Those Silly Misoids.

Wait so someone can't criticize Left Libertarians without being considered a troll now?

No, obviously not. It's fair game to constantly whinge about right-libertarians being "vulgar", but not the converse... necessarily so! I'm of half a mind to shut this silly thread.

Jon Irenicus:

No, obviously not. It's fair game to constantly whinge about right-libertarians being "vulgar", but not the converse... necessarily so! I'm of half a mind to shut this silly thread.

That would probably be for the best.  Unless we get new material and/or new participants, the left-right debate is just going to go in circles.

Neverfox:

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.

I think you missed a word in your sentence, kind of hard to interpret without whatever word you missed

Egalitarianism gives examples of "passive coercion" such as letting someone starve or freeze to death. This is implicitly saying that individuals have positive rights of things that sustain life rather than just the freedom to attain those things.

Is this not what you mean? Every person who is egalitarian I have talked to says as much.

AndrewKemendo:

I think you missed a word in your sentence, kind of hard to interpret without whatever word you missed

Egalitarianism gives examples of "passive coercion" such as letting someone starve or freeze to death. This is implicitly saying that individuals have positive rights of things that sustain life rather than just the freedom to attain those things.

Is this not what you mean? Every person who is egalitarian I have talked to says as much.

He means egalitarianism in this sense.

 

Which is silly.

Wombatron:

Unless we get new material and/or new participants, the left-right debate is just going to go in circles.

I guess it's been already done but what about pointing out that 'left' may mean at least 3 different things here ?

1) left-libertarianism means rejection of ordinary electoral/statist politics. No socialism there, quite the opposite.
2) left-libertarianism means rejection of 'conservative values'. In my opinion rejection of conservative values is plain libertarianism.
3) left-libertarianism means some left-libertarians have sympathies for economic systems that, while being voluntary, are not precisely conducent to the creation of a sophisticated industrial society.

That would probably be for the best.  Unless we get new material and/or new participants, the left-right debate is just going to go in circles.

Yep. Anarcho-semantics.