What's your beef with Roderick Long and "left-libertarianism"?

The only real difference between "left-libertarians" and mainstream libertarians is that left-libertarians believe that a truly free market would result in a greatly different economic structure than our current "capitalist" system.

And oh ya, they like using the term "capitalism" to describe what most libertarians would call "crony capitalism", "corporatism", ect.

agisthos:

In my opinion, all the things Left-Libertarians worry about are solved by the spontaneous order arising from private property rights and the free market anyway. The fact that LL's cannot see this means they still cling to the Marxist theory of exploitive capital accumulation, even if they do not know it.

Left-libertarians don't deny the fact that problems such as inequality can be solved through the spontaneous order arising from property. In fact, that's kind of their whole shtick. 

FYI - Roderick Long picked up this thread and posted it on his blog.

bahahahaha.  That's hilarious.  Thanks for sharing.

Looks like we've made some new friends.  A few highlights:

 

This is adorable.

I also liked what John James said about LLs:

“Plus it makes them feel cool. Like they’re in this exclusive club that most people don’t even understand.”

Right, because talking about things like fiat money and business cycles and private security agencies and ocean privatization is understandable to everyone. I mean, who doesn’t understand those things?

It was like reading a Salon comments section about libertarians in general. Mind numbingly silly.

 

"I protest that when I criticized... the complex of institutions of which property is the foundation stone, I never meant to forbid or suppress, by sovereign decree, ground rent and interest on capital. I think that all these manifestations of human activity should remain free and voluntary for all: I ask for them no modifications, restrictions or suppressions, other than those which result naturally and of necessity from the universalization of the principle of reciprocity which I propose."

   -Proudhon

This comes to my mind when the question of force comes up regarding anti-capitalist anarchists. Left-libertarians do not seek to employ force to prohibit certain voluntary arrangements (wage labor, rent, etc.), but recognize that they often (especially in our current system) result in top-down power dynamics that diminish one's individuality. To oppose these institutions, left-libs generally not only allow alternatives like mutual banks and worker owned cooperatives, but explicitly endorse them.

Great.  Now if you could just explain what a "left-libertarian" is and how that's different from a "libertarian", it would be greatly appreciated.

 

Woo! Looks like I ruffled some feathers over at Long's blog. Good. I have nothing against Long, as I believe he is exceptionally knowledgeable with regards to philosophy and writes excellent papers, but I simply do not endorse LL and it's egalitarianism (social socialism).

Great.  Now if you could just explain what a "left-libertarian" is and how that's different from a "libertarian", it would be greatly appreciated.

In addition to this (posted before), see here, and here. Also, Urban Dictionary has pretty accurate description.

A term coined by Austrian economist Murray Rothbard to describe people who call themselves libertarians defining liberty as moral license (see libertine). They are former Marxists, contemporary liberals, practicing drug-users, homosexuals, self-appointed members of the avant-garde, haters of tradition, anti-religious (especially anti-Christian) atheists, alienated teens and young adults, politically correct leftists, humanitarians who see the established culture and morality as equally or more threatening than an expansive government. They also reject the classical liberalism that the United States of America is founded upon. In fact, many of these people have not read or do not care to read the writings of the Founders of the United States or the philosophers who influenced them. If they do appeal to the Founders, they cite quotes taken out of context to support their leftist views. They also care little for community, culture, or history.

These "libertarians" have taken on the name to justify a nihilistic view of the world, where restraint of any kind is removed so that they can indulge their appetites. Many modal libertarians have an appreciation of the free market because they realize the market can supply their drugs, pornography, and prostitutes more effectively. They confirm the fears expressed by Daniel Bell of the cultural contradictions of capitalism where increased levels of wealth produced by capitalism undermine the traditional values based on self-restraint that make capitalism successful. The same ethic of self-indulgence explains their support for abortion on demand and unrestricted euthanasia. The logic here is to kill anyone who cannot keep up and is deemed to have an inferior "quality of life."

Former *Reason* magazine editor, Nick Gillespie, personifies this anti-social trend. He praises as "Heroes of Freedom" Madonna, Dennis Rodman, Larry Flynt, and William Burroughs alongside such true heroes as Milton Friedman and Barry Goldwater. Gillespie epitomizes this brand of libertarianism by posing as the angry young man hipster too cool for the rest of us poor unimaginative slobs.

These so-called libertarians are more interested in civil liberties that undercut law enforcement not because of fear of an abuse of power but because of their rejection of the imposition of pain including just punishment. Instead, they unrealistically believe that if all people are treated as equals and given opportunity to get rich in the market, then there would be no crime.

Although more traditional or paleo-libertarians such as Ron Paul are strict constitutionalists, modal libertarians are all in favor of using judicial activism to further their social goals of removing barriers to self-destructive behavior or placing barriers in the way of law enforcement and national security without regard to precedent or the text of the Constitution.

These bits of meliorism go hand in hand with their non-interventionism in foreign policy. Instead of opposing foreign wars to protect the lives and traditions of citizens of their own country, they believe that if wealth and opportunity can be expanded, then people would live harmoniously together in a peaceful cosmopolitan world. The basic assumptions about human nature and the human condition only differs from the leftist internationalist by replacing a super-statist/socialist order with a super market capitalist order that would transcend the nation state and particular local cultures. The same leftist vision is simply implemented by a different strategy. This line of thinking explains their support of mass immigration. It also explains why one does not hear these libertarians defend freedom of association.

Modal libertarians disdain tradition or any sense of social stability. They relish change for the sake of change. They crave novelty and destruction of anything that they have become bored with. Virginia Postrel, now writing for the *New York Times*, is a prime example of this love of frenetic activity. She misquotes Hayek on the nature of change as a thorough-going, radical process that countenances no constancy or commitment.

Modal libertarianism could be called left libertarianism. There is a variation of libertarianism which stresses voluntary collectivist social and economic arrangements that are still respectful of the right to private property and non-intervention by the State. These libertarians argue for people to choose to pool private property and live communally in various frameworks. This is not modal libertarianism. This type of leftist libertarianism is still consistent with the more traditional libertarian framework because each individual in such communities chooses to participate. There is a long history of such communities in the United States. Modal libertarians are more interested in re-shaping the world to fit their mold and defining the results as achieving freedom. Modal libertarians seem to slip on the term, 'liberty,' moving from what Issiah Berlin called "negative liberty" to "positive liberty." John Stuart Mill fell into this confusion in his writing as he tried to blend liberalism with egalitarianism. Mill is the cross-over figure from classical to modern liberalism. Something similar is going on with modal libertarians.

A lot of people calling themselves libertarians on the internet are teen-agers and young adults who are simply stuck in a mindless rebellion against all authority. Modal libertarians tap into this unrelenting, destructive rebellion in many young people who have been neglected or mistreated by self-absorbed parents. Ayn Rand's writings look especially inviting to these folks.

Even though some of the language and the policy positions cohere with those of Locke, Jefferson, Montesquieu, Mises, Hayek, Friedman, et al., the meanings they pour into the terms and phrases used by traditional libertarians and classical liberals are completely different. Unfortunately, the Libertarian Party has departed from their earlier candidates such as John Hospers, Roger MacBride, and Ron Paul and have moved to this liberal/leftist vision. We are now witnessing Bob Barr flip-flopping all over himself to appease these nihilists who have taken over the mantle of libertarianism.
Traditionalist libertarian: "I am looking at the Libertarian Party platform and see mostly a leftist agenda. What is going on here?"

Modal libertarian: "Yes, we modal libertarians have moved away from that rightist repressive model of liberty to true liberty. The real enemy of the people is not the State so much as it is traditional morality, bigotry, Christianity, and nationalism. Conservatives are the real enemy now."
 

From, here.

John James:

Great.  Now if you could just explain what a "left-libertarian" is and how that's different from a "libertarian", it would be greatly appreciated.

Explain to me the difference between a "right-libertarian and a "libertarian."

"Libertarian" is a word that has changed meaning. It used to mean "libertarian socialist", but now it implies something different, but just as narrow. Most contemporary libertarians (or "right" libertarians for sake of clarity), share a core set of values outside of the fundamental agenda of fighting State power. Among these is a general opposition to collectivism in any way shape or form. The most positive they are about such things is condescending (if you want to start your little communist enclave and subject yourself to slavery and oppression, be my guest.). They often cite the calculation problem to argue against things like worker-owned factories, despite the fact that the same critique would naturally apply to a sole proprietor. There are huge difference of opinion on the labor and subjective theories of value (though some people accept both). To be fair, I get annoyed when left-libs fail to recognize just how similar Lockean and occupancy-and-use property rights are, though this confusion goes both ways I suppose.

So right and left libertarians have views outside of strict legal theory. Some times these views are at odds. It is these views specifically that set them apart. Yes, they share a core belief in liberty and opposition to coercion and this is what makes them both "libertarians," but you cannot deny that when the term "libertarian" appears, there is a tacit "right" modifier immediately preceding it. This is why left-libs chose their respective modifier. Personally, I don't like the term. I prefer "anarchist." I also happen to identify with the "left," as did Proudhon and Bastiat, but as long as there are right-libertarians, there might as well be left.

FunkedUp:

There is a variation of libertarianism which stresses voluntary collectivist social and economic arrangements that are still respectful of the right to private property and non-intervention by the State. These libertarians argue for people to choose to pool private property and live communally in various frameworks. This is not modal libertarianism. This type of leftist libertarianism is still consistent with the more traditional libertarian framework because each individual in such communities chooses to participate. There is a long history of such communities in the United States.

All that just for this?

FunkedUp:

Woo! Looks like I ruffled some feathers over at Long's blog. Good. I have nothing against Long, as I believe he is exceptionally knowledgeable with regards to philosophy and writes excellent papers, but I simply do not endorse LL and it's egalitarianism (social socialism).

Great.  Now if you could just explain what a "left-libertarian" is and how that's different from a "libertarian", it would be greatly appreciated.

In addition to this (posted before), see here, and here. Also, Urban Dictionary has pretty accurate description.

From, here.

Okay, so the first Rothbard piece was the most useful.  From what I gather, "left-libertarianism" is an acceptance of some free market principles, combined with an exalting of "civil rights" (which includes but is not limited to: "free-speech rights", "gay rights", and "rights to accomodation") at the expense of, and to the detriment of private-property rights.

I'm not sure why you would include that bullshit definition from urban dictionary though, as it's obviously a overtly biased smear piece written by an anger-filled, Constitution-thumping (probably) Christian moralist statist, who is no better than those he attempts to berate, as he distorts the term "libertarian" and seeks to impose his own understanding and inclinations of morality on the rest of the populace.  (Unless of course, you agree with it.  Then it would make sense.)

decleyredelune:

Explain to me the difference between a "right-libertarian and a "libertarian."

I can't.  I don't know what a "right-libertarian" is.

(I don't know if that was you trying to be clever or if you really wanted to know, but either way, my answer is the same.)

 

"Libertarian" is a word that has changed meaning. It used to mean "libertarian socialist"

You lost me.

 

Most contemporary libertarians (or "right" libertarians for sake of clarity)

That does not add clarity.  In fact, quite the opposite.

 

They often cite the calculation problem to argue against things like worker-owned factories, despite the fact that the same critique would naturally apply to a sole proprietor.

This doesn't make any sense.

 

There are huge difference of opinion on the labor and subjective theories of value (though some people accept both).

Please identify someone who simultaneously accepts the ideas that value is subjective and objective.

 

This is why left-libs chose their respective modifier. Personally, I don't like the term. I prefer "anarchist."

"Anarchist" as in, against the state but also against property rights?

 

John James:

Okay, so the first Rothbard piece was the most useful.  From what I gather, "left-libertarianism" is an acceptance of some free market principles, combined with an exalting of "civil rights" (which includes but is not limited to: "free-speech rights", "gay rights", and "rights to accomodation") at the expense of, and to the detriment of private-property rights.

I'm not sure why you would include that bullshit definition from urban dictionary though, as it's obviously a overtly biased smear piece written by an anger-filled, Constitution-thumping (probably) Christian moralist statist, who is no better than those he attempts to berate, as he distorts the term "libertarian" and seeks to impose his own understanding and inclinations of morality on the rest of the populace.  (Unless of course, you agree with it.  Then it would make sense.)

The urban dictionary is funny, and full of humor. Laugh at it.

Left libertarians are pro-private property and socially liberal (Walter Block, Roderick Long, etc). You're free to disagree with my claim.

Right libertarians are pro-private property and culturally conservative (Murray Rothbard, Hans Hermann Hoppe, etc). You're free to disagree with my claim.

Neither is any more "libertarian" than the other. Right libertarians and Left Libertarians both want a society that is 100% private property based (if they're constistant). What they do with their own property is going to be different. It's a matter of lifestyle and social preference.

All of this is playing with words, however.

 

I think at least some people who call themselves "left-libertarians" don't see freedom as an end in itself. Rather, they see freedom as a means to accomplish different forms of equality, and it's those different forms of equality that they see as ends in themselves. So, in the end, they care more about those different forms of equality than they care about freedom.

As an example, I'll cite Francois Tremblay. He was once an anarcho-capitalist, but has since moved to anarcho-communism. I can only surmise that he did so because he has the mentality that I describe above.

Also, at least some people who call themselves "left-libertarians" don't follow Austrian-school economics.

FunkedUp:

The urban dictionary is funny, and full of humor.

No it isn't.  It's full of nonsense and useless anger.

 

Left libertarians are pro-private property and socially liberal (Walter Block, Roderick Long, etc). You're free to disagree with my claim.

It appears that not only does Rothbard disagree with your claim, but you do as well:

FunkedUp:

"I cannot tell the difference between a Marxist and an (left libertarian) Austrian"

"I simply do not endorse LL and it's egalitarianism (social socialism)."

 

Again, Rothbard asserts (in the article you linked to multiple times in this thread) that "left-libertarians" are "big government libertarians" (that was the title of the article) who change and distort the definition of "rights" to a dangerous degree, resulting in prescriptions that go against the institution of and rights inherent in private property.

 

 

Right libertarians are pro-private property and culturally conservative (Murray Rothbard, Hans Hermann Hoppe, etc). You're free to disagree with my claim.

Okie dokie.

 

Neither is any more "libertarian" than the other.

Sure could have fooled me...

"[Left libertarians] are social socialists."

-FunkedUp

 

Right libertarians and Left Libertarians both want a society that is 100% private property based (if they're constistant). What they do with their own property is going to be different. It's a matter of lifestyle and social preference.

That would might begin to make some sense if "left-libertarians" did not insist that one has a "right" to be served at a restaurant, or that one has a "right" to curse out his boss on company property.

 

Holy shit I'm confused.

Hey, Rod Long (calling him by his porn name), can you come in here and give us a brief summary of the left-lib position?

You think he set his egometer to scan the web for his porn name too?

 

John James:

It appears that not only does Rothbard disagree with your claim, but you do as well:

This has nothing to do with with me being contradictory. Sometimes I can't tell the difference between a Marxist and LL. Look at the LL that attend Occupy Wall Street rallies, for example. They are very similar in many respects

LL are social socialists. Being a social socialist has nothing to do with private property rights (unless it's using the state to achieve those goals). That's why I brought up CT. LL can be a CT endorsing social socialists and still be an anarcho-capitalist. Just look at most of Ron Paul's college kid supporters. 

 

John James:

"Right libertarians and Left Libertarians both want a society that is 100% private property based (if they're constistant). What they do with their own property is going to be different. It's a matter of lifestyle and social preference."

That would might begin to make some sense if "left-libertarians" did not insist that one has a "right" to be served at a restaurant, or that one has a "right" to curse out his boss on company property.

 

What???

You obviously don't understand anything that I'm saying, and your arguments are irrelevant. 

 

FunkedUp:

That would might begin to make some sense if "left-libertarians" did not insist that one has a "right" to be served at a restaurant, or that one has a "right" to curse out his boss on company property.

What???  You obviously don't understand anything that I'm saying, and your arguments are irrelevant.

I was simply using the information (and examples) provided in the article that you linked to at least two or three times in this very thread.

And maybe it's just me, but I seem to think there's something amiss about a self-proclaimed "libertarian" who is essentially indistinguishable from a Marxist.  (Which is incidentally another point it seemed like Rothbard was making.)

 

 

 

NonAntiAnarchist:

Holy shit I'm confused.

This confusion is largely due to the fact the word libertarian has been distorted and means different things. Originally, it was associated with the Left (the socialist, anti-property left) in Europe to combat the classical liberals. In the USA, everything is the opposite. The classical liberals took up the word libertarian after the progressives in the progressive era hijacked the word liberal and bastardized it. Since then, in the USA, the word liberal just means socialist, when it used to be associated with classical liberalsim (american libertarianism). This has completely distorted the whole terminology, and is the reason that libertarians can be anything from Noam Chomsky to Hans Hoppe. 

Ultimately, libertarianism is about taking power away from the state and giving it to individuals. At least that's how I interpret the word libertarian. 

FunkedUp:

Similarly, right-libertarians can be indistinguishable from neo-cons at times

Once again, that's exactly what Rothbard said about "left-libertarians" in the article you linked to at least two or three times in this very thread.

You are incredibly confusing.  You link to these sources, and then not only assert notions that are not even brought up in them, but proclaim things that fly directly in the face of them.  I essentially summarize Rothbard's description of "left-libertarians" from the article you sent me to to get a definition, and use his examples, and you tell me I don't understand what you're saying and my arguments are irrelevant.

You then proceed to make a bunch of claims that don't seem to be anywhere in the sources you listed (aside from that ridiculous urban dictionary piece, which, for all I know you only think is funny because you authored it).

Tell me, are you now suggesting that Rothbard's description is inaccurate?

 

 

FunkedUp:

After re-reading my comments I can see what you mean, and my chronology is messy and I didn't explain myself thoroughly. The word left-libertarian can mean many things because its roots lie in so many philosophies: left libertarian socialist, left libertarian syndicalist, left libertarian minarchist, left libertarian anarcho capitalist, etc. All of those groups could be considered to be left libertarians. I chose to focus my critiques on left libertarian anarcho capitalists, whereas Rothbard mostly criticized left libertarian minarchists - hence the confusion.

What it really sounds like is that your definition of "left-libertarian" is largely different from any of these others.  You seem to think that the "left" part simply refers to personal lifestyle choices.  I've never heard that suggestion before, but what's more, it makes absolutely no sense.  "Left" in this kind of context (i.e. political) generally refers to the direction of the political philosophy lean...that is, toward or away from statism.  Therefore, "left" could be read as "socialist" (regardless of the degree).  (Indeed, as I mentioned before, "libertarian socialist" is another term at least some of these people use to describe themselves.)

It is for this reason Rothbard regards them as "big government"...and the term itself as "oxymoronic" (along with "big government conservative").  How you can claim that Rothbard is even describing minarchists (let alone libertarians in general) when he specifically titles the piece big government libertarians, and proceeds to detail the socialist tenets of these people, is beyond me.

What Rothbard seems to be describing are a certain breed of socialist who happen to support some aspects of the free market, but have a very warped understanding of "rights" and distort the term beyond the recognition of any actual proponent of liberty.  Indeed, as Rothbard says in the second paragraph:

The weird thing about Big Government Libertarianism, of course, is that it clearly violates the very nature and point of libertarianism: devotion to the ideal of either no government at all or government that is minuscule and strictly confined to defense of person and property: to what the ex-libertarian philosopher Robert Nozick called "ultra-minimal" government, or what the great paleolibertarian writer H.L. Mencken called "government that barely escapes being no government at all."

Self-proclaimed "left libertarians" like Roderick Long may allege that they fit in the "libertarian" category Rothbard describes, and indeed may even advocate the abolishment of the state and the privatization of  legislative, adjudicative, and protective functions usually monopolized by government...a doctrine Long calls "market anarchism".  But I see little difference between this and anarcho-communism if one's understanding of "property" is such that people have "rights" beyond the boundaries of the property of others. (i.e. private property doesn't really exist...or at least, so-called "civil rights" trump property rights.)  (Which, interestingly enough sounds a lot like what one Webster Tarpley claims is the case.)

You don't seem to acknowledge any of this.  You seem to only be concerned with what boils down to personal taste...as in, "'left-libertarianism' means you're libertarian who happens to be a hedonist and atheist and probably promiscuous or a drug user or all of the above, whereas 'right-libertarianism' means you're libertarian who happens to be god-fearing, Constitution-pounding, Bible beating and 'alternative-lifestyle'-hating."

This makes absolutely no sense.  It conflates political leanings with personal lifestyle choices.  As in, if I'm a Christian, that means I'm "right-[something]".  If I'm gay, that means I'm "left-[something]".  That has to be the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

Once again, in this kind of context "left" and "right" are understood to designate political leanings...as in toward or away from statism.  This has nothing to do with personal religious beliefs or sexual preferences or feelings about "tradition" or anything of the sort.  And to claim that someone is "left" or "right" depending on how they feel about sex out of wedlock is even more asinine than the oxymoron of being an anti-statist who "leans toward statism".

 

So here's my understanding so far:

"Left-libertarian" is someone who claims to be in favor of no or minimal government, but believes in alleged "civil rights" which override the genuine rights of private property, and tends to use a co-mingling of "public" and "private" property to help enforce this view.

"Anarcho-communist" is someone who claims to be in favor of no government, but supports the abolishment of private ownership of "the means of production and distribution" and advocates direct democracy as a means to manage such things (while keeping private ownership of other goods inact..."your watch is your own, but the watch factory belongs to 'the people'.")

"Anarcho-syndicalist" is an Anarcho-communist who pays special favor to the "plight" of labor, and comes at anarchism from that angle, and may suggest revolutionary tactics that other anarcho-communists may not.

 

 

 

FunkedUp:

For left libertarian anarcho capitalists and right libertarian anarcho capitalists, the differences do boil down to personal lifestyle choices. I already explained that I was referring to left libertarian anarcho capitalists when I was making my left libertarian critique. Read. Why don't you explain to me the differences between these two competing strands (right/left anarcho capitalists) without invoking lifestyle choices.

Did you read anything past those first two sentences?  Because it really seems like you didn't.

 

 

John James:

Did you read anything past those first two sentences?  Because it really seems like you didn't.

I did. This was your main point, and the rest of your post was just riddled with jargon filled nonsense, and I didn't feel like dignifying it with a response. It's astonishing how you're merely trying to lecture me.

Are you going to answer my question? Can you explain to me the differences between right/left anarcho capitalists without invoking lifestyle choices?

FunkedUp:

This was your main point, and the rest of your post was just riddled with jargon filled nonsense[...] Are you going to answer my question?

I honestly have no idea how you could have even read the first 8 sentences and still end up asking that question.

You're asking how one differentiates between "two competing strands" of political philosophy called "right and left anarcho capitalism" without invoking lifestyle choices.

First of all, if the ideologies are the same, I don't exactly see where the "competition" comes in.

Second, I made it quite clear (multiple times) that the terms "left" and "right" in this kind of context are understood to designate political leanings...as in toward or away from statism.  Therefore terms like "left-anarcho-capitalism" and "left-libertarianism" are oxymoronic.  (And by the same token, "right-libertarianism" would be redundant, assuming one is referring to "paleo" or "Old Right").

These are useless, nonsensical terms and yet you continue to not only use them, but ask me to define them.

I mean, are you willing to openly admit you are adopting the generally understood political terms of "left" and "right" to imply things that have nothing to do with political philosophy?  If you would do that then I suppose it would make this much clearer.

 

 

From The American Conservative:

They are standard libertarians in that they believe in the moral legitimacy of private ownership and free exchange and oppose all government interference in personal and economic affairs—a groundless, pernicious dichotomy. Yet they are leftists in that they share traditional left-wing concerns, about exploitation and inequality for example, that are largely ignored, if not dismissed, by other libertarians. Left-libertarians favor worker solidarity vis-à-vis bosses, support poor people’s squatting on government or abandoned property, and prefer that corporate privileges be repealed before the regulatory restrictions on how those privileges may be exercised. They see Walmart as a symbol of corporate favoritism—supported by highway subsidies and eminent domain—view the fictive personhood of the limited-liability corporation with suspicion, and doubt that Third World sweatshops would be the “best alternative” in the absence of government manipulation.

From all-left.net:

Left-libertarianism is not just a historical perspective, however. It is a synthesis between certain goals that may be associated with "the left" and libertarian ideas, it involves ways of using libertarian ideas to derive conclusions that may be considered to be "leftish". In particular, left-libertarianism involves a tendency to use free market economics to demonstrate how state intervention negatively affects interests that may be concerns of "the left", by demonstrating how the state harms workers, reduces living standards, causes prices to rise, enables environmental damage, concentrates private power and backs up monopolies. Left-libertarianism can be used to demonstrate how the likely outcome of a genuinely free economy is comparatively egalitarian in light of currently existing economic structures, and how it is possible for things such as voluntary unions and cooperatives to exist in a genuinely free market.

Left-libertarianism observes that far too often what is celebrated as "capitalism" (even by some libertarians) is more like a plutocracy or a neo-mercantile society, and that many private elites crucially rely on state power to sustain their own power. Left-libertarianism reflects a tendency to be critical of both state and corporate power, and a keen awareness of the degree to which the two are synergetic. The function of liberty is not to privatize power but to uphold a consistant rejection of arbitrary authority, and while the state is certainly the most fundamental institution of arbitary authority, it is not necessarily the only one. Hence, additional concerns about power relations between various groups within society aren't necessarily irrelevant, it's just that one must understand the role the state plays in such power relations and the way in which such power relations truly work in general. In either case, left-libertarianism is "thick" in this sense, as there is more to it than anti-statism.

Favor for more participatory decision-making or direct action as a method for bringing about one's goals is also an aspect of left-libertarianism, best reflected by the theory of agorism. A central point is that organization must be from the bottom up and that activism is a matter of directly making a change on a personal level or on a small scale rather then participating in the illusory and bankrupt system of representative democracy or remaining in a state of dependancy on currently dominant structures. This can be seen as involving a principle of personal responsibility and an awareness of the need for competitive mechanisms in order to counter current power structures. Hence, the general tendency is towards a rejection of reformism and party politics.

So the main differences between right-libertarians and left-libertarians appear to be emphasis and "marketing", or the way in which they portray their beliefs.  They believe all of the same things about the harmful effects of the state as right-libertarians, but market more toward leftists, and emphasize that the economic system without a state would not simply be the status quo or worse from an egalitarian perspective.  Most of the paradigm set up by left-libertarians is great, but the anti-boss attitude is a bit off-putting and unrealistic.

Thanks for sharing those.  They sound basically like what has been said before, particularly with Evilsceptic's "thick" link.  To be honest I still don't really see a difference.  Many of the things described could easily be attributed to libertarians in general.

"a tendency to use free market economics to demonstrate how state intervention negatively affects interests that may be concerns of "the left", by demonstrating how the state harms workers, reduces living standards, causes prices to rise, enables environmental damage, concentrates private power and backs up monopolies. Left-libertarianism can be used to demonstrate how the likely outcome of a genuinely free economy is comparatively egalitarian in light of currently existing economic structures, and how it is possible for things such as voluntary unions and cooperatives to exist in a genuinely free market."

They claim these conclusions are "leftish"...but the conclusions would be the only things not leftish about any of that.  I would agree the general focus on workers and egalitarianism are definitely characteristic of the Left...but to allege that simply showing how free-markets are better for those things makes you "left" anything is stretching to a point of misleading.

I mean, does this make Friedman a "left-libertarian"?...

 

 

And I've never heard of a libertarian who, when confronted with typical Leftist concerns like poverty and inequality and the like wouldn't acknowledge how a free society would improve things in those areas.  Again, to suggest that to do so one must be a "left-libertarian", or put another way, that doing so makes one a "left-libertarian", is just asinine.

Now neither of those mention anything about how "left-libertarians" define "civil rights" or how they arrive at their conclusions regarding property (or even what those conclusions are)...and this of course is the most important part, as it seems to be the area that these people are actually "left"...as in, socialist.  It sounds like those definitions are incomplete...focusing on the secondary and ancillary aspects that make these people Leftists, and completely ignoring the underlying beliefs about property and rights that inform their preoccupation with and concern for egalitarianism and the like.

Speaking of which, I find it quite interesting that FunkedUp would list Walter Block as an example of a "left-libertarian" (and the first one, to boot), when I would be willing to bet Block would have real issues with that.  Indeed, Block's response to a student asking for input on socialist teachers who call him a hypocrite for being anti-state yet attending a state school:

As for hypocrisy, if you don't mind failing your courses, ask your pinko professors if they have a car, house, tennis racket, golf clubs, television, computer, etc., and how they square these possessions with their crappy egalitarianism.

 

A left-libertarian is simply someone who has stumbled upon the logic of economics but still wants to appear politically and intellectually fashionable.

Aristippus:

A left-libertarian is simply someone who has stumbled upon the logic of economics...

Apparently not...

Indeed, that's precisely FunkedUp's main problem with them:

FunkedUp:

Left-libertarians are obsessed with maintatining a value-free method of analysis for all fields in the social sciences. As with the case of economics and praxeology, this value-free method is extrapolated and extended over to the realm of sociology where it is not applicable. Sociology is not a praxeological science. That is the prime difference between right and left libertarians/anarcho-capitalists.

Autolykos:

at least some people who call themselves "left-libertarians" don't follow Austrian-school economics.

 

Well by 'stumbled upon' I didn't mean 'fully comprehended'.

Apparently, by some definitions of "left-libertarian", mutualists are left-libertarians.

Now neither of those mention anything about how "left-libertarians" define "civil rights" or how they arrive at their conclusions regarding property (or even what those conclusions are)...and this of course is the most important part, as it seems to be the area that these people are actually "left"...as in, socialist.  It sounds like those definitions are incomplete...focusing on the secondary and ancillary aspects that make these people Leftists, and completely ignoring the underlying beliefs about property and rights that inform their preoccupation with and concern for egalitarianism and the like.

Ok, first things first,  Left-libertarians like Long are essentially Rothbardians -- they are neo-lockeans regarding property and support the NAP (in fact, I think some of these guys refer to themselves as left-rothbardians).  So their theory on property is likely no different from yours, except maybe a few spots regarding communal ownership and other things that even mainstream libertarians might not unanimously agree about. 

To be honest I still don't really see a difference.  Many of the things described could easily be attributed to libertarians in general.

There's a difference between acknowledging that free markets actually benefit laborers and emphasizing it.  And its not solely emphasizing leftist interests that sets Long, et. al., apart from general libertarians, but also the belief that this concern for inequalities between man and woman, boss and employee, white and black, etc. are fundamentally part of libertarianism.  In other words, Long would say that it would be inconsistent for one to adopt the general Rothbardian position without also adopting those additional concerns.

The reason why Long would say such a thing, is the whole "thickness" issue.  Its not just that he thinks its a good idea to concern one's self with these issues.  One point of thickness, is to show that the grounds on which one supports the NAP would also lead one to adopt additional social positions.  So for example, since the NAP is supported because it is a principle of justice, then the libertarian ought to hold other principles of justice, even if they don't address the political issue of force.  Insofar as the relationships between employer / employee are unjust, then the libertarian ought to concern himself with these issues.

That being said, Long doesn't believe that these issue somehow override property rights or the NAP.  He certainly doesn't advocate any sort of state action to address these issues.  The point is that NAP and property rights don't make sense on their own, and that the left libertarian position (according to Long, et al) compliment and complete the philosophy.

Also, you are correct to point out that these are secondary and ancillary ties to leftism, but this isn't why the title is adopted.  Instead, left-libs (of Long's persuasion) are highlighting the historical tie to the left -- early american individualists like Benjamin Tucker called themselves socialists.  Also, the "left" prefix helps to separate this position from what could be called "right" libertarianism, which might say that you can't really be a good Rothbardian without adopting concerns for traditional family structures, cultural homogeneity in neighborhoods, christian values, etc.

I hope that helps a bit.

 

mikachusetts:

There's a difference between acknowledging that free markets actually benefit laborers and emphasizing it.  And its not solely emphasizing leftist interests that sets Long, et. al., apart from general libertarians, but also the belief that this concern for inequalities between man and woman, boss and employee, white and black, etc. are fundamentally part of libertarianism.  In other words, Long would say that it would be inconsistent for one to adopt the general Rothbardian position without also adopting those additional concerns.

The reason why Long would say such a thing, is the whole "thickness" issue.  Its not just that he thinks its a good idea to concern one's self with these issues.  One point of thickness, is to show that the grounds on which one supports the NAP would also lead one to adopt additional social positions.  So for example, since the NAP is supported because it is a principle of justice, then the libertarian ought to hold other principles of justice, even if they don't address the political issue of force.  Insofar as the relationships between employer / employee are unjust, then the libertarian ought to concern himself with these issues.

So another issue concerns different definitions of "justice". "Left-libertarians" may use a broader definition than "non-left-libertarians".

mikachusetts:

That being said, Long doesn't believe that these issue somehow override property rights or the NAP.  He certainly doesn't advocate any sort of state action to address these issues.  The point is that NAP and property rights don't make sense on their own, and that the left libertarian position (according to Long, et al) compliment and complete the philosophy.

The problem IMO is that, when you define "justice" to concern more than the political issue of force (to use your terminology), the question then arises as to whether things which don't involve the political issue of force can be considered more "unjust" than the political issue of force against them. This brings us right in line with 19th-century utilitarianism and so forth.

So another issue concerns different definitions of "justice". "Left-libertarians" may use a broader definition than "non-left-libertarians".

Well I think the definition of justice has to necessarily be broader than simply adherence to the NAP if its going to be used as a justification for it.  Otherwise, advocating the NAP for the sake of justice would be no different than advocating the NAP for the sake of advocating the NAP.  So that being said, I think there has to be at least some aspect of justice which is not entirely addressed in terms of aggression.

The problem IMO is that, when you define "justice" to concern more than the political issue of force (to use your terminology), the question then arises as to whether things which don't involve the political issue of force can be considered more "unjust" than the political issue of force against them. This brings us right in line with 19th-century utilitarianism and so forth.

Well, on the one hand, I would think this a good thing.  If your primary concern is justice, and it turns out that there exists a case where the use of force turns out to be the most just course of action, then you would really want to know which case that is.  For example, take the issue of whether you can use force to push someone out of the way of oncoming traffic.  It seems to me that standing by and letting someone get run over by a bus is a far greater injustice than violating his rights by pushing him.

On the other hand, though, I don't see how this is any more of a problem then various other issues that libertarians face without reference to justice.  Abortion, children, etc. are tricky grounds with no general consensus as to what the libertarian solution is.  To say that these issues are sufficient to reject the general libertarian framework is absurd -- and I would say the same about rejecting a broader understanding of justice simply because it raises those issue. 

mikachusetts:

Ok, first things first,  Left-libertarians like Long are essentially Rothbardians [...] in fact, I think some of these guys refer to themselves as left-rothbardians).

That's pretty ironic...considering Rothbard was evidently one of their strongest critics.

And I don't think I've ever heard a more asinine term than "left-rothbardians"...and I wouldn't be surprised if Rothbard wouldn't be very happy about that, and probably outright resent it.

 

So their theory on property is likely no different from yours, except maybe a few spots regarding communal ownership and other things that even mainstream libertarians might not unanimously agree about.

Could have fooled me.

 

There's a difference between acknowledging that free markets actually benefit laborers and emphasizing it.

...not enough of one to necessitate an extra new label that confuses the reality of political philosophy.  As I was telling FunkedUp, and as I've said throughout this thread, the terms "left" and "right" in this kind of context are understood to designate political leanings...as in toward or away from statism.  Therefore terms like "left-anarcho-capitalism" and "left-libertarianism" are oxymoronic. These are useless, confusing, contradictory, nonsense terms that do nothing to help further understanding or explanation of the political spectrum and where people fall in it.

 

mikachusetts:

And its not solely emphasizing leftist interests that sets Long, et. al., apart from general libertarians, but also the belief that this concern for inequalities between man and woman, boss and employee, white and black, etc. are fundamentally part of libertarianism.  In other words, Long would say that it would be inconsistent for one to adopt the general Rothbardian position without also adopting those additional concerns.

That makes absolutely no sense.  The Rothbardian position of NAP and property rights is a fully philosophy in itself.  It does not require one to adopt special "concerns" for specific causes.

 

The reason why Long would say such a thing, is the whole "thickness" issue.  Its not just that he thinks its a good idea to concern one's self with these issues.  One point of thickness, is to show that the grounds on which one supports the NAP would also lead one to adopt additional social positions.  So for example, since the NAP is supported because it is a principle of justice, then the libertarian ought to hold other principles of justice, even if they don't address the political issue of force.  Insofar as the relationships between employer / employee are unjust, then the libertarian ought to concern himself with these issues.

So basically a "left-libertarian" believes that a situation in which no property rights have been violated can still be "unjust" and therefore must be given attention (whatever that means and entails) if one is to be a "true" libertarian?

 

That being said, Long doesn't believe that these issue somehow override property rights or the NAP.  He certainly doesn't advocate any sort of state action to address these issues.

You don't need to advocate a state to override property rights or NAP.  And it's quite possible Long is an example of that.

 

mikachusetts:

The point is that NAP and property rights don't make sense on their own

How is that, exactly?

 

the left libertarian position (according to Long, et al) compliment and complete the philosophy.

This still doesn't make any sense.  You're saying that I have to be especially concerned about the alleged "plight" of the working man before I can be a real libertarian with a "complete" philosophy?

 

Also, you are correct to point out that these are secondary and ancillary ties to leftism, but this isn't why the title is adopted.  Instead, left-libs (of Long's persuasion) are highlighting the historical tie to the left -- early american individualists like Benjamin Tucker called themselves socialists.

Great...so it's just paying homage to a history in which terms had different meanings?  How is that helpful in identifying (as opposed to confusing) someone's political philosophy (which is what I thought terms like this were supposed to do)?

 

Also, the "left" prefix helps to separate this position from what could be called "right" libertarianism, which might say that you can't really be a good Rothbardian without adopting concerns for traditional family structures, cultural homogeneity in neighborhoods, christian values, etc.

That makes just as little sense as "left-libertarian".  I still don't see how NAP and property rights necessarily has anything to do with any of that.

 

So their theory on property is likely no different from yours, except maybe a few spots regarding communal ownership and other things that even mainstream libertarians might not unanimously agree about.

Could have fooled me.

 

I thought its already been established that there are a number of very different ideologies all going by the name of left libertarian.  If the article doesn't address Roderick Long, Charles Johnson, or Gary Chartier by name, and it says things wildly opposite of what I'm telling you I know to be true, just assume the article is addressing the "other" kind of left lib.  Just imagine if I was trying to talk to you about liberals, and I meant it in the classical sense, and you kept finding articles in national review using the same term to mean social democrat.  Obviously we aren't going to get anywhere in the conversation.

the terms "left" and "right" in this kind of context are understood to designate political leanings...as in toward or away from statism.

Okayy, but this is not what is usually meant by left and right.  I mean, if I was talking about the New Left of the 1960's, nobody would think that I was refering to people who identified themselves, or were identified by others, as more statist than the mainstream right.  Ultimately, if this whole thing is about not liking the term "left," I don't know what to tell you.  I certainly don't identify myself that way, and I can see how it might not help clarify their position, but its what they are going with.

That makes absolutely no sense.  The Rothbardian position of NAP and property rights is a fully philosophy in itself.  It does not require one to adopt special "concerns" for specific causes.

...

So basically a "left-libertarian" believes that a situation in which no property rights have been violated can still be "unjust" and therefore must be given attention (whatever that means and entails) if one is to be a "true" libertarian?

I'm just telling you what the position is.  If you believe that the Rothbardian position doesn't entail a commitment to additional social concerns, thats fine.  My point is that there are actual justifications for why left libs believe this -- if you support X on grounds G, then you should  support Y and Z if they also rest on grounds G.  If you think that  A, B, and C will lead to a libertarian society, and you desire a libertarian society, you should persue A, B, and C.  It has nothing to do with being a "true" libertarian, I don't think thats the argument being made. 

A good example of an additional commitment that libertarians should hold, I think, is Austrian Economics.  You don't need to be an Austrian to be a libertarian, but it wouldn't make sense for libertarians not to learn as much as they could about Austrian theory.  Assuming you agree with this, just imagine holding the same kind of opinion about something like gender relations.  That's what it means to "give attention" to. 

You don't need to advocate a state to override property rights or NAP.  And it's quite possible Long is an example of that.

I can assure you that Long isn't an example of that.

mikachusetts:

The point is that NAP and property rights don't make sense on their own

How is that, exactly?

Well, for one, nobody supports the NAP for its own sake.  It is just a means to some further end.  So if that further end is something like justice, and I think it usually is, then the NAP only makes sense in reference to justice.  And if its in reference to justice, then it makes a lot of sense to incorporate other issues regarding justice into libertarian philosophy.  Doctors prescribe meds to make people better, but saying that they are in the business of prescribing meds misses the mark -- they are really in the business of making people better.  Likewise, libertarians aren't just in the business of NAP and property, they are in the business of just social orders in general.

I think there is a lot of room to disagree with the content of left-lib theory (e.g. Are gender relations actually unjust?), but the reason why they concern themselves with these issues is pretty reasonable.  Whether it's significant enought to constitute a prefix on the term libertarian is a matter of preference.  I think it does help to make sense of the difference, but other might disagree.

Great...so it's just paying homage to a history in which terms had different meanings? 

This isn't a fair assesment unless you are willing to stop using every term in the anarcho-capitalist lexicon which doesn't jive with modern usage.  The reality is that those early american anarchists from whom Rothbard takes a lot of inspiration saw themselves as "left" and socialist because of their social concerns.  Left libs highlighting this fact, and trying to move the ideology back towards those roots, is no different from Lew Rockwell highlighting the impact of the Old Right Conservatives on Rothbard, and trying to move the ideology back towards those roots. 

 

mikachusetts:

Ultimately, if this whole thing is about not liking the term "left," I don't know what to tell you.

It's about trying to understand what the hell these people are talking about when they use such nonsense terminology.  Any bit of "not liking" it is about preferring clarity over ambiguity.  Understanding over confusion.

 

It has nothing to do with being a "true" libertarian, I don't think thats the argument being made.

...

"it would be inconsistent for one to adopt the general Rothbardian position without also adopting those additional concerns."

"the left libertarian position (according to Long, et al) compliment and complete the philosophy."

"you can't really be a good Rothbardian without adopting concerns for traditional family structures, cultural homogeneity in neighborhoods, christian values, etc."

?

 

A good example of an additional commitment that libertarians should hold, I think, is Austrian Economics.  You don't need to be an Austrian to be a libertarian, but it wouldn't make sense for libertarians not to learn as much as they could about Austrian theory.  Assuming you agree with this, just imagine holding the same kind of opinion about something like gender relations.  That's what it means to "give attention" to.

But you can't be libertarian and hold a non-libertarian position on gender relations.  That doesn't make sense.  So in essence what you're saying is that a "left-libertarian" is simply trying to reassure people of his concern for pinko interests.  As in, "I'm a libertarian, which means I believe in little to no government and the sovereignty of the individual...but, no, really, I really care about that...like really.  I mean like, I'm really concerned with wage slaves."

 

mikachusetts:

I can assure you that Long isn't an example of that.

So long doesn't understand "civil rights" to include the "right to service" (e.g. in a restaurant) or the "right to free speech" to meaning I can curse out my boss on company property and he has no grounds to do anything about it?

 

Doctors prescribe meds to make people better, but saying that they are in the business of prescribing meds misses the mark -- they are really in the business of making people better.  Likewise, libertarians aren't just in the business of NAP and property, they are in the business of just social orders in general.

That analogy implies that there is more needed to be done/ can be done to have social order.  I'm very curious to know what these other elements beside NAP and property rights are.

 

This isn't a fair assesment unless you are willing to stop using every term in the anarcho-capitalist lexicon which doesn't jive with modern usage.  The reality is that those early american anarchists from whom Rothbard takes a lot of inspiration saw themselves as "left" and socialist because of their social concerns.  Left libs highlighting this fact, and trying to move the ideology back towards those roots, is no different from Lew Rockwell highlighting the impact of the Old Right Conservatives on Rothbard, and trying to move the ideology back towards those roots.

uh...except for the little tiny existence of the purposeful qualifiers that are included specifically to make sure people understand which definition of the word is being referred to.  Why is it "Old Right" (with capital letters, even)?  Why is it "Classical liberal" (again with a capital C)?  I'll tell you why.  Because the person saying it is trying to make clear what they're talking about.  They understand and acknowledge the terms have come to mean different things over time and accommodate for that accordingly, so as to not defeat the entire purpose using descriptive terms in the first place...which, if what you're telling me is true, is what terms like "left-libertarian" do.

 

But you can't be libertarian and hold a non-libertarian position on gender relations.  That doesn't make sense.  So in essence what you're saying is that a "left-libertarian" is simply trying to reassure people of his concern for pinko interests.

Right, but no one (that I'm defending at least) would take a position on gender relations which would violate property.  Just like no libertarian would say that we should force people to become knowledgeable in Austrian economics, no left lib would say we should force people to change their opinions on gender issues.

So long doesn't understand "civil rights" to include the "right to service" (e.g. in a restaurant) or the "right to free speech" to meaning I can curse out my boss on company property and he has no grounds to do anything about it?

Correct, he is not in favor of those things. 

That analogy implies that there is more needed to be done/ can be done to have social order.  I'm very curious to know what these other elements beside NAP and property rights are.

How is the NAP and property rights enforced?  We probably agree that competitive market with a high degree of division of labor is much more efficient at doing that than every man defending himself.  Both options are logically compatible with libertarianism, but which one is more like to result in a stable libertarian order?

If certain economic outcomes are more favorable to libertarianism, why can't certain ethical / social outcomes be more favorable as well?