I don't call myself left-libertarian, but I don't find the general ideas all that objectionable. I do have a problem with the rather conspiratorial narrative in your points, however, probably best exemplified by Carson's "two kinds of government intervention." The pattern of intervention does match what we would expect should there be a cabal of powerful interests seeking to enrich themselves and, when they must, enacting a few laws to make their work appear just, but that does not mean such a cabal exists and that such interventions are the product of an active pursuit to pacify the masses. I do believe there are powerful interests out there, but I do not believe they exert the kind of control you seem to imagine they do, or that they do so in a singular and rational manner. Consider that the actual history of mutual aid and the rise of the welfare state - which I am sure Carson knows very well - explicitly contradicts this system of classification. Programs like Social Security, public health insurance in Britain, minimum wage and child labor laws, etc., would be classified as "primary intervention," as they were supported by various interest groups to squash competition and centralize power. These programs and laws persist because, among other factors, the recipients like them and it becomes conventional wisdom that they're "necessary." Though Carson's system of classification sounds nice and does convey an important idea, it's not an accurate portrayal of reality and can undermine your argument, as well as your own investigation for truth. And, of course, other libertarians and non-libertarians are often guilty of this kind of obfuscation.
Funny how Liberty Student backs down when someone doesn't engage his personal remarks.
Obviously, he'll rant on how how doesn't engage in logic and so on and so forth, because, obviously, being implicitly calling someone 'dishonest' isn't a personal remark. It's a logical statement, because he made a fallacy. And because someone - in his eyes - made a fallacy, he made a dishonest comment and, a fortiori, hasn't made any honest argument all thread.
Now thàt's a personal comment. :) Unlike some, I don't have complexes admitting that. ^
The state is not the enemy. The idea of the state is.
Michael J Green: Programs like Social Security, public health insurance in Britain, minimum wage and child labor laws, etc., would be classified as "primary intervention," as they were supported by various interest groups to squash competition and centralize power. These programs and laws persist because, among other factors, the recipients like them and it becomes conventional wisdom that they're "necessary."
Programs like Social Security, public health insurance in Britain, minimum wage and child labor laws, etc., would be classified as "primary intervention," as they were supported by various interest groups to squash competition and centralize power. These programs and laws persist because, among other factors, the recipients like them and it becomes conventional wisdom that they're "necessary."
Maybe it's better to say there a bit of both.
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.
liberty student: 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?
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?
LS.I've lost any remaining respect I have for you.Your a rightwing reactionary. I've said plenty about economics -undeniable things as a matter of fact and secondly this isn't communism and if you can't tell the different then your no scholar nor fit to moderate mises.org and thirdly it's stupid to conflate left-libertarianism with by reference to "marching bands and statues" USSR soviet communism.You've just proved my point on conservative baggage in libertarianism.You've epitomised the false capitalist vs socialist dichotomy I reject.
You ask for clarity,I gave it.Now I'm a commie for doing so.You have nothing to contribute here.It's comments like this that have made me lose massive amounts of respect and love for these forums and this site in general.An-cap orthodoxy rides again.
Isaac "Izzy" Marmolejo: "i hate the right and left political description of things," I'm not using statist leftist/statist rightist descriptions. "which is why i reject the terms left or right when i describe libertarianism." So you say.But who do you agree with more ? Hoppe? Rockwell? or Long? Carson?
"i hate the right and left political description of things,"
I'm not using statist leftist/statist rightist descriptions.
"which is why i reject the terms left or right when i describe libertarianism."
So you say.But who do you agree with more ? Hoppe? Rockwell? or Long? Carson?
Liberty Student isn't representative for this forum and has a specific style of debating which doesn't really invite to debate, which is unfortunate.
Back on topic: Scott, could you explain the concept of bargaining power and how it fits into libertarianism?
Aristippus: Back on topic: Scott, could you explain the concept of bargaining power and how it fits into libertarianism?
Could I ask you the same question and ask how you see the relationship? (I know the question wasn't directed at me, but I'm interested in your views.)
William: "If you wrote this " I did.I've wanted too for a while. "and just didn't just parrot/ cut and paste," Nothing like this even remotely exists for me to do so.If it did,I'd have saved my time and posted that with a link.But nope,this is all mine.I've wrote it exactly because nothing like it exists and there's demand so to speak because some do not understand.
"If you wrote this "
I did.I've wanted too for a while.
"and just didn't just parrot/ cut and paste,"
Nothing like this even remotely exists for me to do so.If it did,I'd have saved my time and posted that with a link.But nope,this is all mine.I've wrote it exactly because nothing like it exists and there's demand so to speak because some do not understand.
Libertyandlife: "Why does there have to be a "left" libertarianism?" I already explained in the manifesto. It is a libertarianism combined with leftist concerns. "I don't identify with any left or right," First, I don't use the terms in the conventional sense. Secondly, I think that's a cop out.Who do you agree with more Hoppe or Rockwell or Long or Carson?
"Why does there have to be a "left" libertarianism?"
I already explained in the manifesto. It is a libertarianism combined with leftist concerns.
"I don't identify with any left or right,"
First, I don't use the terms in the conventional sense. Secondly, I think that's a cop out.Who do you agree with more Hoppe or Rockwell or Long or Carson?
resist272727: Which of these tenets do you consider to be different from libertarianism without adjectives?
Which of these tenets do you consider to be different from libertarianism without adjectives?
The ideas under the headings of :-
.... Basically ,most of it.
Why?
Again; are you talking about the 'left' regarding social or political philosophy?f
Marko: Thank you Scott. A valuable post in my opinion.
Thank you Scott. A valuable post in my opinion.
Thank you.I try my best.
I've been planning it for a while trying to understand the position well enough to articulate it and now I feel I've reached the point to do so.I wrote it because nothing like it exists and it helps those who don't know the philosophy to understand it better.It means it can no longer be claimed that we haven't explained things properly or at very least, the basics properly.I was careful to avoid discussions of property theory and economics of which there is no agreement in left-libertarian because it is a spectrum of views from lockeanism to mutualism to anarcho-communism/anarcho-socialism with many shades in between.
Angurse: 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.
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.
Sounds like stereotypes.It's gross to talk of those who are downtrodden and marginalized as 'losers' ,making such blanket statements.
Libertyandlife: "What is this conservative baggage of traditional libertarianism?" Lets see.Knee jerk anti-leftism, rabid support for working for others, rabid support for corporations, status quo apologetics, dislike of discussion of sexism/racism etc, opposition to considering alternative arrangements and institutions e.g. co-ops, excessive focus of being respectable and a professional with qualifications(which is not wrong per se but seems to be assumed to the only way to get on in life), a tendency towards cultural conservatism.Those are off the top of my head. "Was Lord Acton a conservative?" Yes. "Proudhon?" As far as I know he was not. "Thoreau?" No. "Spooner?" he was pretty much a left-libertarian "Conservative is such vague and useless word in the libertarian political sphere." Well it's aspects in libertarianism are a mix of political side concerns e.g. favouring corporations and cultural attitudes.
"What is this conservative baggage of traditional libertarianism?"
Lets see.Knee jerk anti-leftism, rabid support for working for others, rabid support for corporations, status quo apologetics, dislike of discussion of sexism/racism etc, opposition to considering alternative arrangements and institutions e.g. co-ops, excessive focus of being respectable and a professional with qualifications(which is not wrong per se but seems to be assumed to the only way to get on in life), a tendency towards cultural conservatism.Those are off the top of my head.
"Was Lord Acton a conservative?"
Yes.
"Proudhon?"
As far as I know he was not.
"Thoreau?"
No.
"Spooner?"
he was pretty much a left-libertarian
"Conservative is such vague and useless word in the libertarian political sphere."
Well it's aspects in libertarianism are a mix of political side concerns e.g. favouring corporations and cultural attitudes.
"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.) "
Thank you.I don't think I've said anything that doesn't follow from AE and logic.
Okay, so let's look at the tendency of your manifesto with regard to various economic roles: the entrepreneur, capitalist, landowner, manager (which is really a special class of worker), and worker.
You hedge everything with words like "possible" and "at least problematic". But the various "possible" reforms include...
"outright opposition to land ownership"
So that takes care of the land owner.
Separation between management and ownership as "immoral".
So there are no landowners, and all other resources need to be owned by managers. So that eliminates the pure capitalist-entrepreneur. So now everybody is eliminated except the manager and the worker. But of course then we have...
Self-management of labor
If the only managers are workers, and the only owners are managers, then the only owners are workers.
Your body of proposed economic reforms has, at the very least, a distinct tendency toward being a variant of syndicalism.
How do you feel about syndicalism?
For the record, the abolition of the land owner, entrepreneur and manager isn't something I morally or economically support.
By the way, Danny, the 'pure capitalist entrepreneur' wasn't that an economic abstraction to distinguish a role and not necessarily actual human beings? (Who always are a combination of different roles)?
liberty student: 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." ummm how? I'm libertarian. Socialists don't tend to say the things I do and that's the problem. "I'm a voluntaryist." Voluntaryism is okay I guess. In so far as it believes that all relations should be voluntary I agree with it.That's just anarchism.But it's thin libertarianism i.e. it seems to say as long as it's voluntary it's okay which is like saying if someone is being treated like dirt but it's voluntary that's fine.Basically it cuts morality out of the whole discussion. " It's not based on historical materialism. " I don't know a left-lib who believes in that.
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."
ummm how? I'm libertarian. Socialists don't tend to say the things I do and that's the problem.
"I'm a voluntaryist."
Voluntaryism is okay I guess. In so far as it believes that all relations should be voluntary I agree with it.That's just anarchism.But it's thin libertarianism i.e. it seems to say as long as it's voluntary it's okay which is like saying if someone is being treated like dirt but it's voluntary that's fine.Basically it cuts morality out of the whole discussion.
" It's not based on historical materialism. "
filc: 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. "Why are you focusing on something that is a fallacy to begin with?" Who says it is? Rothbard? In egalitarianism as a revolt? that's a bad argument. "This along with several points which are just not really important really confuse the hell out of me regarding left-libertarianism." I've left out the manifesto what is controversial or non essential.All that's there I consider essential.
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.
"Why are you focusing on something that is a fallacy to begin with?"
Who says it is? Rothbard? In egalitarianism as a revolt? that's a bad argument.
"This along with several points which are just not really important really confuse the hell out of me regarding left-libertarianism."
I've left out the manifesto what is controversial or non essential.All that's there I consider essential.
Right, that's not exactly what I mean here. I mean someone who is only a capitalist-entrepreneur with regard to a given enterprise; so, anybody who doesn't manage the given enterprise, nor work on it in any way. There are people who are whole individuals (not functions) who fit that description, and the tendency of Scott F's Left Lib manifesto is to preclude anybody from coming to fit that description.
"Back on topic: Scott, could you explain the concept of bargaining power and how it fits into libertarianism?"
"Could I ask you the same question and ask how you see the relationship?"
Bargaining power is the ability to bargain for certain conditions.It's the ability to take it or leave it so to speak.It's basically the bargaining involved in trade. With barriers to entry ,bargaining power is reduced because there is less choice and the worker has less ability to say " no your bargain doesn't suit me".Essentially the relation is tilted all in favour of the employer and they have all the control in the relationship because more than normally because there is limited options the worker is stuck taking what they can get.If they had alternative options they could do otherwise.I guess you could say it's a bit like opportunity cost.Minus barriers to entry more individuals could've done otherwise while with barriers to entry the ability to do otherwise is either removed completely or reduced to a significant degree.
I hope that answers the question.
Danny Sanchez: Right, that's not exactly what I mean here. I mean someone who is only a capitalist-entrepreneur with regard to a given enterprise; so, anybody who doesn't manage the given enterprise, nor work on it in any way. There are people who are whole individuals (not functions) who fit that description, and the tendency of Scott F's Left Lib manifesto is to preclude anybody from coming to fit that description.
So someone who provides the capital and hires the manager (which is an entrepreneurial decision, as far as I understood Mises/Klein). Yes, it appears that that's excluded in this world. Which is odd; the capitalist-entrepreneurial function is as important as all other, so why discriminate against it?
Scott F:"Could I ask you the same question and ask how you see the relationship?" Bargaining power is the ability to bargain for certain conditions.It's the ability to take it or leave it so to speak.It's basically the bargaining involved in trade. With barriers to entry ,bargaining power is reduced because there is less choice and the worker has less ability to say " no your bargain doesn't suit me".Essentially the relation is tilted all in favour of the employer and they have all the control in the relationship because more than normally because there is limited options the worker is stuck taking what they can get.If they had alternative options they could do otherwise.I guess you could say it's a bit like opportunity cost.Minus barriers to entry more individuals could've done otherwise while with barriers to entry the ability to do otherwise is either removed completely or reduced to a significant degree. I hope that answers the question
I hope that answers the question
I agree that some regulations favor the employer - e.g. high taxes, regulation, harder to become self-employed, and so on and so forth - but there are also regulations favoring the employee - welfare benefits, for example. How do you know that it's unequivocally true that it's the employee in the disadvantage?
>> it seems to say as long as it's voluntary it's okay which is like saying if someone is being treated like dirt but it's voluntary that's fine
libertarianism is a theory of the justifiable use of force, if its is voluntary its not justifiable to use force to change it. But it may make some people somewhere upset. is that *fine*? if by *fine* you mean its possible for someone to raise an objection, or considers it *imperfect* then you will find very little in the world that is *fine*.
So if someone is being treated like dirt, it might not be *fine* but it is libertarian. This is not a problem for libertarians; the problem for libertarians is how to make the world better to their own eyes through voluntary means. Left-libertarianism could have some meaning for me, if it meant people that strategies and embarked on projects to reform the world in ways compatible with libertarianism. Then at least it would make as much sense as Engineer-Libertianism, who are engineers that go about their engineering work without violating libertarianism, or watermeloneating-libertarianism which is people who enjoy watermelons and despite their love of watermelons will not violate libertarianism to get them.
These hyphonations may be ridiculous; this is no less true for LEFT and RIGHT. It is entirely reasonable to have a strong identity such that you consider yourself and advertise to others that you are: watermelonloving, one with a passionate vocation for engineering, or culturally of the left, or a libertine or whatever....
You don't need to combine these other things that you are with your libertarianism. They don't speak to your libertarianism or modify it
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Danny Sanchez: "You hedge everything with words like "possible" and "at least problematic ..." I'm very careful to choose my words carefully and not go overboard in my argument.Take it as modesty,I guess. "outright opposition to land ownership" Not everyone holds a belief in that.I do not. Separation between management and ownership as "immoral". That's more the mutualist position.I at very least think it can be problematic. Self-management of labor "If the only managers are workers, and the only owners are managers, then the only owners are workers." Again that's close to mutualism but I have no problem with that as long as it's voluntary.I tend to favour it to some extent. "How do you feel about syndicalism?" I definately agree there is a tendency towards syndicalism(of the anarcho kind) in left libertarianism.Mutualism even more so.I am like certain aspects of anarcho-syndicalism and have increasingly been inclined towards it -maybe even calling myself one.
"You hedge everything with words like "possible" and "at least problematic ..."
I'm very careful to choose my words carefully and not go overboard in my argument.Take it as modesty,I guess.
Not everyone holds a belief in that.I do not.
That's more the mutualist position.I at very least think it can be problematic.
"If the only managers are workers, and the only owners are managers, then the only owners are workers."
Again that's close to mutualism but I have no problem with that as long as it's voluntary.I tend to favour it to some extent.
"How do you feel about syndicalism?"
I definately agree there is a tendency towards syndicalism(of the anarcho kind) in left libertarianism.Mutualism even more so.I am like certain aspects of anarcho-syndicalism and have increasingly been inclined towards it -maybe even calling myself one.
nirgrahamUK: So if someone is being treated like dirt, it might not be *fine* but it is libertarian. This is not a problem for libertarians; the problem for libertarians is how to make the world better to their own eyes through voluntary means. Left-libertarianism could have some meaning for me, if it meant people that strategies and embarked on projects to reform the world in ways compatible with libertarianism. Then at least it would make as much sense as Engineer-Libertianism, who are engineers that go about their engineering work without violating libertarianism, or watermeloneating-libertarianism which is people who enjoy watermelons and despite their love of watermelons will not violate libertarianism to get them. These hyphonations may be ridiculous; this is no less true for LEFT and RIGHT. It is entirely reasonable to have a strong identity such that you consider yourself and advertise to others that you are: watermelonloving, one with a passionate vocation for engineering, or culturally of the left, or a libertine or whatever.... You don't need to combine these other things that you are with your libertarianism. They don't speak to your libertarianism or modify it
Do you accept the distinction between 'left-statists' and 'right-statists'? Do you think it makes sense to distinguish between a set of ideas that aren't completely identical? Do you also talk about 'engineer-statists' and 'watermelon-statists'?
The point is that you can make a distinction - it's hard to define the boundery, but there is still a distinction - between a set of goals wants want to achieve within a certain political framework - 'statism' or 'freedom' - and have a name for that. Traditionally: 'left' and 'right' are used for those words. Why not have it here?
"but there are also regulations favoring the employee - welfare benefits, for example. How do you know that it's unequivocally true that it's the employee in the disadvantage?"
1. I don't think you can really say they benefit the employee.They're still statism and so still harmful.
2. That's what I highlighted Carson's primary and secondary distinction. Carson would argue as I would that welfare is secondary intervention so individuals don't get so up in arms about statist privilege.
what are the *goals* of the right?
nirgrahamUK: >> it seems to say as long as it's voluntary it's okay which is like saying if someone is being treated like dirt but it's voluntary that's fine " if its is voluntary its not justifiable to use force to change it." I agree. " is that *fine*? if by *fine* you mean its possible for someone to raise an objection, or considers it *imperfect* then you will find very little in the world that is *fine*. " I'm saying voluntaryism implies that voluntary relations are good even if they are immoral. "So if someone is being treated like dirt, it might not be *fine* but it is libertarian." True but being libertarian isn't the end of the story. Left libertarianism combines leftist and libertarian concerns.Their a package.Even if you don't accept left-lib it's not at all clear that you can seperate what is morally right from what is a right.It might be a right to do X but that doesn't make it moral to do so and I think that's worth commenting on.Otherwise thin libertarianism can sound like subtle endorsement of moral evils such as sexism. "You don't need to combine these other things that you are with your libertarianism. They don't speak to your libertarianism or modify it" I think it follows from libertarianism.It's the next level in consistency in the same way that An-cap was more consistent than minarchism.It's that sort of thing.
" if its is voluntary its not justifiable to use force to change it."
I agree.
" is that *fine*? if by *fine* you mean its possible for someone to raise an objection, or considers it *imperfect* then you will find very little in the world that is *fine*. "
I'm saying voluntaryism implies that voluntary relations are good even if they are immoral.
"So if someone is being treated like dirt, it might not be *fine* but it is libertarian."
True but being libertarian isn't the end of the story.
Left libertarianism combines leftist and libertarian concerns.Their a package.Even if you don't accept left-lib it's not at all clear that you can seperate what is morally right from what is a right.It might be a right to do X but that doesn't make it moral to do so and I think that's worth commenting on.Otherwise thin libertarianism can sound like subtle endorsement of moral evils such as sexism.
"You don't need to combine these other things that you are with your libertarianism. They don't speak to your libertarianism or modify it"
I think it follows from libertarianism.It's the next level in consistency in the same way that An-cap was more consistent than minarchism.It's that sort of thing.
nirgrahamUK: what are the *goals* of the right?
Good question, I don't know. We don't have that many self-identified 'right-libertarians' here as we do have 'left-libertarians'.
One could argue that people who are libertarians and combine this with a hope for less immigration, less drugs, more homogeneous neighboorhoods and so on and so forth, together with an attitude 'poverty is mainly caused by one's own actions', 'pregnant teens are not victims who should be helped, but people who should be punished' and so and so forth could be the counterpart of 'left-libertarianism'. (Where the 'left' denotes social philosophy and 'libertarianism' denotes a political philosophy.)
Again: there is a difference between what rules should guide a society and what people think ought to happen given those rules.
AdrianHealey: "For the record, the abolition of the land owner, entrepreneur and manager isn't something I morally or economically support. " That's your choice but I disagree. I don't support abolition of land owner.No one opposes entrepreneurs and managers in the broad sense no one opposes but in the sense of them currently I see no moral reason to oppose them but I see no specific reason to morally support them either.
"For the record, the abolition of the land owner, entrepreneur and manager isn't something I morally or economically support. "
That's your choice but I disagree. I don't support abolition of land owner.No one opposes entrepreneurs and managers in the broad sense no one opposes but in the sense of them currently I see no moral reason to oppose them but I see no specific reason to morally support them either.
Scott F: "but there are also regulations favoring the employee - welfare benefits, for example. How do you know that it's unequivocally true that it's the employee in the disadvantage?" 1. I don't think you can really say they benefit the employee.They're still statism and so still harmful. 2. That's what I highlighted Carson's primary and secondary distinction. Carson would argue as I would that welfare is secondary intervention so individuals don't get so up in arms about statist privilege.
Of course, they are harmful. But imagine a world where there is no barriers to entry, but there is still unemployment benefits. It's relatively clear that the unemployed employee has a bigger bargaining position at that point. There is no way to say that this benefits the employers per se.
I agree that there is a lot of regulation that lowers the potential of employees. Minimumwages, high taxes and so on. I even agree that I _think_ that all things considered, employees are worse of vis a vis employers. But that's an empirical matter, not a certain praxeological one.
AdrianHealey: I know this wasn't to me but I'll answer. "Do you accept the distinction between 'left-statists' and 'right-statists'?" No.I use left and right pretty much in the historic sense.Rightists are those who favour the statist quo. "between a set of goals wants want to achieve within a certain political framework " That too is part of my definitions of left and right. The right seek concentration of authority and wealth in few hands - which is part and parcel of statism regardless of it's kind - and the left seek distribution of wealth and authority in the most hands ie. anarchism. Anarchism is inherently leftist and 'rightwing anarchy' is a contradiction in terms. An-caps are tricky to place.They lean towards the right yet wish to be anarchist i.e. leftist.So I tend to place then in the centre- which they alone inhabit- but with a leaning towards the right.
I know this wasn't to me but I'll answer.
"Do you accept the distinction between 'left-statists' and 'right-statists'?"
No.I use left and right pretty much in the historic sense.Rightists are those who favour the statist quo.
"between a set of goals wants want to achieve within a certain political framework "
Scott F: AdrianHealey: "For the record, the abolition of the land owner, entrepreneur and manager isn't something I morally or economically support. " That's your choice but I disagree. I don't support abolition of land owner.No one opposes entrepreneurs and managers in the broad sense no one opposes but in the sense of them currently I see no moral reason to oppose them but I see no specific reason to morally support them either. Be careful with what you call 'moral' by the way. You use it in a different sense that some people here. In any way; actually, I do. Given your sentiments and feelings - which I share to a large degree - if you favor a world where there is a bigger identity between 'workers, managers and entrepreneurs' - which I take it is your position - than you _diminish_ the possibility of spreading your eggs in multipull baskets and thus lowering the possibility of people to be stronger in each of those positions. Imagine me having savings in company x, managing company y and add in some hours in company Z. This means I'm stronger vis a vis all of these, because I've spread the power people have over me. But if I'm entrepreneur, manager and worker in one firm, that entity has a lot of power over me. And if it goes wrong, I loose everything. The state is not the enemy. The idea of the state is. | Post Points: 5
Be careful with what you call 'moral' by the way. You use it in a different sense that some people here. In any way; actually, I do. Given your sentiments and feelings - which I share to a large degree - if you favor a world where there is a bigger identity between 'workers, managers and entrepreneurs' - which I take it is your position - than you _diminish_ the possibility of spreading your eggs in multipull baskets and thus lowering the possibility of people to be stronger in each of those positions. Imagine me having savings in company x, managing company y and add in some hours in company Z. This means I'm stronger vis a vis all of these, because I've spread the power people have over me.
But if I'm entrepreneur, manager and worker in one firm, that entity has a lot of power over me. And if it goes wrong, I loose everything.
AdrianHealey: "Of course, they are harmful. But imagine a world where there is no barriers to entry, but there is still unemployment benefits. It's relatively clear that the unemployed employee has a bigger bargaining position at that point. There is no way to say that this benefits the employers per se." As a thought experiment it's interesting but it's not going to happen.And if there was no barriers to entry-I assume you mean state created ones- then there would be no need for employment benefits in the statist sense. " But that's an empirical matter, not a certain praxeological one. " I disagree.But then the quibbling about whether praxeology is empirical or a prior logical is not really of much interest to me.I think it's a mix.
"Of course, they are harmful. But imagine a world where there is no barriers to entry, but there is still unemployment benefits. It's relatively clear that the unemployed employee has a bigger bargaining position at that point. There is no way to say that this benefits the employers per se."
As a thought experiment it's interesting but it's not going to happen.And if there was no barriers to entry-I assume you mean state created ones- then there would be no need for employment benefits in the statist sense.
" But that's an empirical matter, not a certain praxeological one. "
I disagree.But then the quibbling about whether praxeology is empirical or a prior logical is not really of much interest to me.I think it's a mix.
My point boild down to this; IF you think some sweatshop is immoral but that there should be no use of force to amend it, you have no functional difference from a 'rightist' who loves the fact that the sweatshop is immoral (or if thats not what rightists do , that disagrees with you that the sweatshop is immoral). As far as as you are 'libertarian' I see no difference, the difference is only in the place where your libertarianism is not in question and needs no modification, the difference is on your opinions of what is moral, or on your likings. Perhaps you can 'win' this argument by saying that libertarian modifies your 'left' morality and preferences. i.e. Left-Libertarianism is a strand of the LEFT by which you can be marked out from others on the LEFT who are not libertarians. This makes way more sense to me.
"You don't need to combine these other things that you are with your libertarianism. They don't speak to your libertarianism or modify it"I think it follows from libertarianism.It's the next level in consistency in the same way that An-cap was more consistent than minarchism.It's that sort of thing.
Scott F: That too is part of my definitions of left and right. The right seek concentration of authority and wealth in few hands - which is part and parcel of statism regardless of it's kind - and the left seek distribution of wealth and authority in the most hands ie. anarchism. Anarchism is inherently leftist and 'rightwing anarchy' is a contradiction in terms. An-caps are tricky to place.They lean towards the right yet wish to be anarchist i.e. leftist.So I tend to place then in the centre- which they alone inhabit- but with a leaning towards the right. So, what you are saying is that 'libertarianism _is_ leftist'. Again; I don't necessarily disagree - Bastiat sat left - but how does the distinction 'left-libertarianism' make sense than? All libertarianism is by definition left. The state is not the enemy. The idea of the state is. | Post Points: 20