Proudhon was not a Marxist. He was a mutualist.
And you called his definition of capitalism "marxism" because....?
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
What are you having trouble understanding EiK?
LS, socialism isn't necessarily Marxist. As for saying "left-libs don't accept AE", left-libs are Austrian dissidents. If you look at Konkin, Spangler or Carson, they all incorporate Austrian insights into their work. They just refuse to settle into the dogmatism you see here of "egalitarianism is bad, all voluntary actions are equally good, free markets and capitalism are identical".
Danny, you're getting into No True Scotsman territory with your claim that left-libertarian free markets aren't markets(!). Capital and land would still exist, you know, and left-libertarianism would actually have more entrepeneurship.
Vaguelyhumanoid:LS, socialism isn't necessarily Marxist.
I am scrolling up and I cannot find where LS stated this.
On a side note, Marxism is necessarily socialist, not the other way around.
vaguelyhumanoid:LS, socialism isn't necessarily Marxist.
As filc indicated, I never claimed that. I try to argue with precision. Address what I have written. If you need clarification or have a query, ask it.
vaguelyhumanoid:As for saying "left-libs don't accept AE", left-libs are Austrian dissidents.
I have yet to meet a left-lib who understands and consistently employs praxeology as a starting point for human action. If you do not understand and employ praxeology, but make claims in conflict with it, in my mind, you can no more be an Austrian than an apple is a banana. And you can call it a No True Scotsman, but Austrianism is SOMETHING, and to claim that Mises contributions are outside Austrianism reduces AE to what?
I am not talking about philosophy, or ethics, I am strictly speaking about economics as a value free science, which is what Austrianism is. So to claim that left-libs, which are a political/philosophical group, are dissidents from value free science, is ridiculous.
vaguelyhumanoid:They just refuse to settle into the dogmatism you see here of "egalitarianism is bad, all voluntary actions are equally good, free markets and capitalism are identical".
If you believe this ^^^ is Austrianism, then you do not understand economics or Austrianism at all.
You're a nice enough guy, but like so many leftists who land here, you have a perception of the "is" that makes your own claims contradictory. Please, please, please take the time to learn about AE so you can decide for yourself if it has merit or not. Do the work which others will not do. It's necessary to be taken seriously, and not another knee jerk defender of strawmen arguments.
LS,
1. You said something was Marxist, when it seems you meant it was socialist.
2. I don't mean that left-libs are dissidents from Austrian economics. I'm saying that they're dissidents within an Austrian framework from ancap orthodoxy.
vaguelyhumanoid:LS, 1. You said something was Marxist, when it seems you meant it was socialist.
No, I meant Marxist. Socialism is too broad and general a term to have any meaning.
vaguelyhumanoid:2. I don't mean that left-libs are dissidents from Austrian economics. I'm saying that they're dissidents within an Austrian framework from ancap orthodoxy.
Ancap has nothing to do with Austrian economics whatsoever. The only people who would conflate the two, are those who understand neither.
I never claimed that ancap is inherently linked to Austrian economics. I guess I meant the strict ancap framework prevalent amongst many Austrians today, such as Block, Hoppe, and Kinsella.
I would say there are four general themes that come up in left-libertarianism that tend not to come up in more standard versions.
1. Semantics. TBH this is just annoying, to virtually everyone I think, but for some reason left-libertarians have made a big deal out of how libertarianism should be labelled and presented. It's not there is no validity to the the points made but I highly doubt they are worth the effort. I tend to not really bother calling myself LL anymore just because there are far more interesting things to debate than the true meaning of left and right.
2. Thick Libertarianism. All left-libertarians believe that libertarianism is part of a wider bundle of concepts and that the NAP is a necessary but insufficient condition for a truly free society. In other words, LLs argue that a person can be free from aggression while still lacking much in the way of autonomous decision making and that certain cultural values end up being antithetical to non-aggression in the long run. For example, if everyone believes *insert marginalised minority here* are really subhuman it's very unlikely that they will refrain from aggression. Obviously no one is in favour of enforcing cultural values by law.
3. "Leftist ends, Libertarian means". Related to the above. The sort of ideas LLs like to work on are ways in which the concerns traditionally associated with the left would not only be promoted by the NAP but are actually hindered by more statist means. Essentially, if you agree with the second point, these are just extra points in favour of libertarianism. As well as it being good because it respects people's rights and creates more wealth it's also good for ending cultural authoritarianism too.
4. Different views on property and contracts. Almost all LLs will have at least one "deviation" in the following areas: what counts as a proportional response when defending property, what counts as just appropriation and what counts as abandonment. This is less true of left-rothbardians though. Some differ on rules for transfering property too, though it seems to be much rarer. It's this point that causes the most controversy in my experience.
http://0welcometo1984.wordpress.com
vaguelyhumanoid:I never claimed that ancap is inherently linked to Austrian economics. I guess I meant the strict ancap framework prevalent amongst many Austrians today, such as Block, Hoppe, and Kinsella.
What does this,
an Austrian framework from ancap orthodoxy
mean?
JamesB: I would say there are four general themes that come up in left-libertarianism that tend not to come up in more standard versions. " 2. Thick Libertarianism. All left-libertarians believe that libertarianism is part of a wider bundle of concepts and that the NAP is a necessary but insufficient condition for a truly free society. In other words, LLs argue that a person can be free from aggression while still lacking much in the way of autonomous decision making and that certain cultural values end up being antithetical to non-aggression in the long run. For example, if everyone believes *insert marginalised minority here* are really subhuman it's very unlikely that they will refrain from aggression. Obviously no one is in favour of enforcing cultural values by law." "3. "Leftist ends, Libertarian means". Related to the above. The sort of ideas LLs like to work on are ways in which the concerns traditionally associated with the left would not only be promoted by the NAP but are actually hindered by more statist means. Essentially, if you agree with the second point, these are just extra points in favour of libertarianism. As well as it being good because it respects people's rights and creates more wealth it's also good for ending cultural authoritarianism too." 4. Different views on property and contracts. Almost all LLs will have at least one "deviation" in the following areas: what counts as a proportional response when defending property, what counts as just appropriation and what counts as abandonment. This is less true of left-rothbardians though. Some differ on rules for transfering property too, though it seems to be much rarer. It's this point that causes the most controversy in my experience.
" 2. Thick Libertarianism. All left-libertarians believe that libertarianism is part of a wider bundle of concepts and that the NAP is a necessary but insufficient condition for a truly free society. In other words, LLs argue that a person can be free from aggression while still lacking much in the way of autonomous decision making and that certain cultural values end up being antithetical to non-aggression in the long run. For example, if everyone believes *insert marginalised minority here* are really subhuman it's very unlikely that they will refrain from aggression. Obviously no one is in favour of enforcing cultural values by law."
"3. "Leftist ends, Libertarian means". Related to the above. The sort of ideas LLs like to work on are ways in which the concerns traditionally associated with the left would not only be promoted by the NAP but are actually hindered by more statist means. Essentially, if you agree with the second point, these are just extra points in favour of libertarianism. As well as it being good because it respects people's rights and creates more wealth it's also good for ending cultural authoritarianism too."
An all round good explanation
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.
Overall good post, JamesB, but I'd like to comment on some things.
From my perspective, the libertarian right and so-called "plumbline" or "standard" libertarianism is just as if not more mired in attachment to certain semantics. The problem is that they cling so much to certain esoteric meanings for terms that when they encounter a left-libertarian they end up misunderstanding what is being said and attacking strawmen.
I would say that semantics is useful insofar as the purpose is to clarify things in a discussion or debate. It's not that there is an essential, true meaning to words, but that it is nonetheless relevant to take the historical, common, and esoteric usages of terms into account if one really wants to whittle away at ambiguities.
Just to be clear, thick libertarianism is a broad concept that is not exclusive to left-libertarianism. Substantive versions of left-libertarianism are forms of thick libertarianism, but there are also right-libertarian forms of thickness. In a sense, thickness is holism in that it interconnects different domains, refusing to reduce things to a particular domain. It integrates libertarianism within the context of a broader view of the world, with which it is inseparable.
With that being said, it may be the case that more standard verisons of libertarianism are not as "thick" as left-libertarianism because there is an overal discrepancy between the degree to which or level at which each of them merge or separate political economy from other areas. The "plumbline" narrative is essentially a statement rejecting thickness, although I also think it often functions as an obfuscation of the commitments that people actually have and hence is intellectually dishonest.
BrainPolice: The problem is that they cling so much to certain esoteric meanings for terms that when they encounter a left-libertarian they end up misunderstanding what is being said and attacking strawmen.
So when a Left-Lib says something nonesensical like the following
Epicurus:Income inequality is the prime material source of all coercive power
It is, folks like me, who are too mired in my own esoteric meanings that I mis-understood the statement? Can we just be honest here and admit that some Left-Lib concepts largely are disjointed and when, in fairness, we request a definition of their own we can't get one. Many of us make a best effort to resolve any semantical issues which may exist. You pretend like we don't, and it's us mired in our own esoteric jargon. But when I read statements like the above it seems like your comment should be more applied to folks who believe in those types of things, unwilling to critically analyze the reasoning in their beliefs.
Finally, why are we still clinging on to this left-right dichotomy.
filc:Finally, why are we still clinging on to this left-right dichotomy.
Simple minds love abstractions and totems.
Brainpolice: Overall good post, JamesB, but I'd like to comment on some things. 1. Semantics. TBH this is just annoying, to virtually everyone I think, but for some reason left-libertarians have made a big deal out of how libertarianism should be labelled and presented. It's not there is no validity to the the points made but I highly doubt they are worth the effort. I tend to not really bother calling myself LL anymore just because there are far more interesting things to debate than the true meaning of left and right. From my perspective, the libertarian right and so-called "plumbline" or "standard" libertarianism is just as if not more mired in attachment to certain semantics. The problem is that they cling so much to certain esoteric meanings for terms that when they encounter a left-libertarian they end up misunderstanding what is being said and attacking strawmen. I would say that semantics is useful insofar as the purpose is to clarify things in a discussion or debate. It's not that there is an essential, true meaning to words, but that it is nonetheless relevant to take the historical, common, and esoteric usages of terms into account if one really wants to whittle away at ambiguities. 2. Thick Libertarianism. All left-libertarians believe that libertarianism is part of a wider bundle of concepts and that the NAP is a necessary but insufficient condition for a truly free society. In other words, LLs argue that a person can be free from aggression while still lacking much in the way of autonomous decision making and that certain cultural values end up being antithetical to non-aggression in the long run. For example, if everyone believes *insert marginalised minority here* are really subhuman it's very unlikely that they will refrain from aggression. Obviously no one is in favour of enforcing cultural values by law. Just to be clear, thick libertarianism is a broad concept that is not exclusive to left-libertarianism. Substantive versions of left-libertarianism are forms of thick libertarianism, but there are also right-libertarian forms of thickness. In a sense, thickness is holism in that it interconnects different domains, refusing to reduce things to a particular domain. It integrates libertarianism within the context of a broader view of the world, with which it is inseparable. With that being said, it may be the case that more standard verisons of libertarianism are not as "thick" as left-libertarianism because there is an overal discrepancy between the degree to which or level at which each of them merge or separate political economy from other areas. The "plumbline" narrative is essentially a statement rejecting thickness, although I also think it often functions as an obfuscation of the commitments that people actually have and hence is intellectually dishonest.
Great explanation.
Brainpolice:From my perspective, the libertarian right and so-called "plumbline" or "standard" libertarianism is just as if not more mired in attachment to certain semantics. The problem is that they cling so much to certain esoteric meanings for terms that when they encounter a left-libertarian they end up misunderstanding what is being said and attacking strawmen. I would say that semantics is useful insofar as the purpose is to clarify things in a discussion or debate. It's not that there is an essential, true meaning to words, but that it is nonetheless relevant to take the historical, common, and esoteric usages of terms into account if one really wants to whittle away at ambiguities.
Sure, I just think an unecessary amount of time has been devoted to defining what the meaning of left, capitalism, wage slavery etc is. Or more absurdly, that Rothbardians are actually socialists. I think that was when I decided to call it a day with the whole definition debate. It's useful insofar as it clarifies what we mean in debates but when it's got to the point of insisting on the terms even when both parties know exactly what is being meant by them.
Brainpolice:Just to be clear, thick libertarianism is a broad concept that is not exclusive to left-libertarianism. Substantive versions of left-libertarianism are forms of thick libertarianism, but there are also right-libertarian forms of thickness. In a sense, thickness is holism in that it interconnects different domains, refusing to reduce things to a particular domain. It integrates libertarianism within the context of a broader view of the world, with which it is inseparable. With that being said, it may be the case that more standard verisons of libertarianism are not as "thick" as left-libertarianism because there is an overal discrepancy between the degree to which or level at which each of them merge or separate political economy from other areas. The "plumbline" narrative is essentially a statement rejecting thickness, although I also think it often functions as an obfuscation of the commitments that people actually have and hence is intellectually dishonest.
This is true. Maybe "All left-libertarianism is thick libertarianism, but not all thick libertarianism is left-libertarianism" would be a suitable qualifier.
As BP says thin libertarianism often seems to be a cover for subtle endorsement of immorality and I've yet to meet a libertarian who is 100% a thin libertarian.
I wonder how much BP agrees with your take on morality, your thoughts of leftism, and your manifesto. I wonder what the consequences of the world would be that you state are good for the things he would disagree with, should he have any disagreements.
I still don't understand what this "thick" and "thin" libertarianism means.
Freedom has always been the only route to progress.
Libertyandlife: I still don't understand what this "thick" and "thin" libertarianism means.
http://radgeek.com/gt/2008/10/03/libertarianism_through/
Scott F:As BP says thin libertarianism often seems to be a cover for subtle endorsement of immorality and I've yet to meet a libertarian who is 100% a thin libertarian.
Because it is a canard. Brainpolice knows this.
Guess what Scott. There is no such thing as "thin libertarianism'".
It's either voluntary or it's not. It's either free or it's not.
I don't see what all this additional junk is usefull for. Free market anarchists are too small of a group to have so many useless labels.
^ lol, welcome to the club. Libertarians often speak of ignoring left-right paradigms, self proclaimed thick and left-libertarians ignore it better than other libertarians though. And "some animals are more equal than others."
Nielsio, as long you don't waste your money with snake-oil ultra expensive cables like the ones from Nordost, I support you.
So when a Left-Lib says something nonesensical like the following Epicurus:Income inequality is the prime material source of all coercive power
There's not much I'm going to agree with leftist market fundamentalists on. I think you are creating a false dichotomy, and therefore a straw man when you use me to argue them
Personally, I'm of the opinion that the majority of left-libertarians/Rothbardians are people who first and foremost don't want their ideology in any way connected to the braindead faction the mainstream commonly refers to as the "right" (at the moment), so they stick "left" in front of their libertarianism and then make little quibbles after the fact just to separate themselves from "normal" libertarianism/Rothbarianism and thusly make themselves distinct from the "right" (seeing as the mainstream often identifies libertarianism partially with what's presently referred to as the conservatives, even though it's not even close to accurate).
Mind that this is both conjecture and my completely baseless opinion, but that if this is the case (even if a left-libertarian/Rothbardian won't acknowledge it), I can't really say I blame them. "Left" sounds so much more "progressive" at the moment (that's progressive with a little "p", not capital). I also don't hold this opinion to all left-libertarians/Rothbardians (example: Brainpolice), but do think it's possible some of those are swayed by people that started off from this hypothetical viewpoint.
I wouldn't even be surprised if some left-libertarians/Rothbardians agreed with me on this opinion in regards to some other of their "ilk", but I wouldn't expect it, either.
Thin libertarian= libertarianism is just about aggression and /or the NAP.
Thick libertarian= libertarianism is about aggression and/or the NAP but also cultural concerns.
liberty student: Scott F:As BP says thin libertarianism often seems to be a cover for subtle endorsement of immorality and I've yet to meet a libertarian who is 100% a thin libertarian. Because it is a canard. Brainpolice knows this.
That's funny because many here have argued for it in this and other recent threads as well as at other times -not to mention well known libertarians like Walter Block have argued for it.The point is that while it is impossible to live out in reality ,it has indeed been argued for.
Angurse: As BP says thin libertarianism often seems to be a cover for subtle endorsement of immorality and I've yet to meet a libertarian who is 100% a thin libertarian. "Most people would say libertarianism is a cover for endorsing immorality." To the extent An-cap, minarchism and Austrian economics aim to be thin then often they do.The mentioned groups dismissal of social issues often leads to endorsement of immorality too.
Aposiopesis: "Personally, I'm of the opinion that the majority of left-libertarians/Rothbardians are people who first and foremost don't want their ideology in any way connected to the braindead faction the mainstream commonly refers to as the "right" (at the moment)," To some extent,this is true.I also agree with the braindead criticism. " then make little quibbles after the fact just to separate themselves from "normal" libertarianism/Rothbarianism" Here I disagree. Left-libertarianism is as the name suggests a leftist libertarian fusion as well as a critique of traditional libertarianism. "and thusly make themselves distinct from the "right" (seeing as the mainstream often identifies libertarianism partially with what's presently referred to as the conservatives, even though it's not even close to accurate)." I think it's very accurate.
"Personally, I'm of the opinion that the majority of left-libertarians/Rothbardians are people who first and foremost don't want their ideology in any way connected to the braindead faction the mainstream commonly refers to as the "right" (at the moment),"
To some extent,this is true.I also agree with the braindead criticism.
" then make little quibbles after the fact just to separate themselves from "normal" libertarianism/Rothbarianism"
Here I disagree. Left-libertarianism is as the name suggests a leftist libertarian fusion as well as a critique of traditional libertarianism.
"and thusly make themselves distinct from the "right" (seeing as the mainstream often identifies libertarianism partially with what's presently referred to as the conservatives, even though it's not even close to accurate)."
I think it's very accurate.
Thin libertarian= libertarianism is just about aggression and /or the NAP. Thick libertarian= libertarianism is about aggression and/or the NAP but also cultural concerns.
This isn't wrong, but I'd broaden that to:
Thin libertarianism = the claim that libertarianism is a stand-alone political philosophy that can be separated from everything else and completely reducible to some single, common principle or concept or goal (I.E. "we just believe in the NAP").
Thick libertarianism = the claim that libertarianism is necessarily within the broader web of beliefs and values of libertarians, and hence inseperable from people's metaphysical views, epistemologies, ethical values, and so on.
The sense in which I say that thin libertarianism is inherently intellectually dishonest is because any given individual libertarian does, as a matter of fact, understand libertarianism within the context of their overall view of the world. There simply is no such thing as a libertarian who's libertarianism isn't framed within some conceptual heirarchy. By its very nature, it can't be neutral. Noone is. Someone's "thin" claims can often be undercut by unraveling all of the implicit beliefs related to their understanding of libertarianism that cannot be reduced to some overarching thing like the non-aggression principle.
"Thin" and "thick" are just convenient categorizations refering to the degree to which people aknowledge their political philosophy to be related to the larger whole of beliefs. To the extent that they can be considered substantive positions, "thin-ness" is associated with reductionism to political economy while "thick-ness" is associated with a sense of holism. The only real broad "thick" vs. "thin" debate is between degrees of this kind in how one concieves of political economy relating to other domains.
Brainpolice: Thin libertarian= libertarianism is just about aggression and /or the NAP. Thick libertarian= libertarianism is about aggression and/or the NAP but also cultural concerns. This isn't wrong, but I'd broaden that to: Thin libertarianism = the claim that libertarianism is a stand-alone political philosophy that can be separated from everything else and completely reducible to some single, common principle or concept or goal (I.E. "we just believe in the NAP"). Thick libertarianism = the claim that libertarianism is necessarily within the broader web of beliefs and values of libertarians, and hence inseperable from people's metaphysical views, epistemologies, ethical values, and so on. The sense in which I say that thin libertarianism is inherently intellectually dishonest is because any given individual libertarian does, as a matter of fact, understand libertarianism within the context of their overall view of the world. There simply is no such thing as a libertarian who's libertarianism isn't framed within some conceptual heirarchy. By its very nature, it can't be neutral. Noone is. Someone's "thin" claims can often be undercut by unraveling all of the implicit beliefs related to their understanding of libertarianism that cannot be reduced to some overarching thing like the non-aggression principle. "Thin" and "thick" are just convenient categorizations refering to the degree to which people aknowledge their political philosophy to be related to the larger whole of beliefs. To the extent that they can be considered substantive positions, "thin-ness" is associated with reductionism to political economy while "thick-ness" is associated with a sense of holism. The only real broad "thick" vs. "thin" debate is between degrees of this kind in how one concieves of political economy relating to other domains.
I'm honest and humble enough to admit your definition and explanation is better.Thanks for this, BP.
To the extent An-cap, minarchism and Austrian economics aim to be thin then often they do.The mentioned groups dismissal of social issues often leads to endorsement of immorality too.
Did you just not read what I wrote? Left-Lib, paleo-libs, all libertarians endorse immorality by most standards. Saying "its wrong, but I won't stop you" looks like moral cowardice to many. (And science has no place with morality... keep "aim[ing] to be thin please.)
(And science has no place with morality... keep "aim[ing] to be thin please.)
I think you're missing the point, although it may be the case that "endorse immorality" was the wrong way to frame it. The contention is more like this: there are reductionistic viewpoints which try to stick to an amoral analysis, and in the process they end up effectively dismissing people's moral considerations out of hand - including those of libertarians - on the grounds of everything being about something like economics. It's not that they are endorsing immorality per se, but that their commitment to economic reductionism causes them to at least appear to be (and sometimes substantive be) apathetic or dismissive towards moral considerations.
The contention is more like this: there are reductionistic viewpoints which try to stick to an amoral analysis, and in the process they end up effectively dismissing people's moral considerations out of hand - including those of libertarians - on the grounds of everything being about something like economics. It's not that they are endorsing immorality per se, but that their commitment to economic reductionism causes them to at least appear to be (and sometimes substantive be) apathetic or dismissive towards moral considerations.
Sounds like a fair contention, I just don't see the problem. Should all subjective considerations be given the same weight?
It doesn't matter, when you ask about the consequences of their "moral" choices, the question gets ducked, the morality doesn't get clearly stated. It's funny it seems like nothing more than a (to put it very loosely and somewhat inaccurate) a skepticism of moral skepticism with left wing political slogans. That is if you bring up Hoppe, that is "the wrong morality/aesthetic/crystal ball" or whatever.
If they are just talking about practical advice on how to communicate libertarianism, or whatever other gibberish you want (that is by saying the obvious statement "people have moral sentiments") that's fine, but there is no way you can communicate any form of universal "practical advise" via moralizing as every situation and individual is, you know unique.