General

Re: Those Silly Misoids.

Jon Irenicus — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 19:52:56 GMT

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.

Re: Those Silly Misoids.

Juan — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 19:45:29 GMT

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.

Re: Those Silly Misoids.

hayekianxyz — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 19:38:30 GMT

Which is silly.

Re: Those Silly Misoids.

wombatron — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 19:36:06 GMT

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.

Re: Those Silly Misoids.

AndrewKemendo — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 19:31:34 GMT

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.

Re: Those Silly Misoids.

wombatron — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 19:25:17 GMT

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.

Re: Those Silly Misoids.

Jon Irenicus — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 18:38:50 GMT

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.

Re: Those Silly Misoids.

hayekianxyz — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 17:22:39 GMT

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.

Re: Those Silly Misoids.

hayekianxyz — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 17:18:33 GMT

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.

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.

No it's not wrong to defend the products of today's market, what's wrong is the fallacious argument of guilt by association.

Re: Those Silly Misoids.

liberty student — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 17:13:09 GMT

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.

Re: Those Silly Misoids.

Brainpolice — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 17:04:26 GMT

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.

Re: Those Silly Misoids.

liberty student — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 17:02:45 GMT

sirmonty:
Not if you honestly felt that way and actually backed it up with some sort of reasoning.

Back up posts with reason? Pushaw!

Re: Those Silly Misoids.

liberty student — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 17:01:53 GMT

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.

Re: Those Silly Misoids.

wombatron — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 16:58:47 GMT

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.

Re: Those Silly Misoids.

liberty student — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 16:54:06 GMT

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.