Beyond Left and Right: Where I Stand

[July 2026]

I spent my twenties and early thirties calling myself a center-left libertarian. I was even registered with the Libertarian Party until 2016, when I switched my affiliation to Democrat. Looking back at my voting record, it has leaned heavily one way: Nader, Kerry, Obama, Obama, Clinton, Biden, Harris. In local races before MAGA took over, I picked Democrats or Republicans based on who seemed decent, though I usually went Democrat. (Context: I am from New England, where the Republicans still tend to be pretty liberal by national standards.) Since 2016 it has been blue no matter who. 

People sometimes give me shit when they hear I used to be registered Libertarian, even though my actual votes were mostly for Democrats. They call it cringe. The average liberal pictures libertarians as conservatives who read a couple books and really like Rush, or a bunch of Ayn Rand types obsessed with being edgy. But here is the thing: I never stopped thinking of myself as libertarian. The party itself just got too weird for me. By 2016 it felt full of far-right energy, the kind that dabbled in anti-vax conspiracy theory nonsense. I bailed on the label for the organization, not all of the ideas.

Libertarians are not the Libertarian Party. And libertarian ideas are not automatically right-wing. These days I call myself a libertarian socialist. If you push me on it, I will say my views line up with liberals and progressives on most big-picture stuff, and I trust them more than MAGA candidates to look out for people like me. Still, no one in mainstream politics really speaks for me. I liked Bernie Sanders a lot, but we part ways on some issues now, especially his strong turn against AI in the last year.

You might be scratching your head at this point. Libertarian usually means small government. Socialist means big government safety nets. How the hell do those fit together? Fair question. Let me walk through it.

I use the label "libertarian socialist" in a broad sense: someone who combines expansive civil liberties with strong social protections, rather than in the classical anarchist or syndicalist tradition.

The libertarian part is pretty straightforward for me. Government should stay the fuck out of personal business between consenting adults. That means gay marriage is legal, poly relationships are legal, and nobody gets to police what grown people do in their private lives. I am personally not into polyamory, but that is my choice. It is not my job or the government's job to stop other adults from arranging their relationships however they want.

The same principle covers abortion: it should be legal. Adults should have the right to pursue gender transition, including hormones, surgery, and the legal recognition that goes with it. I am a trans man, and I lived through some of the gatekeeping bullshit myself. In 2016 providers turned me down for care because I am attracted to men. They could not wrap their heads around someone assigned female at birth wanting to transition and live as a gay man. That kind of arbitrary barrier needs to go. Drugs should be decriminalized. Marijuana especially should be treated like alcohol: legal, taxed, regulated, with penalties for driving under the influence. Sex work should be decriminalized too. If two adults agree to the transaction, the state has no business sticking its nose in.

That is the live-and-let-live core. It is not about having zero rules. It is about not using the law to control what people do with their own bodies and private choices.

The socialist side comes from the simple fact that we live in a society together. We need some structure, some basic fairness, and protection from the worst shit. I am a disabled person on assistance, so I have seen the current system's bureaucracy up close. Social Security and social services are a mess of red tape. Something like UBI combined with guaranteed housing vouchers would cut through a lot of that and treat people with more dignity. It would also be a smarter way to handle the massive changes coming from AI and automation. When lower-skill jobs start disappearing fast, we need a real floor under people instead of pretending the old system will hold.

As a gay trans man, I believe we should have strong protections against discrimination based on race, ethnicity, gender identity, sexual orientation, and the rest. Violent crime, child abuse and exploitation, rape, and other serious harms need real consequences. We need police, but they should be properly trained and accountable. Law and order is not optional in a functional society.

My version of libertarian socialism mixes these instincts without forcing them into a neat left-right box.

For example: I am pro-gun ownership. People should be able to defend themselves. But I also want background checks, licensing, and mandatory safety training. Responsible ownership is not the same as zero restrictions.

On gender care, adults should have access to hormones and surgery with far less gatekeeping than there is now, it should all be informed consent, everywhere. As someone who was a dysphoric kid back in the 80s and 90s and suffered greatly, in general I'm for affirming care for minors but with more guardrails in place than for adults, and I think anything permanent and irreversible like surgery should be for adults only.

When it comes to discrimination, I draw lines between essential services and private spaces. Supermarkets, public transportation, healthcare, and other necessities should not be allowed to turn people away based on who they are. But a private social club, sports group, or similar voluntary gathering? If the cis women there do not want to include trans women, that should be their call. I think trans women are women and dislike the idea of excluding them from women's spaces, however, personally, as a trans guy who's experienced hostility in gay male spaces, I would rather know where I am not welcome than be politely tolerated while people resent it behind my back.

Prisons and shelters need more nuance than blanket policies. Housing all trans women with cis men or all with cis women creates problems. There are bad actors who will exploit any rule, like rapists suddenly claiming trans identity to get access to women. At the same time, trans people and gay people face real risks in general population regardless. LGBT-specific facilities make sense as a practical step. Even better would be a serious overhaul of the criminal justice system: stop locking people up for victimless crimes, put drug addicts in rehab instead of jail, reduce recidivism, and focus on actual public safety.

I am a rape survivor, so I get why some cis women do not want to share shelters or counseling spaces with trans women. Trauma is real, and it often attaches to specific body parts and experiences. Wanting to opt out of counseling from someone with a penis is not transphobia in my book. It is human. The left generally treats this as heresy, but it feels like basic common sense to me. Besides, a trans survivor might feel safer talking with another trans person and we should get to choose that as well. 

The same instinct applied when that gay couple sued the cake maker who did not want to bake their wedding cake. I thought it was over the top. If it had been me, I would have left bad reviews, dragged them on the Internet, and found another baker. Suing the cake maker just handed ammunition to people who were previously live-and-let-live on gay rights, it pushed some libertarian-minded folks away.

I watch a YouTube channel called RocaNews that travels around showing unfiltered views of different places. One episode covered a whites-only "Return to the Land" community. I think racism is stupid and illogical, but I would rather those people voluntarily separate and do their own thing than force integration and create constant conflict. As long as they are not hurting anyone or demanding special treatment from the rest of society, and not harassing or imposing their ways on nearby communities, let them live in their misguided bubble.

All of this adds up to a position that does not fit comfortably on the standard spectrum. The libertarian side keeps my socialism honest. It stops it from sliding into overreach and top-down control. The socialist side keeps my libertarianism grounded. It acknowledges that pure individualism falls apart when you are dealing with disabled people, systemic discrimination, automation shocks, and basic public safety. Civil liberties only mean something inside a society that actually functions and takes care of its people. As a libertarian, I believe UBI is the best way to ensure basic needs are met that doesn't involve a lot of regulations and red tape, and when people's basic needs are met that in turn reduces the crime rate which further reduces the scale of prisons, police, etc.

Nobody owns my exact combination of views. The modern left gets uncomfortable with my takes on prisons and shelters, and private spaces and free association. The right cannot stand the social liberties, the support for UBI, or the willingness to call racism and other forms of bigotry dumb. That is fine. I am not looking for a team jersey. I am trying to think clearly about what actually works for real human beings with bodies, traumas, desires, and limitations.

I still vote Democrat because, on balance, they come closer to protecting the things I care about than the alternative. But I do not pretend they are perfect or that they represent me fully. My politics start with a simple question: how do we protect people's right to live as they choose while making sure the society we all share does not fall apart or chew up the vulnerable? The answer is not in any party platform. It is in holding both instincts in tension and refusing to let one cancel the other out.

That is where I stand. Libertarian enough to value freedom and personal responsibility. Socialist enough to insist we owe each other basic decency and support. Beyond the usual left-right shouting match, trying to make sense of the world as it is.