Left-Libertarianism

re: Left-Libertarianism

Faithkills — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 23:36:22 GMT

necromancy ftw

It may be that many 'right' libertarians believe that a free market will cause things to be more or less the same but with more 'freedom'. Personally I see the result of truly free markets as being not just the best, but only, possible means of addressing things like income de-diversification.

So I guess I would say.. if you agree on method with 'right' libertarians but not on the expected result that (you think) they desire.. why quibble?

I also think you underestimate economic and otherwise serious libertarians in not understanding the results of true freedom, should it be attained, and that they don't desire those results.

One very big reason I am anti-state is because I am anti-big business, and anti oligarchy. We've experimented enough with the results of increasing the state to accomplish those ends. We know it doesn't work.

So unless you propose to figure out new and clever ways to use the state to curtail other aggregations of power, as opposed to freedom that 'right' libertarians think they want, then I find myself very much agreeing.

But I wouldn't care to call myself right or left. Both of those words are artifacts democracy.

re: Left-Libertarianism

cork 2 — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 20:42:39 GMT

Those who support political borders are economically ignorant. However, other people that support political borders belief in cultural superiority. (cultural imperialism) Social conservatives are more likely to support political borders to preserve their culture. They support political borders only because they believe that their religion is superior. They oppose godless foreigners promoting atheism.

Only a tiny fraction of those who support borders are racists. So Brainpolice's attempt of using empirical reasoning to find a correlation between racism and religion is flawed. Empirical reasoning is bad.

re: Left-Libertarianism

cork-2 — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 20:27:57 GMT

Brainpolice also seems to agree on a political *spectrum*, which implies that paleoconservatism is "less" rightist than neoconservatism; and that minarchism is "less" harmful than big government. But mall governments tend to get corrupt and turn big. So believing in the political spectrum is equivalent to believing in reforming.

There is no "spectrum" of anarchism; and It is clearly black and white. Support it or oppose it. Peroid. There is no "moderate" position such as minarchism.

re: Left-Libertarianism

cork-2 — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 20:12:31 GMT

Correction -- genetic determinists are more likely to support conservatism, not the other way around.

But my point is that Brainpolice seems to classify all "rightists" as racist, religions, etc. That is a form of collectivism.

Religious people are more likely to support social conservatism, but that does not mean that they support conservatism, as a whole. There are many socialist religious people.

Also, Brainpolice attempts to assume that people can be both religious and genetic determinists at the same time. But correlation does not imply causation. These two groups are people are entirely different; they just support the the same conservatism.

Almost all racists are white. Almost all whites are religious. Therefore, you assume that these two variables, such as religion and racism are correlated. But religious whites tend to oppose racism and some racists believe in evolution. Brainpolice seems to arbitrarily associate all the connotaions with rightists. That is not true. This is an overgeneralization. In fact, Germany's policies in the 1930s are quite liberal, by definition.

What I commented is that not all ideologies nicely fit together in a dualistic "dichotomy." Brainpolice seems to be collectivist when associating all ideologies in only two groups.

re: Left-Libertarianism

cork-2 — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 19:36:40 GMT

These ideas that the left and right fit exactly together, as Brainpolice commented.

Rightists are mainly hereditarians, who believe that genes have a large impact of living beings. They believe that the current wealth distribution and social inequality stems from the genetic impact of groups. They are more likely to not give a *** about the poor because they believe that it is genetic. They are also more likely to be racist because they are genetic determinists and that the current racial inequality is purely genetic. They are more likely to defend the current status quo just because they think that our current inequalities are "natural," caused by the genetic differences.

Leftists are mainly environmental determinists, who deny that genes have a large impact. Thus, they are more likely to support the working class and racial minorities because they believe that these inequalities are evironmentally determined, such as influenced by state oppression. They are less likely to defend the current status quo.

Because of their anger of the current status quo, they would apply their anger to do radical counter-economic strategies. Rightists are more likely to support the status quo so they do not want to do radical things, and stick with reforms.

Religion does not have a large correlation with the belief in whether genes have an impact. In fact, most religious people believe in creationism, so they are less likely to hold this idea of genes.

People of all religions and atheists can have conservative views. Racial minorities in the United States are more likely to be atheist so they oppose religion in politics. Also, almost all whites are religious. So associating religion with conservatism is an Americanism. Not all types of conservatives are religious. But religion has a high correlation with the belief in values that do not change, so religious people are more likely to believe in social conservativism.

Leftists are more likely to be freethinkers because they are more open-minded to research about anarchism. They are more likely to change their moral values so they would be more tolerant to change in state religion.

The true definitions of conservatism is opposing change, and the word liberal is opposing the current status quo because they disagree with it. They do not have anything to do with religion, hereditarianism, per se.

re: Left-Libertarianism

Brainpolice — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 20:26:23 GMT

In the original meaning of the word (not the majoritarian or electoral politics one), anarchism IS democracy. It is a voluntary participatory market democracy. In either case, I don't see what inspired this comment on democracy or what it has to do with anything previously stated.

re: Left-Libertarianism

Cork2 — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 23:00:20 GMT

True democracy, without the constraints dictatorialy imposed by the Constitution, would inevitably lead to chaos. But that does not imply that dictatorship is better. Dictatorship is a monopoly imposed on everyone, by force. An right-wing dictatorship use

wars such as force to restrain competition, thus implying that left-wings' opposition to wars would render prosperity by competition. However, the left-wings' forced collectivist control of the state would hinder competition no matter how many rival states competing. True competition can only exist with the right to private property controlled by a single individual, which means the right to discriminate and impose the views of a single individual on everyone. Thus, this might be equated to a voluntary dictatorship by some, but competition and respect of private property, unlike the unilaterally imposed coercive dictatorship by right-wing governments, would excel utility unlike any right-left dichotomy.

True anarchists do not identify to the left nor the right. They all have disagreements--leftists view that voluntary racism cannot exist and rightists view that voluntary socialism cannot exist. But they all have the same belief--those inharmonous views are based on emotion gut-feeling reactions. They believe in the same thing, but use labels that have ambiguous and emotional connotations. All dichotomies have paradoxes.

re: Left-Libertarianism

Cork — Thu, 29 May 2008 01:19:11 GMT

"In fact, I'm insulted when "leftists" characterize me as some kind of convervative or "right-wing anarchist". "

Same here. But after all of the (astoundingly vicious) abuse I've taken from the left over years of politely trying to connect with them, I have basically just given up and said "screw it." I refuse to suck up to these morons and prefer to simply mock them. Frankly, they're the biggest group of losers on the planet--which is where all the 'egalitarian' bs comes from. I've come to enjoy being denounced by them, to be honest.

If all you're saying that you prefer to think of yourself as being on the Tucker-Spooner "left," then I can understand and sympathize. Maybe you could make a post showing the left-wing roots of market anarchism, if that is what you are saying. That could be interesting.

re: Left-Libertarianism

Nitroadict — Wed, 28 May 2008 17:32:39 GMT

Here Here, BP.

Perhaps a different term might be appropriate for left-libertarianism then?

Of course, that would just add to the words, which probably wouldn't help at this point, unless the new word / term was linguistically clear enough to be different, I suppose.

re: Left-Libertarianism

Brainpolice — Wed, 28 May 2008 07:09:55 GMT

The problem is that I don't consider myself to be a part of "the right" and to buy into that characterization is simply to allow the false definitions of current politics to falsely peg us. In fact, I'm insulted when "leftists" characterize me as some kind of convervative or "right-wing anarchist". Why allow the false spectrum of contemporary politics to mischaracterize us? What "most people" think about the political spectrum is wrong. I will do everything in my power to make it clear that I am NOT a part of "the right" and I want absolutely nothing to do with it. I don't want contemporary politics to paint me, a square peg, into a round hole that I don't fit.

re: Left-Libertarianism

Brainpolice — Wed, 28 May 2008 07:07:00 GMT

Well I'm saying that to place it on "the right" is simply to buy into the false paradime of modern politics. Why allow the contemporary political spectrum to misrepresent us? I don't consider myself to be part of "the right" at all. I'm actually insulted by people characterizing me as a conservative or a "right-wing anarchist". I'm saying that what "most people" think about the political spectrum is simply wrong and I refuse to allow myself to be mischaracterized by it.

re: Left-Libertarianism

Cork — Wed, 28 May 2008 04:48:03 GMT

Brainpolice,

"It's a difference in economic theory, not means. So long as they don't advocate political means, it's fairly trivial actually. Genuinely voluntary socialists actually tend to think that the outcome of a free market would reflect an LTV, not that the LTV implies that something should be imposed."

Fair enough, but that still amounts to a gigantic philosophical difference, even if it doesn't amount to a big difference politically. One group thinks capitalists exploit workers, the other doesn't. That is a pretty important difference, no?

""The left" has always had anti-authoritarian tendencies. Traditionally, it is "the left" who has most often been opposed to war, militarism, nationalism, racism and chauvenism."

This arguing is a little pointless. Sure, all those things are bad, and it's generally (but not exclusively) the right that loves them. But as a matter of basic, modern terminology, ancap (if it can even be placed on the political spectrum) would generally be considered as part of the libertarian "right." "Left-wing" today means collectivism, democracy, radical egalitarianism and so on.

"The statement that "all leftist political theories advocate communal control" is simply false once one realizes that the entire tradition of individualist anarchism is part of "the left"."

Yes, I explicitly acknowledged that, and said individualist anarchism is a rarity and a lesser known "left" philosophy. It is a political enigma, in that it buys into the exploitation theory but still endorses a quasi-capitalist market economy.

"It seems to me that the implication of your worldview is that "the right" is somehow inherently anti-statist or anti-authoriarian, at least in comparison to "the left"."

No, not at all. There are plenty of bad guys on the right. I'm just saying that most people would put ancap on the *libertarian* right, if it can be placed on the overly simplistic left-right spectrum at all. This is because it is extremely individualistic, pro-market, etc. Those things are associated with the "right" today.

re: Left-Libertarianism

Brainpolice — Wed, 28 May 2008 04:00:20 GMT

"What really matters, it seems, is if an individual passes the Walter Block test of a plumb-line libertarian."

The way I define my terms, a left-libertarian IS a "plumb-line libertarian", while a right-libertarian isn't quite plumb-line enough and comparatively "moderate" in both the content of their position and their strategy for liberty. The left-libertarian is much deeper in "the plumbline" because their anti-authoritarianism is broader than just anti-statism. They are "thick libertarians".

"What Hoppe seems to indicate, is that a free civilization would have a multitude of different kinds of associations."

Then why does his openly stated worldview appear to rather blatantly advocate extreme homogeniety when the implications of a free society are supposed to actually be pluralistic?

re: Left-Libertarianism

Brainpolice — Wed, 28 May 2008 03:55:38 GMT

"The subjective theory of value and time preference make a colossal difference, though. Without them, you’ve got the tired Marxist exploitation theory that capitalists steal “surplus value” from the workers. That is a pretty enormous, crucial deviation, don’t you think?"

It's a difference in economic theory, not means. So long as they don't advocate political means, it's fairly trivial actually. Genuinely voluntary socialists actually tend to think that the outcome of a free market would reflect an LTV, not that the LTV implies that something should be imposed. The LTV, while a wrong theory, does not necessarily imply support for political means. And political vs. voluntary means is what truly matters.

"And what do you mean by “anti-authoritarian left?” All leftist political theories advocate communal control over all people and resources (yes, mutualism may be an exception, but it’s an extreme rarity). I’ve never met a leftist who wasn’t a wannabe dictator."

"The left" has always had anti-authoritarian tendencies. Traditionally, it is "the left" who has most often been opposed to war, militarism, nationalism, racism and chauvenism. Those are all forms of authoritarianism worth opposing and I'm not aware of a broad group of "rightists" who oppose them. In fact, traditionally it's best the "rightists" who support them the most.

The statement that "all leftist political theories advocate communal control" is simply false once one realizes that the entire tradition of individualist anarchism is part of "the left". It seems to me that the implication of your worldview is that "the right" is somehow inherently anti-statist or anti-authoriarian, at least in comparison to "the left". I don't buy that at all.

re: Left-Libertarianism

rothbardian — Wed, 28 May 2008 03:16:32 GMT

A debate over a libertarian spectrum of left versus right seems mostly distracting. There have been times when the term left-libertarian and right-libertarian have been applied in which the definitions of these terms meant almost the opposite (minus cultural preference) as they have been applied here in this post. At LRC, for example, the term left-libertarian has been used on those who are pro-war and those who support the centralization of governmental power. If we apply the term right-libertarian to LRC, then it is hard to say that they think “big business is America's most persecuted minority.”

What really matters, it seems, is if an individual passes the Walter Block test of a plumb-line libertarian. Does the “right” fall into bad habits? Perhaps. But, as Tucker has said, so does the “left.” Plumb-line libertarianism should straighten both out. Saying that we are “left” or that we are “right” just adds to confusion.

But, I am curious. Who exactly are all of these Hoppeans, as a replier indicates, who daydream about their purest, utopian society without thinking if it can ever happen? Hasn’t Hoppe written about the need for a strategy of secession and about personal withdraw from government? Now I am someone who would probably be defined as on the “right” in cultural preferences, but I am not idealist (and I doubt Hoppe is or that his supporters are). Plus I doubt you could find any serious person who thinks everyone would have the same culture or (absurdly enough!) the same religion. What Hoppe seems to indicate, is that a free civilization would have a multitude of different kinds of associations.