What are the historical origins of right-libertarian ideologies?

They seem to be of two sources as far as the economic thinking goes. The first chain of influence dates back to the 18th century political economists, particularly Adam Smith. The second and more immediate chain of influence dates to the post-war period and is characterized by the mathematicization of economics; this process created the axioms of human behavior which govern the thought of the Austrian school.

In the 1970s these economic perspectives seem to have merged gradually with American exceptionalism and neoliberal political thinking. The role of the Civil Rights movement should not be understated here-- the antifederal instincts of the contemporary Republican party largely exist as a reaction to the federal intervention in the southern states during that period.

Ron Paul is a figure of great significance in understanding the prevalence of the term today.

In my opinion contemporary Libertarian politics dates to the 1970s and is a particular form of the general neoliberal ideology of the post Bretton-Woods. It exists and in an intellectually consistent space that does not correspond to reality (the universal tendency of economic power to influence political power is completely ignored, despite vast historical evidence for its existence, for example).

Currently its propagated as the most populist form of neoliberal ideology by think-tanks (there are several; Cato, Hoover, Mercatus, Heritage) and manifests in politics only in as far as it serves existing neoliberal objectives. For example, the isolationist and pacifist ideas of the libertarians have not had a lick of influence on the Republican party, but their passionate defenses of non taxation and small government have become tremendously useful to the establishment.

>>1457221
Generally people who want society to give them things (like infrastructure, rule of law, regulations that benefit themselves) but want other people to pay for it while they don't have to.

>>1457302
you're thinking of socialism, friend.

>>1457325
That's not socialism at all. Unless you're a libertarian in which case everyone to the left of Andrew Ryan is a commie.

>>1457370
randroids are not actual libertarians.

>>1457294
pretty good post, I'd throw in that Adam Smith was very concerned about income inequality, actually. also, though i hate to say it, libertarianism got a MASSIVE shift to the right from Ayn Rand and 'objectivism'; "it's amoral to give up anything you own".

fuck anarcho-capitalism and anarchists in general. they seriously fucked up libertarianism's credentials

>>1457325
i'm trying to put this in words that don't sound biased:
socialism = we're all in this together
libertarianism = i can figure it out on my own

>>1457221
This is one shitty political spectrum

>>1457412

There are mountains of literature on socialism, little foothills of books on libertarianism.

It really annoys me when people decide to engage politics but they don't want to put the reading in to figure out anything beyond the kind of cliches you just listed.

Either admit you don't know what the fuck is going on and you don't know what the fuck anything means, or man up and start reading.

And I ain't talking about no DailyMail or Huff Post article. Get some good books on theory, original texts etc. At the very least read the Stanford Encyclopedia entries for the terminology you use.

Otherwise you're propagating the same, tired, ignorant garble that gets regurgitated by every pundit and bar goer.

>>1457221
>monarchy = communism = fascism
>meme american definition republic and democracy

wew

>>1457410
>anarchists in general
Why? An cap is significantly removed from most other forms of anarchy.

>>1457461
A political spectrum will never make sense.

File: realpoliticsnotrealpolitik.jpg (209KB, 1856x887px) Image search: [Google]

209KB, 1856x887px

>>1457221
>that image
lmao, here's a real spectrum

>>1457221
Why are Americans so fucking stupid? Is it because they're mostly free from oppressive state education?

>>1457221
>That political spectrum
>This is what right-wing libertarians actually believe

>>1457294
(the universal tendency of economic power to influence political power is completely ignored, despite vast historical evidence for its existence, for example).

Its not ignored, many libertarians have addressed it.

Nor is your identification of libertarians as mere tools of the republican party fair. Its true that libertarians in the past have found more common ground with parts of the republican party, but few libertarians would recognize the republican party today as representing their civil or economic values

>right wing libertarian

That's like saying left wing socialism.

>>1457846
The thing about right libertarians is that you can tell that they're lying through their teeth in about 70% of what they tell you. Their beliefs revolve around two things: being right and tearing apart existing social institutions. When a libertarian rationalizes his beliefs, he probably doesn't believe his own argument, but he makes it for the sake of convincing you. It's very Machiavellian and perfectly suiting of such a sociopathic ideology.

>>1457876
There has to be a term for someone incapable of seeing their ideological opposites as anything but liars and stupid people.

>>1457885
Isn't that being ignorant?

>>1457856

>Its not ignored, many libertarians have addressed it.

If you could direct me to any literature on the topic I would greatly appreciate it. The more pointed and relevant the better.

>libertarians as mere tools of the republican party fair

Let me rephrase the point: Libertarians, in theory, provide an alternative to the Republican Party by offering a similar brand of neoliberal economics, but without the military adventurism.

But in practice, the foreign policy goals of the Libertarians have not been advanced an inch, and they have merely provided ammunition to the Republican party by fueling popular support for austerity, encouraging neoliberal perspectives among young people and developing canned arguments for low taxation and minimal regulation.

They are thus made unwitting tools of the Republican establishment.

>>1457824
> Is it because they're mostly free from oppressive state education?
You do realize that American children are legally obligated to go to at least some sort of school system, and that the vast majority go to the state-funded public schools, right?

File: american education.jpg (106KB, 638x813px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 638x813px

>>1457969
Key words in your post are "some sort".

>>1457863
Libertarianism is just a thought that Poeple have more power than the government. Both left and right wingers can be libertarian, there just different types of it.

>>1457926
>They are thus made unwitting tools of the Republican establishment.

America is unfortunately a to party system, while republicans talk a lot about small government and low taxation, most of them actually have little interest in either.

Still republicans are preferable to democrats in several ways. Their concept of individual rights and the constitution is more in line with libertarian thought, nor are the democrats really good on those issues they do overlap with libertarians. Were kinda stuck between a rock and a hard place.

>If you could direct me to any literature on the topic

It would take me some time, but the jist of their argument is that the current regulatory state is largely written by and for the benefit of the most powerful and well connected corporations, largely to stifle any potential competition. Far from being a guard against corruption, its the result of corruption

>>1457221
Nationalism has nothing to do with monarchy. wtf

>>1458024
>Their concept of individual rights and the constitution is more in line with libertarian thought

Unless it has to do with drugs, "terrorism", or anything else that old people find scary.

>>1458039
I dont disagree, but democrats,at least the political establishment democrats are very similar in that regard

>>1458024

> the jist of their argument is that the current regulatory state is largely written by and for the benefit of the most powerful and well connected corporations, largely to stifle any potential competition. Far from being a guard against corruption, its the result of corruption

No, I did not raise the issue of a universal correlation between government regulation and corporate power. I raised the issue of the ability of economic power correlating with political power.

This ALWAYS can take place, in as far as political and economic power both exist. You can bribe the King. You can bribe the council. You can bribe the Newspaperman. You can Lobby the Congress.

The entire idea of the free market relies on a kind of level playing field (no coercion, no monopolies, no control of communication between buyers and sellers etc.). The hallmark of free market thinking is that this situation will lead to profit, and a kind of generalized prosperity. Yet each individual will also act according to their interests; the most clever and hard working will win the day; they will have the most profit.

Having the most profit means having the strongest ability to influence the market and undermine the level playing field.

Ie, the free market conditions create exactly the conditions which create the non-free market, and there is no way to prevent this from happening.

>>1457563
not him but you're dismissing his argument based on nothing but authority derived from books. There's more flesh to his argument than yours, regardless of who's correct.

You're just annoying me by acting intellectual while making a fallacious argument.