I don’t call myself left-libertarian, but I don’t find the general ideas all that objectionable. I do have a problem with the rather conspiratorial narrative in your points, however, probably best exemplified by Carson’s “two kinds of government intervention.” The pattern of intervention does match what we would expect should there be a cabal of powerful interests seeking to enrich themselves and, when they must, enacting a few laws to make their work appear just, but that does not mean such a cabal exists and that such interventions are the product of an active pursuit to pacify the masses. I do believe there are powerful interests out there, but I do not believe they exert the kind of control you seem to imagine they do, or that they do so in a singular and rational manner.
Consider that the actual history of mutual aid and the rise of the welfare state - which I am sure Carson knows very well - explicitly contradicts this system of classification. Programs like Social Security, public health insurance in Britain, minimum wage and child labor laws, etc., would be classified as “primary intervention,” as they were supported by various interest groups to squash competition and centralize power. These programs and laws persist because, among other factors, the recipients like them and it becomes conventional wisdom that they’re “necessary.” Though Carson’s system of classification sounds nice and does convey an important idea, it’s not an accurate portrayal of reality and can undermine your argument, as well as your own investigation for truth. And, of course, other libertarians and non-libertarians are often guilty of this kind of obfuscation.
Funny how Liberty Student backs down when someone doesn’t engage his personal remarks.
Obviously, he’ll rant on how how doesn’t engage in logic and so on and so forth, because, obviously, being implicitly calling someone ‘dishonest’ isn’t a personal remark. It’s a logical statement, because he made a fallacy. And because someone - in his eyes - made a fallacy, he made a dishonest comment and, a fortiori, hasn’t made any honest argument all thread.
Now thàt’s a personal comment. Unlike some, I don’t have complexes admitting that. ^
LS.I’ve lost any remaining respect I have for you.Your a rightwing reactionary. I’ve said plenty about economics -undeniable things as a matter of fact and secondly this isn’t communism and if you can’t tell the different then your no scholar nor fit to moderate mises.org and thirdly it’s stupid to conflate left-libertarianism with by reference to “marching bands and statues” USSR soviet communism.You’ve just proved my point on conservative baggage in libertarianism.You’ve epitomised the false capitalist vs socialist dichotomy I reject.
You ask for clarity,I gave it.Now I’m a commie for doing so.You have nothing to contribute here.It’s comments like this that have made me lose massive amounts of respect and love for these forums and this site in general.An-cap orthodoxy rides again.
I’ve been planning it for a while trying to understand the position well enough to articulate it and now I feel I’ve reached the point to do so.I wrote it because nothing like it exists and it helps those who don’t know the philosophy to understand it better.It means it can no longer be claimed that we haven’t explained things properly or at very least, the basics properly.I was careful to avoid discussions of property theory and economics of which there is no agreement in left-libertarian because it is a spectrum of views from lockeanism to mutualism to anarcho-communism/anarcho-socialism with many shades in between.
Okay, so let’s look at the tendency of your manifesto with regard to various economic roles: the entrepreneur, capitalist, landowner, manager (which is really a special class of worker), and worker.
You hedge everything with words like “possible” and “at least problematic”. But the various “possible” reforms include…
“outright opposition to land ownership”
So that takes care of the land owner.
Separation between management and ownership as “immoral”.
So there are no landowners, and all other resources need to be owned by managers. So that eliminates the pure capitalist-entrepreneur. So now everybody is eliminated except the manager and the worker. But of course then we have…
Self-management of labor
If the only managers are workers, and the only owners are managers, then the only owners are workers.
Your body of proposed economic reforms has, at the very least, a distinct tendency toward being a variant of syndicalism.
For the record, the abolition of the land owner, entrepreneur and manager isn’t something I morally or economically support.
By the way, Danny, the ‘pure capitalist entrepreneur’ wasn’t that an economic abstraction to distinguish a role and not necessarily actual human beings? (Who always are a combination of different roles)?
Unlike some, I don’t have complexes admitting that. ^