What on earth does "Left Libertarian"/"Left Rothbardian " mean?
Different kind of things to different people. Sometimes normative, sometimes descriptive, sometimes within libertarianism, sometimes outside, sometimes relating to political philosophy, sometimes to social philosophy.
The state is not the enemy. The idea of the state is.
To me, it means that the person being described by the term does not believe that all rights and freedoms start with the right of private property or self ownership, or believe that self ownership and the ownership of possessions should be limited by some third party.
I think I know some who would regard themselves as 'left-libertarians' and who would disagree with this statement. :)
Not saying you are wrong; only saying that the term isn't as well defined (yet).
The term Libertarian or libertarian is almost completly ambiguous. Some lefties call themselves Libertarians because the original use of the term as I understand it was a term to describe people with progressive leanings. But over the years it has been defined and redefined as much as the terms conservative and liberal.
Is Rush Limbaugh a conservative? He belives in some ideas of classical liberalism. So is he a Liberal? How about a Libertarian? What about Glen Beck? is he any or all of these things.
Libertarian, Conservative, Liberal and to a lesser extent Progressive are just lables used to group people.
The most insane one of these is that the wackjob in Arizona has been cast as anti-government right winger when his own writings have him labeled as a Progressive.
It means you can criticize the "wrong kind of libertarianism" that attracts "the wrong kind of thinking" and look better to "the right (i.e. left) kind of people" without saying much. It also means you get to invent a lot of cool new important sounding Greek/Latin words like "agorism" and act more in tune within Universalist type social signaling. All and all it is a pretty sweet deal.
I can recognize "left libertarian" (ex Noam Chomsky), but what the heck is a left Rothbardian?
Left-libertarians are libertarians that are generally unfamiliar with basic economic theory. If you asked a left-libertarian to identify the major and underlying theme of his ideology, he would probably say something along the lines of, "left-libertarians unequivocally oppose all hierarchies and any asymmetries in bargaining power."
Again, some of the asymmetries that he would point to aren't actually asymmetries at all (such as the employer-employee relationship), but the point is that he opposes all such asymmetries and hierarchies even if they emerged naturally and have proven themselves to be efficient social institutions. Never mind the fact that some degree of hierarchy and asymmetry is absolutely inevitable, and any attempt to forcefully eliminate it must necessarily yield inefficient social outcomes.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
I've never met a left libertarian saying something like that, tbh. I know there are a few on this website; have they identified themselves with ideas like that?
"left-libertarians unequivocally oppose all hierarchies and any asymmetries in bargaining power."
And this is a huge deal, because there is simply not much meaning in this phrase. And if it is said within a very specific context, I have yet to know what context that is. So many of their words are utterly confusing (just look at how many "hyphenated anarchies" there are) on any analytic or scientific level, and this may be somewhat intentional.
Left Rothbardian is a person, subscribes to the theory Rothbard had two Natures. One left-wing most strongly manifest in the 1960s, the other right-wing most strongly manifest in the 1990s. Takes the Left-Wing Nature of Rothbard as its totem, but is careful to maintain distance to the later Right-Wing Nature of Rothbard.
Esuric, that's interesting, because I come from an entirely different background from those "left libertarians".
I was never an anti-establishment type or an anti-state type, and I don't feel much of one even today. The only thing that slowly converted me was the law of unintended consequences, which established how many benevolent and well-intentioned public actions backfire. I learnt about this law when I was 14, from various economics books I read like Economics In One Lesson (and since 2005, I kept reading more).
So while you have "left libertarians" who are simply anti-authoritarian, I was one who never questioned the character of people in power or thought them to be bad people. I simply felt that their actions backfired, always, and never ever worked.
In his attempt to disseminate his ideals, Rothbard allied himself with various fields within the political field so long as they were congruent with this views. During the 1960's, Rothbard allied himself with what he called 'The New Left' which was a group of individuals mainly composed of leftists who had strain of libertarian thought specifically in their outlook toward foreign relations. They weren't great in the sense of their domestic views but Rothbard largely agreed with their reluctance to accept American imperialism and American exceptionalism on the foreign stage. They usually showed their distrust of the state through mass acts of civil disobedience which again Rothbard respected. So to be called a "Left Rothbardian" is to be an individual who is more tolerable/accepting of leftists into the libertarian fold. Like many who try to convert conservatives into accepting more liberty through the elimination of the state and the elimination of American imperialism ( the toughest aspect of discussing politics with a conservative ), left Rothbardians try to do such a thing with leftists in the domestic realm.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Well it all really depends who you ask...
A lot of "Left Libertarians" are like Noam Chomsky; they're anti free-market and anti-property rights.
Then there are pro-free-market "Left Libertarians"... Some are actually consistent whilst others have strange wishy-washy ideas like mutualism (or even anarcho-syndicalism). I think a lot of them create a false distinction between their market-anarchism and our anarcho-capitalism. A lot of it is just semantics. They seem to be trying to make libertarianism more appealing to anarcho-syndicalists by saying they are against capitalism.
Example: http://c4ss.org/content/4043
However there are some who very consistent in their defense of property and markets. Sheldon Richman is a great writer who has very cogent articals on corporatism and *political* capitalism. Check him out.
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/tgif/is-freedom-a-radical-idea/
"No person is so grand or wise or perfect as to be the master of another person." ~ Karl Hess
"look, property is theft, right? Therefore theft is property. Therefore this ship is mine, OK?" ~Zaphod Beeblebrox
It just seems like it's all semantics and people falling over themselves so that they can show off the label "leftist" by saying they don't like racism or sexism and like workers.
Evilsceptic: What on earth does "Left Libertarian"/"Left Rothbardian " mean?
Well Left-Libertarianism has a few meanings.
1. A kind of socialism which is anti-state .Very Similiar if not undistingushable to Anarchism e.g. Chomsky.
2. A spectrum of views by libertarians who incorporate traditionally left wing concerns.In my view, it sees the links between libertarianism and leftism.It is pure and consistent libertarianism devoid of the false capitalism/socialism paradigm and devoid of rightwing/corporatist/pro establishment vulgarism.To use Gary Chartier's phrase, "It is socialist ends by free market means".
Left-Libertarianism is not a set philosophy or even a single philosophy like An-cap ,it's a range of views with rather blurry boundaries. Left- libertarianism ranges from roughly Left-Rothbardianism (which I'll explain below) , Agorism to things like Mutualism, Libertarian Socialism,Anarcho-Socialism,Anarcho-Communism etc.
Left -Rothbard.
It too has two meanings.
1. Coming from Samuel Konkin describes someone who sees themself as more 'left' or to the left of Rothbard.Konkin applied it to himself.
2. Left-Libertarians who take inspiration from Rothbard's left-leaning days in the 60's when he wrote the Left and the Right before he moved towards the LP party and Paleoism.They see Rothbard as split between left/right periods with no clear period of shift inbetween.Some somewhat agree with this but see Rothbard as a Opportunist.It varies quite a bit.This view is rather different from the LVMI version.
I used to be one of these but am gradually moving away from it as I find Rothbard's left-leaning position not deep enough for me and find attraction to Mutualism and traditional kinds of Anarcho-Socialism such as Anarcho-Syndicalism.
I don't really want to comment or read anything here.I have near zero in common with many of you.I may return periodically when there's something you need to know.
Near Mutualist/Libertarian Socialist.
"such as the employer-employee relationship),"
How is that not?
"proven themselves to be efficient social institutions."
1. If true,irrelevant.
2. It's relation to statism would need to be made clear to check it is not based on statism.
William: "left-libertarians unequivocally oppose all hierarchies and any asymmetries in bargaining power." "And this is a huge deal, because there is simply not much meaning in this phrase." because you wish it so or inherently? " "hyphenated anarchies" there are) " An-cap for example.
"And this is a huge deal, because there is simply not much meaning in this phrase."
because you wish it so or inherently?
" "hyphenated anarchies" there are) "
I'm an Audiophile-Libertarian. I seek to have good audio equipment YET I also support a free market.
When somebody calls themself a "left libertarian" or a "left Rothbardian," that usually means that they are trying to combine some leftist views with libertarianism and/or Rothbardianism. The "leftists" are often trying to smuggle in support for labor unions or even some of the bigoted beliefs of anti-male feminists (I remember reading a "left-libertarian" article about a year or so ago actually trying to defend the feminist writer who claimed that "all men are rapists"; what is even more disturbing is that the author, if I remember correctly, was male). Another thing they often do is attack corporations and attempt to claim that corporations are incompatible with libertarianism (they also seem to have a pathological hatred for the word "capitalism").
The so-called "left Rothbardians" are not Rothbardians. Yes, they claim to agree with 1960s/1970s Rothbard, but Rothbard in that era was no friend of labor unions nor was he any friend of the man-hating feminists (see his book Egalitarianism, which features an essay written in the early 1970s refuting and ridiculing the "women's liberation" movement). Yes, Rothbard moved rightward in the 1990s, but the main areas where his views changed were immigration and a question regarding the use of government property. Rothbard was never supportive of the feminist movement or the environmentalist movement, nor did he ever support labor unions. Rothbard was certainly not anti-corporation either, although he was against corporations receiving government privilege. Nor will you find anything written by Rothbard attacking the word capitalism or claiming to be a socialist.
More than anything, this "left-libertarianism" seems to me to be a strategy to try to sell libertarianism to communists, especially to communists who pretend to be "anarchists," especially the "vandarchists," as Stephen Kinsella accurately labeled that group of common criminals that think that breaking windows is "anarchist."
The other group of "left-libertarians" are the New Hampshire "Free Staters" who seem to think that vandalizing sidewalks (and possibly a War of Northern Aggression monument, although they haven't been proven to have done that) and exposing themselves to buses of schoolchildren (both of these things have reportedly happened during 2010 from the "Free Keene" group) are effective ways to advance the libertarian cause.
lol, I am a nonaudiophile-libertarian who supports the free market. This makes us incompatible and you absolutely wrong.
Statism is Crime: "When somebody calls themself a "left libertarian" or a "left Rothbardian," that usually means that they are trying to combine some leftist views with libertarianism and/or Rothbardianism. " You don't say. "The "leftists" are often trying to smuggle in support for labor unions" "smuggle"? as opposed to the vulgar idea by the likes of Dilorenzo that unions can NEVER be voluntary. "or even some of the bigoted beliefs of anti-male feminists" No left-lib I know holds this. "(I remember reading a "left-libertarian" article about a year or so ago actually trying to defend the feminist writer who claimed that "all men are rapists"; what is even more disturbing is that the author, if I remember correctly, was male). " 1. You refer to a Roderick Long article. 2. He's not defending her claim he explains it.He explains it's a metaphor. "Another thing they often do is attack corporations and attempt to claim that corporations are incompatible with libertarianism " Correct- what is wrong is your vulgar assumption these go together. "(they also seem to have a pathological hatred for the word "capitalism")." Not necessarily but largely correct and warranted largely. " but Rothbard in that era was no friend of labor unions nor was he any friend of the man-hating feminists" True enough.That's by I said Rothbard inspired. "(see his book Egalitarianism, which features an essay written in the early 1970s refuting and ridiculing the "women's liberation" movement)." The reactionary book,yes I've read it. " Rothbard was never supportive of the feminist movement or the environmentalist movement, nor did he ever support labor unions." True enough.. "More than anything, this "left-libertarianism" seems to me to be a strategy to try to sell libertarianism to communists," More like a coming home ,a rejection of the false dichotomy you propose. "especially to communists who pretend to be "anarchists," especially the "vandarchists," as Stephen Kinsella accurately labeled that group of common criminals that think that breaking windows is "anarchist." Vulgar leading the vulgar. I do not associate with 'Vandarchists" "The other group of "left-libertarians" are the New Hampshire "Free Staters" who seem to think that vandalizing sidewalks (and possibly a War of Northern Aggression monument, although they haven't been proven to have done that) and exposing themselves to buses of schoolchildren (both of these things have reportedly happened during 2010 from the "Free Keene" group) are effective ways to advance the libertarian cause." has nothing to do with left-lib philosophy.There are crazies in it I admit.
"When somebody calls themself a "left libertarian" or a "left Rothbardian," that usually means that they are trying to combine some leftist views with libertarianism and/or Rothbardianism. "
You don't say.
"The "leftists" are often trying to smuggle in support for labor unions"
"smuggle"? as opposed to the vulgar idea by the likes of Dilorenzo that unions can NEVER be voluntary.
"or even some of the bigoted beliefs of anti-male feminists"
No left-lib I know holds this.
"(I remember reading a "left-libertarian" article about a year or so ago actually trying to defend the feminist writer who claimed that "all men are rapists"; what is even more disturbing is that the author, if I remember correctly, was male). "
1. You refer to a Roderick Long article.
2. He's not defending her claim he explains it.He explains it's a metaphor.
"Another thing they often do is attack corporations and attempt to claim that corporations are incompatible with libertarianism "
Correct- what is wrong is your vulgar assumption these go together.
"(they also seem to have a pathological hatred for the word "capitalism")."
Not necessarily but largely correct and warranted largely.
" but Rothbard in that era was no friend of labor unions nor was he any friend of the man-hating feminists"
True enough.That's by I said Rothbard inspired.
"(see his book Egalitarianism, which features an essay written in the early 1970s refuting and ridiculing the "women's liberation" movement)."
The reactionary book,yes I've read it.
" Rothbard was never supportive of the feminist movement or the environmentalist movement, nor did he ever support labor unions."
True enough..
"More than anything, this "left-libertarianism" seems to me to be a strategy to try to sell libertarianism to communists,"
More like a coming home ,a rejection of the false dichotomy you propose.
"especially to communists who pretend to be "anarchists," especially the "vandarchists," as Stephen Kinsella accurately labeled that group of common criminals that think that breaking windows is "anarchist."
Vulgar leading the vulgar. I do not associate with 'Vandarchists"
"The other group of "left-libertarians" are the New Hampshire "Free Staters" who seem to think that vandalizing sidewalks (and possibly a War of Northern Aggression monument, although they haven't been proven to have done that) and exposing themselves to buses of schoolchildren (both of these things have reportedly happened during 2010 from the "Free Keene" group) are effective ways to advance the libertarian cause."
has nothing to do with left-lib philosophy.There are crazies in it I admit.
the whole thing seems so vague... Ok so I am a market anarchist/anti-statist and am not racist or sexist, support the labour movement so far as it is volantary, recognise that income inequality would be reduced on a free market and that alot of the super large firms and large amounts of wealth (when I say wealth I meen a share of the total wealth) are protected by government and would not occure on a true market. am I a left libertarian?
Nah, that's just libertarian; centrism.
Tho some here would disagree with you that free markets would equalize incomes
<~~ Myself included
In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!
~Peter Kropotkin
It won't equalize incomes, and no rational person would want that. One good thing about Ayn Rand, is that she very carefully laid out communism for what it was, and exposed the absolute lunacy of the "we're all equal" mentality.
The only kind of equality I support is moral/ethical equality. I think this is the original "leftist" concept of "equality", by the way.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
I said that income inequality would bereduced due to things like IP not existing, not that it would bring about communism or wether it would be a good thing.
I personally think its quite incorrect to describe left anarchists as being vague about their beliefs. Personally, I've found that any one of them can find some string of 20 words, arranged into an all too particular order to describe their belief system. For example, one might describe themselves as a "Left Rothbardian Quasi - Egalitarian Anarchist with some Adjectives" (who are currently in an intellectual feud with the Quasi Rothbardian Left Egalitarian Anarchist with few Adjectives) . Left Rothbardians are like Rothbardians, only more sophisticated, cultured, and kinder hearted. They're likely to found sitting cross legged in an obscure coffee shop, trying a new brand of coffee made by one legged workers in an unheard of region of Papau New Guinea. Meanwhile discussing workers plights, their intention to speak Latin for the next year as part of their self enrichment and their voluntary vow of celibacy as an extension of their strict veganism. They will do this in soft tones, almost hushed so they can appreciate the music made from sounds of people smoking in the background.
You conservatives crack me up
Evilsceptic: " Ok so I am a market anarchist/anti-statist and am not racist or sexist, support the labour movement so far as it is volantary, recognise that income inequality would be reduced on a free market and that alot of the super large firms and large amounts of wealth (when I say wealth I meen a share of the total wealth) are protected by government and would not occure on a true market. am I a left libertarian Nearly.But an-caps often make lip service to all of this. What do you think about statism and bargaining power? who benefits most from statism? why are aspects of right libertarianism and/or an-cap wrong? Do you agree with Kevin Carson,Roderick Long,Sheldon Richman,Gary Chartier,Charles Johnson or Jeremy Weiland? All? some? none?
" Ok so I am a market anarchist/anti-statist and am not racist or sexist, support the labour movement so far as it is volantary, recognise that income inequality would be reduced on a free market and that alot of the super large firms and large amounts of wealth (when I say wealth I meen a share of the total wealth) are protected by government and would not occure on a true market. am I a left libertarian
Nearly.But an-caps often make lip service to all of this. What do you think about statism and bargaining power? who benefits most from statism? why are aspects of right libertarianism and/or an-cap wrong?
Do you agree with Kevin Carson,Roderick Long,Sheldon Richman,Gary Chartier,Charles Johnson or Jeremy Weiland? All? some? none?
Evilsceptic: "I said that income inequality would bereduced due to things like IP not existing," Agreed. "not that it would bring about communism" I don't know of any who argue it would "or wether it would be a good thing." I think it would be.On a purely consequentialist angle alone,It would help maintain anarchy.
"I said that income inequality would bereduced due to things like IP not existing,"
Agreed.
"not that it would bring about communism"
I don't know of any who argue it would
"or wether it would be a good thing."
I think it would be.On a purely consequentialist angle alone,It would help maintain anarchy.
Autolykos: is moral/ethical equality. I think this is the original "leftist" concept of "equality", by the way.
is moral/ethical equality. I think this is the original "leftist" concept of "equality", by the way.
I favour that too.In a sense I see it leading to other kinds of equality.
liberty student: "It won't equalize incomes," Not completely but it will close the gap quite a lot. "and no rational person would want that." So your ok with some in their mansion and some homeless(the homeless not wanting such a state of affairs and not purposely bringing it about.) In anycase massive disparties in wealth are only due to statism. " and exposed the absolute lunacy of the "we're all equal" mentality." Very Very Few left-libs hold "we're all equal" in the most absolute sense of we're all the same in very single way.It would be wrong to say all belief in equality is belief we're all equal in every single way.That's a straw man.There's many kinds of equality.
"It won't equalize incomes,"
Not completely but it will close the gap quite a lot.
"and no rational person would want that."
So your ok with some in their mansion and some homeless(the homeless not wanting such a state of affairs and not purposely bringing it about.) In anycase massive disparties in wealth are only due to statism.
" and exposed the absolute lunacy of the "we're all equal" mentality."
Very Very Few left-libs hold "we're all equal" in the most absolute sense of we're all the same in very single way.It would be wrong to say all belief in equality is belief we're all equal in every single way.That's a straw man.There's many kinds of equality.
It won't equalize incomes, and no rational person would want that.
A surprsingly tough mentality to combat. You think this would be one of the 1st myths to get debunked. We can not concern ourselves with social status, only wealth maximization, how wealth is created and destroyed, and point out that without markets there is no civilization.
bargaining power is distorted by regulations and different parties get screwed depending on the situation, generally I would say it that labour is being exploited more on average but companies (especially small buissiness) can get a bad deal when it comes to state sponsored unions.
I would say the biggest failing of anarcho-capitalism is the name. but other than that can't see how "anarcho capitalism" could go wrong, by which I meen whatever emerges out of the market will be more complex and fair than any other system, but "anarcho-capitalists" are often a bit short sighted and occasionly don't recognise the complexity of market law.
Sorry, never read any of those guys I am kind of new to economics and political theory, but I do intend to read some carson to broaden my exposure to economic and political ideas after I finish the main austrian stuff.
sorry for the rambly response and for any spelling
So much irony, can't resist......lmfao, Scott did you really just call us conservatives? I'm gonna go blaspheme and break some laws.
Left Rothbardians: Kinda like regular Rothbardians except they are shameful of the connotations that "capitalism" bring, so they distinguish themselves with superficial labels.
I must say, when I abandoned being a leftist for being laissefaire, I only did it because I saw laissefaire as having all the qualities that I was looking for in socialism, that it could not provide:
Freedom from the government, indiscrimination, realistic, working and workable, open to everyone, benefits everyone and free in every aspect.
Freedom has always been the only route to progress.
Scott F: liberty student: "It won't equalize incomes," Not completely but it will close the gap quite a lot.
liberty student: "It won't equalize incomes,"
You can't know that without claiming prescience.
Scott F: liberty student:"and no rational person would want that." So your ok with some in their mansion and some homeless(the homeless not wanting such a state of affairs and not purposely bringing it about.
liberty student:"and no rational person would want that."
So your ok with some in their mansion and some homeless(the homeless not wanting such a state of affairs and not purposely bringing it about.
Non sequitur.
Scott F:In anycase massive disparties in wealth are only due to statism.
Prove this claim.
Scott F: liberty student:" and exposed the absolute lunacy of the "we're all equal" mentality." Very Very Few left-libs hold "we're all equal" in the most absolute sense of we're all the same in very single way.It would be wrong to say all belief in equality is belief we're all equal in every single way.That's a straw man.There's many kinds of equality.
liberty student:" and exposed the absolute lunacy of the "we're all equal" mentality."
You know exactly of which I speak. Income equality is only possible where effort and results are equal. In a world where effort and results are valued equally, you cannot have economic calculation, you cannot have trade. You can't even begin to make claims about something being good or bad, because it just is.
Of course, your understanding, as demonstrated here over and again, is so shallow and confused, it is unlikely you can grasp this, because as Esuric pointed out, most left libs are economically ignorant, and quite happily so. Learning economics would require thinking in a disciplined logical manner, and accepting facts that may conflict with emotional narratives and in turn may stimulate self-actualization.
The worst thing that can happen to the left is when leftists is start thinking..
So your ok with some in their mansion and some homeless(the homeless not wanting such a state of affairs and not purposely bringing it about.) In anycase massive disparties in wealth are only due to statism.\
Correction; Statism is only due to massive disparities in wealth.
OMG Thank you! If I have to explain this to someone one more time, I'll rip my teeth out w my bear hands!
The irony is strong with this one