Here’s the script:

Polyamory and Left Libertarianism

Introduction:

Words are always a tricky thing, we always want to communicate the best we can with the tools that we have but sometimes that’s not enough. Sometimes, even though you’ve clarified yourself countless times some people are still scratching their heads. I think this is why it’s good to start out defining the terms in the title of this essay. Even though these terms may be familiar to some, it’s doubtful that they’re in the majority and within this slim minority some may have a distorted view of it or may need a refresher. Similarly combining or trying to get seemingly unrelated ideas together is another problem that runs deep within humans. How do we merge ideas? Are ideas ever worth merging, especially if they’re not necessarily seen as complimentary? How exactly do you go about explaining merged terms? Yet, with all of these questions in mind my task after the two part introduction is to try to see how these two terms interact. Finally, I want to give a brief sketch of what I see a far more loving and free world. This world in my opinion would be much more accepting and tolerant of the differences that make us all individuals and allow human autonomy to flourish more easily.

What is Polyamory?

To break down this word in half, poly is a Greek word that means many or several while amory is Latin for love (think amor or some other variant) so polyamory literally means “many love” or plurally “many loves”. But for me this is not a sufficient definition for explaining what polyamory is in practice or how it might interact with any political philosophy let alone the highly misunderstood one of left-libertarianism. And so beyond meaning “many loves” polyamory means for me: A long term committed and consensual relationship between more than two partners. There are multiple definitions of polyamory for sure and mine may not be the only legitimate one. Therefore I do recommend checking out several different sources and sorting out for yourself what polyamory means to you.

For example you could search “polyamory” on Google and come across the polyamory.org site which has a fairly extensive FAQ on polyamory. Or you could go to the polyamory.com forums and learn from other people there. There are also plenty of articles, Youtube videos, blog sites and even real life people who you can talk to about it that you might at first meet through the internet. An example of one piece in particular I’d recommend is Steve Pavlina’s blog post on January 2nd 2009 simply titled “Polyamory”. It’s a pretty long post but it also gets across a lot of the points and counter-points you’ll see in discussions of polyamory. However my point here is that are many options for those who are curious about what polyamoy is about. And for those who are I encourage you to not stop with only what I’ve suggested so far but go as deep as you feel comfortable with.

Now polyamory is often confused with things like swinging or basic sluttery but the way I’ve defined it here precludes both of those types of sexual preferences. But this is not to say that there is anything wrong with being a swinger or having the disposition that just having sex with anyone is fine. In fact I think being a slut is a wonderful thing for those who can do it right. Some people might say,
“But wait! Isn’t being a slut being a liar and being immoral? Being the mistress of a lonely husband and so forth?”

Not at all, being a slut just means you are sexually adventurous and love to flirt and have sex with as many people as you can. There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with something like this so long as the interactions remain consensual and mutually beneficial. Now maybe they are a slut simply for the experience of being a slut or maybe it’s for the pure enjoyment of it or something else. Either way I don’t think it’s anyone’s business what their reasoning for it is unless it is somehow non-consensual, dishonest (i.e. fraudulent) or somehow reinforce inequality in relations. Furthermore insofar as the slut does things consensually, honestly and does it for the mutual benefit of all involved it’s no one’s business what happens.

There are other people who talk about the rise of sluttery as “the decay of traditional society”. And they are in some ways right and wrong about their criticism of free love. Though as an aside (though an important one I may add) perhaps the term “free love” is redundant. Consider what Emma Goldman had to say about it in her essay, “Marriage and Love”:

“Free love? As if love is anything but free! Man has bought brains, but all the millions in the world have failed to buy love. Man has subdued bodies, but all the power on earth has been unable to subdue love. Man has conquered whole nations, but all his armies could not conquer love. Man has chained and fettered the spirit, but he has been utterly helpless before love. High on a throne, with all the splendor and pomp his gold can command, man is yet poor and desolate, if love passes him by. And if it stays, the poorest hovel is radiant with warmth, with life and color. Thus love has the magic power to make of a beggar a king. Yes, love is free; it can dwell in no other atmosphere.” [1]

I think the same goes for the idea of polyamory. Such relations can only exist in an atmosphere of freeness or if you prefer liberty. And when I talk of sluthood being a good thing I mean being an ethical slut. That is, a person who aware of the context of their actions and does not try to perpetuate dishonesty or other harmful things into relationship through purposeful intent. These things, voluntary cooperation, honesty, commitment, consent and more that go into a truly wonderful and functional polyamorous relationship help promote the atmosphere of freeness Goldman talks about even in a more general. That’s just one reason why I think things like left-libertarianism is especially compatible with polyamorous relations. It is because they both compliment each other’s environment and atmosphere of freedom. I’ll talk more in depth about that later however.

That said, “traditional society” is something that I think has outlived its purpose. There’s no sense in maintaining societies that rely on the use of force, physiological and psychological torture that represses the human sexual drive. Any society that is governed by forces that would ordain such methods of keeping a “stable society” deserve neither the power to do so nor the “stable society” to begin with. If society is to be stable let it be raised from the bottom up, organically with lots and lots of love!
But more to the point, yes “traditional society” would in many ways fall if polyamory was more widely accepted, but why is that a bad thing? The accuser presupposes that traditional society is a necessarily good thing but why? Have they looked at the amount of wars in the world lately? Have they looked at the shape of the world and how there’s still a lot of division between the ones who rule and the ones that are ruled? The way people are repressed in almost every way possible of expressing themselves, not the least of which is sexually? To further that point is sex not taught to be evil or sometimes a necessary evil just for procreation and that too much sex breeds sin? If this be tradition then I say be gone with it! It was dead when it set its foot in the door in my eyes!

But in another sense they’re wrong for the accuser here most likely thinks that “traditional society” is the only society possible. And so when they say that freeing more things would lead to a less traditional society what they’re really trying to say is that society itself is what’s at stake. Really what they’re doing is trying to distort words and meanings. However, the free association of man and women, women and women, man and man etc. has never to my knowledge led to some sort of widespread chaos that could never have been solved even if it ever did happen.

A few examples to substantiate myself are in order of course. So for example in ancient Greece homoerotic relationships we’re quite common.[2] The relations between a boy who wanted to learn more and a man who was willing to teach would in fact sometimes be transacted through voluntary sexual relations between the two. Of course the Greeks are well known for many of their contributions to modern society and making it the way it is, so you can see for yourself how badly sexual freedoms can make society!
I do want to make it clear however that I am not here to advocate for extraneous things like old men dating young boys or the like. Instead, the example was more used for a same-sex relationship more than the age factor and saying that a society that contributed so much to modern society had heavy amounts of homo-eroticism. I also do not think time or space here permits to address the age factor here as I feel that has a lot of gray area as I think it would take far too much time of this essay. Though, suffice it to say, I believe the state currently handles the whole ordeal poorly.

In current day society relations between same sexes have been becoming more and more common. For example, the Mormon religion, one of the most popular in the world was built on the idea that a man having many women was not inherently a bad thing and was originally one of the main tenants of being a Mormon. Now, how the Mormons handled the women is another thing that I am unsure of and do not necessarily endorse. From what I understand they reduce the women to traditional roles and have a lot more say in the marriages than the women do which is certainly not what I support. Still, these examples are not meant to be cited for their perfection but only to illustrate that the conservative’s feelings on this matter are misguided and history has shown this in different ways. I’m sure there are other things I could cite to but I believe my point has been made.

The flaws and detractors aside let’s continue.

Is it possible to be polyamorous? I’d say so. For example, look at the July 2009 article “Only You. And you. And you.” In it, the author Jessica Bennett has a great passage about the movement of polyamory as an idea which I think is worth quoting at length:

“Researchers are just beginning to study the phenomenon, but the few who do estimate that openly polyamorous families in the United States number more than half a million, with thriving contingents in nearly every major city. Over the past year, books like Open, by journalist Jenny Block; Opening Up, by sex columnist Tristan Taormino; and an updated version of The Ethical Slut—widely considered the modern “poly” Bible—have helped publicize the concept. Today there are poly blogs and podcasts, local get-togethers, and an online polyamory magazine called Loving More with 15,000 regular readers. Celebrities like actress Tilda Swinton and Carla Bruni, the first lady of France, have voiced support for nonmonogamy, while Greenan herself has become somewhat of an unofficial spokesperson, as the creator of a comic Web series about the practice—called “Family”—that’s loosely based on her life. “There have always been some loud-mouthed ironclads talking about the labors of monogamy and multiple-partner relationships,” says Ken Haslam, a retired anesthesiologist who curates a polyamory library at the Indiana University-based Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender and Reproduction. “But finally, with the Internet, the thing has really come about.”’ (Emphasis added) [3]

I think then it becomes obvious that polyamory at least as an idea has been only growing in success and the 500,000 people just in the US alone more than signifies that. But this was from 2009 and you may say that it could have gone down by then but I think it’s worth noting that last part about the internet. It’s really only gotten more pervasive as time goes on and more and more people seem to be talking about it, even within libertarian circles as a viable alternative to monogamous lifestyles. In fact as that article points out many people currently in the world are polyamorous though you may not know it. This is because the poly community has a double edged tendency to hide themselves from the public eye at times. This is because they are a persecuted minority that the law does not look favorably on. Consider another one of Bennett’s passages in her 2009 article,

“Polys themselves are not visibly crusading for their civil rights. But there is one policy issue rousing concern: legal precedents concerning their ability to parent. Custody battles among poly parents are not uncommon; the most public of them was a 1999 case in which a 22-year-old Tennessee woman lost rights to parent her daughter after outing herself on an MTV documentary.” [4]

Because of things like this some poly groups or people who identify as polyamorus on a personal level do not identify openly as such for fear of the state. But even worse than this is that some may even get sucked into traditional relations because there’s no real state protection or aid for them like there is for the usual monogamous relationships. This leads to an arbitrary and artificial rise in monogamy just because people feel like they have no other choice other than to be monogamous. Thus I see society as a very much a “monogamous by default” looking society in which almost all relationships shown in the media are monogamous ones. Or where there are other people it’s always the “dirty slut” or the “conniving husband” or some other contrived stereotype. In reality many polyamorous relationships can and most likely have been happy and full of love.

It’s not within the scope of this essay to do a complete detailing of the workings of polyamorous relationships or how they’ll work in different scenarios and different people but if you so wishe you could make the wise investment of your time, money and resources to buy the book The Ethical Slut by Dossie Easton and Janet W. Hardy.[1] As you read, you’ll find so much advice on polyamory, what it’s about, what it looks like, can look like, might look like in the future, relationship advice that they won’t know what to do with at first and more! I cannot highly recommend this book enough for one’s understandings of not only polyamory but for relationships in general, this book is fantastic for monogamous couples as well!

Now I’d like to say that at no point in this essay will I try to assert as some may that polyamory is “more natural” or “inherently better” than monogamy or something like that. I will also not suggest that everyone should be polyamorous or that polyamory is perfect or has never failed. This is because polyamory is like any other human relationship (and perhaps more complicated in some aspects as one might imagine!) and it is prone to failure just like monogamy is. I want as many people as possible to understand now if they do not agree with anything I’ve said thus far to at least keep in mind that most polyamory tending people would allow you to continue your own monogamous relations regardless of whether you like their lifestyle. That’s something important to keep in mind.

Now the question is: Would you do the same for those who want to be polyamrous?

Notes:
[1] Emma Goldman’s “Marriage and Love” can be found here:
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/goldman/aando/marriageandlove.html
[2] For general information on this phenomenon I recommend the Wikipedia page on homosexuality in Ancient Greece:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece
[3] This article can be found here:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/07/28/only-you-and-you-and-you.html
[4] Ibid
[5] You can find the book at a pretty great price on Amazon.

What is left-libertarianism?

Bringing the personal back to the political as I think we should be we look at a fringe group within an already existing fringe group. I talk of course of the red spades and black hearts, of the left-libertarians. Now perhaps you don’t want to hear more terms, more definitions, more schisms, more literature, more libertarian nonsense, more defending of the rich; more beating on the poor or something else entirely. But I assure you that left-libertarianism not only has a great tradition but the real tradition that libertarians have been missing ever since Ayn Rand, Mises and company started trying to bring capitalism back into style. There’s certainly a confusion of terms in the world and in the libertarian movement this is no different. Definitions of “capitalism” and “socialism”, “left” and “right”, “state” and “government”, etc. etc. have raged for quite a long time with factions breaking off with their own definitions, terms, usages, historical figures and so forth and then forming their own small groups. But this one group I want to discuss has in my opinion managed to do this and actually build on this perhaps viable tradition in history that so many libertarians have forgotten.

So why left? What purpose does including the “left” in libertarian have for us? After all, as some like Walter Block or more recently Anthony Gregory has stated in “Why the Left Fears Libertarianism”, we are neither on the left or the right! But I fear that both Block and Gregory miss the point of these labels sometimes and so do other liberarians. The labels, like all labels, are not meant to be precise. Words have never been an exact science…well except maybe for that sentence. But nonetheless it seems foolhardy for us as libertarians to just reject not only the current political spectrum but then claim we are neither left nor right but somehow above the whole ordeal. This strikes me poorly for a few reasons. Not only does it scream of intellectual elitism as if we’re somehow better than the other people who call themselves on the left or right but it makes marketing and having alliances with others a little bit harder. Not only this but historically the political spectrum did at one time actually reflect where libertarians would be on the spectrum and it seems silly to me to not bring this up if not just as a legitimate fact of history.

Back during the times of the French Assembly people who sat on the right favored monopolies, a big government, a traditional lifestyle perhaps and many more restrictions on individual liberty. The people further to the left however (people like Pierre Joseph Proudhon and Fredrick Bastiat) were in favor of more libertarian property, gradually less and less government in people’s lives, they were against the monarchies, aristocracies and the land holding class that had gotten it through conquest. The people on the left were called “liberals” and rightly so! They wanted to liberate the people and had a set of beliefs and ideas of how to do so; they were the revolutionaries of their time. They did not buy the wars or the bureaucracy and they had a much wider range of concerns than just private property violations and aggression against the lower ruled class, though this of course was a concern.
And so the libertarian rightly understood was the first liberal, the first leftist if you will.

There’s an excellent article on Mises.org called ”The First Leftist” that talks about this same thing and I recommend it for more info on this particular subject. In this article Dean Russell discusses how the first leftist could be compared to the ones on the right which is another passage I think is worth quoting at length for showing how the differences were between the right and left at the time more clearly.

“[The leftists] … wanted wages, prices, and profits to be determined by competition in a free market, and not by government decree. They were pledged to free their economy from government planning, and to remove the government-guaranteed special privileges of guilds, unions, and associations whose members were banded together to use the law to set the price of their labor or capital or product above what it would be in a free market.[6]

While the right,

“…stood for a highly centralized national government, special laws and privileges for unions and various other groups and classes, government economic monopolies in various necessities of life, and a continuation of government controls over prices, production, and distribution.”[7]

The leftist was therefore not the social democrat, not the Trotskyite, the Stalinist, the Marxist. In fact these are all authoritarians in leftists clothing! In point of fact these sorts of leftists do not support any sort of revolution or support of individual liberties like the people in the French Assembly, people like Bastiat and Proudhon did. If one were to read this article they would notice that there is unfortunately a good deal of a worship of the Founding fathers and government in some sort of oxy-moronic “limited” form. It is certainly not within the scope of this essay to debate such a thing but I bring it up only to say that this part of it is not important. What is important is that the first leftists can be more rightly seen as libertarians and not the authoritarians many libertarians see the current left as. It is in this tradition and then radicalizing it to the form of anarchism that the left-libertarian takes some of their tradition from.
But some people say that this archaic history lessons has nothing to offer modern libertarians. Well surely if you want to discard with the entire current political spectrum you should consult history to see if it was ever on your side should you not? Is it not helpful to be historically accurate? Even if this fact is abstract and seldom known right now does that make it any less right? Does that make it any less usable? I do not think that it’s the case that we cannot use history just because some of it may go unnoticed in the telling of tyrants.

So this is why we use “left”, it is to be historically accurate with the tradition of what being a leftist really meant: supporting individual liberties against oppression in multiple different ways, especially against government oppression but not only that. For instance a left-libertarian may take the tradition of things like feminism, anti-racism and other possible cultural equalizers in order to have a much more balanced society. They may argue that while abolishing the government is important it doesn’t make sense to just stop there. It may be further argued there are many other types of oppression out there that need to be dealt with even once government is gone. In this way left-libertarians are inherently thick or, in other words that they have other concerns besides just the typical concerns for private property and the non-aggression principle, etc.

Another writing I recommend on this subject is Professor Gary Chartier’s “The Left in Left Libertarianism” which gives a whole host of reasons why the libertarian calls themselves left-libertarians. For instance Gary writes,

“An authentically leftist position, I suggest, is marked by opposition to subordination, exclusion, and deprivation.” [8]

He then describes each of these things:

“One person, A, is subordinate to another, B, when B has significant, persistent power over A. The power involved may be physical, but it may also be economic, psychic, social, or cultural. The important thing is that B determines, to some meaningful degree, what A does. A is significantly un-free in relation to B, either because B can impose on A some cost that A is unwilling to bear or because A genuinely (but mistakenly) believes that B is entitled to determine the character of A’s conduct.”

“Some person, A, is excluded from a group when it is made clear that she does not belong to the group, that she is entitled neither to the material incidents of membership nor to the recognition as a fellow member (and respect) associated with belonging.” (Gary notes that some relationships are necessary exclusionist such as monogamous relationships, intimate friendships, etc. but the position of the leftist is not to reduce the ones that happen naturally but only artificially and arbitrarily)

“Some person A experiences deprivation if she lacks the resources needed for (i) physical survival and health; (ii) clothing and shelter; and (iii) material circumstances that qualify as minimally dignified in accordance with the norms prevailing in her commnity.”[9]

Again, I cannot honestly say it’s within the scope of this essay to give the reader a complete overhaul of what I speak of here and what Gary is saying as well but I hope it has gotten their attention to have them look for more. I’ve spent much more considerable time on describing and defending polyamory because it is my belief that polyamory is far less understood or at the very least known in the libertarian movement. I think of it that at least left-libertarians are at least vaguely known to many libertarians and that this very brief outlook of what being a left-libertarian will give them less of a reason to discredit the term, the history and the meaning behind it outright. I am certainly willing to elaborate on any points I’ve made on polyamory or left-libertarianism during the questions and answers section of this talk.
Within the scope of “looking for more” I must recommend all-left.net which is the Alliance of the Libertarian Left’s official page and hosts many essays on the subject of left-libertarianism. If you’re not sure what to pick some of my personal favorites from that collection are:

• Libertarian Left: Free-market anti-capitalism, the unknown ideal (for an introduction)
• Libertarianism through Thick and Thin (for an application of additional principles)

I’d also highly recommend Kevin Carson’s Iron Fist Behind the Invisible Hand for a wonderfully accurate account of the rise of actually existing capitalism and many left-libertarian opinions I believe are also in there.
So with the two terms defined and some misconceptions and clarifications out of the way it is now time to see how they interact with each other.

Notes:
[7] This article can be found at:
http://mises.org/daily/3425
[8] This blog post can be found at:
http://liberalaw.blogspot.com/2008/12/left-in-left-libertarian.html
[9] Ibid
[10]

How do Polyamory and Left-Libertarianism Interact?

Now is the time to ask the questions I asked at the beginning of this essay, how do things interact? Why should they interact at all? Is it useful to combine concepts? For one thing, things naturally interact with each other in this world whether we like it or not. Ideas and concepts are always inexorably tied to other ones whether we recognize it or not at first. And so clearly if it can happen naturally it may also happen artificially. For instance if we can instill some outside meaning into the relationship we are trying to establish. This is not to say that doing so will make it false. Just like adding other concerns to libertarianism such as cultural concerns does not mean libertarianism becomes “fake” or something. It just means that it is a supplement with other theories on how to best get a more individually free society. Likewise, here left-libertarianism and polyamory supplement each other as social ideas of how people do and should act.

But is combining concepts useful? I feel this is a heavily contextual question. One that cannot be answered universally but only answered within the confines of the concepts and ideas being discussed. Within the context here I feel that it’s useful to relate ideas of love to left-libertarianism to show that libertarianism is not shy to say what personal relationships ought to look more like in a free society. That’s not to say that force should be used to ensure that things go like this exactly or that everyone should be acting the same way. It’s useful here because polyamory is an idea and a practice to have people create a better life for themselves and it is largely done without the state getting involved and is usually largely done in spite of it. In fact, the poly community would most likely be an excellent cultural and social alternative to reach out to as libertarians. Again, marketing has its place as long as it reflects a genuine interest in other people and their own concerns and is not just a matter of proselytizing other people for the movement you love so much. So yes, I feel as if these two concepts are not only individually useful but together could be even more beneficial for both movements.

Why should they interact though? Why should an idea like polyamory go along with the many ideas of left-libertarianism? For one, I think the idea of sexual liberation and freedom is something that libertarians have forgotten. A dull, sexually repressed culture is not a healthy culture and one that may be prone to become heavily distorted if it was not distorted to begin with. And this is due to the imbalance of feelings in our bodies that naturally occur from repressing who we really are. If we cannot express ourselves freely so long as it harms no one else, what sort of freedom do we have? This extends to sex too. If we cannot be ourselves sexually then who can we be? What will society make us? Are we just creating ourselves and our own meaning through the distorted lens that society has wrought due to perverse incentives from higher up? All of these questions I think are important ones and ones I do not feel like the libertarian movement ever tries to address this in any substantial fashion.

Back in the 60s and 70s the sexual liberation movement was in swing, the second wave of feminism was reaching America, the anti-war, counter-culture and the anti-state movement was trying to find its place. All of these things had to (at some point or another) look for alternatives outside the state or do things in spite of the state or when they did something with the state it was often times with gritted teeth. These people, these movements, the individuals in here may have many different concepts of freedom and liberty but I believe that many of them were on the right train of thought.

All of these correct strands of thought, the idea that war is bad, that the culture was wrong, that the state was a mistake of some sort, that being sexually free was important in several ways. All of these things resonate with each other and I believe supplement one another in many great ways! The problem with most libertarians is that they do not see that this is the case, they’d instead like to worry about the state advocating for same sex marriage (let the oppressive institution of marriage reign equally dammit!) or seeing gays serve in the military so the state organization that goes to other countries and kills other people for usually no good reason can be more inclusive!

The point is that in tying up polyamory and left-libertarianism is the hope is to bring back some traditions libertarians have seemingly long forgot that exist in both left-libertarianism and polyamory and bring to the forefront of their mind the radical notion that the state is not the only problem in the world.

Towards a More Loving World

How can this be done? What could exactly be compatible between these two ideas? For one, the consensual part of these relations is key and so is the open honesty, tolerance of others, acceptance of different people and lifestyles and of course the love. The love is the most important point I think so I do want to stress it quite a bit. That, not only are you loving but you love freely. If you think you cannot love freely, that men with guns will come to your house to take you and your lover away or your customer or client then how free are you? Likewise, if you live in a society in which people discriminate against you for trying to express your sexual preferences insofar as they do not violate moral laws how free are you? Will you feel chained to other people’s preferences and your own body? This is not healthy for a relationship to the world and often this is what the polyamorous person feels, what the sex worker feels, what the prostitute feels, we need to show solidarity to these people. These people not only have difficult enough lives in their own right even without the state but the culture demonizes them, calls them trash, some say they’re all sex slaves (they’re not), and others say they’re sinners. How can we love in such a society? How can we dream of a better world without liberation? How can we love?

We cannot love, that is one thing the state won’t let us do that we need so badly to overcome it. We cannot love, the state’s taken away the dearest thing on this goddamned planet and if that doesn’t make you angry, if that doesn’t make you an anarchist, if that doesn’t make you want to support not only things like polyamory at least in the passive accepting stance, then what will it take?

Will it take a bigger police state for you to realize we are not free? That love is ordained by God and politicians and not the individual’s choices? That the Church decides what is best for your body or else men with pens and big pieces of official paper backed by men with guns decide what’s best for you?

The practices of both the state and religion currently restrict the human spirit and the capacity of love and these are heinous things that the libertarian should look to overcome at as many points as they can. I am not for any sort of abolishment of religion, I, in fact, thinks religion can be a love filled relationship so long as it keeps to itself to the point of not forcing itself on the other as well as other variables. Still, I think it’s another mistake of modern day libertarians to sometimes not demonize modern hugely bureaucratic and hierarchical relations that claim there is someone higher than all of them and they always shall be under. They shall only rise if they give themselves up to this “higher being” and submit their will and mind. Something seems wrong about a society or culture that would fully embrace something like this.

But to get off of this tangent I say we break free of these chains and that this is where left-libertarianism comes from and comes into play with polyamory. The left-libertarian cry is what the person tying to celebrate their sexual lives are seeking and what polyamory is is what the left-libertarian may want to look into if they want to discover other options. We must deempathize the political methods as a mostly failed method and replace them with direct action, education, agorism and building this new more loving society within the shell of this old and unfortunately very loveless society.

Will that most likely lead to polyamory? I don’t know. I’d like to think that if more people actually knew the options, that the playing field was more equal on both sides that people would at least try it or show more affection to their partners. People would not be called “her boyfriend” or “my girlfriend” or treated like property; they’d be best seen as equals in a mutually loving relationship.

From what comes out of all of this I know not but what I do know is that it’ll be beautiful and it’ll be love and liberation like nothing before.