Limited Government Socialism

In a recent Vox post, Will Wilkinson argues that welfare states allow economic freedom. He makes the point that Scandinavian countries and Canada had more economic freedom than United States according to several rankingsdespite having a somewhat robust welfare state. For years in American politics mainly Republicans but often some neoliberal Democrats and even the most corporatist wing of the Libertarian Party have argued for trickle down economics in which they cut social programs while cutting taxes for the rich. Since Reagan, these have been portrayed as some sort of free market solution. Since the rich already receive generous handouts in the form of corporate welfare these policies are hardly libertarian.

What Wilkinson is proposing is some sort of limited government liberalism in line of liberaltarian ideas. He argues that a state should provide a basic safety net and social services but allow a truly free market. Even some right-leaning libertarians like Ron Paul have expressed surprise about how often Republicans want to cut social programs but enlarge the military budget (Wilkinson is also a critic of militarism and said if we want cut spending it should be military spending).

Wilkinson is right, he understands that undermining social programs and the safety net allow the rise of populists like Trump, who if victorious would make the economic problems of the country bigger. But I don’t think there is constituency for what Wilkinson is arguing (at least among average liberals), most of centrists in American and global politics are neoliberals not libertarians they would like to continue with corporatism in a disguise of being in favor of the free market.

What happened in Scandinavia is curious because social democratic governments recognize the failure of central planning and allow some economic liberalization that promoted economic growth and generate a prosperous society. But they are hardly libertarians. That the Scandinavian model is successful because these countries are ethnically homogenous is a very racist argument. Yes, the Scandinavian countries have large white majority, but they had accepted large amount of humanitarian refugees from Africa and Middle East, so they are more diverse than Poland or Hungary, both countries with serious economic problems despite being more homogenous. The big reason the Scandinavian model can’t be put in place in other countries is that they are still small countries that are easier to manage. I can’t imagine a Scandinavian model working in larger states like United States, China or India.

But there is still something that could work. I’m a left-libertarian closer to anarchism that to minarchism but I would like present a minimal program who could require being involve in electoral politics. My proposal is limited government socialism. I know the term sounds funny but it was inspired when I listen Ralph Nader in an interview at the Cato Institute saying he was willing to cut 50 percent of Washington spending, you never hear that from a DLC type Democrat.

I think it shouldn’t be a surprise the American left is broader than just liberals, for example the New Left was widely decentralist and to some extend their influence continues even today. John O. Norquist, the former mayor of Milwaukee who described himself as a fiscally conservative socialist is one example. I think this model is better than the Big Government Libertarianism proposed by Wilkinson. My difference with Norquist was that his expertise was urban planning. I support something close to the Carl Oglesby style of libertarianism. Oglesby the former president of the SDS knew that among liberalism there is an imperialist strain that talks in language of the left: human rights and democracy. But he knew that good intentions could end up in mass murder. On the other hand Oglesby used to think that his particular style of populist libertarianism (not to mistake with libertarian populism) could appeal to both left and right. On the left there was a call to decentralization and on the right the concept of a truly limited government.

So in doing that, the state should be reduced to a few public services like education, healthcare, security and infrastructure while offering a Universal Basic Income. Stop privatizing things and allow a truly free market arrive. The state shouldn’t have public companies but enforce a strong property rights protection against pollution could be good for the ecology. The state shouldn’t recognize patents because they are government granted privilege and that would lower the cost of medicines and software. End the War on Drugs. Erase zoning codes. Eliminate mandatory occupational licenses. Repeal the Patriot Act. Close the military bases abroad.

Someone could ask what about the social issues. As someone could guess I and the majority of socialists are pro-choice, pro-gay rights, anti-discrimination and in favor of a more free immigration system. Though I don’t think that an adherent of limited government socialism makes you a SJW — quite the contrary, Karl Hess of all people used to argue that radical left should seek an alliance with religious conservatives because if they honest about their beliefs their main allegiance is to God not the state. Women’s rights are the reason some believe the left-right libertarian alliance of the 60s fell apart, but I think the respect of different opinions should be fundamental.  On gay rights, I think respecting religious liberty should be fundamental. If communities do not want to accept immigrants they shouldn’t be forced to do, in the case of America it should try avoid get into conflicts that generate refugees. On discrimination, I think affirmative action is a lame government response to the problems affecting minority communities, my belief is that less intrusive welfare programs could generate an economic boom in these communities and as result social transformation, then I think affirmative action would no longer be needed.

Even a right-wing populist libertarian like Ron Paul says the word capitalism shouldn’t be defended, that the goal libertarians should be promote free markets along the board. I agree, I’m a socialist not because I’m a fan of the Che Guevara or Fidel Castro but because I’m a fan Eugene Debs and Norman Thomas. I think early American socialists were right about what American foreign policy would do to America: make it less free. To be fair, I consider myself a libertarian in the Karl Hess way, so libertarianism, anarchism and socialism are synonyms for a decentralist kind of politics, but like Hess I admit there are conservative elements in my own politics, that’s why I admire people like Bill Kauffman.

My plan is far from perfect but I think it’s better than what social democrats and even some left-wing revolutionary parties do when they reach power. That is: to get along with the oligarchy and enact a few reforms while not promoting true social change. Just to be clear, I think limited government socialism will still be part of libertarianism because I think it is still compatible with the ideal of creating a free society. I would even add that it’s not incompatible with the non-aggression principle, even if I know that anarchists would disagree. On anarchism, despite of my personal sympathies for the Zapatistas and the Kurds, I don’t think that the majority of nation states are moving in that direction but if I’m wrong I would be happy, this model is just one model inspired by my peculiar politics that are in the middle of Ron Paul and Ralph Nader.

The Eternal Libertarian Dilemma


A recent poll has shown libertarian nominee Gary Johnson at 13%. He, according to Matt Welch, could have more support than any Libertarian Party presidential candidate in the history of the party. The media, which is usually not interested in libertarians or any third-party candidate, had shown different side this year covering with enthusiasm the convention. Johnson and his vice presidential candidate William Weld had do a late night tour. So why these year. As pointed out by Justin Raimondo back in 2011, Johnson libertarianism is particularly moderate.

Though Johnson was by far the most moderate candidate in the Libertarian primaries, and he won was because of his tenure as governor of New Mexico, he was able to convince libertarians to choose William Weld as VP only by a tiny margin. If the radical libertarianism of Ron Paul became a subject of conversation in 2008 and 2012, why wouldn’t Johnson get the same treatment for 2016? The fact is that besides being a Reason reader and a broad promoter of libertarian ideas, he’s not as philosophical as Ron Paul.

Johnson is antiwar, but doesn’t speak of withdrawing from NATO, a geopolitical move that has broad support among libertarians. He is for the “FairTax,” a tax reform measure that many libertarians oppose due to a philosophical objection to taxation in general. Ending the Fed, a cause made popular by Ron Paul, isn’t one of his priorities.

I think William Weld is more intellectual than Johnson, though he is less of a libertarian and more of a hawk. But in an election featuring Hillary Clinton, the most neoconservative of all Democrats, and a divisive nativist like Donald Trump, Johnson looks like a good choice after all. He’s is promoting himself as a socially liberal and fiscal conservative with an executive experience like his VP.

The problem is that his definition of libertarianism as fiscal conservativism and social liberalism excludes a lot of libertarians. Was Ron Paul a social liberal? Was Robert Anton Wilson a fiscal conservative? I think not.

Is libertarianism is moderation, centrism? Even Goldwater sounded for a few moments more libertarian than Johnson. From the beginning, Justin Raimondo has said that the #NeverTrump crowd is happy with Johnson because they think he’s taking more votes from disaffected Republicans that would help elect Hillary. If not, how does someone such interest in his campaign from a liberal outlet like MSNBC make any sense?  The media was largely hostile to Ron Paul, with The Young Turks and RT being among the few to treat him with respect. But the moderate ideas of Johnson like marijuana legalization are praised by liberal late-night hosts. And perhaps the really disturbing part of the Libertarian campaign that even Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush are considering vote for the LP, even though they represent the antithesis of libertarianism in most ways.

The LP’s rise in the polls show that there is anger in the country against both parties and their presidential nominees. Thirteen percent is an unprecedented for a third party, and if the Libertarian candidate is able to reach 15%, is probable he will be in the debates but this is complicate because it need to be at that numbers in three national polls. On the one side this makes us think what would have happen if Ron Paul would have run as an LP candidate instead of Johnson. Back in 2012, Paul was polling 13% against an incumbent president popular with a liberal base and mainstream conservatives with establishment support, which makes me think that now he would be polling better than Johnson.

Over the years, the Libertarian Party and the libertarian movement as a whole had a very nuanced question: would they push for reform or revolution? The reformist wing is usually more minarchist and Friedmanite, but sometimes people close to the Kochtopus could be radical Rothbardians. The revolutionary wing is diverse: it has anarcho-capitalists, left-libertarians and Ron Paul fans, with a major unifying for threat of these factions being that they don’t like compromise. For the moment the reformist wing is most visible thanks to Johnson, but it has problems. I’m sure Ron Paul could do it better than the former governor with millennials that probably now would vote for Jill Stein. On the other hand, the fact that Johnson doesn’t stand up for religious liberty is going to make him lose conservative votes. My advice to libertarians is that they should study the cases of this general election that’s often more polarizing someone like Ron Paul is better than Gary Johnson but in senatorial campaigns is often moderates not radicals who could win. Think of Rand Paul’s victory and Sean Haugh’s defeat in their respective bids for the Senate.

Gary Johnson, at any rate, is almost certainly going to be the most voted libertarian in history. The libertarians face a difficult time with both parties becoming more hostile to the principles of liberty. But with the establishment in such a fragile state, maybe an insurgent campaign in 2020 could unite radicals and moderates toward a libertarian future.

(Image source)

Justin Raimondo 2020


The unpredictable success of Donald Trump has perplexed left-wing activists and pundits who had call him a fascist. But not only people on the left, even neocons had battled him over not following their warmonger orthodoxy. Donald Trump has been awful on Muslims but good on his neutrality over Israel. The Donald has been worse on his comments on Mexicans but certainly less hawkish than every one of the remaining Republicans. If a three times married millionaire New Yorker is about to win the Republican nomination, the question is if other outsiders can win in the future.

My humble suggestion is Justin Raimondo, for whom I have a sincere admiration. As the founder and editorial director of, he has been one of the most committed people to the cause of peace. His columns are really among the best material one could find about American foreign policy. As a proud anti-imperialist of the libertarian tradition, he has supported Pat Buchanan, Ralph Nader and Ron Paul. Three man that on a lot issues had disagreements but they share commitment of a Republic, not an Empire. Unlike other libertarians who he dismiss as Cosmopolitans, he came from the Old Right and remain there.

His appreciation for Trump has been misunderstood, he is not supporting him but the chaos and panic the New York millionaire is causing in neocon circles. That would be the same chaos and panic that Raimondo would cause if the he decides to be a Republican presidential candidate. He could had a base of the Ron Paul supporters and it could grow with support of voters with anti-establishment feelings.

One might wonder why I’m saying these. While the most probably thing is that Donald Trump is going to be the Republican nominee, I think he is going to lose not because the neocons are against him but for alienating minorities. So either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders would be president. I hate the liberal interventionism of Clinton so I guess that Sanders would be better in foreign policy, however the Vermont has also embraced military Keynesianism. But America needs a truly anti-imperialist.

Another question that some would ask is what about Rand Paul, Justin Amash or Thomas Massie. They are by far the most libertarian in Congress but not enough. As Justin Raimondo had said in the past, the attempt of Rand Paul to appease neoconservatives had led him to nowhere. Amash and Massie could learn from Rand mistakes, however being congressmen they would be putting their seats in risk. So no better outsider than Justin Raimondo who previously ran for Congress in 1996 as a paleolibertarian challenger to Pelosi in San Francisco, he has move but still lives in California.

Raimondo style is ironic and direct, confrontational to neocons and liberal interventionists. As a Rothbardian, he would consider foreign policy his main concern and that could open the possibility of a left-right populist alliance against Empire. I don’t know if he would accept that challenge, he has done much for the cause of peace with his writings but politicians had compromise over and over again, maybe is time for a real change. Vote Raimondo 2020.

Ron Paul, Donald Trump and the future of libertarianism


A little known congressman from Texas became a folk hero American politics for his conviction when he debated with the hawkish Rudy Giuliani, defending his own brand of anti-imperialism. When the supposed common sense would had said that his campaign was over, his results in 2008 showed the possibility of a libertarian future. He was reaching beyond the base of reliably antiwar voters like progressive and radical activists. He counted among his supporters pro-lifers, gun rights advocates and militias. Independents like soccer moms and small business owners also were interested.

Brian Doherty argued in the Ron Paul counter convention of 2012 that the most probable thing would be for his fans to become what Pat Robertson fans were in the eighties after they failed to nominate their candidate: they become part of the GOP. Indeed the religious right is part of the GOP that the establishment can’t ignore but the analogy wasn’t complete. While there are some arguments about how the religious right had become a powerful force they haven’t be able to elect a candidate of their own.

In a GOP when the most likely future is having Donald Trump as nominee is there a future for Libertarian Republicans? People initially were thinking that Rand Paul was just a younger Paul but his moderation has made angry the most hardcore fans of his father. With a big government Republican like Trump, the future is not a bright as one day it was supposed to be when everybody think Rand Paul was a sure thing for 2016. Certainly Trump has mocked the establishment in a way Ron Paul couldn’t despite being fairly more anti-establishment than the reality celebrity. But some Ron Paul supporters are now backing Trump and others Bernie Sanders. Could someone make any conclusion of these? Certainly not all Ron Paul supporters were libertarians but most were anti-establishment that’s why supporting Sanders or Trump make some sense.

The problem for Libertarian Republicans is that in that leaving the GOP would maybe not be a wise choice. The natural place to go would be the Libertarian Party, which has plenty of problems of their own. Despite being the largest third party, it has never garnered beyond 1 percent of the vote. I don’t necessarily think that third parties are a lost cause. But looking at the contenders of the LP nomination, I don’t think they are the ones to be capable of challenging the system. Gary Johnson is the libertarian version of Jon Hunstman, interesting but not exciting. John McAfee is the kind of eccentric candidate that is almost a cliché. While Austin Petersen tries to make his youth his selling point, ignoring the fact that most successful libertarian Ron Paul was a happy grandfather when he became popular.

But for libertarians stay in the GOP could be hurtful process, I don’t think many hardcore rothbardians would be able to go to vote for Trump so they would be distancing themselves from the party for a little while. The future will depend on whether Trump wins or loses. I honestly think that despite that Hillary Clinton is terrible she would be able to beat Trump. Clinton is probably one of the most intelligent politicians out where, she knows how to play beyond its base, like speaking about releasing classified information of UFOs, she knows there is a public for that. Trump probably would try to sound more populist to gain the independent vote but these is problematic since a lot of independent voters are minorities angered with him over his positions on immigration.

They may still be some light in the tunnel. A new generation of GOP politicians are more libertarian like Justin Amash, Mike Lee and Raul Labrador. Amash on some issues is a reminding of the radicalism of Ron Paul but with more smooth style. In a loss of Trump, libertarians should argue that libertarian conservativism is the only way to attract more people for a party dependent in a declining demographic.

But libertarians could go beyond politics, anarcho-capitalism appears to be radical option for libertarians angry about the current electoral climate. There are also left-libertarians that try to merge a support for free market and social justice. The growth of Bitcoin and the sharing economy may be a powerful driving force but there is also the Free State Project in New Hampshire.

Libertarians may learn an important lesson from Donald Trump. For a long time libertarians had argue over what are the correct ideas, but they hadn’t focused much on the candidates. Ron Paul was able to become a visible candidate because of his conviction. It is time for libertarians to realize that an individualist movement needs individuals that could promote libertarian ideals.

The X-Files, Anarchy on TV


The X-Files is one of the most iconic shows of the 1990s, conspiracy theories and aliens would seem an odd idea for TV but it became a hit. David Duchovny, who plays Fox Mulder, once said that when he shot the pilot he never feel sure that they would be on TV, but they were for nine seasons. The X-Files will be back in January of next year for a small season of six episodes.

The show developed an intense fan base, it was one of the first shows that hit in the age of the internet, so since the beginning there have been a lot of online forums developed to the series. The geek culture was shaped by a show where the heroes were almost geeks themselves. It was a success both in America and overseas.

But it wasn’t just another Hollywood show. Libertarian academic Paul Cantor argues that X-Files wasn’t left or right but posed the question of the legitimacy of nation-state — after all, a key premise was that the government was part of a conspiracy involving aliens to conquer the world. After the Cold War, a show like The X-Files had the license to be anti-government. The FBI is portrayed like a bureau institution which is against the interests of the citizens. A curious thing is the strange conservativism of the show, in several episodes foreigners weren’t treated with sympathy, the strange traditions of some groups of immigrants were feared by the local population. It also seemed to have some sympathy for militias. However, some episodes had more left-wing themes, like suspicion of corporate culture or planned residential communities. The logo of the show “Trust No One” could be interpreted as a libertarian mantra.

The funny thing about a series that insinuate that the government is involved in a big conspiracy is that both David Duchovny and Gillian Anderson have confessed in press conferences that some fans had told them they joined the FBI, CIA or other government agencies because of them. It doesn’t like the most logical step, but a hunger for answers exerts a powerful pull on young people. If one can fathom why a libertarian like Edward Snowden could decide to work for the government, he might have taken a similar path to Fox Mulder.

Another interesting element was The Lone Gunmen, three hackers who were friends of Mulder and Scully, these computer geniuses mixed some ideas from geek culture, conspiracy paranoia and a vague concept of achieving social justice with technology. The Lone Gunmen were some kind of precursor of Anonymus, though in the last season they were portrayed as patriotic, unlike Anonymus which is mostly described as anarchist.

There were particular aspects that made a show like The X-Files a success in America and abroad, among them the sentiment found basically anywhere in the world, that their politicians are corrupt.

The 90s were a particular time, now with a popular politician like Ron Paul it’s not difficult to imagine that today the series could have made an issue of the spying, drones and growth of the Military-Industrial Complex, positions that were before at the fringe and now have become relatively mainstream. It would not be a surprise if the new X-Files episodes retain their anti-statism. The lesson of the X-Files is that people may distrust their leaders, but they still like heroes. It doesn’t matter if their name is Fox Mulder or Edward Snowden, sometimes the anarchist is the real patriot.

What’s the matter with left-libertarianism?


Left-libertarianism is a peculiar variant of libertarianism. It has some elements in common with the left, but it also supports positions that are at odds with the left in a general sense. I had previously written about its history, and while doing that I found that left-libertarianism is far from a united theory, but a relatively broad realm of ideas about about free markets and achieving and social justice. Karl Hess, Robert Anton Wilson and Samuel Edward Konkin III are big names in libertarianism on their own and also left-libertarians. Today the Center for a Stateless Society and the Alliance of the Libertarian Left are the new faces of left-libertarianism, most of its writers and members are young activists who despite claiming to be following the paths of the left-libertarians of the past, also raise their own issues.

Left-libertarianism is still unknown to the public. The mainstream media has portrayed libertarianism as something of the right, with an spokesperson like Ron Paul who is pro-life and against open borders, or figures like the Koch Brothers, which are donors to Republican campaigns and the bête noire of a lot of liberals, so isn’t very easy to associate libertarianism with the left. Yet a lot of Ron Paul supporters and those who identify themselves as libertarians are pro-choice, and skeptical of Republican Party. J. Arthur Bloom some time ago argued reflecting on a poll that suggests that young Americans prefer socialism over capitalism but at the same time support a free market system over a government managed economy, my initial reaction was that young Americans could find left-libertarianism interesting, but I wasn’t sure at that moment of the limits of my reflection.

The libertarian movement had been in large part financed by the Koch brothers though institutions like the Cato Institute, Reason, FreedomWorks and Students for Liberty to only mention a few. With the Ron Paul campaign the age-old paleo-cosmopolitan intra-libertarian dispute was reborn. The Ron Paul campaign was closer to the Rothbardians than the Friedmanites and it generated radicals rather than reformers. Despite that some cosmopolitans express his doubts about Ron Paul and the Koch brothers didn’t support or endorse him, I think the Koch brothers were intelligent enough to know that Ron Paul was bringing a lot of young people to libertarianism, something that could be useful to them. That’s why despite the disagreements, Ron Paul has been a main speaker at events organized by Koch-affiliated organizations, they know he energizes the base. Ron Paul and the Koch brothers are capitalist and for different reasons they had a long relation with the GOP. On the left-libertarian side there isn’t much famous politicians or bigger donors. Left-libertarians rely mostly on making new converts at libertarian events, but most libertarians consider themselves capitalists and I don’t think that will change any time soon. There is a solid left-libertarian tradition that young people could find interesting, however, especially in their critic of the corporate capitalism.

I think that it’s better to present my own philosophy before continuing exploring the limits of left-libertarianism. I’m a socialist, not a social democrat whose model is Scandinavia but rather a libertarian socialist whose model are Zapatistas in Mexico or the Kurds in the Middle East. Elections are not the only thing that matters, but I think electoral politics could radicalize the public and also move the left in a more libertarian direction. As far as I know, most left-libertarians come from the libertarian right and the anarchist left, so it’s easy to suppose that few of them ever would be sympathetic to electoral left-wing politics, but history tells us radical libertarians like Karl Hess and Murray Bookchin were involved in third party politics. So to be involved in electoral politics seems more an opportunity than a problem.

The Ron Paul campaign was a better tool for promoting libertarianism than the millions of dollars spent by the Kochs in think-tanks. Sometimes when left-libertarians said: “the dominant left-libertarian aim is to fuse Murray Rothbard with David Graeber,” I think a more interesting goal would be to fuse Ron Paul with Karl Hess. There are limits to the electoral politics, for example most leftists support the minimum wage (there are some left-libertarians that agree but most disagree). Other long time objectives of the left are universal health care (this policy was supported by Libertarian Party presidential candidate Mike Gravel but not for most left-libertarians). But compromise in the search of peace, liberty and justice seems to me a mature political move, along the lines of the one Murray Rothbard hoped for, broad on the left and right.

Here at The Mitrailleuse, there has been some polemic about left-libertarianism. James E. Miller argue that left-libertarianism is closer to left-liberalism than libertarianism, I disagree with that, I think that the fact that some left-libertarians had un-libertarian positions don’t mean left-libertarianism as a whole is doomed. For other part I recognize that the argument that sometimes C4SS sounds like Salon is true, far from joking some time ago I consider seriously writing a response Kevin D. Williamson argument that the Baltimore riots should be blame on the Democratic Party which historically has governed Baltimore, my response was going to be that the riots should be blame on the Republican Party crackdown on the Black Panthers because since then the Afro-American communities lacked radical organizing. When I was thinking where to publish the article, I thought C4SS and Salon. J. Arthur Bloom makes the case that it’s difficult for left-libertarians to gain support in the broad left, I agree a lot anarchists are closer to the Democratic Party.

There is something that should be said — Karl Hess, probably the most radical left-libertarian, was still a man of the Old Right, even when he joined Students for a Democratic Society and Industrial Workers of the World. He was deeply patriotic and inspired from the American history, he was not a cosmopolitan libertarian but a rather a man of a community. The Neighborhood Power of which the New Left speaks was an idea that had on board both the Black Panthers and radical Christians; a self-governing community was a real policy for left-libertarians. Since the New Left era, the idea of liberal identity politics was present and affected the movement. The black power, feminist and LGBT struggles were co-opted by the Democratic Party which, though movements that at some point were anti-statist, become functionally supportive of growing state power.

I don’t think that left-libertarians are going to win that argument by sounding like left-liberals, but by actually accepting that a free society would not be constructed if some day everybody started to think the same, but when one can reach broad agreement about letting communities be free. For example when it comes to immigration, most left-libertarians tend to support Open Borders, and I also do, but I understand that probably cosmopolitan communities like Williamsburg or Echo Park are more willing to receive immigrants than communities in rural Alabama, and a real immigration policy should respect that the communities could have different positions on whether or not receive immigrants. When Karl Hess spoke about education he also had the same argument, he said that there isn’t a problem if a black community decided to teach Swahili to their kids, I think that the same arguments should go for a religious community teaching their kids their values. Radical decentralization really means that abolishing the state or not, the communities at least would be freer to choose their own policies based on their everyday life rather than waiting for a bureaucrat in Washington.

Left-libertarians had an interesting history, in the present they are growing and their future is still unknown. Trying to recruit new members at libertarian events had it limits. With the exception of agorists, most left-libertarians weren’t organized in the past in any specific group but they were in a lot of ways closer to more average New Left radical, not only because of the left was more decentralist back then, but also they more willing to engage in a debate with the radical left. Most left-libertarians are great fans of the Marxist historian Gabriel Kolko, but I listen to very few about the reflections of other socialists. For example, Carl Oglesby the former leader of SDS is considered by the people of C4SS and ALL as a left-libertarian, though he wasn’t an anarchist and supported the minimum wage. Left-libertarians tend to criticize liberalterians saying that they are not radicals because they aren’t anarchist and also supported some state policies, so why do left-libertarians claim Carl Oglesby as one their own, when he probably should be called a proto-liberalterian? I think that a really thoughtful reflection of that would tell us a lot of left-libertarians claim to be radicals, yet still prefer the comfort zone of libertarian conferences rather than, say, going to the Left Forum to speak about free markets and property rights. If they want a revolution they should reject the liberal identity politics of us versus them, the real struggle is between the political elite and the grassroots rebellion.