In the libertarian movement we have anarchists and minarchists. On the anarchist side there are left-libertarians and right-libertarians. But on the minarchist side, there are only right-libertarians (as far as I'm aware). Why is this?
I became an anarchist by following the limited government-Constitutionalist-minarchist path. But it wasn't until I was an anarchist that I started taking "left-wing" concerns and thick libertarianism seriously; now I consider myself a left-libertarian.
So why is it that anarchists can be right or left-wing, but minarchists are mostly, if not all, rightists?
LibertarianAnarchy.com - Government is immoral, unnecessary, and doesn't work!
There is no such thing as right/left libertarianism. Right and left is a false political paradigm. However, I have seen left-libertarians, as you have, try to identify with causes and issues you consider property or domain of the left exclusively, which is just a perpetuation of the false paradigm.
Sage:I started taking "left-wing" concerns and thick libertarianism seriously
I think it's goofy and counter-productive. Most of the division is perpetuated by the left libertarians, who seek to distinguish their brand of libertarianism (ironically, marginalizing it further).
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
Sage: now I consider myself a left-libertarian.
In what way?
There are a few (very few). David Nolan, the founder of the LP, could be considered a left-minarchist. He's the only big name I can think of off the top of my head.
Market anarchist, Linux geek, aspiring Perl hacker, and student of the neo-Aristotelians, the classical individualist anarchists, and the Austrian school.
Leftist anarchists see in the protection of property a form of government (eg. I am preventing you from using my property however you like). As you can imagine, a government solely dedicated to protecting property (minarchism) isn't likely to go over very well with them.
Leftists generally desire more government intervention, and not less, in order to counteract the "government" that is property. I am not familiar as to how left-libertarians intend to overcome the authority of property without supporting a stronger state, but the answer probably lies in the definition of property, in relation to what is admissible under (libertarian) law - eg. is one allowed to shoot trespassers on one's property, to build fences preventing movement, etc.
liberty student: There is no such thing as right/left libertarianism. Right and left is a false political paradigm.
There is no such thing as right/left libertarianism. Right and left is a false political paradigm.
The whole debate really strikes me as a kind of matryoshka doll, where a whole new libertarian (or anarchist) paradigm is created but only leads back to the main point of contention between liberalism and socialism (which is property). The feeling is rather unsettling.
Nick Ricci: Leftist anarchists see in the protection of property a form of government (eg. I am preventing you from using my property however you like). As you can imagine, a government solely dedicated to protecting property (minarchism) isn't likely to go over very well with them. Leftists generally desire more government intervention, and not less, in order to counteract the "government" that is property. I am not familiar as to how left-libertarians intend to overcome the authority of property without supporting a stronger state, but the answer probably lies in the definition of property, in relation to what is admissible under (libertarian) law - eg. is one allowed to shoot trespassers on one's property, to build fences preventing movement, etc.
Wrong kind of "left-libertarianism" (an admittedly ambiguous label). This is what he's talking about.
wombatron: Wrong kind of "left-libertarianism" (an admittedly ambiguous label). This is what he's talking about.
Fair enough, though I've read opinions fairly close to what I'm describing on the "left-libertarian" forum that GilesStratton recently commented on.
Are there, then, any practical differences between left and right libertarianism? The essays on the site you've linked to give me the impression that the difference is mostly cosmetic, with right-libertarians preferring a conservative aesthetic and left-libertarians preferring a "progressive" aesthetic.
Nick Ricci:Fair enough, though I've read opinions fairly close to what I'm describing on the "left-libertarian" forum that GilesStratton recently commented on.
Wombatron is the Lord of that forum. The Grand PooBah. El Presidente. The Imperious Leader.
Nick Ricci:Are there, then, any practical differences between left and right libertarianism? The essays on the site you've linked to give me the impression that the difference is mostly cosmetic, with right-libertarians preferring a conservative aesthetic and left-libertarians preferring a "progressive" aesthetic.
This is an insightful question. Beware of strawman answers however.
Personally, I don't even consider "left-libertarians" real leftists. So they're capitalists with some "leftist" concerns, which supposedly makes them "left-libertarians." REAL leftists want to abolish capitalism* and private property.
* With 2 seconds some LL will say, "Duuurrrr it dupends on how you define capitalism." *yawn*
liberty student:Wombatron is the Lord of that forum. The Grand PooBah. El Presidente. The Imperious Leader.
Benevolent Anarcho-Dictatar for Life and Keeper of the Almighty Banhammer
And as far as your question goes, Nick, a lot of it is cosmetic and differences of emphasis, at least as far as agorists and left-Rothbardians go. There is more emphasis on traditonally "leftist" cultural issues, such as feminism and racism, and on alternative methods of economic organization. Left-libertarians are also almost always opposed to IP and the use of electoral politics, although those positions are by no means only held by LLs. One more substansive difference is that LLs tend to see social anarchists and the broader anti-war, anti-authoratarian Left as being allies.
Wombatron, that is an excellent definition, one that avoids defining LL by what it is against, and rather by what it is for.
Question. Do you (YOU) believe there is a left and right libertarianism, and that the right is not necessarily "vulgar libertarianism" but a different economic and social approach, no more pro-state than the libertarian left?
liberty student:Question. Do you (YOU) believe there is a left and right libertarianism, and that the right is not necessarily "vulgar libertarianism" but a different economic and social approach, no more pro-state than the libertarian left?
Yes.
I actually think that the defintion of left-libertarianism has changed since Konkin used in in oppostion to what he saw as the Right of reformism, gradualism, partyarchy, and minarchy. By his original defintion (anti-electoral, anarchist, counter-economic), LvMI is left-libertarian (). Now, the best way to define it is as being a group of tendencies that turn out to have a lot of values and goals in common, rather than being part of a left-right spectrum.
And I don't think that all non-LLs are vulgar libertarians. That originated as a specific critique of closet statism that has unfortunately been misapplied on occasion. For example, while I disagree with Hoppe on many issues, I wouldn't call him a vulgar libertarian. I wouldn't hesitate to call most of Cato or the Adam Smith Institute vulgar, though.
I tend to agree with some of those previous that the definition and significance of property is the real sticking point, and one I've been unable to see a bridge across. There are some here that see property as an inter-generational absolute, valid and eternal with as little an act as saying it's yours first (DIBS!!!). Others take a more moderate approach, saying you own what you "mix your labor with", what you labor upon, improve, or what have you. Alas, this introduces a whole new set of issues, such as how much labor is required. Is digging a hole for your poo enough to claim the surrounding ten acres? And, in any case, how do you decide whose claim is prior if you have existing claims, etc., etc. The anarcho-capitalists say they'll usually work it out rationally because that's the most cost effective much of the time, but it seems to me that assumes that this conception of property is rational in the first place. Minarchists, it seems to me, are otherwise anarcho-capitalists who are unable to see their absolutist definitions of property working without some central authority and record-keeper. I tend to agree with the minarchists to that degree, and disagree on the necessity of such an absolute property working, instead preferring a usufrucht or some similar system. Ideally, to my mind, the "mixing of labor" that allows for homesteading allows exclusive claim only of the object/area directly altered, and only for that purpose. For instance, should one man start mining beneath a mountain, he ought have exclusive rights to his tunnels, so long as he is using them, but no right to tell me whether or not I may graze my sheep above, so long as my activities do not interfere with his. In other words, both the left and the right have versions of the NAP, but because of our different views on property, each can view the other as an aggressor at the same time. I suppose that another difference left-anarchists have is a greater sympathy for the labor theory of value. Most likely, conflicts would arise as the leftist violates the other's property as he sees it, and the rightist therefore attacks the leftist bodily. The rest, with feminism and all that, is just window-dressing, mere unenforceable opinion in a society without a state. No, it is the definition of property which is the intractable problem. I, too, started out moving through the right-libertarian-minarchist to anarcho-capitalist to what might be called the left-anarchist side of things. Only now do I feel that my position is truly defensible, although the exact rules defining exclusive use are still something I'm working through.
liberty student: Nick Ricci:Fair enough, though I've read opinions fairly close to what I'm describing on the "left-libertarian" forum that GilesStratton recently commented on. Wombatron is the Lord of that forum. The Grand PooBah. El Presidente. The Imperious Leader.
Just like you're the Grand Puba of this one
The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can't tolerate a libertarian community.
wombatron: liberty student:Wombatron is the Lord of that forum. The Grand PooBah. El Presidente. The Imperious Leader. Benevolent Anarcho-Dictatar for Life and Keeper of the Almighty Banhammer
Careful now, you might be called some sort of monarchist. Or worse yet, you'd better not stop posting on those forums for a second, you might be considered an absentee landlord and have your forums homesteaded.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Usurper!
To darkness I condemn you...
One more substansive difference is that LLs tend to see social anarchists and the broader anti-war, anti-authoratarian Left as being allies.
The supposed allies' pathological hatred of profits makes me reticent to even want to associate with them.
Jon Irenicus:The supposed allies' pathological hatred of profits makes me reticent to even want to associate with them.
Probably should have clarified. The ones I see as allies take a live-and-let-live attitude, which is surprisingly common among even anarcho-communists. The rest are vulgar collectivists who are functionally state-socialists. Chomsky comes to mind...
Jon Irenicus: Wombatron is the Lord of that forum. The Grand PooBah. El Presidente. The Imperious Leader. Usurper!
Perhaps one should be more concerned about one's own position:
Thedesolateone: Just like you're (liberty student) the Grand Puba of this one
Just like you're (liberty student) the Grand Puba of this one
I smell a revolution brewing! BRAKE HIS WINDOWZ!!1!!1!
Roderick Long: A question I can answer is: why do I call myself a left-libertarian? First, on many of the issues over which mainstream libertarians are divided, I end up on what would generally be perceived as the “left” side of the issue: anarchist, anti-militarist, anti-intellectual-property, anti-punishment (so a fortiori anti-death-penalty), anti-big-business, pro-immigration, pro-abortion, pro-secularism, pro-gay-rights, etc ... Plus, I think race and gender are largely social constructs; ... But beyond that, I share a lot of “left-ish” cultural concerns that are usually not thought of nowadays as libertarian issues (though historically they were), such as a concern for worker empowerment (see Beyond the Boss and Platonic Productivity) and an opposition to male supremacy ... I recognise the existence of non-state forms of oppression
A question I can answer is: why do I call myself a left-libertarian?
First, on many of the issues over which mainstream libertarians are divided, I end up on what would generally be perceived as the “left” side of the issue: anarchist, anti-militarist, anti-intellectual-property, anti-punishment (so a fortiori anti-death-penalty), anti-big-business, pro-immigration, pro-abortion, pro-secularism, pro-gay-rights, etc
...
Plus, I think race and gender are largely social constructs;
But beyond that, I share a lot of “left-ish” cultural concerns that are usually not thought of nowadays as libertarian issues (though historically they were), such as a concern for worker empowerment (see Beyond the Boss and Platonic Productivity) and an opposition to male supremacy
I recognise the existence of non-state forms of oppression
Silly lefties.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap