mikachusetts: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.
What do you find wrong with advocating the NAP for the sake of advocating the NAP?
Logically speaking, though, I don't have any justification for the NAP. I consider the NAP to be a premise, not a conclusion.
mikachusetts: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.
Since I equate "justice" with "adherence to the NAP", anything else would be unjust IMO. But for a person who thinks that e.g. current employer-employee relationships are unjust, he might consider it legitimate to use force to render those relationships just. I, on the other hand, would consider that use of force to be aggression and therefore unjust. Does that make sense?
mikachusetts: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.
I still don't see why "justice" must be defined more broadly than e.g. "adherence to the NAP". Also, logically speaking, why should one subscribe to a theory of justice that he finds inconsistent?
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
What do you find wrong with advocating the NAP for the sake of advocating the NAP? Logically speaking, though, I don't have any justification for the NAP. I consider the NAP to be a premise, not a conclusion.
Well, praxeologically, it doesn't work out that way. Consider some scenario, where you can either advocate the NAP or some other theory. Lets say you choose the NAP -- okay, but why did you choose it? It can't be for its own sake, because choosing to advocate x over y is an action, and an action is using means to acheive an end. Maybe you choose the NAP because you believe it makes your a good person, and that's your end; or maybe because you think it will help teach others about libertarianism, and thats your end. Whatever it is though, the NAP is not both means and end.
Now, of course you can use the NAP as a premise in a logical proof, and say "starting with this, we end up with a, b, c, etc." I don't think there's anything wrong with that, and so long as we can agree on the premise (maybe for different reasons), then we can agree on the conclusions. But as a value, the NAP isn't free floating and unsupported. Its either constitutive or instrumental to some more fundamental value.
It makes sense, but there's no reason why a broader conception of justice would necessitate such a position. I mean, if I said "that relationship is unjust" it doesn't follow that I then say "therefore its legitimate to use force to change that relationship." Its equally reasonable to say "therefore we should educate those involved" or "therefore we should boycott their establishment." There's no reason why one can't see the NAP as a primary principle of justice, but also hold secondary principles, and do so without violating the NAP.
I still don't see why "justice" must be defined more broadly than e.g. "adherence to the NAP".
It only has to be defined more broadly than the NAP if the NAP appeals to justice. If you support the NAP because Walter Block is blackmailing you to do so, then justice has nothing to do with it. But if you are saying "I support the NAP because it is a just rule," then yeah, justice has to be broader than simply the NAP. I picked justice as the example in this thread, because I think it is the primary driver of most deontological libertarians.
Also, logically speaking, why should one subscribe to a theory of justice that he finds inconsistent?
He probably shouldn't... I'm not sure what you are referencing here. If you mean that there are cases where it isn't clear what the just course of action is, or that it might vary from one situation to the other, I don't think this makes the theoery itself inconsistent.
they said we would have an unfair fun advantage
mikachusetts:Well, praxeologically, it doesn't work out that way. Consider some scenario, where you can either advocate the NAP or some other theory. Lets say you choose the NAP -- okay, but why did you choose it? It can't be for its own sake, because choosing to advocate x over y is an action, and an action is using means to acheive an end. Maybe you choose the NAP because you believe it makes your a good person, and that's your end; or maybe because you think it will help teach others about libertarianism, and thats your end. Whatever it is though, the NAP is not both means and end.
I think choosing to advocate the NAP over some other theory is different from choosing to advocate the NAP over choosing to not advocate it. Does that make sense? I don't see how, if I advocate the NAP, that means I made both choices simultaneously.
mikachusetts:Now, of course you can use the NAP as a premise in a logical proof, and say "starting with this, we end up with a, b, c, etc." I don't think there's anything wrong with that, and so long as we can agree on the premise (maybe for different reasons), then we can agree on the conclusions. But as a value, the NAP isn't free floating and unsupported. Its either constitutive or instrumental to some more fundamental value.
This seems to suggest that there's either one ultimate value, or there's no ultimate value at all. In the latter case, the notion of "more/less fundamental" becomes meaningless.
mikachusetts:It makes sense, but there's no reason why a broader conception of justice would necessitate such a position. I mean, if I said "that relationship is unjust" it doesn't follow that I then say "therefore its legitimate to use force to change that relationship." Its equally reasonable to say "therefore we should educate those involved" or "therefore we should boycott their establishment." There's no reason why one can't see the NAP as a primary principle of justice, but also hold secondary principles, and do so without violating the NAP.
Again, that depends on the definition of "justice" used. But I don't see where I said that a broader conception of justice would necessitate such a position - I only said that such a position could come about from a broader conception of justice. That is, the possibility exists that a person with a broader conception of justice holds such a position.
What kind of definition do you think can be given to the word "justice" such that it allows for primary and secondary principles thereof?
mikachusetts:It only has to be defined more broadly than the NAP if the NAP appeals to justice. If you support the NAP because Walter Block is blackmailing you to do so, then justice has nothing to do with it. But if you are saying "I support the NAP because it is a just rule," then yeah, justice has to be broader than simply the NAP. I picked justice as the example in this thread, because I think it is the primary driver of most deontological libertarians.
Sure, if the NAP appeals to justice as something outside of itself, then yes, "justice" must be defined differently (if not more broadly) from the NAP itself. But I don't see how this problem arises if one defines "justice" as "adherence to the NAP".
mikachusetts:He probably shouldn't... I'm not sure what you are referencing here. If you mean that there are cases where it isn't clear what the just course of action is, or that it might vary from one situation to the other, I don't think this makes the theoery itself inconsistent.
Well, people bring up issues like abortion, children, etc. because they claim that those issues cause inconsistencies in the NAP.
But I don't see where I said that a broader conception of justice would necessitate such a position - I only said that such a position could come about from a broader conception of justice. That is, the possibility exists that a person with a broader conception of justice holds such a position.
I think you are losing scope of what I'm talking about here. There's a general notion floating around this thread that left libertarians don't really support the NAP or property rights because they also care about equality, fairness, etc. That is, if a socio-political philosophy tries to incorporate those things, it can't simultaneously be a libertarian theory because they are thought to be incompatible with property rights. The other notion floating around is that if they are made compatible, it isn't enough to warrant designating this philosophy as something else than just plain old libertarianism.
What I've tried to show, is that neither of these ideas are necessarily true. A politcal philosophy can be rooted in a theory of justice such that it entails commitments to concepts besides property without violating the NAP; and that it warrants distinction from general libertarianism because those commitments are not merely aesthetic considerations -- they are part and parcel of the same theory which leads to the support of property and the NAP in the first place.
So, yes, you are correct that people can hold all sorts of positions incompatible with libertarianism. It's likely that most people concerned with equality and social justice don't support property in any consistent way. But I don't care about them. I'm only defending the left-libertarian position of people like Roderick Long.
Could you provide an example of a theory of justice that makes commitments to concepts besides property without violating the NAP? Or have you done so already and I just haven't seen it?
This is starting to go beyond my knowledge on the subject. I imagine it would look like some combination of Aristotle, Rawls, and Nozick, but I don't think you need to have some complete and perfect theory of justice in order to make the points that I did.
I would be happy to help you construct such a theory of justice. I think the first step would be to decide on a definition for "justice".
Thanks, but this isn't something I have any interest in.
delete
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
mikachusetts:Thanks, but this isn't something I have any interest in.
But you do have an interest in asserting that a theory of justice that makes commitments to concepts besides property without violating the NAP can be constructed?
Again, this is going beyond what I'm trying to say in this thread. I'm not asserting that the left-libertarian position is correct, only that it is an actual position which is coherent given their premises. Whether or not such a theory of justice is correct is not something I'm going to publically defend because I have no idea -- its not something that I've put significant thought into.
But this doesn't invalidate what I've said in the context I've said it. If the argument was about gnostic Christians not counting as real Christians because of their rejection of the trinity (or whatever it is they believe), and I appealed to how they believe God is such and such to point out why they really are Christians, I don't need to then go on and defend the existence of God.
mikachusetts:I'm not asserting that the left-libertarian position is correct, only that it is an actual position which is coherent given their premises.
I'd much rather be correct than coherent. And what's more, what good is being coherent (or even "correct") "given your premises", if your premises are incorrect?
@ John James
If you're implying the Left-Libertarian premises are wrong, then it would be far more productive if you pointed out why you believe them to be wrong, simply implying that they are wrong does nothing to help move the conversation forward.
Serpentis-Lucis:@ John James If you're implying the Left-Libertarian premises are wrong, then it would be far more productive if you pointed out why you believe them to be wrong, simply implying that they are wrong does nothing to help move the conversation forward.
Welcome to the thread. Perhaps you might read the first two pages of discussion before making any more snide non-requests.
I have read every post in this thread. The only criticisms you put forward were that you don't know what left-libertarianism means and/or that you see no difference, or no need to distinguish between left-libertarianism and "regular" libertarianism.
People throughout this entire thread have explained the differences between "left libertarians" and "right libertarians". "Thick" vs. "Thin", different value priorities, and different lifestyle preferences. If all of these things still don't justify the distinction between the two then nothing ever will. What this disagreement seems to come down to is that people just don't like the qualifier "left" because they believe that it means Statism or a disposition towards Statism. Unless you can somehow prove that "left" must equal "Statism" I see no rational reason why you have such hatred towards it. Liberal is another word that is typically associated with Statism, you have no issue with the term classical liberal though. Just because "left" is usually thought of as Statist doesn't mean that it actually means Statist.
Serpentis-Lucis:I have read every post in this thread.
Evidently not very thoroughly.
The only criticisms you put forward were that you don't know what left-libertarianism means and/or that you see no difference, or no need to distinguish between left-libertarianism and "regular" libertarianism.
Nope. Keep reading.
People throughout this entire thread have explained the differences between "left libertarians" and "right libertarians". "Thick" vs. "Thin", different value priorities, and different lifestyle preferences. If all of these things still don't justify the distinction between the two then nothing ever will.
Whoever said there couldn't be a distinction made?
Liberal is another word that is typically associated with Statism, you have no issue with the term classical liberal though.
Hmm. I wonder if it would have anything to do with the 9-letter 3-syllable adjective identifying which understanding of the term one is using.
Just because "left" is usually thought of as Statist doesn't mean that it actually means Statist.
How profound.
John James: Please identify someone who simultaneously accepts the ideas that value is subjective and objective. Kevin Carson would be one. Proudhon, though not explicitly.
Evilsceptic: Markets Not Capitalism, for example, really is a great book, especially to give out to lefties to show them we don't want to eat the poor, and Kevin Carson, while economically 'challenged', has made some solid contributions to history and analysis of state intervention that are worthy of study.
John James: I'm pretty sure I've heard that term "Markets Not Capitalism" before. Pardon my french, but fuck that. Enough perfectly great words have been co-opted by socialists already. I'm not content to just surrender one of the most important, (and arguably a cornerstone) of the entire free-market philosophy ("capitalism") and let them fully mutate its understood meaning into what is actually the opposite. Interesting. You are obviously not familiar with the history of the term "capitalism." Either way, it's a poor reason to dismiss an entire work. *** Forgive me for citing wikipedia: In politics, the Left, left-wing and leftists are people or views which generally support social change to create a more egalitarian society. They usually involve a concern for those in society who are disadvantaged relative to others and an assumption that there are unjustified inequalities (which right-wing politics views as natural or traditional) that should be reduced or abolished. Now, allow me to take liberty with this description: In politics...left-libertarians are people who generally support free markets to create a more egalitarian society. They usually are concerned for those in society who are disadvantaged relative to others and assume that there are unjustified inequalities artificially created by the state (which right-wing politics views as natural or traditional) that can be reduced or abolished nonaggresively by market forces, mutual aid, and direct action.
decleyredelune:John James: Please identify someone who simultaneously accepts the ideas that value is subjective and objective. Kevin Carson would be one. Proudhon, though not explicitly.
Then Kevin Carson is an idiot. And so is Proudhon, though not explicitly.
Evilsceptic: Markets Not Capitalism, for example, really is a great book, especially to give out to lefties to show them we don't want to eat the poor, and Kevin Carson, while economically 'challenged', has made some solid contributions to history and analysis of state intervention that are worthy of study. John James: I'm pretty sure I've heard that term "Markets Not Capitalism" before. Pardon my french, but fuck that. Enough perfectly great words have been co-opted by socialists already. I'm not content to just surrender one of the most important, (and arguably a cornerstone) of the entire free-market philosophy ("capitalism") and let them fully mutate its understood meaning into what is actually the opposite. Interesting. You are obviously not familiar with the history of the term "capitalism." Either way, it's a poor reason to dismiss an entire work.
John James: I'm pretty sure I've heard that term "Markets Not Capitalism" before. Pardon my french, but fuck that. Enough perfectly great words have been co-opted by socialists already. I'm not content to just surrender one of the most important, (and arguably a cornerstone) of the entire free-market philosophy ("capitalism") and let them fully mutate its understood meaning into what is actually the opposite. Interesting. You are obviously not familiar with the history of the term "capitalism." Either way, it's a poor reason to dismiss an entire work.
What is this obsession with what words used to mean? If you're using a definition that is no longer largely held, and doesn't appear in current dictionaries, then you should identify that somehow. Otherwise (for probably the fourth time) you are doing nothing to help further clarity or understanding, but are in fact clouding and confusing it.
Forgive me for citing wikipedia: In politics, the Left, left-wing and leftists are people or views which generally support social change to create a more egalitarian society. They usually involve a concern for those in society who are disadvantaged relative to others and an assumption that there are unjustified inequalities (which right-wing politics views as natural or traditional) that should be reduced or abolished. Now, allow me to take liberty with this description: In politics...left-libertarians are people who generally support free markets to create a more egalitarian society. They usually are concerned for those in society who are disadvantaged relative to others and assume that there are unjustified inequalities artificially created by the state (which right-wing politics views as natural or traditional) that can be reduced or abolished nonaggresively by market forces, mutual aid, and direct action.
Hey that looks fun.
In politics...communists are people who generally support statelessness to create a more egalitarian society. They usually are concerned for those in society who are disadvantaged relative to others and assume that there are unjustified inequalities artificially created by capitalism and the state (which right-wing politics views as natural or traditional) that can be reduced or abolished nonaggresively by market forces, mutual aid, and direct action.
What is this obsession with what words used to mean? If you're using a definition that is no longer largely held, and doesn't appear in current dictionaries, then you should identify that somehow. Otherwise (for probably the fourth time) you are doing nothing to help further clarity or understanding, but are in fact clouding and confusing it. What I'm saying is that the term can't be coopted by socialists because they invented the word. That would be like a contemporary liberal saying classic liberals (who identify as such today) hijacked "liberal." Nonsense. Anyway, "laissez faire" doesn't figure into the "largely held" definition of capitalism. Most are perfectly comfortable describing the current system as "capitalism." The current system, according to austro-libertarians, is crony capitalism or corporatism. I don't like to waste my time fruitlessly explaining this to everyone I talk to. If I did, I would be "doing nothing to help further clarity or understanding" because I would be using an unpopular definition.
decleyredelune: What I'm saying is that the term can't be coopted by socialists because they invented the word. That would be like a contemporary liberal saying classic liberals (who identify as such today) hijacked "liberal." Nonsense. Anyway, "laissez faire" doesn't figure into the "largely held" definition of capitalism. Most are perfectly comfortable describing the current system as "capitalism." The current system, according to austro-libertarians, is crony capitalism or corporatism. I don't like to waste my time fruitlessly explaining this to everyone I talk to. If I did, I would be "doing nothing to help further clarity or understanding" because I would be using an unpopular definition.
What I'm saying is that the term can't be coopted by socialists because they invented the word. That would be like a contemporary liberal saying classic liberals (who identify as such today) hijacked "liberal." Nonsense. Anyway, "laissez faire" doesn't figure into the "largely held" definition of capitalism. Most are perfectly comfortable describing the current system as "capitalism." The current system, according to austro-libertarians, is crony capitalism or corporatism. I don't like to waste my time fruitlessly explaining this to everyone I talk to. If I did, I would be "doing nothing to help further clarity or understanding" because I would be using an unpopular definition.
I fail to see how any of that is relevant (let alone refutative) to what I said.
mikachusetts:Again, this is going beyond what I'm trying to say in this thread. I'm not asserting that the left-libertarian position is correct, only that it is an actual position which is coherent given their premises. Whether or not such a theory of justice is correct is not something I'm going to publically defend because I have no idea -- its not something that I've put significant thought into.
No, I know you're not asserting that the left-libertarian position is correct. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I still don't quite understand what the premises of left-libertarianism are. Do you know whether Kevin Carson, Roderick Long, or any other self-described left-libertarian provided his definition for "justice" anywhere on the internet?
mikachusetts:But this doesn't invalidate what I've said in the context I've said it. If the argument was about gnostic Christians not counting as real Christians because of their rejection of the trinity (or whatever it is they believe), and I appealed to how they believe God is such and such to point out why they really are Christians, I don't need to then go on and defend the existence of God.
No, and in fact whether God exists is moot to that issue, if you ask me. But I think your analogy illustrates that this is largely a semantic issue. If one defines "Christian" in a way that includes believing in the trinity, then Gnostics aren't "Christians" under this definition. If one instead defines "Christian" in a way that doesn't include believing in the trinity, but does include certain beliefs about God, then Gnostics are "Christians" under this other definition.
In any case, I'd really like an example of a left-libertarian definition of "justice" so that I can investigate its implications. For me, the jury is still out as to whether any statist implications can be drawn from such a definition.
Well, you said "capitalism" was being coopted by socialists and changed its meaning to the opposite of its true definition. Now, let me make it clear for you: * Socialists invented the word * Most people consider the current system to be capitalism. Therefore, * The purist, laissez faire definition of capitalism is not the largely held one. Socialists did not coopt the term "capitalism." I fail to see how any of that is not relevant (let alone refutative) to what you said.
Autolykos,
http://praxeology.net/whyjust.htm - This is a lecture by Long regarding justice. It isn't necessarily "left" as much as it is Aristotelian. Its a little heavy, but it addresses both Rawls and Nozick.
Part of the problem with what you're asking for is that the definition of "justice" doesn't necessarily bring us any closer to understanding what we're talking about. Long defines justice as "the moral system of rights, or more precisely, the virtue concerned with respecting such rights." This is a fine definition, but it won't give you any real answers.
And I think as an Aristotelian, Long would probably say that we can't fully grasp the virtue of justice (especially in regards to its application) without practical wisdom (phronesis), and we don't gain phronesis without actually practicing and living all of the virtues.
In other words, "justice" doesn't lend itself to the kind of armchair philosophizing that we are doing.
mikachusetts:Autolykos, http://praxeology.net/whyjust.htm - This is a lecture by Long regarding justice. It isn't necessarily "left" as much as it is Aristotelian. Its a little heavy, but it addresses both Rawls and Nozick.
Thanks, I'll check that out.
mikachusetts:Part of the problem with what you're asking for is that the definition of "justice" doesn't necessarily bring us any closer to understanding what we're talking about. Long defines justice as "the moral system of rights, or more precisely, the virtue concerned with respecting such rights." This is a fine definition, but it won't give you any real answers.
Well the question then is, what does Long mean by "moral", "rights", and "virtue"? Is that what you mean by saying that his definition won't give me any real answers?
mikachusetts:And I think as an Aristotelian, Long would probably say that we can't fully grasp the virtue of justice (especially in regards to its application) without practical wisdom (phronesis), and we don't gain phronesis without actually practicing and living all of the virtues.
How do we know whether we're practicing and living all of the virtues if we don't know what the virtues are to begin with?
mikachusetts:In other words, "justice" doesn't lend itself to the kind of armchair philosophizing that we are doing.
I didn't think there was any other kind of philosophizing.
decleyredelune:Well, you said "capitalism" was being coopted by socialists and changed its meaning to the opposite of its true definition.
Please show me where I said any of that.
* Socialists invented the word
And?
Most people consider the current system to be capitalism.
Not really. They're more like Larry King on this subject.
If you press them on it, no one will try to claim what we have is "pure capitalism" (hence the adjective qualifier to ensure one understands). They'll admit what we have now "isn't really 'real' full-on capitalism"...They just allege that the capitalist aspects of our current order are the cause of all our problems. When they say "capitalism is the problem" they do not mean that our current system in its entirety is the problem. Obviously these people (again we're talking about the majority...not communists) do not want to get rid of social security, medicaid, and things of that sort.
So to allege (as you do) that "Most people consider the current system to be capitalism" is just plain wrong.
Again, just ask anyone. "In a truly capitalist system, woudl there be Social Security and Medicare"? If they're intellectually honest and consistent, they'll admit "no"...as indeed, they often attempt to use such a fact against free-marketeers, calling such plans "socialist" or "socialistic".
You/they can't have it both ways. Either the system we have now is "capitalism" (period), and they're against it, or there are only parts of the economy that have capitalist aspects, and they're against those.
decleyredelune:The purist, laissez faire definition of capitalism is not the largely held one.
Then why when you ask about government bailouts of banks, takeovers of industry, a government-created/sanctioned Federal Reserve printing money, and government sponsored enterprises buying up mortgages, does virtually every one of the people you're talking about admit those things are not part of "capitalism"?
One more time: if "Most people consider the current system to be capitalism", as you claim, then why do they say "no, that's not capitalism" when you ask them about various aspects of our current system?
Socialists did not coopt the term "capitalism."
Again, who said they did?
I fail to see how any of that is not relevant (let alone refutative) to what you said.
Well sure, when you introduce straw man arguments and put words in one's mouth, I suppose you could make anything you say relevant and refutative to what (you claim) someone else said.
Read the article. Use contextual clues. How do you normally learn what someone means when they use a certain word and you aren't able to ask?
Read the Nicomachean Ethics. Read the wikipedia article on it. Google the term "virtues". Its not like virtue ethics is a new thing that Roderick Long made up to justify left libertarianism.
There is philosophy by doing. We can gain knowledge about the world by living life -- philosophical knowledge even. A concept like justice can be batted around in conversation, but the whole purpose is to live it. Thats why we are talking about it in the first place. And in living it, we gain further understanding because we gain experience in all the nuanced way it differs in each situation.
Its kind of like reading a book on how to do surgery and having the actual experience. Tacit knowledge, and all that.
"Left-libertarianism" - in the Roderik Long meaning of the word - is just an 'in crowd' signaling mechanism. It means that you think that libertarianism is more likely to 'achieve' certain goals typically associated with the left, think that libertarianism has better answers to certain beefs 'the left' has, that leftwing concerns are legitimate and caused by the state, thaat 'as a libertarian' you focus more on typical 'left wing' issues ... Stuff like that. There is no major difference. It is not a political philosophy different from libertarianism. It is merely an internal signaling devise.
On the normative and the analytical side; there is (usually) no difference, except for Kevin Carson. And then there is some minor - imo irrelevant - discussion on wether or not we should use the word 'capitalism' or not.
I hope this is clear enough?
The state is not the enemy. The idea of the state is.
AdrianHealey:
"Left-libertarianism" - in the Roderik Long meaning of the word - is just an 'in crowd' signaling mechanism.
Well, there's the part where you say it....
It means that you think [1] that libertarianism is more likely to 'achieve' certain goals typically associated with the left, think [2] that libertarianism has better answers to certain beefs 'the left' has, [3a] that leftwing concerns are legitimate and [3b] caused by the state, [4] thaat 'as a libertarian' you focus more on typical 'left wing' issues ... Stuff like that.
... and then there's the part where you take it back.
I'm happy to agree that self-identified "left-libertarians" typically believe in something more or less like claims (1), (2), (3a), (3b) and (4), more or less as you've described them. But if they do, then it seems that (1)-(4) just are four or five characteristic substantive positions that left-libertarians tend to hold, and that non-left libertarians tend to neglect, ignore, or consciously reject. So for example let's grant that it's true (as per 3a/3b) that left-libertarians tend to believe that the concerns of labor radicals or the environmental movement are in large part legitimate concerns about real social evils, but that those evils are in large part the product of state privilege to large corporations, and that (as per 1) the best way to deal with those evils is to undermine and abolish those state privileges, together with grassroots activism which aims to address them through nonviolent social sanctions rather than through legal maneuvering. Well, then, it seems that believing in "left-libertarianism" means believing in some specific things, and it's hard for me to see how these specific things that left-libertarians believe in are something other than substantive differences over issues of social and political analysis. But if so, that seems to undermine the claim that the self-id is "merely" an internal signaling device.
Your interpretation is (partially) wrong.
" But if they do, then it seems that (1)-(4) just are four or five characteristic substantive positions that left-libertarians tend to hold, and that non-left libertarians tend to neglect, ignore, or consciously reject"
<= This does not follow. Those 'substantive' positions do not affect the core of libertarianism. Let's take Rothbard's example definition. A libertarian is someone who wants the world based on the NAP principle. Well; left-libertarians can happily say that they want a world based on the NAp principle (like how Rothbard interpreted it). So they are libertarians. The term 'left' merely singles the possibility of any of those 1-4 points of view that do not affect the core of libertarianism as such. That is what they are signaling. That they are libertarians; and that libertarianism will have these kinds of effects.
These are four or five characteristics positions that left-libertarians tend to _emphasize_ and that (they believe) non left libertarians tend to underemphasize.
That is not a difference in substance; just a difference in emphasis. Cause it doesn't affect the core. Of course there is 'some' difference - what would there to be signaling about otherwise?
"and it's hard for me to see how these specific things that left-libertarians believe in are something other than substantive differences over issues of social and political analysis."
<= Try harder. It is. There is no real difference (usually) on the normative side or in the analytical framework. Thinking that (1) current social processes have certain outcomes rather than others or (2) thinking that the abolition of statist social processes wil lhave certain outcomes does not make one 'not' a libertarian or 'different' than other libertarians.
Some libertarians think that a libertarian world would be more economically unequal, with larger cooperations. Others think they will be more economically equal, with more (but fewer) cooperations. The second category consciously calls themself 'left-libertarian'.
Of course; there need to be *some* difference between 'regular' libertarians and 'left libertarians', else there wouldn't need to be a signaling mechanism (what would it signal if there is no difference?) But the difference is in style, analysis of impact of the totality of governement intervention and the consequences of the abolition of these. Those are just differences in opinion that are independent of the label of 'libertarianism' as such. One is not 'more' or 'less' a libertarian because one thinks a world based on the NAP (to give an example) will be 'more' or 'less' economically equal. Both are libertarians. But there is 'a' difference; and to signal this (possible) difference, some call themselves 'left-libertarians'. But both want a world based on the NAP; so both are properly called libertarians.
To put it differently: the 'left' denotes a specific approach/point of view to issues that are contingent within the libertarian framework (not constitutive of 'being a libertarian'). That is what it signals. It signals *something*, but it signals something that is not a change of the libertarian conclusions, but in the consequences a libertarian world will have.
If you want to call that a 'substantive' position; sure. But then you are using the term on a different level.
Edit: presuambly - after checking your bio - you selfdescribe as a left-libertarian? (The 'free market anti capitalism was a dead give away.)
presuambly - after checking you bio - you selfdescribe as a left-libertarian?
What's funny about this, is that his name has been dropped at least once in this thread. The thread started as a talk about a book which Charles co-edited, and his position on thickness has been brought up several times.
Its just silly to say "you're wrong" to one of the guys whose position is THE position we are talking about and has actually contributed published books and articles explaining it -- without having read any of them.
AdrianHealy:
Yes, I have very frequently and openly described myself as a "left-libertarian," if asked, in the sense of that term under discussion. I usually prefer other terms, if I am describing myself on my own terms rather than answering questions about myself, simply because "left-libertarian" has been used to describe many different positions in intra-libertarian debates, as well as outside debates about libertarianism -- and a number of them are mutually exclusive of each other.
A lot of your comments seem to be based on a misunderstanding that I think a substantive difference between left-libertarians and non-left-libertarians would make one of them a libertarian and the other not a libertarian. That's not my position. My position is that left-libertarians are advancing one sort of libertarian analysis and politics (as I happen to think, the most radical, coherent, and correct sort) as distinct from a number of other possible sorts of libertarian analysis and politics. I do not think that the differences involved are differences that make one party count as libertarians, and the other fail to count as libertarians.
I do think that the differences involved are nevertheless substantive and important differences that are not just over issues of "signaling" or "style" (or for that matter over their empirical predictions about the overall net effects of abolition -- left-libertarians do have differences from non-left libertarians over that, but that's not the only substantive difference that they have). Whether or not these substantive differences are differences that are important, or worth noting, or in some sense "affect the core of libertarianism," does of course depend on what conception you have of what the "core of libertarianism" is, and of what the relationship is supposed to be between the "core" and non-"core" commitments. Thus:
Those 'substantive' positions do not affect the core of libertarianism. Let's take Rothbard's example definition. A libertarian is someone who wants the world based on the NAP principle. . . .
That may be your understanding of "the core of libertarianism" and what does or does not affect it. It is not necessarily my understanding of it, or the understanding of most self-described left-libertarians. Most left-libertarians tend to insist on (5) a "thick" conception and comparatively inclusive picture of libertarian commitments, as opposed to a "thin" conception of libertarianism or a picture of "core" libertarian commitments that is more or less exclusively limited to the Non-Aggression Principle and its direct logical entailments. (As a result, we reject Rothbard's and Block's position that libertarian theory is purely and simply a matter of the Non-Aggression Axiom, its corollaries and applications.) So for somebody who rejects (5), it may seem that (1)-(4) are not really matters that substantively "affect the core of libertarianism." But for somebody who accepts it, they may well be. Perhaps we are wrong to think about libertarianism this way; perhaps we ought to have a thinner conception of libertarian politics or libertarian theory. But if that's so, we'd need an argument to be convinced that that's so. And whether it's so or not, then the disagreement over (5) seems like it's going to be a substantive disagreement that left-libertarians have with some other, non-left libertarians. (*)
(* Not all -- there are non-left libertarians who also have a thick conception of libertarianism. Let's oversimplify and say for the sake of argument that all left-libertarians have a thick conception of libertarianism; but while all thin conceptions are -- therefore -- non-left-libertarian views, not all non-left-libertarian views involve thin conceptions. Some people think that there should be a "thick" package of libertarian commitments intertwined with the NAP; but they want a package with right-wing, or otherwise non-left, contents.)
John James said, "Please show me where I said any of that." "I'm pretty sure I've heard that term "Markets Not Capitalism" before. Pardon my french, but fuck that. Enough perfectly great words have been co-opted by socialists already. I'm not content to just surrender one of the most important, (and arguably a cornerstone) of the entire free-market philosophy ("capitalism") and let them fully mutate its understood meaning into what is actually the opposite. It's funny that you would point to something like that as a positive contribution because in my view that's a negative thing...playing along with (and ultimately acquiescing to) socialists."
Charles Johnson:Yes, I have very frequently and openly described myself as a "left-libertarian," if asked, in the sense of that term under discussion. I usually prefer other terms, if I am describing myself on my own terms rather than answering questions about myself, simply because "left-libertarian" has been used to describe many different positions in intra-libertarian debates, as well as outside debates about libertarianism -- and a number of them are mutually exclusive of each other.
...aren't you the guy who calls himself a "free market anti-capitalist"?
@decleyredelune
Thanks. Care to respond to any of the rest of my post? I addressed every part of yours.
John James:
. . . Well, yes, that's me. Although I can hardly claim originality on that point. I owe the rhetorical flourish to Kevin Carson's good old Mutualist Blog.
Anyway, as a matter of fact I rather prefer that kind of terminology to "left-libertarian," all things considered. Because while "free market anti-capitalist" is a (deliberately) paradoxical-sounding label, (*) it's a label that, paradoxical or not, has more or less one well-defined meaning. Whereas "left-libertarian" has a number of more or less well-defined meanings that have been attached to it in the past few decades. Each of which is relatively well defined, but all of which mean something rather different from the other meanings that have been attached to it. (**)
Anyway, was there a further point you meant to make by your question? Or just asking out of curiosity?
* * *
(* I think that it sounds paradoxical, not that it actually is; my explanation for why it's not is part of the point of adopting the term.)
(** In particular: that stuff that Murray Rothbard's complaining about when he writes about "left-libertarianism," meaning, more or less Cato and Reason, has exactly nothing at all to do with the way that the term is being used when folks like Roderick Long or others in ALL are explaining the position that they advocate. Not surprisingly, Rothbard hasn't got much to say about that, since Rothbard had no way of writing about a position that would largely hashed out about a decade or so after his death. You might then ask: well, why use the term to mean something different than what Rothbard meant by it? And there are a lot of answers to that question, but one important thing to note is that Rothbard was hardly the first to use it, and his own usage was really pretty peculiar.)
So...what's wrong with using a term people in general better understand
@Charles Johnson: Do you call yourself a socialist? And are you anti-boss like many others in the ALL seem to be?
Charles Johnson:(* I think that it sounds paradoxical, not that it actually is)
You think that being pro-free market, and simultaneously against- private ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market...isn't paradoxical?
That would make him a conformist.
"You think that being pro-free market, and simultaneously against- private ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market...isn't paradoxical?"
Well, if I might chime in, part of the reason Left-Libertarians identify as left is because they are engaging in leftist discussions with a libertarian standpoint. Capitalism as defined as a system in which the economy is organized around wage labor, the definition leftists use, makes the term "free-market anti-capitalist" non-paradoxical. It wouldn't even call for the abolishment of the wage system, only for the creation of one in which a class of people are not dependent on selling their labor. Whether or not such a view is correct, coherent, or relevent has little to do with the discussion at hand.