Group

 Ok, we have a new group.  Now what do we do?

Well, I'd assume you'd want to spark some kind of discussion about or internal to left-libertarianism and Rothbard's analysis in "Left and Right: The Prospects for Liberty" and Roderick Long's "Left and Right: 40 Years Later". I was inspired heavily by both the original article and Long's retrospective speech.

You also might want to make use of the independant blog that your group has to post either your own stuff or maybe some kind of aggregation of left-libertarian type of material. I can see the media section being useful for videos from a left-libertarian bent. It's all up to you, it's your group.

Perhaps "left-libertarian" should be defined. What say you?

Brainpolice:

Perhaps "left-libertarian" should be defined. What say you?

I think the notion that it is only called "left-libertarian" to distinguish & seperate from the conservative hijack of libertarianism (and some anarcho-capitalists) should be stressed more, as in comparison, left-libertarianism is more radical than many who call themselves libertarians, an-caps, "right" libertarians, and those who qualify as vulgar libertarian (I say qualify, because the term is usually not one a libertarian would describe themselves as due to it's negative meaning). 

Especially since some people seem to grab instantly on to the label of "left-libertarianism", & with knee jerk absurdities, equate left-libertarianism as being in bed with Statism, furthering mudding the debate into some meta-cousin of the Left vs. Right debacle of the Statist "Left" & Statist "Right".

When I considered a run for office, I met with some local professors described as libertarian. One told me "I'm not as radical as you are, I'm a left-libertarian, and you're a right libertarian." When I asked why he called me a right-libertarian, he said because I liked Rothbard and was associated with Rockwell. Us left-libertarians, he said, were far more moderate and more interested in reforming the state. This was an odd conversation, because I had always considered myself a left-libertarian. I have little patience for "cultural" concerns, when these are used to justify aggression. I favor open borders (actually no borders) and believe that order matters in even scaling back government. Although I'd vote to eliminate welfare if I were elected, I question the idea of going after the welfare state first - it seems to me to be an attack on the weakest, and scapegoating them because criticizing the strongest is too hard. So it seems that left-libertarian means many different things to many different people. Now I see Reason, and even Cato, being referred to at times as left-libertarian, in a pejorative sense. To me, Cato has always been the exemplar of right-libertarian. What the heck is happening to our words? I'm not quite sure what the effect of recent events on libertarianism will be. Will conservatives be drawn into the movement, by Paul and now Barr, increasing the rightist hijack? Or will the conservative wing of libertarianism drift so far that it stops identifying itself as libertarian, increasing the left-libertarian presence within the movement proper? On the other hand, I do consider Paul a right-libertarian, yet at campaign events, I called for a left-right coalition (in that order) for peace and civil liberties, and received a pretty positive response. I suggested that we speak to and form ties with the Kucinich people, and while I wanted Ruwart for the candidate, I was willing to accept Gravel for this reason. Anyone else see a case, as in the title essay, for associating with the left? This ties into my general idea that it is not likely that there will ever be enough libertarians to effect a libertarian polity. However, we form a solid group which can greatly influence the course of events by well-chosen alliances.

JAlanKatz:

 

When I considered a run for office, I met with some local professors described as libertarian. One told me "I'm not as radical as you are, I'm a left-libertarian, and you're a right libertarian." When I asked why he called me a right-libertarian, he said because I liked Rothbard and was associated with Rockwell. Us left-libertarians, he said, were far more moderate and more interested in reforming the state. This was an odd conversation, because I had always considered myself a left-libertarian. I have little patience for "cultural" concerns, when these are used to justify aggression. I favor open borders (actually no borders) and believe that order matters in even scaling back government. Although I'd vote to eliminate welfare if I were elected, I question the idea of going after the welfare state first - it seems to me to be an attack on the weakest, and scapegoating them because criticizing the strongest is too hard. So it seems that left-libertarian means many different things to many different people. Now I see Reason, and even Cato, being referred to at times as left-libertarian, in a pejorative sense. To me, Cato has always been the exemplar of right-libertarian. What the heck is happening to our words? I'm not quite sure what the effect of recent events on libertarianism will be. Will conservatives be drawn into the movement, by Paul and now Barr, increasing the rightist hijack? Or will the conservative wing of libertarianism drift so far that it stops identifying itself as libertarian, increasing the left-libertarian presence within the movement proper? On the other hand, I do consider Paul a right-libertarian, yet at campaign events, I called for a left-right coalition (in that order) for peace and civil liberties, and received a pretty positive response. I suggested that we speak to and form ties with the Kucinich people, and while I wanted Ruwart for the candidate, I was willing to accept Gravel for this reason. Anyone else see a case, as in the title essay, for associating with the left? This ties into my general idea that it is not likely that there will ever be enough libertarians to effect a libertarian polity. However, we form a solid group which can greatly influence the course of events by well-chosen alliances.

 

That is definitely strange, because as I understand it "left-libertarians" are usually anarchists and more radical than "right-libertarians". I don't see how "left-libertarianism" necessarily implies being closer to statism.

Brainpolice:

Perhaps "left-libertarian" should be defined. What say you?

 I think a good definition is, "The branch of libertarianism dedicated to the use of education, direct action, and alternative institutions, as opposed to electoral politics, as the means for achieving liberty.  Left-libertarians defend a 'thick' notion of libertarianism, supporting such causes as feminism, labor unions, and anti-racism in addition to anti-statism.  Left-libertarians also seek alliance with mutualists, individualist anarchists, voluntary socialists, and others in the Radical Left, instead of the traditional alliance with minarchists and paleoconservatives."

wombatron:

Brainpolice:

Perhaps "left-libertarian" should be defined. What say you?

I think a good definition is, "The branch of libertarianism dedicated to the use of education, direct action, and alternative institutions, as opposed to electoral politics, as the means for achieving liberty.  Left-libertarians defend a 'thick' notion of libertarianism, supporting such causes as feminism, labor unions, and anti-racism in addition to anti-statism.  Left-libertarians also seek alliance with mutualists, individualist anarchists, voluntary socialists, and others in the Radical Left, instead of the traditional alliance with minarchists and paleoconservatives."

Seems to be good; the clarification of similar groups & terms attached to left-libertarianism would help clarify it in discussions. 

Honestly though, it seems as if at some point, prior to discussions, participants will have to more or less do a meta-debate or briefing concerning what definitions they use to what terms, etc. 

The only way I could imagine this ever being practical (in real time), is if before discussions, participants were to exchange such data between themselves via data transmission.  This is of course, assuming the far off (for now) concept of neural interfaces & our brain somehow being able to allow us to comprehend the data being exchanged.

I don't think that would ever be favorable due to potential amount of abuse involved in linking together in such connections, however, but I wouldn't be surprised if a century from now (assuming we are around), this is done in a certain capacity due to said advantages.


For now, I think a method via Facebook, wherein say a debate site takes a similar aproach with profiles, where each member of the site can fill in what they view certain definitions as. 

It would be semi-static sometimes, but it would allow potential debaters & conversationalists the ability to see what a certain person may view as "left-libertarian", and can use that knowledge to better prepare their debate, so it doesn't de-evolve into a debate about semantics, rather than a given subject at hand.

I suppose some might view this as making debate "too easy", or "de-clawing" the debate, but I view it as a way to make debate potentially more productive, cleaner, and less ad-homimen oriented.

 

wombatron:

Brainpolice:

Perhaps "left-libertarian" should be defined. What say you?

 I think a good definition is, "The branch of libertarianism dedicated to the use of education, direct action, and alternative institutions, as opposed to electoral politics, as the means for achieving liberty.  Left-libertarians defend a 'thick' notion of libertarianism, supporting such causes as feminism, labor unions, and anti-racism in addition to anti-statism.  Left-libertarians also seek alliance with mutualists, individualist anarchists, voluntary socialists, and others in the Radical Left, instead of the traditional alliance with minarchists and paleoconservatives."

 

That's a pretty good definition. I find it acceptable.

wombatron:

I think a good definition is, "The branch of libertarianism dedicated to the use of education, direct action, and alternative institutions, as opposed to electoral politics, as the means for achieving liberty.  Left-libertarians defend a 'thick' notion of libertarianism, supporting such causes as feminism, labor unions, and anti-racism in addition to anti-statism.  Left-libertarians also seek alliance with mutualists, individualist anarchists, voluntary socialists, and others in the Radical Left, instead of the traditional alliance with minarchists and paleoconservatives."

 

It's struck me that there are two schisms between left-libertarians and right-libertarians, and perhaps even between left-libertarians and plumb-line libertarians; I'm not sure if one of these two is more fundamental, and if so, which it is.  The first and more obvious is on tactics.  Left-libertarians call for alliances with the left, right-libertarians call for alliances with the right.  Right-libertarians seem far more likely to employ political means, while the left-libertarians tend to avoid such means.  There is the odd case of LRC-Ron Paul/Cato-Reason, where LRC writers referred to Cato-Reason people as left-libertarians for their opposition to particular political means, but I'm not sure how to explain that in the larger context.  The other schism, though, is that there are real differences in worldview - but it's not always entirely clear how these would be expressed in a libertarian world.  Right-libertarians call for cultural homogenaity and oppose homosexuality, but is this a prediction that in a libertarian world, groups would live separately, or a call for the use of force to make it so?  Right-libertarians seem far more accepting of "village rule" - that is, of small governments doing all manner of things that left-libertarians would consider outrageous no matter what unit of government does them. Right-libertarians, fittingly, also seem more committed to federalism/states rights.  Again, this seems like more than a question of tactics - they seem to really think that local rule is correct, rather than being less bad than larger units. 

Left-libertarians, perhaps most fundamentally, seem to regard libertarianism as being opposition to coercion, whereas right-libertarians see it as a matter of opposition to government.  To the left-libertarian, the claims of feminists need to be treated seriously, since they are claiming that the society is coercive towards women.  To the right-libertarian, such claims are rejected out of hand, for instance.

Any insight on this question?

Any insight on this question?

You make some good observations. Let me put it this way: the left-libertarian tends to be opposed to the concentration or centralization of power period, while the right-libertarian is more narrowly simply an anti-statist. Left-libertarians tend to be more "thick" in that they may see violations of the principles in non-governmental contexts. Left-libertarians also tend to see the current system as benefiting corporations and the rich at the expense of the average worker and consumer to a greater extent than the right-libertarian may. The right-libertarian seems to envision an anarchist society in which the effects of the economic system are more or less identical to what we have now (with wage-labor and large bureaucratic buisinesses being the overwhelming norm), while the left-libertarian sees much more radical implications of a truly free market. The left-libertarian tends to view the political right as highly authoritarian while the right-libertarian considers them to be comparatively libertarian. The left-libertarian may tend to have a much more pluralist vision of a free society while the right-libertarian tends to advocate cultural homogeneity. The left-libertarian sees a correlation between market anarchism and more socialistic traditions such as mutualism and individualist anarchism, wheras the right-libertarian sees anything with the slightest hint of pink as being irreconcilable and evil, and they see a correlation between market anarchism and the so-called "old right".

I wrote a blog post about this a few weeks ago.

Brainpolice:

The right-libertarian seems to envision an anarchist society in which the effects of the economic system are more or less identical to what we have now (with wage-labor and large bureaucratic buisinesses being the overwhelming norm), while the left-libertarian sees much more radical implications of a truly free market.

 

So do you identify right-libertarianism with vulgar libertarianism?

Do you think it is fair to consider Long and Hoppe as prime exemplars of the two sides?

The identification of the right-libertarian as merely anti-statist is interesting, but I'm not sure it always works.  Often, one finds right-libertarians defending states, or things that look a lot like states, so long as they meet some arbitrary notion of smallness.  In fact, they don't even use anti-statist language - as in "states rights."  Would a left-libertarian assert the right of a state to ban homosexuality, as long as that state was a unit of a larger state?  Of course not. 

It seems that, to use your descriptions, not only do right-libertarians not consistently see the current system as benefitting the rich, but some actually see it as benefitting the poor.  How else to explain references to welfare queens and lazy workers - instead of "rational workers"?  Many right libertarians have a worldview where the system rips off the rich to pay the poor - that is, they swallow the lies of the government about their motives. 

So do you identify right-libertarianism with vulgar libertarianism?

Yes, it is a tendency that I find to be exclusive to right-libertarians, although some are better about it than others.

Do you think it is fair to consider Long and Hoppe as prime exemplars of the two sides?

Yes, I have used precisely those two as an example of both sides. It works well enough.

The identification of the right-libertarian as merely anti-statist is interesting, but I'm not sure it always works.  Often, one finds right-libertarians defending states, or things that look a lot like states, so long as they meet some arbitrary notion of smallness.  In fact, they don't even use anti-statist language - as in "states rights."  Would a left-libertarian assert the right of a state to ban homosexuality, as long as that state was a unit of a larger state?  Of course not. 

You have a point there. Right-libertarians may still hold onto "state's rights" as a better alternative to federal policies, without fully seeing that this does not solve the problem at all, it only relegates it to a smaller territory. Also, partially due to Hoppe's influence, you find right-libertarians essentially defending monarchy as if it were legitimate private property. I find this to actually be a deviation from Rothbard, who held monarchy and fuedalism in high contempt despite being a bit of a right-libertarian himself (although some of his writtings from the 60's and 70's suggest a very strong left-libertarian strain in him).

It seems that, to use your descriptions, not only do right-libertarians not consistently see the current system as benefitting the rich, but some actually see it as benefitting the poor.  How else to explain references to welfare queens and lazy workers - instead of "rational workers"?  Many right libertarians have a worldview where the system rips off the rich to pay the poor - that is, they swallow the lies of the government about their motives.

I agree. They seem to view the welfare state as persecuting big buisiness and benefiting a bunch of lazy workers or poor folks. But that's not the case. I view it as pacifying and stagnating workers and poor folks. So they end up seeming like knee-jerk defenders of big buisiness and demonizers of workers. Unfortunately, a lot of the political left buys into the same lie but approaches it from a different angle, going on to advocate more welfare as if it does benefit the workers or poor in any meaningful sense. The so-called anarcho-syndicalists I've talked to all seem to pragmatically support the welfare state in the present as a sort of "cushion" against private power. They've bought into the lie as well.

Hey guys and gals, I am new to this site and group so please bear with me when I seem a little ignorant of what exactly you all are saying. I am a working class guy just trying to be me. Maybe we can come to understand each other in due time.

anonnymous:

Hey guys and gals, I am new to this site and group so please bear with me when I seem a little ignorant of what exactly you all are saying. I am a working class guy just trying to be me. Maybe we can come to understand each other in due time.

Sorry for the late welcome, the groups seemed to have slowed down recently. 

Don't let the new terminology & word soup get to you, and you'll be fine :D.