Libertarians and the Left/Right Dichotomy

and the idea of "freedom vs. order"

First of all, what is Left and Right? While the terms are obviously relative, they have to be relative to something. Within the U.S. in particular the terms are very odd, to be “Right-wing” in most Americans’ eyes involves Libertarian economic thought. Moreover, the “Left-wing” in American terms is the anti-gun faction. This is interesting not only historically but even in current times; Libertarianism is not typically viewed as “Right-wing” in Europe for example.

This means that either A) Americans’ understanding of the Left-Right dichotomy is incorrect or B) that the terms can only really be applied within a particular nation, not internationally. Frankly I think we should probably stick with option A because the terms lose all value if we’re only viewing them within a single nation, (in that case we could just use party names or something of that nature).

This leaves us with another A or B choice: A) We use the terms’ origin as a reference, (Right meaning monarchy-supporting, Left meaning again) or B) We use the most common modern definition in this sphere, (one’s place on the preference for order vs. freedom spectrum). Functionally I think there’s actually not as much difference in between these two as one may believe, orderly systems tend to have a monarch or have had one recently, but it would still be best to hash this out now.

For a number of reasons, I don’t find the preference for freedom over order legitimate. That isn’t to say that I don’t believe that wanting freedom is legitimate, just that I don’t think that many of those who claim that they would, would actually choose it over order. Allow me to explain…

Freedom and Order

Firstly when we think of freedom we are almost always talking about economics. Many of those who claim that they would prefer freedom are actually fairly socially conservative, and many of these individuals would prefer a government that was more restrictive in that area. We are additionally not referring to anything which would allow you to “agress” against others. Functionally, the entire conception of freedom in this regard is really just two things: private property and the rights specified in the Bill of Rights within the U.S. constitution.

This is already a substantial reduction of the word “freedom” from its perception, but can be reduced even further by analyzing what we actually think of the rights within the U.S. constitution. I’ll attack this on its most popular defense: the Second Amendment. Should violent felons be allowed to own machine guns? I, (who owns over 50 firearms), don’t think so. I know that some in the Libertarian crowd may argue that yes, in fact, we should be focused on restricting the government, not its subjects, but I think the vast majority would agree that we can stop at convicted felons. Keep in mind that most felons aren’t your based friend but instead are Fentavious. Okay, now can known schizophrenics own anti-tank mines? This can keep going, but the point is that we can, (mostly), all agree that there is some level of reasonable restriction needed here.

I’d like to go ahead and add that I think the Second Amendment is a very good idea and probably one of the only things saving us from becoming the Yookay. I’d also like to add that it isn’t that I dislike Libertarians necessarily, but Libertarianism of the plebian variety which believes that the only thing preventing a Libertarian society is the government existing in the first place.

My point is that the instant you make one of these restrictions, you are admitting that you don’t prefer freedom to order, you simply like freedom within an orderly society. This is a crucial distinction that many Libertarians are missing: freedom is not the antithesis of order, (nor vice-versa), freedom actually stems from order.

“Here is the Carlylean roadmap for the Misesian goal. Spontaneous order, also known as freedom, is the highest level of a political pyramid of needs. These needs are: peace, security, law, and freedom. To advance order, always work for the next step—without skipping steps. In a state of war, advance toward peace; in a state of insecurity, advance toward security; in a state of security, advance toward law; in a state of law, advance toward freedom.”

-Curtis Yarvin, “Molbug on Carlyle”

Freedom does not originate from a lack of order, but from the establishment of it. There is an exception here which any true Libertarian will have already thought of, that being the wilderness, but very little wilderness remains so as an ingredient for a political conversation it’s kind of irrelevant. Yes the Scotts-Irish in Appalachia were free before the revolution, but you likely live in a suburb so your freedom is a different kind of discussion. If you remain unconvinced by this, ask yourself why the American founders built the suspension of Habeus Corpus into the constitution.

If I get enough flak on this topic I may dedicate a whole essay to it, but for now we need to get back onto the main subject.

On Centralization Vs. Decentralization

Now that we’ve established that the freedom vs. order distinction is pretty much out of play, we can focus in on the support or opposition to monarchy. But of course there is the argument that this is really, (as you could have guessed by the header), an argument about centralization. Well this also has some problems.

The mainstream American political argument of the past century, (which none of you reading this were allowed to participate in), was between Conservatives and Progressives. This argument, in which Conservatives are supposedly the Right-wing element in, is fundamentally one about whether the expert class should rule or not. The Progressive is on the side of centralization: more restrictive legislation, less focus on individual rights, more government power, etc. The Conservative, on the other hand, takes the inverse of the Progressive on pretty much any issue. If we were framing the Left/Right divide as one focused on centralization, this makes it seem as though the Progressive is on the Right-wing side.

I think this is incorrect for reasons besides just how confusing it is. For starters, I think that anyone who is actively in power will argue for the centralization of power. There are about three people who think like Rand Paul and all three of them seem much more concerned with ensuring the Right doesn’t “act like the Left” than they are stopping the Left’s progression. No, most of the centralization discussion in the U.S. has been a result of the inner party/outer party distinction.

The fact that this argument was never about centralization in the abstract was made clear by Trump’s first term: suddenly centralization became a problem for Democrats and Republicans became divided on the issue. The fight over centralization was never a foundational divide between the two sides; it was about preventing whichever side was in power from utilizing it. For the current Trump term, it has been the Democrats who are against the use of centralized authority whilst most Republicans seem all for it.

No, the truth is that the United States has only very recently gained a Right-wing party at all. Trumpian populism, for all of its many faults, has created a world in which the American Left has been forced to reveal itself as the deep state faction, one which knows that a true executive who is not subservient to its institutions will oppose them. This reveals that the historical defintion of “Left” and “Right” wing still somewhat fit and we will move on from there..

On Monarchy

So far we’ve reduced all of the non-original definitions down to an all-but-irrelevant state, leaving us with only the original. I must, however, point out some flaws in this definition as well.

For starters I don’t know anyone on the American or even broader Western Right who would be in favor of Stalin ruling their country. Now, Stalin would probably be better for Haiti than any Haitian regime in recent memory, but I don’t think he’d be very beneficial in Norway. Must be something socio-economic.

Additionally, I don’t think many on the American Left who would be in opposition to a Kamala Harris revenge arc where every I.C.E. agent and Trump regime official found themselves behind bars. I’d love to see whether Rachel Maddow had any opinions on constitutional overreach in this scenario.

So despite the historical origins, I don’t think we can reduce the definitions down to strictly monarchy vs. not. At this point Yarvin would argue that it’s about popular sovereignty, (Stalin’s regime relied on it, Fredrick the Great’s didn’t), but almost all monarchies start with popular support and most perform some level of maintenance for it as well. Now, Caeser’s popular support was a bit less ideological than Hitler’s, but his regime still began with the same popular “mandate”, so it’s a bit hard to run with that argument. Sorry Molbug.

But these historical definitions do matter: it’s just important to put them in context. The side of the French Parliament which supported the monarchy didn’t just support the monarchy, they supported the Ancien Régime in its entirety. Those on the French Left, (literally), were largely pro-Enlightenment figures. Keep in mind that the American Revolution had already occurred, as had the English Civil Wars. This wasn’t just a divide about support for the Louis XVI or even the monarchy specifically, this was an argument about hierarchy. The French Revolution which followed was much more focused on egalitarianism and hierarchy reduction than even the American Revolution had been, this was a reversion of the hierarchies which had been built up since Charlemagne in France.

Since this time there has been little change to what these terms are referring to. Left refers broadly to the coalition of egalitarians, while Right refers to those in favor of natural or sometimes even artificial hierarchy.

Relevancy

The distinction here is important because reframing American politics is important. The association of Libertarianism of what I’ve called the plebian variety with the “Right” has neutured any truly Right-wing thought in the United States. Not only has it forced the “Right” to defend what are functionally Left-wing ideas, it has also ensured that anyone in opposition to this false dichotomy is a pariah to the system. This is why the Overton window in the United States has been the most artificial of all Western nations despite the fact that its legal system allows the most free-ranging of ideas to be spoken.

Now, there is an argument to be made for Libertarian economic thought being legitimately Right-wing. I am generally in favor of this, but it provides me the opportunity to make a crucial distinction about these terms. Just because an idea is “Right-wing” does not make it good or bad. You do not necessarily have to agree with an idea which is vaguely associated with your side of a broad spectrum. I have several arguments against a strictly free market economy; none of these arguments are Left-wing I can assure you. I would even go so far as to argue that parts of the foundational Libertarian philosophy are not Left-wing, but there are certainly Left-wing ideas within the Libertarian movement more broadly.

Again, I am specifically making the argument that anti-government Libertarianism is a Left-wing movement. It’s time the American Right shed this burden onto its opponents.