What the left libertarianism think of us:
http://libertarianleft.freeforums.org/i-suppose-that-the-purge-comes-next-t194.html
To answer the question, one can only hope the purge does come next.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
agorists, mutualists, voluntaryists, geolibertarians, left-Rothbardians, libertarian socialists, radical minarchists, and others on the Libertarian Left
There are a lot of different sects of left-libertarians.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Stranger: agorists, mutualists, voluntaryists, geolibertarians, left-Rothbardians, libertarian socialists, radical minarchists, and others on the Libertarian Left There are a lot of different sects of left-libertarians.
As a voluntaryist, I object to "Left-Libertarianism" automatically affiliating over voluntaryism, especially when some in the the LL marketing effort may actually refuse private property in some cases. I find it funny that somehow this marketing effort will somehow not backfire like the one with the Right did. Whatever happened to "good ideas" vs. "bad ideas", not this "thin / left/ thick/ right/rainbow/monochrome/" showdown of semantic soups?I'm also annoyed by what seems like a counter-hijack against the vast, great big enemy that is right-libertarianism, which seems to also include people who do not care to be labeled most of the time (me, increasingly, as of late). The paranoia over collectives being more dominant than others in a given movement is counter-productive to a debate of ideas, methinks.
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
I used to care about what they thought, until I realised that they dont care about the free market at all. They accuse us of being 'vulgar', all the while defending 'anarchist' thug violence and promoting union cartels. I also notice that allying with Georgist socialists is OK to them.
Of course, every LL has their own sect.
sicsempertyrannis: I used to care about what they thought, until I realised that they dont care about the free market at all. They accuse us of being 'vulgar', all the while defending 'anarchist' thug violence and promoting union cartels. I also notice that allying with Georgist socialists is OK to them.
But we need to be thankful that enlightened individuals such as BP had the patience (as pointed out, of a saint no less) no attempt to show us the truth. Of course, the posts of the "paleocon Misoid trolls" were so replete with fallacious arguments that the left libertarians were able to point them out endlessly as opposed to say, merely asserting that they were so.
They make too much of the fact that there are two neofeudalists total in like the entire world (both on this forum).
I am a bit confused.
Why do they think that the misean tradition holds up kingdoms and manoralism? I understand that Hoppe makes the point that a kingdom gives arguably better incentives for good governance than does democracy, however he is not advocating it, in fact if anything he is renouncing it alongside every other form of the state.
this quote in particular has me baffled:
They're not against hierarchy, coercion, or domination. They're not against forcing people to pay tribute to an elite in order to be granted the privilege of survival.They're not against completely ignoring history and reality generally in order to make a cheesy partisan point.So why shouldn't we keep obeying the State? It is their property, after all, right?
Is this person missing the very basic argument about the illegitimacy of state ownership? I have yet to see where the misean tradition holds coercion as a possibility, nor where anything is forced in the least.
This one as well:
They seem to think that the government actually helps minority groups and creates more economic equality, and they fundamentally are opposed to it only because it's in competition with their own prefered forms of authority (corporations, the church, "the family", etc.), which they effectively advocate as the new state. And they associate any sort of egalitarianism with government, as if they go hand in hand or something.
Perhaps I am missing something. Other than giles being a social conservative which in no way is a reflection on the misean/rothbardian philosophy I see no where that people are suggesting that those forms of authority in the monopoly of coercion are legitimate. BP, you seem to be active on those forums and disgusted with what we say here. Perhaps you could point me to where these things are being advocated.
In addition the entire philosophy of egalitarianism is in conflict with liberty. Elaglitarianism prescribes positive rights to all individuals. Positive rights are anti-liberty because they do not work without one of two conditions: Either the majority of people act in such a way that they are willing to sacrifice their goods for another in all situations OR an enforcement mechanism to force those who would not freely sacrifice. Since we don't live in utopia and all people are not willing to evenly distribute goods then you must find a way to create a way to have the goods distributed. Scarcity is in fact the reason that your system of left-libertarianism is impractical.
My critique of left-libertarianism here:
http://corktageous.blogspot.com/2008/08/critique-of-left-libertarianism.html
While I do share the affinity some of them have for Tucker and Spooner, they can get pretty obnoxious.
Cork:My critique of left-libertarianism here:
I hope you are a beautiful woman, because I am madly in love with you. Very nice write up.
Now prepare to be assaulted by ten thousand whiney but culturally sensitive ankle biters.
Nitroadict:Whatever happened to "good ideas" vs. "bad ideas", not this "thin / left/ thick/ right/rainbow/monochrome/" showdown of semantic soups?
Oh sure. Ask people to be mature. Like that will happen.
sicsempertyrannis:I used to care about what they thought, until I realised that they dont care about the free market at all. They accuse us of being 'vulgar', all the while defending 'anarchist' thug violence and promoting union cartels. I also notice that allying with Georgist socialists is OK to them.
Great point. Apparently accordng to Wombatron, I am a center libertarian guilty of not calling out the right, but they won't call out the vandarchists. Oh, but when I don't prove a negative, I'm bad. When they don't prove a negative, they are right. Or left. Whatever.
John Ess: They make too much of the fact that there are two neofeudalists total in like the entire world (both on this forum).
The great thing about left-libertarians is, if there is anything, anywhere within the libertarian sphere to bitch about, they wil gladly accept the challenge of picking nits as they are wont to do on their forums and blogs.
I remember months ago when Jon and I would be accused of being monarchists, when I hadn't even heard of Hoppe at that point, and Jon was still house training his first pet dragon.
AndrewKemendo:In addition the entire philosophy of egalitarianism is in conflict with liberty. Elaglitarianism prescribes positive rights to all individuals.
You have just stepped into a world of rhetorical pain. Don't worry, I've got your six.
Basically, many left-libertarians believe you can have voluntary socialism. That's what Parecon is. Where people voluntarily pool profits and redistribute them, and organize democratically.
Now technically, they are right. Or left. Whatever. Technically, in a voluntary society, you can decide to live communally.
But that doesn't mean that it is
A lot of left-libertarianism seems really anachronistic to me. Much of the silly arguments Rod Long and Kevin Carson make might find an ear amongst the sane of 80 years ago, but today, people have more freedom, more mobility and a better understanding of markets and economics. Central planning has failed. Socialism and democracy are failures. And the market must have competition, not the collusion of egalitarianism, if it is truly going to "work".
Somehow, if they voluntarily choose collectivism, that validates collectivism. The theory goes, that choosing collectivism freely is an example of the market.
My critique of left-libertarianism here: http://corktageous.blogspot.com/2008/08/critique-of-left-libertarianism.html While I do share the affinity some of them have for Tucker and Spooner, they can get pretty obnoxious.
Welcome to the forum. I've read your work before, and am a fan.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
GilesStratton:What the left libertarianism think of us:
"Us" = meaning you, pretty much.
Anyone who is reading this should skim the post linked to in the LL post, to give it some context.
Market anarchist, Linux geek, aspiring Perl hacker, and student of the neo-Aristotelians, the classical individualist anarchists, and the Austrian school.
liberty student:Great point. Apparently accordng to Wombatron, I am a center libertarian guilty of not calling out the right, but they won't call out the vandarchists. Oh, but when I don't prove a negative, I'm bad. When they don't prove a negative, they are right. Or left. Whatever.
We do call out the vandarchists. BP, for example, has done so several times in his blog posts. And you do occasionally ignore the right's flaws; that was especially bad then.
If you have something to say to me, you can communicate with me publicly or privately. Snickering with a bunch of crybabies behind your back isn't something I would do to you, no matter how poor I think your positions are.
Nitroadict:As a voluntaryist, I object to "Left-Libertarianism" automatically affiliating over voluntaryism, especially when some in the the LL marketing effort may actually refuse private property in some cases.
I'd be interested to know if you have actually met any of these strange creatures.
Is that kind of like on Seasame Street where Grover does the "near"/"far" thing? Most of the rest of us have gained the ability to deal with more than two concepts. I guess that makes me more a fan of the Count. 1...2...3...4...4 invaders on my flag pole...wait...bang...bang...bang...bang...0....0 invaders on my flag pole.
AndrewKemendo:In addition the entire philosophy of egalitarianism is in conflict with liberty. Elaglitarianism prescribes positive rights to all individuals. Positive rights are anti-liberty because they do not work without one of two conditions: Either the majority of people act in such a way that they are willing to sacrifice their goods for another in all situations OR an enforcement mechanism to force those who would not freely sacrifice. Since we don't live in utopia and all people are not willing to evenly distribute goods then you must find a way to create a way to have the goods distributed. Scarcity is in fact the reason that your system of left-libertarianism is impractical.
The entire philosophy? You do realize that economic and socio-cultural equality are not the only kinds, right? LLs do not support formal equality within a statist system or any system as you describe it or positive rights. Who wants to be equally shoved around? Equality, rightly understood, is the Lockean concept of equality of political authority. The NAP for example is grounded in the assumption of egalitarianism, rightly understood. Are you saying that the concept that everyone has over herself and only herself is in conflict with liberty? Interesting theory. Perhaps you can explain how that works.
liberty student:That's what Parecon is...Central planning has failed...And the market must have competition, not the collusion of egalitarianism, if it is truly going to "work"....Somehow, if they voluntarily choose collectivism, that validates collectivism.
You do realize that the left-libertarians that were linked to above (myself included) are market anarchists right? That reject collectivism, central planning, collusion and lack of competition? Where did you get the idea that any of this represents the view of left market anarchists? To be left simply means recognizing that libertarian principles entail endorsing certain other fights against forms of non-economic coercion (your not mentioning a single non-economic point is telling) like sexism, racism etc. Perhaps you are lumping us in with anarcho-communists etc. which I suppose is left also but that's not what the forum linked to above advocates.
"...the best place for socialism is the closest to a free market you can get!" - The Star Fraction
CC BY-SA
Neverfox: Nitroadict:Whatever happened to "good ideas" vs. "bad ideas", not this "thin / left/ thick/ right/rainbow/monochrome/" showdown of semantic soups? Is that kind of like on Seasame Street where Grover does the "near"/"far" thing? Most of the rest of us have gained the ability to deal with more than two concepts. I guess that makes me more a fan of the Count. 1...2...3...4...4 invaders on my flag pole...wait...bang...bang...bang...bang...0....0 invaders on my flag pole.
Neverfox: Nitroadict:As a voluntaryist, I object to "Left-Libertarianism" automatically affiliating over voluntaryism, especially when some in the the LL marketing effort may actually refuse private property in some cases. I'd be interested to know if you have actually met any of these strange creatures.
Insofar as they ensure the workers right to the full product of their labor, mutualists support markets and private property in the product of labor. However, they argue for conditional titles to land, whose private ownership is legitimate only so long as it remains in use or occupation (which Proudhon called "possession.")...Proudhon's Mutualism reluctantly supports labor-owned cooperative firms and associations[8] "only in those cases where it is not possible for the public to rely on private industry," preferring a society of individual entrepreneurs.[9] As for capital goods (man-made, non-land, "means of production"), mutualist opinions differs on whether these should be commonly managed public assets or private property. Though Proudhon's mutualism is similar to the economic doctrines of the nineteenth century American individualist anarchists, unlike them, the Proudhonists are in favor of association for large industries.[10] Because of this, some see mutualism as being situated somewhere between individualism and collectivism.[11] Proudhon himself described the "liberty" which he pursued as "the synthesis of communism and property."[12]
Though Proudhon's mutualism is similar to the economic doctrines of the nineteenth century American individualist anarchists, unlike them, the Proudhonists are in favor of association for large industries.[10] Because of this, some see mutualism as being situated somewhere between individualism and collectivism.[11] Proudhon himself described the "liberty" which he pursued as "the synthesis of communism and property."[12]
wombatron: GilesStratton:What the left libertarianism think of us: "Us" = meaning you, pretty much. Anyone who is reading this should skim the post linked to in the LL post, to give it some context.
Now, now, there were references Misoids and Hoppeans, don't lie.
Of course that thread was too much for to post on, right?
Neverfox: The NAP for example is grounded in the assumption of egalitarianism, rightly understood.
No, private property and egalitarianism are antithetical, sorry.
GilesStratton: wombatron: GilesStratton:What the left libertarianism think of us: "Us" = meaning you, pretty much. Anyone who is reading this should skim the post linked to in the LL post, to give it some context. Now, now, there were references Misoids and Hoppeans, don't lie. Of course that thread was too much for to post on, right?
There were references to Hoppeans. Correct me if I'm wrong, but not everyone on this forum is a Hoppean. Also, the one time the word "Misoid" was used (a word that I personally don't use), it was in this context:
manbear2pig:I hope we don't come off as trying to impress the Misoids [by which I mean the Hoppean/Randroid types; I don't mean to implicate everybody who posts there or is associated with it]
The criticisms given were rather specific, not a blanket attack on the Mises Community, as you are implying in the OP.
Whether or not you were merely referring to this particular Misoid is besides the point, the point is that the term Misoids has fairly clear implications and that the posters here can generally be subsumed under the label Misoid.
wombatron:There were references to Hoppeans. Correct me if I'm wrong, but not everyone on this forum is a Hoppean.
In which case it was a blatant lie when you said that you only meant me.
I'm curious why am I troll exactly?
GilesStratton:Whether or not you were merely referring to this particular Misoid is besides the point, the point is that the term Misoids has fairly clear implications and that the posters here can generally be subsumed under the label Misoid.
Please read my previous reply.
GilesStratton:In which case it was a blatant lie when you said that you only meant me.
There was a qualifying "pretty much" in there.
GilesStratton:I'm curious why am I troll exactly?
You started a post called "The Real Vulgar Libertarians: The "Libertarian" Left", with the intention of being disruptive and provoking replies. That's trolling.
Wait so someone can't criticize Left Libertarians without being considered a troll now?
That sounds an awfully lot like my experience on another forum where I am called a troll because I criticize and point out the immoralities of the state very frequently.
wombatron:Please read my previous reply.
This is my answer.
wombatron:There was a qualifying "pretty much" in there.
I'm curious as to who else qualifies as a vulgar Hoppean, that you so do despise (what is it that makes Hoppeans so disgusting, by the way?)
wombatron:You started a post called "The Real Vulgar Libertarians: The "Libertarian" Left", with the intention of being disruptive and provoking replies. That's trolling.
Perhaps, if you don't like being labelled as vulgar you shouldn't throw the term around so easily. Actually you may have missed it but I spent the post addressing what I believed to be the fallacious arguments of Mr Long and Mr Carson, it was not intended to be provoking or disruptive.
sirmonty: Wait so someone can't criticize Left Libertarians without being considered a troll now? That sounds an awfully lot like my experience on another forum where I am called a troll because I criticize and point out the immoralities of the state very frequently.
There is a rather large difference between honest criticism and trolling. Giles throws around strawmen and creates deliberately inflammatory posts. If I were to start a thread called "Why All Right-Libertarians Are Intellectually Dishonest Xenophobes", I would be considered a troll, and rightly so.
wombatron: sirmonty: Wait so someone can't criticize Left Libertarians without being considered a troll now? That sounds an awfully lot like my experience on another forum where I am called a troll because I criticize and point out the immoralities of the state very frequently. There is a rather large difference between honest criticism and trolling. Giles throws around strawmen and creates deliberately inflammatory posts. If I were to start a thread called "Why All Right-Libertarians Are Intellectually Dishonest Xenophobes", I would be considered a troll, and rightly so.
Not if you honestly felt that way and actually backed it up with some sort of reasoning.
GilesStratton:This is my answer.
Then it doesn't make any sense. It wasn't me using the word Misoid, and the user who did use it clarified what he meant right after he used it, directly contradicting your claim that it applies to all Mises posters.
GilesStratton:I'm curious as to who else qualifies as a vulgar Hoppean, that you so do despise (what is it that makes Hoppeans so disgusting, by the way?)
Relevance?
GilesStratton: Perhaps, if you don't like being labelled as vulgar you shouldn't throw the term around so easily. Actually you may have missed it but I spent the post addressing what I believed to be the fallacious arguments of Mr Long and Mr Carson, it was not intended to be provoking or disruptive.
Can you please tell me where I "throw around the term so easily"? I believe I've seriously used the term twice in the past few months, and that post was one of them. Your post was full of strawmen and misrepresentations, and that, combined with the title, leads me to the conclusion that you were trolling.
wombatron:Giles throws around strawmen and creates deliberately inflammatory posts.
Then correct me and point out my errors. I believe that would be a far more constructive way to go about things than your chosen course of action. By the way, I'd appreciate it if you'd illustrate claims such as these with quotations.
wombatron:If I were to start a thread called "Why All Right-Libertarians Are Intellectually Dishonest Xenophobes", I would be considered a troll, and rightly so.
You're taking things out of context, I did not, one day, decide to label the left as vulgar and create topic to incite conflict. My point was that the left claims vulgar libertarianism to be the act of using free market rhetoric to defend state capitalism, thus conflating two very different meanings of the word capitalism. My point was that the left libertarians were conflating corporations with what's now known as "big business" attacking the latter and then proclaiming victory as to having "defeated" the former. Which is essentially "vulgar" according to left as it confuses the corporate facism and free market capitalism.
Moreover, this was in reaction to a specific dispute in which the right had the better of, I merely wished to address a few points that I felt had yet to be answered. If you see this as trolling, please, support your claims.
wombatron:Then it doesn't make any sense. It wasn't me using the word Misoid, and the user who did use it clarified what he meant right after he used it, directly contradicting your claim that it applies to all Mises posters.
You just ignored what I said. My point is that, perhaps, he was referring to this particular Misoid this time, however the fact that he's using the word does have certain implications. Unless, he's gone out of his way to create a word for me, in which case I can only be honoured. Of course I doubt that, since the word was not the singular, Misoid but the plural Misoids.
wombatron:Relevance?
I just said the relevance, I'm curious.
wombatron:Your post was full of strawmen and misrepresentations, and that, combined with the title, leads me to the conclusion that you were trolling.
Show me the strawmen and misrepresentations, I can assure you that they weren't on purpose. And so what if you only used the term twice? You've still used it .
Neverfox:You do realize that the left-libertarians that were linked to above (myself included) are market anarchists right? That reject collectivism, central planning, collusion and lack of competition? Where did you get the idea that any of this represents the view of left market anarchists? To be left simply means recognizing that libertarian principles entail endorsing certain other fights against forms of non-economic coercion (your not mentioning a single non-economic point is telling) like sexism, racism etc. Perhaps you are lumping us in with anarcho-communists etc. which I suppose is left also but that's not what the forum linked to above advocates.
Your signature violates the forum rules. Please remove the link to your own site.
As for the rest, I have no interest in rehashing the last 6 months of debate. You guys insist that you have the correct values and causes to fight for, and those who do not overtly agree, or insist upon conflating (along with you) such values with libertarianism are vulgar.
The straw manning is tiresome.
GilesStratton:My point was that the left libertarians were conflating corporations with what's now known as "big business" attacking the latter and then proclaiming victory as to having "defeated" the former.
The arguments against big business and the arguments against corporations as such are distinct, although related.
GilesStratton: Which is essentially "vulgar" according to left as it confuses the corporate facism and free market capitalism.
The whole point is that there never has been a free market, and that defending the products of today's non-free market as being free market is wrong.
GilesStratton:Perhaps, if you don't like being labelled as vulgar you shouldn't throw the term around so easily. Actually you may have missed it but I spent the post addressing what I believed to be the fallacious arguments of Mr Long and Mr Carson, it was not intended to be provoking or disruptive.
It's ok when Rod Long or BP do it. The compassionate, egalitarian, social justice crowd is better than you. When they spit on you, it's with love.
sirmonty:Not if you honestly felt that way and actually backed it up with some sort of reasoning.
Back up posts with reason? Pushaw!
Note that it is Giles who initially brings these things up, and the LLF post he references is more of a reaction to HIM than anyone else (it references to HIS thead that HE started, which attacks left-libertarians and is trollish). Note that Giles misrepresents people in order to get a reaction from them so that he can claim LL's are irrational. Just look at his signature: "conservatism = libertarianism", which previously was "conservatism, feudalism, anti-egalitarianism - otherwise known as libertarianism". He's purposefully trying to anger people. Also note that me and other LL's do not going around starting threads here attacking right-libertarians.
wombatron:The whole point is that there never has been a free market, and that defending the products of today's non-free market as being free market is wrong.
And that is a fallacious idiotic strawman, that is repeated over and over. Who here at Mises.org, staff, alumni, community members actually proposes that what we have today is a free market? Who here actually proposes that everything in the commercial sphere would be identical without a state?
You already know the answer. No one. There is no one (maybe Giles if he is being deliberately disingenuous) who believes this.
And yet it is the moronic rallying cry of the LLs. You and all of your other childish, misguided, divisive crybabies. LLs are the uber trolls of libertarianism, because you guys fabricate and perpetuate strawmen, and when called on it, evade or duck defending your statements.
The reason why Rod Long lost the "conflation argument" is that his positions, the definining positions of the left one could say, are bankrupt. An uneducated layman like myself can pick them apart. Even you still can't defend the attack on the corporate form or size of firms.
When you lack resources, and rational ideas, and integrity, you are going nowhere. That is the LLs. Unfortunately, you guys will continue to flirt with the left, and continue to make the job of genuine libertarians, who are only concerned with an uncoercive post-state world, that much harder.
wombatron:The arguments against big business and the arguments against corporations as such are distinct,
And part of my point was that the arguments are being conflated. They're only related in this sense big business is usually in the form of corporations. Of course, small business can too.
No it's not wrong to defend the products of today's market, what's wrong is the fallacious argument of guilt by association.
Brainpolice:Note that it is Giles who initially brings these things up, and the LLF post he references is more of a reaction to HIM than anyone else (it references to HIS thead that HE started, which attacks left-libertarians and is trollish).
Yes, and it was the wrong reaction. That's the whole point of this topic.
Brainpolice:ote that Giles misrepresents people in order to get a reaction from them so that he can claim LL's are irrational.
Substantiate this, please.
Brainpolice:Just look at his signature: "conservatism = libertarianism", which previously was "conservatism, feudalism, anti-egalitarianism - otherwise known as libertarianism".
I believe that libertarianism will lead to a society that is far more conservative than today's. What's more, I can support that claim with an argument. Rather than attempt to address this argument you prefer to play the victim.
Brainpolice:Also note that me and other LL's do not going around starting threads here attacking right-libertarians.
I didn't attack anybody, I address a fallacious argument. There's a saying that particularly dislike that is, nonetheless, applicable here that mentions kitchens, heat and staying out.