mindstalk | (Reply)

As I mentioned, there are exceptions. I divide libertarianism into right & left libertarianism. Left-libertarianism is pretty much another word for anarchism, which has a long and (sometimes) illustrious history, and today is most often represented by various versions of anarcho-syndicalism and anarcho-communism.

Right-libertarianism is from all the reading I've done largely (or at least originally) a US phenomena started in the 1970s, and while it did not exist during the era of the robber barons, I'm certain they would have been exceptionally happy with it. With its focus on reducing or eliminating taxes, radical property rights, especially regarding land ownership (as opposed to most versions of anarchism, which completely [and IMHO correctly] renounce private ownership of land) and a general emphasis on self-reliance, the resolution of all social problems via private means, and in the extremes a callous and objectivist disregard for the welfare of others, I would claim that it is all about greed and would-be robber barons. The clearest difference between right-libertarianism and almost all other forms of anarchism is its strong support for capitalism, especially unregulated capitalism, which is both directly contrary to most other forms of anarchism, but is also one of the (many) clear indications that the origin of right-libertarianism can be closely tied to the strong conservative turn that US politics tool in the mid to late 1970s.

In any case, I do not believe that left-libertarianism is practical w/o major technological change (it seems to me to be the ideal form of political economy for a post-scarcity world), but I have great sympathy for it. OTOH, right-libertarianism is a right-wing ideology that I find little better than neoconservatism and that I strongly oppose in both our society and in any possible society that I or anyone I care at all about might live in.