed]

1 hour ago, jvikings1 said:

HOA's are not entirely contractual. In some cases, they are considered a governmental entity of their own. For example, it is very difficult for an HOA to ban political canvassing in the neighborhood even if a neighborhood rule is in effect. They basically have to shut the neighborhood off from anyone to do that.

I’m not sure I understand your counter example.  Political canvassers (usually) aren’t the people who signed the contract.  Only people who signed can be held accountable for it.  (Though if you want to buy a house that is in a HOA neighborhood, you usually have to be approved by the HOA first — which usually means you have to sign the contract too.

 

But I don’t think HOA’s can ban political canvassing, or door to door salesmen, or Girl Scouts hawking cookies.  They have no authority over people who didn’t sign the contract/

[jvikings1]

14 hours ago, MrPotatoTed said:

I’m not sure I understand your counter example.  Political canvassers (usually) aren’t the people who signed the contract.  Only people who signed can be held accountable for it.  (Though if you want to buy a house that is in a HOA neighborhood, you usually have to be approved by the HOA first — which usually means you have to sign the contract too.

 

But I don’t think HOA’s can ban political canvassing, or door to door salesmen, or Girl Scouts hawking cookies.  They have no authority over people who didn’t sign the contract/

It’s not a counter example but one of when HOAs have been deemed to be a subset of government. Some HOAs will try to boot political canvassed because it’s against neighborhood rules. But they can’t enforce that rule in many circumstances. Door to door salesman are different because that’s actual soliciting (unlike canvassing).

If you want one of homeowners, there has been plenty of discussion about whether an HOA can ban political yard signs, and there’s a good case to be made that they cannot. To my knowledge, it hasn’t been addressed by the Supreme Court like political canvassing has, but I believe some lower courts have addressed it at least.

[jvikings1]

3 hours ago, Patine said:

You can't freely canvass inside of highrise apartment buildings, either, if the landlord doesn't want you in the building. Are highrise apartment complexes subsets of government?

Typically the postal man is not allowed in either (and delivers mail to boxes outside). That is a common test to whether canvassers are allowed or not.

[Edouard]

On 1/5/2022 at 4:55 PM, vcczar said:

What Would Be Your Definition of a Libertarian Progressive? 

One definition might be the supposed Left Libertarianism of Noam Chomsky and Gore Vidal, but the libertarian aspect seems to mostly be in regards to non-intervention and opposition to things like the Patriot Act. Chomsky and Vidal (when Vidal was alive), seem to otherwise embrace progressive domestic policies. They both championed Dennis Kucinich, who was and is pretty much a hybrid of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. I should say that Sanders also opposes war and the Patriot Act; yet, Sander isn't considered a LW Libertarian. 

Going back to 1912, the Progressive fight between La Follette and Roosevelt could be one of Libertarian Progressivism vs National Progressivism. 

I think ideally, I'm something of a Libertarian Progressive, if you remember by advocacy for what I call an "Exception Clause" and "Opt-Out Clause." 

Anyway, if a Libertarian Progressive was said to exist, what do you think that might be in its purest form? 

I don't know

According to me a Libertarian is a non-interventionnist in almost everything, wars, trade, society

I don't see how there would be "wings" if it's not to portrait ideologies which have issues to be identified, like the famous liberal conservative created to put social conservatives who are fiscally liberal in europe somewhere

[WVProgressive]

I think it could be argued that Rojava is a Libertarian Progressive (Or more accurately a Libertarian Socialist) state, so long as you don’t require that someone support capitalism in order to be a Libertarian.

[The Blood]

56 minutes ago, WVProgressive said:

I think it could be argued that Rojava is a Libertarian Progressive (Or more accurately a Libertarian Socialist) state, so long as you don’t require that someone support capitalism in order to be a Libertarian.

While I don't consider myself a socialist, I think a discussion on libertarianism both has to admit the ideology's roots from the left, and the real nature of the coercion, primarily economic, which I think both capitalist and socialist libertarians consider themselves opposed to. Because right-wing libertarianism is opposed to state intervention in the economy, and from their arguments I've heard this is because of the coercive nature of the state through taxation, economic regulations, and mandatory government programs. However, I also think left-wing libertarians are opposed to economic coercion as well, not just because they are wary of state power, but because they oppose the private coercion which is found in a capitalist mode of production, found in its worst forms in poorly regulated economies with poor worker protections, a shaky social safety net, and weak unions, where workers are left at the whim of broader corporate decisions, pay, and demands. Of course, as I said, I'm a capitalist, I believe that this coercion can be minimized while maintaining a capitalist mode of production, with the economic freedoms of our people protected through a strengthened and more effective social safety net and a defense of collective worker action. I just think it's important to accept left-libertarianism as a valid ideology, and to view it in the context of the coercion libertarianism opposes. Because while right-wing libertarians oppose the coercion of the state, left-wing libertarians oppose the coercion of both the state and the capitalist mode of production which they wish to overthrow.