To make this case let me define some terms.
On the political compass, the Left and Right are on an economic scale, largely delineating between the hierarchy and competition-oriented right, and the equality and sharing-oriented left.
The y-axis operates vertically, where up is authoritarian, meaning more government intervention, while down means libertarian, or less government intervention.
The nature of all life that has ever existed on planet earth trends towards competition and hierarchy, therefore so does human nature. Pesky evolution. Our favorite lobster-man talks about hierarchy extensively, and how it's built into our most primal brain functions. Our societies show this incredibly clearly. And you intuitively know this too, as you want to keep most of your own stuff, want to "get ahead", and outperform your peers, or at least, your past self. Even the past self idea is a conundrum, as being equal to everyone else, any sort of meaningful progress will be scarce, as such progress must be distributed equally. Such wide distribution will make any potential improvement nigh imperceptible and that's even presupposing progress is possible in an equalized society.
The left of the compass is diametrically opposed to these fundamentals of human nature best I can figure. This opposition is disastrous, but that's another topic, lib-left being incoherent as an ideology is an issue.
Being of the left definitionally means you are trying to change ancient human nature (for the reasons we've discussed,) but to be libertarian means you are not willing to use any type of top-down force to facilitate any actions.(Unless it's for purposes of protecting the freedoms and rights of others. I.e. slavery, child labor, etc.) To remain true to both of these values is obviously not possible. There is no way to achieve any sort of meaningful equality of opportunity or outcome in any state-sized population without the use of centralized force for non explicitly freedom protection purposes. And even doing so via use of force has consistently failed
I, therefore, move for lib-left to be pushed out of the compass altogether, and into the sea of political potential to be dissolved; or to be absorbed by lib-right via a natural and inevitable hostile takeover.
Join Me
-Δ
I Declare War On This Argument -
While it's true that competition and hierarchy are key components to evolution, they are not the only components. Symbiosis has also played a key role in evolution, for example, and no species has gained more from collective cooperation within a single species than homo sapiens.
The "Lobster-Man" is correct in his assessment of competition and hierarchy being hard-wired within our most primal brain functions. However, via evolution, the human brain has developed quite a bit past its most primal version. We are carrying around profoundly upgraded brains in our skulls these days. Are we to assume that our primal brain carries more wisdom than the more evolved human brain? That's the implication of Parker's argument.
Yes, it's true that we can't ignore the most fundamental aspects of human nature. We are still animals and we are not gods. We are simply afforded with well-developed brains that allow us to decide how to meet our most basic needs. It isn't an affront to "ancient human nature" to be reasonable or moral about it. In fact, I would argue that it's just the opposite.
According to the Political Compass test, I am a "lib-left". The right keeps fueling this rumor that there is this huge army of leftists that are demanding total economic equality. Do I think that the concentration of wealth and power has gone way too far? Absolutely. Do I think that means that we should all be paid the same wages? Absolutely not. Trying to reign in extreme inequality is not the same thing as demanding total equality. This appears to be a concept that is lost by way too many people on the right. It's a habitual talking point that bears no weight in actual reality.
As far as the "lib" side of the "lib-left" moniker goes... Parker conveniently leaves out the fact that we're dealing primarily with social issues on the y-axis. This means that as a lib-leftist, I believe in social freedom. This shouldn't be as confusing as it seems to be... but because of modern society's determination to place everyone in simplified boxes, many people are confused about this.
For example, I believe in a woman's freedom of choice regarding unwanted pregnancies... but, I also believe in the right to own a gun. I support gay rights... yet I'm also an avid supporter of freedom of speech. I'm not a "woke" liberal, in the current definition of the term. Political correctness has gotten completely out of hand... and those on the left that are a party to this frustrate leftists like me to no end. That doesn't mean that I don't also believe in equal rights (again, on a social level).
Parker even makes this point for me in his argument:
"...to be libertarian means you are not willing to use any type of top-down force to facilitate any actions.(Unless it's for purposes of protecting the freedoms and rights of others. I.e. slavery, child labor, etc.)"
That's right. However, it appears that Parker assumes that when he places caveats on liberty, he's still a Libertarian. When I place the same caveats, I'm contradicting myself? I have to assume that this is because he isn't separating economic from social issues on the y-axis. But if it makes him feel any better... if we were to suddenly fall into a society where capitalism was eradicated and taken over by pure socialism... the Overton window would shift and I'd suddenly find myself in the "lib-right" window alongside him. No "hostile takeover" necessary.