Political Theory

Re: Why or how did Roderick Long become a left-libertarian?

Mises Pieces — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 14:08:45 GMT

"You're right. Of course, I'm not a libertarian. I'm an amoralist with a preference for traditionalist or customary property orders who defend themselves with extreme prejudice and absolute ruthlessness. Libertarians are nothing but the antiquated branch of the Progressive movements, which is to say one of the many splinter groups from Atheistic Calvinism born in the American Revolution. Revolution is chaos."

What are your reasons for preferring the traditionalist order over the hypothetical spontaneous order in a libertarian society as predicted by praxeology?

Re: Why or how did Roderick Long become a left-libertarian?

Marko — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 05:06:59 GMT

Long was an Old Right pro-war hawk in the 80's; he's said that after he became an anarchist he became more and more attracted to cultural leftism, and now he's a left-libertarian market anarchist.

The zeal of the convert then.

Re: Why or how did Roderick Long become a left-libertarian?

AndrewR — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 22:18:38 GMT

Libertarian was actually a moniker created in revolutionary France to identify a movement of proto-communists, so 'left-libertarians' are probably ideologically closer to their philosophical progenitors, from what I've read in various places. As such, I now consider myself a reactionary liberal in the same sense that Mr Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn did. In Liberty or Equality he explained how the term liberal shares two different meanings:

The American/Anglo-Saxon definition identifies someone who is obsessed with rights, levelling society and all the various strains of leftist thought.

The Continental European definition instead refers to someone who is a traditionalist, a believer in the natural order and deeply suspicious of a managerial, democratic government.

I used to think that libertarianism was being subverted by left-wingers, but now I suspect it was their baby all along.

Re: Why or how did Roderick Long become a left-libertarian?

Nitroadict — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 04:32:29 GMT

How about stop being such an attention whore and turning every thread into a discussion about your views on whatever.

Is that against the rules?

Nope.

Re: Why or how did Roderick Long become a left-libertarian?

Sage — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 03:11:20 GMT

How about stop being such an attention whore and turning every thread into a discussion about your views on whatever.

Re: Why or how did Roderick Long become a left-libertarian?

Vichy Army — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 02:30:34 GMT

1) It really pisses off left libertarians when you bring this fact up ("let's just say they are both bad", this works with monarchy vs democracy as well)

And I do love pissing off left-libertarians. Though, as they tend to be economically retarded in addition to being philosophically retarded, they are even more annoying to talk to than Libertarians.

2) they have awesome uniforms, this is just a fact

Yes, in fact this is probably something that appeals to me about them: the assertive and aesthetic identarianism, the futurism. I have something of a Heidegger or Ernst Junger feeling about this: there is something to be said for an entire nation basically saying, "F*** you!" to the world and dressing up in midnight black gear with skulls on it, even if their reasons for doing so were ultimately silly.

The fact that the capitalists and entrepreneurs, faced with the alternative of Communism or Nazism, chose the latter, does not require any further explanation. They preferred to live as shop managers under Hitler than to be “liquidated” as “bourgeois” by Stalin. Capitalists don’t like to be killed any more than other people do.

Mises, as usual, was right.

Re: Why or how did Roderick Long become a left-libertarian?

JAlanKatz — Sun, 25 Apr 2010 22:30:56 GMT

I don't get that idea Nielsio. NAP is of course not just about economic freedom, and I don't think I've suggested otherwise. However, it doesn't include things like not being homophobic or racist, which are clearly compatible with libertarianism.

Now, you might be referring to the fact that one of the leftist values I identified is the option of pursuing options in life that don't maximize monetary income. It is true that libertarianism does not guarantee such a world. It is possible for such an arrangement to come about in libertopia that there is not sufficient arable land to buy for me to live, and that food is very expensive.

Re: Why or how did Roderick Long become a left-libertarian?

Nielsio — Sun, 25 Apr 2010 22:24:39 GMT

Where you do (and others) get the idea that libertarianism is only about economic (monetary) freedom?

When we say that you own your life, your liberty and your property, this goes just as much for economic matters as it goes for the exchange of any other values.

Re: Why or how did Roderick Long become a left-libertarian?

JAlanKatz — Sun, 25 Apr 2010 21:36:28 GMT

Well, I have no insight into the original question. I can say why I call myself a left-libertarian, though. Essentially, I believe that libertarianism (defined as NAP or something like that) is necessary for a free society, but not sufficient. To be free, a society has to be libertarian and, in my opinion, culturally leftist - that is, have things like tolerance for diversity and make it possible to pursue non-monetary values. So I'm a libertarian because of the first part, and add on left- because of the second claim. Of course, I don't think that it's acceptable to use non-libertarian means to get those ends. Libertarianism comes first, which is why left is the modifier on it, not libertarian-leftist.

Re: Why or how did Roderick Long become a left-libertarian?

nirgrahamUK — Sun, 25 Apr 2010 12:58:30 GMT

>>They weren't Bolsheviks.

Mises:
The fact that the capitalists and entrepreneurs, faced with the alternative of Communism or Nazism, chose the latter, does not require any further explanation. They preferred to live as shop managers under Hitler than to be “liquidated” as “bourgeois” by Stalin. Capitalists don’t like to be killed any more than other people do.

Re: Why or how did Roderick Long become a left-libertarian?

nandnor — Sun, 25 Apr 2010 10:35:18 GMT

You're right. Of course, I'm not a libertarian. I'm an amoralist with a preference for traditionalist or customary property orders who defend themselves with extreme prejudice and absolute ruthlessness. Libertarians are nothing but the antiquated branch of the Progressive movements, which is to say one of the many splinter groups from Atheistic Calvinism born in the American Revolution. Revolution is chaos.

How about stop being such an attention whore and turning every thread into a discussion about your views on whatever.

Re: Why or how did Roderick Long become a left-libertarian?

William — Sun, 25 Apr 2010 06:48:44 GMT

Liberté:

Oh boy! Oh boy! Oh boy!

I forgot how goofy he looked in that outfit.

You can say one thing about the fascists. They weren't Bolsheviks.

I don't think I share your sympathy for the fascists /nazis but it is true that they are the lesser of two evils than Bolsheviks and Maoists.

This gives them two (and only two) advantages in life

1) It really pisses off left libertarians when you bring this fact up ("let's just say they are both bad", this works with monarchy vs democracy as well)

2) they have awesome uniforms, this is just a fact

Re: Why or how did Roderick Long become a left-libertarian?

Vichy Army — Sun, 25 Apr 2010 05:40:06 GMT

Oh boy! Oh boy! Oh boy!

I forgot how goofy he looked in that outfit.

You can say one thing about the fascists. They weren't Bolsheviks.

Re: Why or how did Roderick Long become a left-libertarian?

fancyshirtman — Sun, 25 Apr 2010 05:37:55 GMT

Oh boy! Oh boy! Oh boy!

Re: Why or how did Roderick Long become a left-libertarian?

Esuric — Sun, 25 Apr 2010 05:30:48 GMT

I'm an amoralist with a preference for traditionalist or customary property orders who defend themselves with extreme prejudice and absolute ruthlessness.

lol