The point is that libertarianism is, or was at least “of the left” in the sense that it was the anti-state radicals versus the statist monarchists. That libertarian left remains to this day. Though it suffered much, almost to destruction, in a two way “squeeze” between the Austrians on the one hand and the syndicalist types on the other toward the end of the nineteenth century.

And for a reason – it was felt by those who felt that actual existing capitalism, bloated to its maximum, was by then too big merely to lose its privilege if the state was demolished – so those more concerned about that private coercion became more collectivist and those less concerned about private coercion and more about state coercion made common cause with the Austrians and anarcho-capitalists.

If we switch, instead, to phrases such as Spencer, Nock and Oppenheimer used, like the “political means” and “economic means” or the “regime of status” and the “regime of contract” we can see how people with concerns that are usually seen as both left-wing and right-wing can appear in both camps. In Spencer’s time, the regime of status people were what we would call right-wing and the regime of contract left-wing.

I am proud to be a left-libertarian, in the tradition of the Individualist Anarchists and Mutualists, and nothing in that suggests a “statist socialism” or “coercive collectivism” for one minute – cf Benj Tucker’s “Anarchism and State Socialism”.

But most important is that whatever we call ourselves, and whatever our “concerns” about what a post-state society might look like, all of us libertarians and anarchists surely want first and foremost to achieve that “post-state society”. If we are no-staters we need to make common cause until such a time as our different ideas can compete on a level playing field in a freed market and the best ones will win out and tend to dominate, not create largely false, or at least “second order” divisions between us while the common enemy is the state and the statists, who love to see us squabble, especially when in doing so we emulate their crazy and decrepit political positions!

Using an unfair caricature to highlight the unfair caricature you were using. Your ‘logical inconsistency’ was based on your idea that anyone who considers themselves ‘on the left’ must automatically be authoritarian, even if they don’t realise it. Their ideas must necessarily require state enforcement. A position that simply isn’t true.

If you truly see it as nastiness, then I unreservedly apologise.

As I have repeatedly said, I think the ‘differences’ between left- and right-libertarianism are an unhelpful distraction that comes from our emotional attachment to inappropriate terms. There are differences (some of which I outlines above), and debates which need to be had, but the more important distinctions are between people of an anarchist, or mutualist, or libertarian impulse, and those whose instinct is to use state force.

I do regret that an attempt to not take ourselves too seriously has been misread as an attack. I thought the obvious hyperbole of the statement, and its caricature of a position that undercut the rest of what I was saying would be enough to be mark it out as making fun of myself. Once again, for that I apologise.

And if a ham-handed attempt at a humorous aside derails an attempt to actually understand what left- and right-libertarianism are then I regret that even further. To state clearly, I assume you have both a soul and a conscience (and thought that that assumption should have been taken as given enough to show that the aside was humorous in intent); I appreciate that you noted in your post that the impulses of left-wing people may be good.

However, I maintain that your post is a caricature of a position that doesn’t exist. An effective demolition of that caricature, but it remains non-existent. And that your caricature is based on a prejudice about people who consider themselves left-wing. Because we all love Stalin.

And I’ll keep arguing that libertarianism (of any stripe) is implicitly, by its nature, a strand of left-wing thought. Partly to annoy people, and partly because it’s true…

Once again, if you think I seriously meant that you, or everyone who considers themselves to be ‘right wing’ is actually without a soul or conscience, then I unreservedly apologise.

Pointing out what I see as a logical inconsistency in another political position (mislabelled though it be) is nothing like as rude or condescending as coming round a right-wing person’s blog and cheerfully declaring that the reason you would never be same is that you have a soul and a conscience – thus implying that I have neither. Should I be considerate to you after that? And yet I was, for a time. More perhaps than you deserved after that piece of nastiness.

The fact that you might not spot the irony in calling someone else superior and condescending underneath the blog post above…

And, as if you didn’t know, the Left disposed of adopting Stalin years ago, by calling the USSR ‘state capitalist’. Much in the same way that it’s now a common meme on idiotblogs to define the BNP, Hitler and Mussolini as left-wing.

Tell you what, I’ll adopt our authoritarian cunts if you adopt yours. I’m more than happy to concede that some people who think of themselves as left-wing are authoritarian, murdering bastards; as are some who think of themselves as right-wingers.

Oh no, that’s right, because in this rewriting of history, the entirety of anti-state thought from the Diggers through Proudhon, from Benjamin Tucker through Murray Rothbards is now, whatever they might have thought of themselves, or how others might have defined them, all ‘right-wing’. I forgot that we were allowed to ignore the ‘meaning’ of the terms we use when we don’t like them…

(I don’t think right-wingers are evil; just bizarre, physically grotesque, and possibly deficient in one of the important vitamins)

(In case it needs re-emphasising, if you follow the link before the ‘soulless’ comment, you’ll see the context. Otherwise feel free to take offence at this, too…)

Striving for freedom is a political aim and naturally involves decisions on governance and legitimate uses of force, but striving to eliminate the difficulties of life itself has very little to do with politics. Hardship, hunger, disease, and death are facts of existence and turning to politics (which is an implicit reliance on force) to solve these sorrows and improve the condition of humanity is childish. It’s as a spoiled child stamping his feet to get his way. We cannot overcome the difficulties of the universe by robbing one another or attacking one another. Even acknowledging that as an option, claiming that suffering is a lack of freedom, is reprehensible. We should never seek to meet evil with evil.

Not all the evils in the world are the result of human action. Oppression is the sole opposite to freedom. Hardship and suffering may result from oppression, in which case the reasonable prognosis is to obtain freedom, but these do not always stem from oppression. It is upon us as human beings to solve these issues through charity, fellowship, invention, economic progress, and research.

Let us leave to politics what is political and address all other earthly problems like civilized human beings, laying aside force. This is why I reject socialism and left-libertarianism. It’s an issue of first principles, is it not?