A Left Libertarian Manifesto.

Posts 696

Points 12,900

Reply

AnonLLF Posted: Sat, Jan 15 2011 8:52 AM

rated by 0 users

A Left-Libertarian Manifesto.

Often I am asked what differentiates me as a left libertarian from other libertarians.Here is my attempt at an answer.In writing this manifesto, I have attempted to avoid controversies and instead focus on what I consider to be the essence of left libertarianism and lay out a few of it's central tenets.Hopefully this will help explain and aid understanding.

What is Left-libertarianism?

It is libertarianism sythesized with leftism. It is the awareness that the two are not contradictory or opposites on a spectrum but properly understood are the same.It should be clear from the beginning left-libertarians reject the statism of traditional leftists.Many do not consider such individuals to be leftist.Merely left-libertarianism is the understanding that libertarianism leads to leftist conclusions - that libertarianism is a philosophy from which to view the causes and solutions to traditional leftist concerns such as bargaining power,bosses or corporations.To use Gary Chartier's phrase it is "socialist ends by (free) market means".

Central tenets of left libertarianism.

'Subsidy of History' .Further awareness of how history has had no golden ages and elites have benefitted from statism in past while average person has suffered due to state e.g. in the Industrial Revolution.
The political class.The State has throughout history to present day acted to artificially privilege the rich,corporations, landlords and employers(The political class) at the expense of everyone else particularly the poor, employees,women, black people,foreigners, tenants,small businesses,the self employed, unions and the like(the exploited class).Following from this left-libertarians are on the side of the downtrodden and the marginalized.
Two Kinds of Government intervention. As Kevin Carson says there's two kinds of government intervention.Primary which are privileges such as subsidies to the rich etc.Secondary which the government puts in place to hide the injustice of primary intervention and make the system seem humane e.g. minimum wage,welfare etc yet which remain harmful as ever.
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.
Current Distribution of wealth and land.Following from the previous post the recognition that current distribution of wealth and land is largely due to state intervention whether that be barriers to entry or statist privilege and that just because someone is wealthy need not mean they achieved it themselves and just because someone is poor does not mean that they make bad lifestyle choices.Following from this understanding we must reject classist prejudices.
Belief in Anarchist Pluralism.This is a belief that various legal and political arrangements would exist in anarchy ranging from back to nature communes,co-ops, collectives to voluntary socialist federations and so one.No one arrangement would and should dominate.Anarchist arrangements will compete and finally truly be put to the test.
Opposition to Thin libertarianism and belief in Thick libertarianism.Left libertarians are not arguing that there should be a set moral creed for libertarians but also that morality is not irrelevant.It is worth discussion in anytime there is a discussion of rights.We should always keep in mind that while there may be a right to do X that does not imply that it is morally right to do X.Even prominent 'thin libertarian' Walter Block is really thick.He speaks of religion as potentially being a bulwark against the state and that it is important for libertarians to support it when it does so.This is thick libertarianism.There are many kinds of thickness varying in degrees and one can belief in one kind while rejecting another.One kind is the basic left libertarian position that while opposition to aggression against innocents is vital and necessary ,it is not sufficient.Left-libertarians broaden the scope to include cultural matters such as structures of domination and dehumanization.
Belief in 'Thickness from grounds'- A kind of thickness.This is values which lead you to libertarianism or are implied as part of it, that lead to a concern for wider issues.An example of the links here would be:- concern about aggression leads to general concern for others .Concern for others leads to concern about dehumanization.Concern for dehumanization and about aggression leads to concern for the marginalized and downtrodden of which the aggressed against are one group.
Belief in Thickness from consequences- As Charles Johnson explains it "there may be social practices or outcomes that libertarians should (in some sense) be committed to opposing, even though they are not themselves coercive, because (1) background acts of government coercion are a causal precondition for them to be carried out or sustained over time; and (2) there are independent reasons for regarding them as social evils."Examples of this are sweatshops,'contract feudalism or authoritarianism arising from land ownership.
Rejection of conservative baggage of traditional libertarianism.Historically classical liberalism defined itself largely in opposition to state socialism.Libertarianism with it's opposition to state socialism during the progressive era and the cold war has done likewise.This is due to unfortunate alliances with the old right and conservatives.Libertarianism has unthinkingly and knee jerkedly embraced evils in the name of opposing state socialism as a package.Libertarians have engaged in the fallacy of package dealing here and in doing so have accepted evils which socialists of all stripes-statist and anarchist- rightly oppose.Left-libertarians seek to help the philosophy of libertarianism shed this baggage.This baggage can be seen in opposition to leftist language and concepts or the belief that voluntary socialism is impossible- an argument that likewise can be turned back on the arguer.Also this tendency is exhibited in anarcho-capitalist selective re-reading of history to downplay or exclude elements of classical liberalism/libertarianism which came close or even were left-libertarian.
Opposition to Vulgar Libertarianism.Kevin Carson Defines Vulgar Libertarianism as the tendency to falsely believe that X condition holds because the actually corporatist we live in is a free market.An example would be to say workers who have horrible working conditions should just quit.This ignores the extent to which workers bargaining power is reduced by statism.
Anti-corporate.There are many left-libertarian criticisms of corporations.But the most basic is that corporations are defined by (1) state granted limited liability and (2) corporate personhood. (1) It is an error to think left-libertarians oppose limited liability per se.More correctly,we oppose state grants of limited liability which amounts to the state legally privileging a company owner ,manager or higher staff (especially corporations) to be exempt from prosecution.This is not a free market contract because the state is enforcing this against non agreeing third parties.It is essentially a kind of social contract.Now it is true this can sometimes be ignore by the state when pressing for prosecution but this is rare.(2) Left-libertarians oppose corporate personhood which is the treating of a corporation- an organization as if it is an individual with rights as an individual.It's true individuals in a corporation have rights but the organization itself does not.This is an epistemological error and one which should he gross to libertarians who favour individualism.These two criticisms lead left-libertarians to the conclusion that corporations are products of statism and could not exist on the free market or at very least would be very improbable.Important to note is that corporations are defined by thesr two privileges, a company missing the latter one is just a artificially privileged company not a corporation but left-libertarians oppose these all the same.
Seperation of management and ownership.At very least, left-libertarians think this can be problematic and at most think it is immoral or a violation of rights.
Unions are not inherently coercive.Unions have been co-opted at times by the state.Left-libertarians oppose this.We believe in unions that work for left-libertarian goals and seek to level the playing field between employer and employee.
Belief in Strategic Thickness ,that is values that would help lead to and maintain a free society.
Reduced/limited Bargaining power. The state limits job opportunities by instituting barriers to entry such as licenses and monopolies.Thus workers either cannot be self employed or independent contractors or the numbers of individuals taking up such kinds of employment are vastly reduced.This means that workers do not have much ability to turn down job offers ,look for better working conditions such as hours,oppose boss petty authoritarianism or argue for benefits such as child care.Workers are stuck with what there is,so the employer holds all the power in their relations.The State is the enemy of the worker.
Solutions to reduced bargaining power.Possible solutions include Workplace democracy,Worker Self management, collective bargaining,labour organizing,work to rule, go slows etc.
Ambiguity in labour contracts allows employers to take advantage of employees reduced bargaining power and require things not specified in the contract.
'Contract Feudalism'.Reduced bargaining power means that employees can do little when employers extend their authority into the private lifes of workers such as preventing criticism of the company on social networking sites.Kevin Carson calls this 'Contract Feudalism'.Employer authority is extensive and all embracing.
SweatShops.Due to reduced bargaining power which results in workers reduced ability to seek better worker conditions sweatshop workers have limited options.They are not choosing the second best option nor even the best option but the best option ALLOWED by statism.
Poverty. While libertarianism has always emphasised how statism causes and maintains poverty, left-libertarianism are strongly in favour of making sure it is not forgotten in case status quo apologetics or classism enter in.The state's cause and maintenance of povety is extensive resulting twofold:- statist privileges and statist intervention which holds down the poor.The group most harmed by statism at any time is the poor.The State is thus the enemy of the poor.
Pro-migrant.Culturally, left-libertarians are pro-migrant which follows from concern for the downtrodden( and opposition to xenophobia) since often migrants come into a country due to state created poverty or war.Left-libertarians view the most flourishing society as one in which their is a variety of groups and cultures.Left-libertarianism is on the side of the migrant.
Opposition to I-it relationships which result in dehumanization- that is treating of individuals as objects, as lacking in free will and determined by their group- Examples of these include sexism,racism,classism,xenophobia, transphobia and homophobia.
Statism on the side of the bigot.Since we don't have free markets , to some degree employers are protected from suffering from loss of profit due to discrimination because of state reduction of competition and corporatism.Walter Block is wrong.
Authoritarianism due to land ownership. At minimal concern about how land ownership might be used to mistreat or control others.At most ,outright opposition to land ownership for this very reason
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 inequal.The Free market is a form of wealth redistribution.It is inherently corrosive to wealth concentration and inherently leftist.
Artificially large firms. Firms have two forces involving their size:- economies of scale and diseconomies of scale. The vulgar libertarian analysis assumes current size of firms is due to serving the needs of the masses.This is claimed because it is said that certain factors reduce production by unit and allow for increase of firm size.These are economies of scale.Diseconomies of scale are factors which limit the size of firms such as costs,transport etc.The vulgar analysis is mistaken because it assumes a free market which is what this clear law applies to.The situation as left libertarians point out is more complex in the current corporatist atmosphere.An analogy will help illustrate. Imagine a set of scales.On the right side is economies of scale and on the left, diseconomies. The way it would work in a free market ,is the right will become weighted by economies and the left weighted by diseconomies( both factors are always in play ) until the left diseconomies outweights the right economies.But in Corporatism, statist privilege artificially reduces if not in some cases eliminates diseconomies on the left side of the scale and adds extra economies of scale onto the right side.The result of this is artificially larger firms.Absent these factors in a free market,firms would have clear diseconomies and thus would be smaller to some extent than currently.
Fewer firms. Statist privileges allow firms to grow to artificially large sizes while barriers to entry reduce smaller businesses entering the market to compete or prevent their entry in the firstplace(the unseen of barriers to entry) The result of this is fewer bigger firms- the traditional leftist complaint.Thus it follows the solution to this problem is not statism since it is the cause.
Prices. Since on a free market, competition tends to result in lowered prices and better quality goods and services with statism hampering if not at times eliminating competition completely then these two tendencies do not hold currently and we have artificially higher prices and artificially lower quality goods and services than we could have.You might say this doesn't seem to be true.Things seem to be get better all the time.While it seems this way ,things could be much better in a free market.
Rent. By artificially creating scarcity via barriers to entry for example rent control or zoning and statist privilege, statism results in reduced supply of land while demand remains the same.The result of this is artificially increased prices in buying or renting land and artificially high rents.
Artificially increased overheads.The state artificially raises overheads.Overheads are the costs of running a business.The costs are raised by such things as the cost of filling tax reports, complying with regulations etc. clearly now to deal with those requires large bureaucracy in businesses.Smaller businesses and individuals have a harder time to keep up with these costs so artificial overheads reduce their amount or actually exclude them from the market -especially in the case of the poorest.

I would be happy to see others follow in my path and write their own manifesto's either following my general outline or not.

Hopefully my explanations are full enough to generate more understand of what left libertarians believe.

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.

| Post Points: 200

Posts 45

Points 1,370

Reply

vaguelyhumanoid replied on Sat, Jan 15 2011 5:50 PM

rated by 0 users

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.

| Post Points: 5

Posts 11,343

Points 194,945

Reply

liberty student replied on Sat, Jan 15 2011 6:01 PM

rated by 0 users

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?

"When you're young you worry about people stealing your ideas, when you're old you worry that they won't." - David Friedman

| Post Points: 50

Posts 1,008

Points 16,185

Reply

Isaac "Izzy" Marmolejo replied on Sat, Jan 15 2011 6:10 PM

rated by 0 users

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

| Post Points: 35

Posts 45

Points 1,370

Reply

vaguelyhumanoid replied on Sat, Jan 15 2011 6:11 PM

rated by 0 users

Not all leftists are commies. Don't be ridiculous.

| Post Points: 20

Posts 850

Points 13,615

Reply

AdrianHealey replied on Sat, Jan 15 2011 6:16 PM

rated by 0 users

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.)

The state is not the enemy. The idea of the state is.

| Post Points: 5

Posts 11,343

Points 194,945

Reply

liberty student replied on Sat, Jan 15 2011 6:17 PM

rated by 0 users

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.

"When you're young you worry about people stealing your ideas, when you're old you worry that they won't." - David Friedman

| Post Points: 35

Posts 850

Points 13,615

Reply

AdrianHealey replied on Sat, Jan 15 2011 6:27 PM

rated by 0 users

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'.

The state is not the enemy. The idea of the state is.

| Post Points: 35

Posts 1,008

Points 16,185

Reply

Isaac "Izzy" Marmolejo replied on Sat, Jan 15 2011 6:31 PM

rated by 0 users

@AdrianHealey

may you give us an example where a voluntary action isn't ok?

My Blog: http://www.anarchico.net/

Production is 'anarchistic' - Ludwig von Mises

| Post Points: 35

Posts 850

Points 13,615

Reply

AdrianHealey replied on Sat, Jan 15 2011 6:38 PM

rated by 0 users

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.

The state is not the enemy. The idea of the state is.

| Post Points: 20

Posts 850

Points 13,615

Reply

AdrianHealey replied on Sat, Jan 15 2011 6:40 PM

rated by 0 users

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'?

The state is not the enemy. The idea of the state is.

| Post Points: 20

Posts 1,008

Points 16,185

Reply

Isaac "Izzy" Marmolejo replied on Sat, Jan 15 2011 7:02 PM

rated by 0 users

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...

My Blog: http://www.anarchico.net/

Production is 'anarchistic' - Ludwig von Mises

| Post Points: 20

Posts 850

Points 13,615

Reply

AdrianHealey replied on Sat, Jan 15 2011 7:03 PM

rated by 0 users

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...

No, not necessarily. But also not necessarily good.

The state is not the enemy. The idea of the state is.

| Post Points: 20

Posts 3,415

Points 56,650

Reply

filc replied on Sat, Jan 15 2011 7:35 PM

rated by 0 users

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.

| Post Points: 20

Posts 11,343

Points 194,945

Reply

liberty student replied on Sat, Jan 15 2011 7:48 PM

rated by 0 users

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?

"When you're young you worry about people stealing your ideas, when you're old you worry that they won't." - David Friedman

| Post Points: 20

Posts 850

Points 13,615

Reply

AdrianHealey replied on Sat, Jan 15 2011 8:02 PM

rated by 0 users

liberty student:

Legality has nothing to do with it.

That is odd: the way I understood libertarianism - as, for example, explained by Rothbard - was to give bounderies to the actions that ought to be legal or not. Take, for instance, this quote from Rothbard out of 'The Ethics of Liberty' - regarding his discussion on abortion.

"What we are trying to establish here is not the morality of abortion (whichmay or may not be moral on other grounds), but its legality, i.e., the absolute right of the mother to have an abortion. What we are concerned with in this book is people's rights to do or not do various things, not whether they should or should not exercise such rights."

So I would argue that 'legality' has everything to do with it. Libertarianism tries to be an answer to what ought to be legal and what not.

How come you say 'legality has nothing to do with it'?

"The actions of others don't have to conform to your tastes or preferences."

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.

Do you think that there is an inquiry possible, regarding the ways people ought to act, given the legal bounderies that libertarians defend?

The state is not the enemy. The idea of the state is.

| Post Points: 20

Posts 11,343

Points 194,945

Reply

liberty student replied on Sat, Jan 15 2011 8:05 PM

rated by 0 users

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?

"When you're young you worry about people stealing your ideas, when you're old you worry that they won't." - David Friedman

| Post Points: 35

Posts 850

Points 13,615

Reply

AdrianHealey replied on Sat, Jan 15 2011 8:09 PM

rated by 0 users

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?"

<= Partially, this can be found in a recent thread I started. Partially, that just because something ought to be allowed, it doesn't follow that it's a good idea.

The state is not the enemy. The idea of the state is.

| Post Points: 20

Posts 45

Points 1,370

Reply

vaguelyhumanoid replied on Sat, Jan 15 2011 8:09 PM

rated by 0 users

LibertyStudent, define voluntary, and justify why all human actions should be voluntary.

| Post Points: 20

Posts 11,343

Points 194,945

Reply

liberty student replied on Sat, Jan 15 2011 8:12 PM

rated by 0 users

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.

"When you're young you worry about people stealing your ideas, when you're old you worry that they won't." - David Friedman

| Post Points: 20

Posts 850

Points 13,615

Reply

AdrianHealey replied on Sat, Jan 15 2011 8:13 PM

rated by 0 users

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.

The state is not the enemy. The idea of the state is.

| Post Points: 35

Posts 850

Points 13,615

Reply

AdrianHealey replied on Sat, Jan 15 2011 8:15 PM

rated by 0 users

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.

The state is not the enemy. The idea of the state is.

| Post Points: 20

Posts 11,343

Points 194,945

Reply

liberty student replied on Sat, Jan 15 2011 8:15 PM

rated by 0 users

vaguelyhumanoid:
LibertyStudent, define voluntary

Action absent aggression.

vaguelyhumanoid:
and justify why all human actions should be voluntary.

I never claimed they should be.

"When you're young you worry about people stealing your ideas, when you're old you worry that they won't." - David Friedman

| Post Points: 20

Posts 11,343

Points 194,945

Reply

liberty student replied on Sat, Jan 15 2011 8:19 PM

rated by 0 users

AdrianHealey:
So, how about it?

If I was interested, I would have replied earlier. Your attempts to one up me are pointless.

"When you're young you worry about people stealing your ideas, when you're old you worry that they won't." - David Friedman

| Post Points: 5

Posts 11,343

Points 194,945

Reply

liberty student replied on Sat, Jan 15 2011 8:22 PM

rated by 0 users

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.

"When you're young you worry about people stealing your ideas, when you're old you worry that they won't." - David Friedman

| Post Points: 20

Posts 850

Points 13,615

Reply

AdrianHealey replied on Sat, Jan 15 2011 8:29 PM

rated by 0 users

"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.

The state is not the enemy. The idea of the state is.

| Post Points: 20

Posts 45

Points 1,370

Reply

vaguelyhumanoid replied on Sat, Jan 15 2011 8:29 PM

rated by 0 users

LibertyStudent, what is "aggression"? And if only voluntary actions are moral, why shouldn't all human actions be voluntary?

| Post Points: 20

Posts 11,343

Points 194,945

Reply

liberty student replied on Sat, Jan 15 2011 8:37 PM

rated by 0 users

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.

"When you're young you worry about people stealing your ideas, when you're old you worry that they won't." - David Friedman

| Post Points: 20

Posts 11,343

Points 194,945

Reply

liberty student replied on Sat, Jan 15 2011 8:39 PM

rated by 0 users

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".

"When you're young you worry about people stealing your ideas, when you're old you worry that they won't." - David Friedman

| Post Points: 20

Posts 1,289

Points 18,820

Reply

MaikU replied on Sat, Jan 15 2011 8:54 PM

rated by 0 users

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".

"Dude... Roderick Long is the most anarchisty anarchist that has ever anarchisted!" - Evilsceptic

(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)

| Post Points: 5

Posts 3,739

Points 60,635

Reply

Marko replied on Sat, Jan 15 2011 9:41 PM

rated by 0 users

Thank you Scott. A valuable post in my opinion.

| Post Points: 20

Posts 2,124

Points 37,405

Reply

Angurse replied on Sat, Jan 15 2011 10:05 PM

rated by 0 users

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.

"I am an aristocrat. I love liberty, I hate equality."

| Post Points: 35

Posts 1,189

Points 22,990

Reply

Libertyandlife replied on Sat, Jan 15 2011 10:15 PM

rated by 0 users

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.

Post Neo-Left Libertarian Manifesto (PNL lib)

| Post Points: 20

Posts 45

Points 1,370

Reply

vaguelyhumanoid replied on Sat, Jan 15 2011 10:31 PM

rated by 0 users

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?

| Post Points: 35

Posts 266

Points 4,465

Reply

resist272727 replied on Sat, Jan 15 2011 10:42 PM

rated by 0 users

Which of these tenets do you consider to be different from libertarianism without adjectives?

| Post Points: 20

Posts 266

Points 4,465

Reply

resist272727 replied on Sat, Jan 15 2011 10:52 PM

rated by 0 users

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.

| Post Points: 20

Posts 1,189

Points 22,990

Reply

Libertyandlife replied on Sat, Jan 15 2011 11:31 PM

rated by 0 users

Why does there have to be a "left" libertarianism? I don't identify with any left or right, why use such political labels?

Freedom has always been the only route to progress.

Post Neo-Left Libertarian Manifesto (PNL lib)

| Post Points: 35

Posts 266

Points 4,465

Reply

resist272727 replied on Sat, Jan 15 2011 11:53 PM

rated by 0 users

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.

| Post Points: 5

Posts 1,288

Points 22,350

Reply

Aristippus replied on Sat, Jan 15 2011 11:55 PM

rated by 0 users

What's the deal with 'bargaining power'?

The Voluntaryist Reader: http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com/ Libertarian forums that actually work: http://voluntaryism.freeforums.org/index.php

| Post Points: 5

Posts 2,255

Points 36,010

Reply

William replied on Sun, Jan 16 2011 12:34 AM

rated by 0 users

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

"I am not an ego along with other egos, but the sole ego: I am unique. Hence my wants too are unique, and my deeds; in short, everything about me is unique" Max Stirner

| Post Points: 20

rated by 0 users This post has 246 Replies | 9 Followers

A Left-Libertarian Manifesto.

rated by 0 users
This post has 246 Replies | 9 Followers