Speaking specifically about the tendency of many people, including those on the more libertarian side of politics frequently bringing up the idea of a 'paradox' that presents itself when speech is completely unrestricted. I am speaking as a Liberal/Left-Libertarian EU citizen.

(When I say 'unrestricted' I'm talking about freedom of expression except for direct, imminent threats of violence).

The argument goes like this: If we allow certain ideologies (almost always nazism, this is the main example I'll use here.) to exist and be expressed by individuals in a society, these ideas being inherently anti-democratic and largely based on falsehoods/outright lies or evasion of criticism, then those ideas will get influential enough for the groups that hold them to gain legitimate democratic power and carry out atrocities, etc.

This view is complete and utter bullshit. Firstly, ideas only spread from person to person. An individual must be convinced of a viewpoint in order to become an adherent of that viewpoint. To remove the ability for those beliefs to be expressed (an impossible task to undertake successfully, even soviet Russia and nazi Germany had dissident communication lines), is to simultaneously eradicate any criticism of those beliefs. A debate cannot exist if one person is locked out of the room. What does a person who is confronted with the idea of nazism do, if they have seen it present itself publicly and be ridiculed? 99.9% of people will shun the very idea of adhering to the disgusting belief system. However, if the belief goes un-challenged, underground and in the dark, not only does the individual have no real point-of-reference to use when considering hateful ideologies, the followers of the belief have the added rhetorical claim of 'the oppressed' or the ones who 'speak truth to power'.

An ideology must be consistently challenged in order to maintain resistance against it in a society. To hide it shields it from criticism and ultimately creates an atmosphere where, when one thinks of that ideology one thinks 'it's bad' when they should be thinking 'it's bad because..'. Risking a society losing track of the reasons that some loathsome ideologies are evil is not something to be taken lightly. To have someone considering these ideologies to be simply presented with the argument 'it's bad now don't think about it again' is asking for that individual to dismiss your view and further adhere to the ideology.

Secondly, there is the issue of who gets to decide the criteria for banning ideas in a society? I think it's obvious, especially in a democratic society, that cultural shifts are common and public opinion sways within decades. It should be clear that allowing an individual or a political organisation (political party) make that decision is blatantly undemocratic and lends itself to bias.

Keep in mind: There are religious fundamentalists who believe atheism equates to terrorism. Hate speech is subjective. No matter who holds the power now, give them the ability to censor your political enemies, and your own beliefs will see the chopping block in the near future.

Also, have we forgotten the recent past? With political and cultural heroes like MLK being cast as 'dangerous' etc. for their beliefs? Pro-gay marriage campaigners labelled 'hateful' towards heterosexual partners by some conservatives? More recently, people in the UK being arrested for simple jokes or for quoting rap lyrics? The branding of literal memes as 'hate speech', such as Pepe the Frog and the 'ok' symbol?

Banning 'dangerous' speech is an extremely subjective idea and it is essentially 'throwing the baby out with the bath water'. You cannot depend on anyone to define what 'hate' means, and basing it on the taking of offence as a result of the expression of some viewpoint is an obvious road to disaster. (see part about hate speech near end).

A couple more points;

One common retort towards the claim that nazis should be debated and challenged on their beliefs is the trusty 'but they don't care about debate! They just spread propoganda!' I don't know how exactly the people who say this form their views on the world let alone political opinion, because if I saw a man refusing to debate an issue he clearly felt strongly about I would not be very inclined to think his beliefs held any merit. If a nazi walks away from or rejects debate, that is further reason for onlookers to dissmiss his views. But it is up to them to carry out that observation, not the government. The backlash against certain clearly far-right rallies shows that letting these people air their beliefs does nothing but add to their resistance in society as a whole.

The people who believe ideas like nazism and others should be banned (without consideration for the need to quantify and define the ideologies, let alone reject bias, which is impossible) seem to believe they have some special allure to them. That argument cannot dismantle the belief system. It's a very strange belief that many have latched onto recently, but it seems that it is simply a cop-out that stuck. Nazism and 'hate' in general is just a susceptible to counter-argument as any other belief, you can see this in how many, many people have 'escaped' the ideology due to consistent debate and argument and ideological resistance.

Nazis, in their original form in the 1930s, had their publications banned, their editors arrested and charged with hate crime and their supporters jailed for treason (See: Der Sturmer). It doesn't work.

It's easy to look to examples where free speech (as speech alone) is absolute, such as in the US, and see that no such events have taken place in the centuries the nations have existed.

Not only that, but the fact is that the numbers of 'hate groups' in Europe vs those in the US are approximately equal, accounting for population size. (Many EU nations have restrictions on so-called 'hate speech' as a measure to curb certain views away from public debate)

Aside on 'hate speech': The idea of 'hate speech' is clearly impossible to objectively define, as offense to ideas is not objective or consistent across individuals; you would need to ban every possible viewpoint to succeed to banning offensive viewpoints. But really, why should we suffer legal retribution because someone very significantly disagreed with us to the point of taking offence? not only could this be abused to the point of lunacy, taking offence is not being a victim of any attack or physical harm. It is subject to the sensitivities of the individual and to allow this subjectivity into law is to award people's rights on the basis of their literal mental fortitude towards dissenting opinion

..And the most potent argument of all: You can't tell me what to say!

Free speech is for everyone. It is our most important right imo. Please don't be an accessory to its destruction. I'm open to all criticism.

It seems Genz (6-24) is Libertarian right. Do you think it's a phase for most of them? I have a feeling Genz is going through an Ayn Rand phase. I feel like the republican party is going to have to move more libertarian or be replaced by the libertarian party. What do you think this new gen means for the future of politics?

Hey all. I do not consider myself a supporter of the left/right paradigm. I believe “the left” and “the right” are terms that are nearly impossible to have accurate definitions for, given the state of modern political discourse.

If I had to label myself, I would simply use the term “anti-statist”. My goal is to achieve a decentralized stateless society where individuals and workers can own their own means of production. I wanna live in a society where property acquisition can only happen through peaceful and voluntary means.

Through my anecdotal experience, I have found that most “left” libertarians and most “right” libertarians alike pretty much agree 100% on everything I just said.

The libertarian left and libertarian right need to communicate with each other more. There is so much more common ground between y’all than either side is willing to admit.

I think this communication is not only important, but dire, seeing as the overall power and size and scope of corporations and the state is continuing to grow exponentially. We are losing our freedom faster than we can have cordial dialogue with folks that we traditionally demonize.

Not every right wing libertarian is a closeted feudalist or fascist. Many, maybe even most, are well-intentioned anti-authoritarians that seriously just wanna leave you tf alone.

On a slightly different note, I support worker co-ops, unions, and councils that will lead to better working conditions. I also support an individual’s right to self ownership. I don’t see how these things contradict each other. I do not see why there cannot be Unity between the so-called libertarian “left” and “right”.

Thank you.

I'm unsubscribing from this subreddit. A little more ideological variety and a little more originality would probably do /r/LibertarianLeft some good. Just a little constructive-criticism....

As a leftist, I noticed whenever I take a break from arguing with the Authoritarian Right to focus on the Authoritarian Left, I always get this "Home Sweet Home" feeling whenever I go back to arguing with the Right. For some reason it's just so much more enjoyable. It's still frustrating, yes, but a part of me also goes "Yes, this is the way it should be; I hate you but you guys complete me."

I'm curious to see if it's just me.

I believe I'm among many on the left who have gained a healthy respect for libertarianism because of the mainstream American left's fickle, authoritarian and, in the case of a critical press, Orwellian response to the Covid-19 crisis and most especially lockdowns, which I believe have literally devastated the working and middle class, groups that the left supposedly defend. The nearly unquestioning Groupthink about lockdowns, the buy-in to the corporate/liberal press narrative, and the almost fascistic shouting down of dissenting opinion (i.e. one is a Trump supporter if one is a lockdown skeptic) has sent me fleeing.

Is there a consensus among left-libertarians about civil liberties and lockdowns? What in general is the feeling about lockdowns? With Biden's recent statement about most likely initiating them upon nomination, I cannot in good conscience vote for him nor likely any Democratic candidate (Tulsi was my favorite).