I don't really want to comment or read anything here.I have near zero in common with many of you.I may return periodically when there's something you need to know.
Near Mutualist/Libertarian Socialist.
To me, there are 2 defining features of left-libertarianism:
1. Inseparability of capitalism, in the historical sense of a highly stratified, wage labor-based economic system, and the state.
2. Commitment to leftist/anti-rulership (anarchist) cultural values in opposition to all forms of authoritarianism.
Both are necessary for a libertarian to be leftist. If you're only one but not the other (i.e. Keith Preston, who only fulfills the first requirement), you're not a left-libertarian IMO.
2,300 words to not say anything coherent about economics. Basically communism without the marching bands and statues.
Btw, you mentioned "belief" 9 times. Is this a religion?
i hate the right and left political description of things, which is why i reject the terms left or right when i describe libertarianism....and i agree with LibertyStudent on his commnent
My Blog: http://www.anarchico.net/
Production is 'anarchistic' - Ludwig von Mises
Not all leftists are commies. Don't be ridiculous.
liberty student: 2,300 words to not say anything coherent about economics. Basically communism without the marching bands and statues
2,300 words to not say anything coherent about economics. Basically communism without the marching bands and statues
I'll bet you 10 dollars that I can find 5 things that are coherent about economics. :)
(And I didn't even read it yet.)
The state is not the enemy. The idea of the state is.
vaguelyhumanoid:Not all leftists are commies. Don't be ridiculous.
The stuff that Scott posted in his manifesto, is basically the same post hoc, ergo propter hoc rationale for socialism that Communists use.
If one "believes" in his core "belief" system, and the rationales he details for that "belief" system, then I would say, that person is a poor man's Communist.
I'm a voluntaryist. My manifesto is
Only voluntary relationships are moral.
It's not complicated. It doesn't have clauses. It doesn't ask for belief. It's not based on historical materialism. It doesn't take sides. It doesn't pretend to make statements about economic activity.
If only people would have read my political versus social philosophy thread. That way, we might have resolved this argument a bit. :(
In any case; I don't the nature of philosophy of social relations stops at 'if it's voluntary, than it's oke'.
@AdrianHealey
may you give us an example where a voluntary action isn't ok?
Isaac "Izzy" Marmolejo: @AdrianHealey may you give us an example where a voluntary action isn't ok?
Hiring someone to kill someone else is a voluntary relationship between those two people, which I don't think is oke?
In any case; as a libertarian, I think all voluntary actions ought to be legal. (That's the realm which I called 'philosophy of natural law/natural right.)
Given that all voluntary actions ought to be legal, I don't think that all voluntary actions are as oke as others - in the sense of what I've called a social philosophy: a philosophy of what we would like to achieve in the world, given the constraints given to us by philosophy of (natural) law/natural rights.
For example, I see some deep problems with the way some people try to 'help the poor' in the third world. Even if (some of) those programs are completely voluntary, they often cause a lot of damage. I think these actions ought to be legal, I don't think they are oke, given my social philosophy. (Which is more contingent than philosophy of law.)
That's what I mean when I say: 'there is more to the philosophy of interacting with others than just saying 'all voluntarism is ok'. This is an important insight and too few people are convinced of it, but it's not the whole realm of philosophy of interacting with others.
Isaac "Izzy" Marmolejo:may you give us an example where a voluntary action isn't ok?
I'm also wondering. I said: "I don't the nature of philosophy of social relations stops at 'if it's voluntary, than it's oke'"
where does it follow that I think that 'some voluntary relations aren't oke'? How does 'there is more to philosophy than that' imply 'some voluntary relations aren't oke'?
Hiring someone to kill another is not necessarily bad... you have to consider the conditions of the agreement. People make that agreement in the case of abortion... or maybe Person A wants person B to kill him but Person B cant, so he hires Person C to do so... Or in Austro-libertarian society, if one kills another, the family of the victim,determined by a court, gets to decide hoe to deal with the matter, so they hire someone to kill the murderer...
Isaac "Izzy" Marmolejo: Hiring someone to kill another is not necessarily bad... you have to consider the conditions of the agreement. People make that agreement in the case of abortion... or maybe Person A wants person B to kill him but Person B cant, so he hires Person C to do so... Or in Austro-libertarian society, if one kills another, the family of the victim gets to decide hoe to deal with the matter, so they hire someone to kill the murderer...
Hiring someone to kill another is not necessarily bad... you have to consider the conditions of the agreement. People make that agreement in the case of abortion... or maybe Person A wants person B to kill him but Person B cant, so he hires Person C to do so... Or in Austro-libertarian society, if one kills another, the family of the victim gets to decide hoe to deal with the matter, so they hire someone to kill the murderer...
No, not necessarily. But also not necessarily good.
Equality. The Belief that large wealth disparity is due to the mix of statist privilege and barriers to entry and that minus these in a free market, wealth and land would be more widely distributed and wealth would be less unequal. The Free market is a form of wealth redistribution.It is inherently corrosive to wealth concentration and inherently leftist.
But it's very weird, don't you think, that there is an over-emphasis and focus on "equality". Regardless of of the cause and size of disparity. Why are you focusing on something that is a fallacy to begin with?
This along with several points which are just not really important really confuse the hell out of me regarding left-libertarianism.
AdrianHealey:Hiring someone to kill someone else is a voluntary relationship between those two people, which I don't think is oke?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition
AdrianHealey:Given that all voluntary actions ought to be legal
Legality has nothing to do with it.
AdrianHealey:For example, I see some deep problems with the way some people try to 'help the poor' in the third world. Even if (some of) those programs are completely voluntary, they often cause a lot of damage. I think these actions ought to be legal, I don't think they are oke, given my social philosophy. (Which is more contingent than philosophy of law.)
The actions of others don't have to conform to your tastes or preferences.
AdrianHealey:That's what I mean when I say: 'there is more to the philosophy of interacting with others than just saying 'all voluntarism is ok'. This is an important insight and too few people are convinced of it, but it's not the whole realm of philosophy of interacting with others.
Who claimed it was?
liberty student: Legality has nothing to do with it.
Appeals to Rothbard are meaningless to me. I am not a Rothbardian.
Go back to my manifesto. Challenge it as it is, not as how you want to commentate on it.
Nobody is arguing that the actions of others 'have' - in a legal or political sense - to confirm to other peoples tastes and preferences. Again: nobody is denying the right of people to act in a certain way.
Then what are you arguing? Can you articulate a coherent position wrt morality, or not?
liberty student: Appeals to Rothbard are meaningless to me. I am not a Rothbardian.
Could you back up your claim 'it's not about legality'?
"Go back to my manifesto. Challenge it as it is, not as how you want to commentate on it."
<= Why would I want to do that?
"Then what are you arguing? Can you articulate a coherent position wrt morality, or not?"
LibertyStudent, define voluntary, and justify why all human actions should be voluntary.
AdrianHealey:Could you back up your claim 'it's not about legality'?
Yes. First, define legal.
AdrianHealey:"Go back to my manifesto. Challenge it as it is, not as how you want to commentate on it." <= Why would I want to do that?
Because it is a chance for you to make your first honest argument in this thread.
AdrianHealey: liberty student: 2,300 words to not say anything coherent about economics. Basically communism without the marching bands and statues I'll bet you 10 dollars that I can find 5 things that are coherent about economics. :) (And I didn't even read it yet.)
So, how about it?
We can pick 5 judges of the forum and they can judge wether or not they are correct economic statements.
liberty student: Yes. First, define legal.
Feel free to pick any definition you like. And work your way from there.
i'll just drop the ad hominem comment.
vaguelyhumanoid:LibertyStudent, define voluntary
Action absent aggression.
vaguelyhumanoid:and justify why all human actions should be voluntary.
I never claimed they should be.
AdrianHealey:So, how about it?
If I was interested, I would have replied earlier. Your attempts to one up me are pointless.
AdrianHealey: liberty student: Yes. First, define legal. Feel free to pick any definition you like. And work your way from there.
Still waiting for you to define legal. You claimed it was first. What is your definition?
AdrianHealey:i'll just drop the ad hominem comment.
It's funny you call it an ad hominem when it isn't, because its basically in response to your logical fallacy of composition. You see, an ad hominem would be, "Adrian is dishonest" rather than "Adrian has not yet made an honest argument". Ad hominem is an argument to the man, not about your argument.
Please learn some logic, than come back and try again.
"Still waiting for you to define legal. You claimed it was first. What is your definition?"
<= Well, usually the term 'legal' is used for things that will not cause the (justified) use of force against you. Stealing is illegal: if you steal, people may be justified in using force against you. Drugs are illegal: if you use drugs, the cops may be justified in using force against you. Libertarianism has a consistent theory about what ought to be legal and what ought not be legal.
So; libertarianism is 'all' about legality.
I'll drop the ad hominem remarks once again.
LibertyStudent, what is "aggression"? And if only voluntary actions are moral, why shouldn't all human actions be voluntary?
Adrian,
If you're going to keep calling logical statements ad hominem, there really is no point in my (or perhaps anyone else) spending time debating with you.
When you're ready to deal with logic, which is what I consider the standard for an honest discussion between two intelligent human beings, let me know.
vaguelyhumanoid:LibertyStudent, what is "aggression"?
Initiation of force.
vaguelyhumanoid:And if only voluntary actions are moral, why shouldn't all human actions be voluntary?
I try not to make ought statements. I prefer the "is".
AdrianHealey: If only people would have read my political versus social philosophy thread. That way, we might have resolved this argument a bit. :( In any case; I don't the nature of philosophy of social relations stops at 'if it's voluntary, than it's oke'.
that's a point I am trying to make in these forums too. That's why I dislike term "voluntaryism" much more than simple "anarchism".
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
Thank you Scott. A valuable post in my opinion.
Following from this left-libertarians are on the side of the downtrodden and the marginalized. Concern for the downtrodden.Furthermore concern for the downtrodden follows from left-libertarian opposition to aggression against innocents.Those aggressed against- the oppressed- are just one group of the downtrodden. Concern for dehumanization and about aggression leads to concern for the marginalized and downtrodden... Pro-migrant.Culturally, left-libertarians are pro-migrant which follows from concern for the downtrodden...
Following from this left-libertarians are on the side of the downtrodden and the marginalized.
Concern for the downtrodden.Furthermore concern for the downtrodden follows from left-libertarian opposition to aggression against innocents.Those aggressed against- the oppressed- are just one group of the downtrodden.
Concern for dehumanization and about aggression leads to concern for the marginalized and downtrodden...
Pro-migrant.Culturally, left-libertarians are pro-migrant which follows from concern for the downtrodden...
I guess its true lefties love losers.
What is this conservative baggage of traditional libertarianism? Was Lord Acton a conservative? Proudhon? Thoreau? Spooner? Conservative is such vague and useless word in the libertarian political sphere.
Freedom has always been the only route to progress.
LS, two problems:
1. Initiation of force against what? I bet you mean against person or property, but are those really equivalent?
2. All moral statements are "ought" statements. Are you saying that which is moral is not preferable to that which is immoral? If so, what makes it moral at all?
Which of these tenets do you consider to be different from libertarianism without adjectives?
vaguelyhumanoid:I bet you mean against person or property, but are those really equivalent?
They don't have to be equivalent, but libertarians believe in property rights so initiation of force against one's property is initiation of force against the person.
Why does there have to be a "left" libertarianism? I don't identify with any left or right, why use such political labels?
When in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.
^^Sound familiar? There will always be people dissatisfied with the general interpretation of an ideology they agree with. That being said, I don't see much of a difference between the variant of left-libertarianism presented here and libertarianism in general.
What's the deal with 'bargaining power'?
If you wrote this and just didn't just parrot/ cut and paste, it is good to get one thoughts in order. Even if I am non cognitive to / disagree with everything right down to the premise itself. But I suppose there is nothing that can be said by me that would be productive.
Here is some advice by George Orwell:
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm