By way of Brad Spangler I stumbled onto psychopolitik's discussion of why libertarians are inherently left-wing. All of which was originally sparked by my own discussion of libertarianism at DailyKos! What goes around comes around . . .

. . . there really is no need for a “left” or “right” modifier for libertarianism, as left-libertarian would be redundent & right-libertarian would be contradictory. Libertarianism rejects the status quo & cheers its downfall, so at the LEAST it is center-left.

I actually disagree on how to apply the terms left and right with regards to the status quo. In an ideal world, I would apply conservative to anyone who upholds the status quo and radical to anyone who wants to bring down the status quo. These words contain an intuitive sense that one is defending the establishment and the other is opposing the establishment. But because the establishment can range from an absolute monarchy to a democratic republic, I am hesitant of actually applying any additional meaning to these two terms. As such, I disagree with psychopolitik's use of left and right even while I agree about their origins.

Think about the origin of the "left/right" terminology: the supporters of the aristocracy sat on the right side, while anyone who opposed the status quo sat on the Left. This included the first libertarians.

My definition of left and right is also based on the French Revolution. However I don't simply view the debate in terms of the status quo. I view it over the fundamental question of "Who Governs?" The right holds the view that governmental power should be held by the elite of society; government could range from an absolute monarchy, a tyranny, or an oligopoly. The left is fundamentally opposed to this vision and upholds a desire for greater representation in government. These two terms are relative. The nobles that worked to bring about the Magna Carta were the left-wingers of their time period when compared to the absolutism of the monarchy. Like the Constitution's ideal of a 'more perfect Union' the left is constantly searching for a 'more representative government.'

The contrast between radical-conservative and left-right can be seen in two episodes in history. The first is the tension between European radicals opposed to absolutism and the conservative supporters of the monarchies. The left was radical and the right was conservative. The second is the founding years of the United States. The right, represented by Alexander Hamilton and others, desired to bring about revolutionary change in the American colonies through the establishment of a new national aristocracy in close association with the newly centralized federal government. Thomas Jefferson was both a conservative and a left-winger in opposing these radical changes.

A libertarian may be either right-wing or left-wing in how they view the desirability of representative government. Hans-Hermann Hoppe is a well known opponent of democracy and professes an anarcho-capitalist creed. He does so by arguing that a libertarian government, a government that is limited in its intervention in society, is more likely to occur under an unrepresentative system like an absolute monarchy. This is a very utilitarian argument and resembles that of Milton Friedman that I pointed out criticisms of previously.

I am a member of the left in pushing for more representative government. I am a radical in opposition to the status quo of neo-conservatism, imperialism, and intolerance. Libertarian describes my preference for the degree of government intervention in society. Ideally, I would like to reclaim liberalism as the title for this ideology. Today's 'liberals' have slowly shifted toward 'progressive' as their preference, perhaps opening up a chance at reclaiming our old title. I think it's an exchange that would leave every happier.