Most ¨Libertarians¨ are frauds...

As I don't think "left libertarians" can really exist... I can't presume to know what they fundamentally support.... other than maximum "social" liberties, perhaps.....but societal constructs also have an economic component, and as I said, the left doesn't generally subscribe to maximum liberty there (Laissez-faire)

 

Left libertarianism is basically libertarian/anarcho-socialism and libertarian/anarcho-communism. Noam Chomsky is one of the more famous ones, and very anti-government, though I don't agree with him on everything. Another is Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Mikhail Bakunin, Joseph Déjacque, Errico Malatesta, Emma Goldman, Pyotr Kropotkin, etc.

Even Karl Marx was once a left libertarian and friend of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, before going off the reservation and turning into the state-loving father of communism that we know him as.

 

I would argue that it depends on the leftist philosophy. Libertarian socialism, for an example, is, in my opinion, inarguably friendly to maximum liberty.

 

I touched on that in post #40....read it, and get back to me (I'm too tired and lazy to type out another screed on the relationship between socialism and liberty )

 

In Loving v Virginia the US Supreme Court ruled that the "equal protection clause" of the 14th Amendment was applicable (which of course it is) and that "invidious discrimination" under state laws was unconstitutional. In addressing whether a provision created invidious discrimination the Court further clarified this by stating:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0388_0001_ZO.html

Is there a "rational foundation" or rational basis for the discrimination under the law is pivotal in addressing whether a "criteria" as to whether a law violates the "equal protection law" which is why a US Supreme Court decision on California Prop 8, other than the possibility of a "no standing" for the defense which merely results in the Court not making a decision on Prop 8, would be so important. California Prop 8 is unique in the nation because California had legal same-gender (which is the "accurate" statement as the prohibitions are based upon gender and not sexual behavior) which Prop 8 then prohibited. What was the "rational basis" for California to deny a "Right of Marriage" for those previously granted that Right of Marriage? This is different than never allowing same-gender marriage because it cuts to the chase of the "rational basis" for denial of a Right previously granted.

As the California State Supreme Court decision on California Prop 22 and later the 9th District Federal Court decision on California Prop 8 determined there was no "rational basis" for denial of the Fundamental Right to Marry (established in Loving v Virginia) based upon the gender of adults. Denial of the Right to Marry for same-gender couples serves no purpose for the State and these laws are based upon the invidious criteria of the "gender" of the individuals choosing to marry.

While the States can and always have defined "marriage" within the individual State all State Laws and State Constitutions must comply with the US Constitution as the "powers" of the States (and People) are limited based upon the US Constitution (10th Amendment). As applicable to "marriage" laws there is the "Full Faith and Credit Clause" of Article IV Section 1 (all States must give full faith and credit to the official "records" of another State and a marriage license is an "official record" of a State), the 1st Amendment (i.e. laws cannot be based upon Religious Opinion ref. Reynolds v United States), the 9th Amendment (protected unenumerated Rights of the Person) and the "Equal Protection Clause" of the 14th Amendment as noted.

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/98/145/
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0388_0001_ZO.html
http://constitution.findlaw.com/article4/article.html
http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment1/amendment.html
http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment9/amendment.html
http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment10/amendment.html
http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment14/amendment.html

The "Marriage Laws" must comply with all of these Constitutional requirements, and related Supreme Court decisions based upon these Constitutional provisions, and when taken as a whole the prohibitions against "same-gender" marriage fail.

For example, the State of Kansas cannot deny the recognition of the marriage of a couple of the same-gender that are citizens of Washington (where same-gender marriage is legal) if they later move the Kansas because Kansas is required by Article IV to give "full faith and credit" to the marriage under the laws of Washington. DOMA Section 2 has allowed the States to "not recognize" the marriage but DOMA Section 2 is obviously unconstitutional because it violates Article IV's requirement for the States to give full faith and credit to the official records of another State which is required. The laws of the US government cannot violate the US Constitution and DOMA is clearly unconstitutional as it attempts to define marriage, in violation of the 10th Amendment, and excludes States from recognizing the official records of another State in violation of Article IV.

If Kansas must recognize a "same-gender" marriage for a couple from Washington then it cannot deny same-gender marriage to it's own citizens as that would establish "invidious discrimination" agianst its own citizens that lacks a "rational basis" in violation of the 14th Amendment.

Anyone that opposes same-gender (same-sex) marriage is NOT a Libertarian because they do not support compliance to the US Constitution.

As has been noted by some Libertarians actually oppose all marriage laws and the marriage laws themselves are inherently discriminatory. Only under "contract law" (and all marriages are based upon a contract between two consenting adults) is there no discrimination. The establishment of a "contract" between consenting adults is an Inalienable Right of the Person and Libertarianism is based upon the Inalienable Rights of the Person. Under "Libertarian" political ideologies "marriage" should be a matter of personal contract establishing a partnership and it would not prohibit any personal partnership where no one's rights are being violated.

Marriage, under contract law, would not only include same-gender marriage but also those closely related by blood (i.e. incestuous marriage) and polyganmous marriages. We do find a flaw in the US Supreme Court decision that denied polygamy (Reynolds v United States 187 because the Court was self-contractory in it's decision. It first established that the laws cannot be based upon religious opinion, then acknowledged that polygamy existed in different countries, and then made it's decision on only the laws of those nations which were based upon the "Christian" definion of marriage.

 

There is nothing Libertarian about any of those leftists, especially Marx. They had ideas that smacked of Libertarianism, but Libertarianism in their day was Locke and Roussea etc... it already existed. They were departing from it, but keeping some beliefs of personal individual liberty with them, but then destroying all the economic liberty. That doesn't make them the first Libertarians, it makes them one of the founders of the next form of statism that would follow. If trees in a field drop lemons, don't call it an orange grove.

 

You see, the Center of libertarianism is capitalism, which is the complete opposite of what you described as libertarian socialism/communism.
The most famous representatives of the libertarian cause would never go for that.

 

Your characterization of their form of original socialism as being anti-economic freedom is ignorant at best, and dishonest at worst. I would suggest you do a little reading into their actual writings before continuing this line of discussion further.

 

The "center of libertarianism" did not become exclusively capitalist until the formation of the party in the 1970s. Before that (and even still today, though ignorant redefiners try their damndest to make it not so), libertarians were split between socialism/communism and capitalism.

All of this is historical fact.

 

Das kapital sits on my shelf. I am not confused by platitudes. When you can't own what you want you are a slave to whomever decides what you need.

 

If you read what I said, I said Marx was once a libertarian socialist, but went off the reservation and turned into the statist nut we now know him as. In fact, it was his debates with Pierre-Joseph Proudhon that led him to change his beliefs.

And again, I suggest actually studying libertarian socialism from libertarian socialists before commenting further.

 

Oh ok. But you don't seem to understand that socialism and libertarianism can't go together. They are polar opposites.

 

Socialists have been libertarians since the 1600s, possibly earlier. I understand that modern, capitalist, libertarian hipsters think they created libertarianism and own the rights to the philosophy, but they don't. The libertarian socialists are actually more libertarian than many of you modern, capitalist libertarians, because many of you modern, capitalist libertarians advocate for the continuation of the State, albeit at reduced function and capacity. We never have.

 

This is putting the cart in front of the horse.

Libertarianism is based upon the Inalienable Rights of the Person. Libertarians support laizze-faire capitalism because it is an economic philosophy dedicated to the protections of the Rights of the Person. Forms of capitalism (and socialism) where the "outcome" of economic activity is controlled by the government (or collective) violates the Inalienable Rights of the Person which is why Libertarian political ideologies oppose such form of interventionism.

It is the protections of the Inalienable Rights of the Person based upon pragmatic necessity that generates the endorsement of laizze-faire capitalism by Libertarians. Inalienable Rights of the Person are the "cause" and Laizze-Faire Caplitalism is the "effect" and not the other way around.

We can also note that "Libertarianism" today is the evolution of "Classic Liberalism" from the 19th Century as we learn more about the Inalienable Rights of the Person. It is ever expanding as we gain a greater and greater understanding of the Inalienable Rights of the Person that have been violated historically.

For example I'm in a discussion on another forum for Libertarians addressing the Right of Use of the Land between the "nomad" and the "settler" from an Inalienable Rights standpoint. Both have a Right to Use the Land and the Inalienable Rights of one Person cannot conflict with the Inalienable Rights of another Person by definition. We're also discussing the Rights of Property related to real estate as that "Right" is established by the labor of the person. Does a rancher, for example, have a "Right of Property" related to the land their cattle graze upon? The Person has expended no labor related to this land and lacking any expendature of labor they don't logically have a claim to the Use of that Land.

My point would be that Libertarianism that is based upon the Inalienable Rights of the Person is continuing to develop as issues are addressed based upon the foundation of Inalienable Rights of the Person. There have been so many violations of the Inalienable Rights of the Person historically that we're left with many cases where a pragmatic solution needs to be addressed but what about the future. We need to look to our ideals to address both the past as well as looking towards the future and it is an ever-evolving political philosophy based upon the Inalienable Rights of the Person.

 

Socialism is government by other means. I don't buy you vision of anarchy. Illustrate how this society would function and I will show you how pro government you are in practice. Start with currency.

 

In some forms. Not in libertarian/anarcho-socialism, though. We frequently clashed with the authoritarian socialists.

That is your prerogative. It affects me in no way.

None would be necessary.

 

No currency huh? Barterer's dillema every day? I have lived on one of these communes. Great way to work all day to be poor. Try trading bread and getting a car without the ability to save. lol... "Here sir, I have baked 10,000 loaves over the last 3 years and saved them in my barn, please use these loaves to purchase health insurance for your employees". hahaha Go to the doctor..."What is the price of an MRI in candles good sir?" lol...

 

For a moment, I thought we were actually about to have an intelligent, mature debate. Guess my hopes were set too high.

I will say, though, that you may want to re-evaluate your list of "True Scotsmen" capitalist libertarians, because a capitalist libertarian Rousseau was not.

 

Adam Smith then etc... what is your point? Let me take Hayek and Friedman then. It was you who claimed Libertarianism hasn't made recent strides.

I am having a mature debate. The barterer's dillema is real, and how would you account for it? No one is allowed a loan either right? "You hereby agree to bake and deliver 3 loaves of bread each month for the next 60 months, and the quality of the bread is to be of such and such, otherwise we will take you to court where they will reward liquid damages of 50 loaves".

I lived in a commune for longer then you have probably dreamed of one. It is hell. (My family did baking, that is why I use the bread example often. I have lived in these places, I will let you know how it turns out...people leave the commune to bring in currency and then eventually dont want to trade with the commune, so more go out to get currency, and before you know it the commune exists only in name. Because currency has a very valuable function. You would turn civilization back to the time before the Romans came about.)

 

Adam Smith was a statist.

Really? Where?

I never said anything about bartering, you brought it up. Though, of course, I'm not opposed. I do think your characterization of barter-trade as laughably ridiculous is off-base and ignores the fact that it worked quite well for thousands of years.

Commune =/= socialism/communism.

 

I disagree. The center of libertarianism is the principle of non-aggression, natural rights, and self-ownership. It's a political principle. Capitalism is an economic system. Many, if not most, libertarians advocate for a free market. A free market includes the right to organize one's economic affairs however one wishes so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. If you want to live in a commune where you own nothing and everything is shared according to the rules of the commune, that's your right.

 

Maybe they support the original definition of the constitution that the Founders had in mind versus one that has been radically over-interpreted by courts.

 

It is a natural function for a human to engage in economic calculation. Currency is a system that has been discovered by mankind to make economic calculation easier. Why would you want to eliminate it and return to more primitive forms of calculation?

 

The founders left us a constitution for us, not for them. It's ours to do with as we wish.

"The circumstances of the world are continually changing, and the opinions of man change also; and as government is for the living, and not for the dead, it is the living only that has any right in it."
- Thomas Paine

 

I said nothing about eliminating currency. I just said it wouldn't be necessary.