'Equality of authority ' and 'Left Libertarianism'.

I've just read Libertarianism Through Thick and Thin .This article explains why  'Left Libertarians' go on about thickism so much and why they hold the positions there know for e.g. anti-bossism etc.

I admit I now get it.The key position which I understand now as how  at least some 'Left Libertarians' justify their libertarianism is  'equality of authority'.

Johnson describes the principle: " But while there’s nothing logically inconsistent about a libertarian envisioning—or even championing—this sort of social order, it would certainly be weird. Noncoercive authoritarianism may be consistent with libertarian principles, but it is hard to reasonably reconcile the two. Whatever reasons you may have for rejecting the arrogant claims of power-hungry politicians and bureaucrats—say, for example, the Jeffersonian notion that all men and women are born equal in political authority and that no one has a natural right to rule or dominate other people’s affairs—probably serve just as well for reasons to reject other kinds of authoritarian pretension, even if they are not expressed by means of coercive government action. While no one should be forced as a matter of policy to treat her fellows with the respect due to equals, or to cultivate independent thinking and contempt for the arrogance of power, libertarians certainly can—and should—criticize those who do not, and exhort our fellows not to rely on authoritarian social institutions, for much the same reasons that we have for endorsing libertarianism in the first place."
 

Problems with this principle.

I just disagree that 'equality of authority' is applicable to  voluntary relations.

I think hierarchy and authority is necessary for a functioning society.It's true we should not be uncritical of authority but to say that I(and those who also believe in authority/hierarchy) advocate that position would be dishonest and setting up a straw man.I think it's ok to be critical of authorities when they act immorally or irrationally but only specific people in those roles.Roles of authority are not inherently immoral, coercive or irrational per se.

1.This principle makes no distinction between voluntary authorities e.g. teachers,parents etc and coercive authorities e.g. government ,government police ,government military etc. Voluntary authority differs from coercive authority in that it is not privy to the same incentives ,inclinations and psychological influences as affect government as a coercive authority.The 'equality of authority' principle is valid as an argument against government(I.e. no individual or group as the right to use aggression to set themself up as a authoirty that is a coercive monopolist) but should not be taken too far.

2 .'Left Libertarians' haven't really shown why 'equality of authority' is desirable,moral,practical,useful etc.Furthermore even if they could show this, it would not mean it is a requirement that anyone who is a libertarian believe in 'equality of authority.

3 .More worrying still is that surely property rights imply authority since property rights mean you use that authority to exclude/include certain people .

Therefore if 'equality of authority' is valid then property rights must be rejected too(and since property is the very basis of society ,this is a very anti -social implication indeed.)

From this it follows 'Left Libertarian's must reject the right to discriminate.Since Libertarianism requires belief in private property rights and the right to discriminate it entails a rejection of 'equality of authority' in it's extreme form when applied to all authorities even voluntary ones.Libertarianism must then be anti-egalitarian in this sense.

4 . Moreover since contracts can imply one person having authority over another e.g. debtor/creditor , those who believe in this principle must too reject contracts.

so in summary this position leads to an anti-social view of things,requires rejection of property/property rights,requires rejection of contracts,requires extreme rejection of all authority and hierarchy similiar to some left wing anarchists and  essentially leads to an un-libertarian position.

 

 

 

 

 

 

^What's "thickism"?

It's a made up word to describe preferences ascribed to libertarianism, which are usually ones that are supposedly more "pluralistic" and hinted as more correct, compared to "thin" or everything else-libertarianism, by it's subscribers. See: left-libertarians, austro-libertarians, etc. I don't recommend taking the terms/thin and thick seriously though, beyond use as referrences. Read more on it and you might find out why.

Great post and well said. Why the hell do terms like ‘left libertarian’ and ‘right libertarian’ even exist? Aren’t we all supposed to allow for every non-coercive action? What is left there to discuss? What would people do with the liberty we advocate is of no consequence whatsoever to the movement: that Hoppe looks down on immigrants and Molineux hates corporations seems like a piss poor reason to split the movement. I invite everyone not to use those terms as they make no damn sense.

Merlin:

Aren’t we all supposed to allow for every non-coercive action? What is left there to discuss?

left libertarians don't think infringement on property rights is aggression. Either claiming they don't exist or are irrelevant.

Merlin:

Aren’t we all supposed to allow for every non-coercive action? What is left there to discuss?

Left-libertarians argue that justice has commitments beyond merely opposing rights-violations. They oppose the "anything that's voluntary" position that would condone oppressive yet non-rights-violating behavior. Sheldon Richman has a recent article applying this to racism.

Merlin:

What would people do with the liberty we advocate is of no consequence whatsoever to the movement

This type of thinking is precisely the reason why people associate libertarianism with selfishness, racism, misogyny, and a general indifference to the suffering of others. 

@OP: You definitely need to do some more reading. See Long's "Interview", and "Culture and Liberty".

"Left-libertarians argue that justice has commitments beyond merely opposing rights-violations. They oppose the "anything that's voluntary" position that would condone oppressive yet non-rights-violating behavior. Sheldon Richman has a recent article applying this to racism."

Ah, my misunderstanding than. In that case than the left-right diction would appear to make even less sense. These people have a completely different worldview form ours: they do not argue against physical coercion but expand the concept of coercion further. Should we consider them even libertarians? I myself do not.

Thanks for the clarification.

 "This type of thinking is precisely the reason why people associate libertarianism with selfishness, racism, misogyny, and a general indifference to the suffering of others. "

Silly reason to give it up: people are free, and they are free to go whore themselves all day long as far as I’m concerned. If masses associate this with selfishness instead of freedom, so much worse for the masses.

Libertyandlife:

^What's "thickism"?

 

 

Thickism or 'Thick Libertarianism' is the belief that Libertarians should be concerned with more than aggression/coercion(or whatever you want to call it) Some say Libertarianism requires a religious view,Others like Hoppe that Libertarians should be (cultural) conservatives,others still e.g. 'Left Libertarians' base their Libertarianism on the idea explained above and so they think anything which places one person or group above another is wrong and so they believe Libertarianism entails(not all hold all of these stances) 'worker empowerment' , anti-bossism,opposition to wage labour,,opposition to contracts,opposition to capitalism as we conceive of it, anti racism,anti sexism, cultural leftism,political correctness,hatred of patriarchy etc.

Thickism is in contrast to Thinism or 'Thin Libertarianism' which is the belief that Libertarianism is only concerned with property( or property rights if you believe in rights), coercion aka aggression, government and the usual stuff.This position holds that whatever cultural,moral or religious views you hold do not matter in relation to libertarianism as long as they do not conflict with it's goals and principles.So in theory you can be a libertarian and racist, a swinger and a libertarian,in a cult and a libertarian etc.I'm entitled to think that position is immoral or irrational but I cannot claim you are un-libertarian for holding it.

It does NOT say as Thickism claims, that those other views you hold which are irrelevant in relation to libertarianism are unimportant in your life.It just says they don't matter in relation to libertarianism and that libertarianism neither requires them nor implies them.

Now on a related matter ,Libertarianism does entail (if you accept that rights exist of course) some kind of feminism but only in the minimal political sense I.e. the belief that women like all human beings have rights, that government is the prime violator of women's rights,that government should not claim rights women do not have (such as 'right not to be discriminated against') and that a Libertarian system would alleviate these problems(all of these are essentially the Individualist Feminist position).That does not mean that Libertarianism entails a cultural feminism i.e. belief in equality of the sexes,opposition to gender roles etc.

 

Merlin:

Great post and well said.

Thank you.I admit I just read this key text of the 'Left Libertarians' and now I understand why many hold the positions they do.I all boils down to this basic principle.I admit they are consistent in their egalitarianism however as said above it requires them to reject property and contracts too.

"Why the hell do terms like ‘left libertarian’ and ‘right libertarian’ even exist? "

No idea.I left left/right paradigms when I left mainstream politics.Many people who believe in mainstream politics, think those terms have little meaning anyways except as shorthand to explain left= socialism and  right= conservative corporatism -either hidden under cultural conservativism or blatant nazi type rhetoric. I don't rely get left /right applied to libertarianism.libertarianism allows for difference so why have wings? It seems tied up in thickism/thinism.Why label cultural conservative libertarians 'right'? that's just a discrediting tactic.No culturally conservative libertarian applies it to themself as far as I know.It just seems like semantic discrediting tactics that we've come to expect from the establishment left.I mean I wouldn't mind if all 'Left Libertarianism' meant was libertarians trying to sell our ideas to the left  like say showing how x helps the poor or something.I'm ok with that.Otherwise it seems to make no sense.Also there's this accusation that non left-libs ignore corporatism or advocate it(vulgarism).That's completely false.If a libertarian does that then their just not consistent in their principles.I just believe in a plumbline libertarianism with no left or right just consistency and principle.We're a reasonably big tent so why do left -libs try to schism the movement?

 I invite everyone not to use those terms as they make no damn sense.

Agreed.

 

 

Merlin:

Ah, my misunderstanding than. In that case than the left-right diction would appear to make even less sense. These people have a completely different worldview form ours: they do not argue against physical coercion but expand the concept of coercion further.

Well they don't call non aggressive things they oppose coercion.they call it oppression.It stems from their view that any subordinating of one person or group by another person or group is wrong(called 'equality of authority').Usually this is just applied to government and in that form it's valid(because they group or individual has a right to be a coercive monopoly) but they extend it further to apply to civil society.

 

Should we consider them even libertarians? I myself do not.

Well if all it meant was they hate racism etc then they're still libertarians.But they claim libertarianism requires anti racism and the like because of their principle of 'equality of authority' and as I argued above if they are consistent in holding this position they must reject property/property rights  and contracts.Thus they are not libertarian if they hold this principle.

 

 "This type of thinking is precisely the reason why people associate libertarianism with selfishness, racism, misogyny, and a general indifference to the suffering of others. "

Silly reason to give it up:

I agree.If we gave up every belief system because of people's flaws then most would have to be given up .

You'd have to reject religion just because there's terrorists and fundamentalists,

Reason because there's rationalists who also say logic is compatible with racism,

Science because some scientists say racism is compatible with science,

Rights because some claim the 'right to kill ' or the 'right to be fed and kept by others' etc...

If you oppose people's flaws then you don't have to stand around doing nothing.

you can set an example,point out to others contradictions or at very least try to show them other world views,help out in your community etc.

Libertarianism been opposed to statism the enemy of society means if you help society you can help it from being eroded by the state,you show voluntary associations have worth after all and that there are good people in the moral.You also help the reputation of libertarians and libertarianism.

'Thin Libertarianism' does not say that racism,poverty etc is irrelevant or that once aggression is reduced to being among private individuals that all flaws will leave individuals and society.It just says that working towards a Libertarian society will help improve these problems.There's no reason Libertarians can't be concerned with these ideas BUT they are not required or implied by libertarianism or it's principles.