The United States is an incredibly politically polarized society with much of the population divided between the Republican and Democrat parties. Political discourse is split into a false dichotomy where one is presumed to belong to one if they disagree with the other. I don't know how severe this phenomenon is in other countries, but I suspect there is at least a degree of the same sentiment.
I am a small-'L' libertarian, meaning I don't belong to the Libertarian Party, but I find myself in agreement with the general philosophy of libertarianism. In short, this can be summed up in the non-aggression principle (NAP): it is always wrong to initiate coercive force against peaceful people. Of course, this requires layers of debate and philosophy to determine the scope of individual spheres of authority and the point where trespass occurs, but life, liberty, and property acquired within the scope of the NAP are the fundamental boundaries.
Governments operate through violating the NAP. Taxation, eminent domain, regulatory overreach, license requirements, mandatory contractual impositions, prohibition laws, arbitrary fines or prison sentencing, numerous victimless crime laws, war, capital punishment, and routine police abuse barely scratch the surface. Government is presented as an institution which serves to protect our liberty and maintain an orderly society, but I contend that society predates the State, and progress happens in spite of political intervention rather than because of it.
All of this is to say that I may find myself in agreement with either Democrats or Republicans on specific issues, at least in rhetoric if not their legislative actions. This can be lazily presented as straddling the fence in a middle ground fallacy, but my deeper principles guide my arguments, not an appeal to moderation. I am an extremist when it comes to liberty.
Here's a quick-and-dirty chart showing a selection of topics where I stand on several key topics as an example. This isn't a complete endorsement or repudiation, mind you, because these are all complex issues with diverse opinions on each even within partisan circles.
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Gun regulation | X | ✔ |
| Immigration restrictions* | ✔ | X |
| Business regulation | X | ✔ |
| Drug prohibition | ✔ | X |
| War** | X | ✔ |
| Library access | ✔ | X |
*I get the conservative opposition to profligate welfare handouts at the expense of the working citizen, but not the rabid nationalism or latent xenophobia.
**Isn't it weird that (broadly speaking) over the past 10 years, the Democrats have become more openly belligerent and interventionist while Republicans have drifted away from such positions?
You can see how at first glance, this might seem like cherry-picking positions as a wishy-washy compromise, but my stance is rooted in holding individual liberty and personal responsibility above political authority.
Gun ownership, whether legal or illegal, is not inherently a violation of anyone's life, liberty, or property. Self-defense is a natural right derived from the right to life, and using punitive actions or threats of force to restrict people from owning the most effective technological means to defend themselves is trespass.
Immigration, whether legal or illegal, is not inherently a violation of anyone's life, liberty, or property. Crossing a government border is not equivalent to trespassing on private property, and hring a worker without government documentation and approval is not a crime either.
Running a business, whether licensed or unlicensed, is not inherently a violation of anyone's life, liberty, or property. Trade is an ancient human solution to fulfill wants and needs with archaeological evidence of prehistoric peaceful exchange of goods across vast regions.
Consuming drugs, whether legal or illegal, is not inherently a violation of anyone's life, liberty, or property. The right to "pursuit of happiness" includes the right to err in the pursuit, and vices are not crimes.
War is, however, inherently a violation of life, liberty, and property at home and abroad from taxation, conscription, trade barriers, property destruction on a vast scale, and mass slaughter of soldiers and civilians alike.
Restricting access to library books based on appeals to puritanical control-freak authoritarianism doesn't rise to the scale of war atrocities, but it's not good, either. Government has no authority to act in loco parentis and enact sweeping restrictions on literature a portion of the public dislikes.
The principle of each individual's authority over their own lives and opposition to individual or institutional trespass against the same leads to my position on various issues. As such, I will cheer Donald Trump for freeing Ross Ulbricht even as I criticize his trade and immigration policies. This is why both the cult of personality surrounding the MAGA Republican movement and the Trump Derangement Syndrome from Democrats both irritate me.
The real debates within society are not left versus right, or even necessarily individualist versus collectivist, but liberty versus tyranny. It is consent versus coercion. Do you ever side with aggression in the sense of initiatory coercive force, or do you oppose it without exception? If you examine complex issues through this lens, it may help untangle many divisive issues so they can be understood and addressed rationally instead of resorting the typical partisan appeals to emotion.
Relevant quotations:
"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."—John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (1869)
"Therefore, whatever you desire for men to do to you, you shall also do to them; for this is the law and the prophets." (Matthew 7:12, WEB)
Ahimsa Paramo Dharma (अहिंसा परमॊ धर्मः): "non-violence is the highest moral virtue."
Primum non nocere [ˈpriːmũː noːn nɔˈkeːrɛ]: "first, do no harm."
A few counter-arguments:
*- The "dissident left" as I call them (or "woke right" as James Lindsay calls them) believes in secure borders precisely because they want universal welfare, and know that system is unsustainable without a stable population and labour force. Dissident leftists tend to agree with libertarians on everything except that and business regulations, and are split on gun regulations.
** - Good luck trying to convince partisan Democrats and even disaffected "progressives" that bit is even true. Even according to the ones who acknowledge the Dems' warmongering, they will insist that the Republicans are worse. As before, only dissident leftists are willing to acknowledge that the Republicans are no longer the party of Shrub, case in point: Jimmy Dore.
Bullet Point 3 - Private ownership of the means of production is inherently exploitative according to people so far to the left that they see the Dems as a right-wing party. My former history professor and favourite punching bag is one such person, and he's a HUGE fan of Mill, despite also being one of those twats who has repeatedly advocated for mandatory community service.
You already know where I stand on these issues, but what would you say to the people in these specific categories?
Oh, and follow-up: could you at least create a Substack profile so that I can add you as an author if you let me use portions of your writing in my own articles?
All of that is why I said, "...the current partisan rhetoric on several key topics [...] these are all complex issues with diverse opinions on each even within partisan circles."
And I don't require attribution. Use away. Quote, misquote, dissect, defame, IDGAF. I am tired of creating accounts. It's my inner boomer, maybe, but I need a break from new logins and passwords.
As for the anti-propertarian left, nothing in my philosophy prohibits them from choosing mutualist cooperatives or whatever they think works better. I want them to be free to succeed or fail according to the merits of their ideas and their dedication to their ideology based on consent and cooperation too, just like everyone else.
Touched a nerve, have I?
Kidding, kidding (mostly), but a serious follow-up regarding the "anti-propertarian left": have you ever heard the self-ownership denial argument? One particular version, espoused by the DOJ no less, is "taxation is not theft because money is not your property." Federal Reserve technicalities aside, we need to come up with some better philosophical arguments, because Mises no longer has the final word on these matters on account of statist thinkers working overtime recently. If you can recall, I directed you to a hilarious strawman of libertarianism about a year ago, and while that guy took the coward's way out and disabled comments on his entire website, more like him have popped up. They are smart enough to see past the false dichotomy of American partisan politics, and label libertarians explicitly as "an even greater existential threat than MAGA."
Mate, these people are huge fans of Mill, and they are afraid of us. The hell is going on?
What I have heard denying self-ownership usually sounds like flat-earther denial of curvature. "If I refuse to acknowledge it, it doesn't exist, even if the mere fact that I am trying to present a dissent necessarily suggests at least self-ownership of intellect." Maybe there are better arguments out there
As for the Fed and fiat, their argument would hold up better if they weren't also out to tax crypto and destroy projects like the NORFED dollar where people developed voluntary alternatives.
Funny you should mention flerf, I'm about to have some real fun with that! The article is finished, but given my publication schedule, it won't be out for at least a week. I'll be sure to share it here for the benefit of a certain frequenter of your comments section.
Did you have fun with the Final Experiment fallout? I've been following Dave McKeegan for a while, and seeing how the flerf community turned on the flerfers with the balls (heh) to go has been wild. Sadly, I'm not surprised by the flerf priest denials of any evidence presented no matter what, or the knots they tie themselves into trying to "debunk" it.
Oh yes, that was hilarious! However, I have a different angle to the whole thing, which ties into a great metaphysics conspiracy.