A Left Libertarian Manifesto.

[AnonLLF]

@filc

Equality. The Belief that large wealth disparity is due to the mix of statist privilege and barriers to entry and that minus these in a free market, wealth and land would be more widely distributed and wealth would be less unequal. The Free market is a form of wealth redistribution.It is inherently corrosive to wealth concentration and inherently leftist.

“Why are you focusing on something that is a fallacy to begin with?”

Who says it is? Rothbard? In egalitarianism as a revolt? that’s a bad argument.

“This along with several points which are just not really important really confuse the hell out of me regarding left-libertarianism.”

I’ve left out the manifesto what is controversial or non essential.All that’s there I consider essential.

[Lilburne]

Right, that’s not exactly what I mean here. I mean someone who is only a capitalist-entrepreneur with regard to a given enterprise; so, anybody who doesn’t manage the given enterprise, nor work on it in any way. There are people who are whole individuals (not functions) who fit that description, and the tendency of Scott F’s Left Lib manifesto is to preclude anybody from coming to fit that description.

[AnonLLF]

“Back on topic: Scott, could you explain the concept of bargaining power and how it fits into libertarianism?”

“Could I ask you the same question and ask how you see the relationship?”

Bargaining power is the ability to bargain for certain conditions.It’s the ability to take it or leave it so to speak.It’s basically the bargaining involved in trade. With barriers to entry ,bargaining power is reduced because there is less choice and the worker has less ability to say " no your bargain doesn’t suit me".Essentially the relation is tilted all in favour of the employer and they have all the control in the relationship because more than normally because there is limited options the worker is stuck taking what they can get.If they had alternative options they could do otherwise.I guess you could say it’s a bit like opportunity cost.Minus barriers to entry more individuals could’ve done otherwise while with barriers to entry the ability to do otherwise is either removed completely or reduced to a significant degree.

I hope that answers the question.

[AdrianHealey]

@Danny Sanchez

Right, that’s not exactly what I mean here. I mean someone who is only a capitalist-entrepreneur with regard to a given enterprise; so, anybody who doesn’t manage the given enterprise, nor work on it in any way. There are people who are whole individuals (not functions) who fit that description, and the tendency of Scott F’s Left Lib manifesto is to preclude anybody from coming to fit that description.

So someone who provides the capital and hires the manager (which is an entrepreneurial decision, as far as I understood Mises/Klein). Yes, it appears that that’s excluded in this world. Which is odd; the capitalist-entrepreneurial function is as important as all other, so why discriminate against it?

[AdrianHealey]

@Scott F

“Could I ask you the same question and ask how you see the relationship?”

Bargaining power is the ability to bargain for certain conditions.It’s the ability to take it or leave it so to speak.It’s basically the bargaining involved in trade. With barriers to entry ,bargaining power is reduced because there is less choice and the worker has less ability to say " no your bargain doesn’t suit me".Essentially the relation is tilted all in favour of the employer and they have all the control in the relationship because more than normally because there is limited options the worker is stuck taking what they can get.If they had alternative options they could do otherwise.I guess you could say it’s a bit like opportunity cost.Minus barriers to entry more individuals could’ve done otherwise while with barriers to entry the ability to do otherwise is either removed completely or reduced to a significant degree.

I hope that answers the question

I agree that some regulations favor the employer - e.g. high taxes, regulation, harder to become self-employed, and so on and so forth - but there are also regulations favoring the employee - welfare benefits, for example. How do you know that it’s unequivocally true that it’s the employee in the disadvantage?

[nirgrahamUK]

it seems to say as long as it’s voluntary it’s okay which is like saying if someone is being treated like dirt but it’s voluntary that’s fine

libertarianism is a theory of the justifiable use of force, if its is voluntary its not justifiable to use force to change it. But it may make some people somewhere upset. is that fine? if by fine you mean its possible for someone to raise an objection, or considers it imperfect then you will find very little in the world that is fine.

So if someone is being treated like dirt, it might not be fine but it is libertarian. This is not a problem for libertarians; the problem for libertarians is how to make the world better to their own eyes through voluntary means. Left-libertarianism could have some meaning for me, if it meant people that strategies and embarked on projects to reform the world in ways compatible with libertarianism. Then at least it would make as much sense as Engineer-Libertianism, who are engineers that go about their engineering work without violating libertarianism, or watermeloneating-libertarianism which is people who enjoy watermelons and despite their love of watermelons will not violate libertarianism to get them.

These hyphonations may be ridiculous; this is no less true for LEFT and RIGHT. It is entirely reasonable to have a strong identity such that you consider yourself and advertise to others that you are: watermelonloving, one with a passionate vocation for engineering, or culturally of the left, or a libertine or whatever…

You don’t need to combine these other things that you are with your libertarianism. They don’t speak to your libertarianism or modify it

[Prateek_Sanjay]

[AnonLLF]

@Danny Sanchez

"You hedge everything with words like “possible” and “at least problematic …”

I’m very careful to choose my words carefully and not go overboard in my argument.Take it as modesty,I guess.

“outright opposition to land ownership”

Not everyone holds a belief in that.I do not.

Separation between management and ownership as “immoral”.

That’s more the mutualist position.I at very least think it can be problematic.

Self-management of labor

“If the only managers are workers, and the only owners are managers, then the only owners are workers.”

Again that’s close to mutualism but I have no problem with that as long as it’s voluntary.I tend to favour it to some extent.

“How do you feel about syndicalism?”

I definately agree there is a tendency towards syndicalism(of the anarcho kind) in left libertarianism.Mutualism even more so.I am like certain aspects of anarcho-syndicalism and have increasingly been inclined towards it -maybe even calling myself one.

[AdrianHealey]

@nirgrahamUK

So if someone is being treated like dirt, it might not be fine but it is libertarian. This is not a problem for libertarians; the problem for libertarians is how to make the world better to their own eyes through voluntary means. Left-libertarianism could have some meaning for me, if it meant people that strategies and embarked on projects to reform the world in ways compatible with libertarianism. Then at least it would make as much sense as Engineer-Libertianism, who are engineers that go about their engineering work without violating libertarianism, or watermeloneating-libertarianism which is people who enjoy watermelons and despite their love of watermelons will not violate libertarianism to get them.

These hyphonations may be ridiculous; this is no less true for LEFT and RIGHT. It is entirely reasonable to have a strong identity such that you consider yourself and advertise to others that you are: watermelonloving, one with a passionate vocation for engineering, or culturally of the left, or a libertine or whatever…

You don’t need to combine these other things that you are with your libertarianism. They don’t speak to your libertarianism or modify it

Do you accept the distinction between ‘left-statists’ and ‘right-statists’? Do you think it makes sense to distinguish between a set of ideas that aren’t completely identical? Do you also talk about ‘engineer-statists’ and ‘watermelon-statists’?

The point is that you can make a distinction - it’s hard to define the boundery, but there is still a distinction - between a set of goals wants want to achieve within a certain political framework - ‘statism’ or ‘freedom’ - and have a name for that. Traditionally: ‘left’ and ‘right’ are used for those words. Why not have it here?

[AnonLLF]

“but there are also regulations favoring the employee - welfare benefits, for example. How do you know that it’s unequivocally true that it’s the employee in the disadvantage?”

1. I don’t think you can really say they benefit the employee.They’re still statism and so still harmful.

2. That’s what I highlighted Carson’s primary and secondary distinction. Carson would argue as I would that welfare is secondary intervention so individuals don’t get so up in arms about statist privilege.

[nirgrahamUK]

what are the goals of the right?

[AnonLLF]

@nirgrahamUK

it seems to say as long as it’s voluntary it’s okay which is like saying if someone is being treated like dirt but it’s voluntary that’s fine

" if its is voluntary its not justifiable to use force to change it."

I agree.

" is that fine? if by fine you mean its possible for someone to raise an objection, or considers it imperfect then you will find very little in the world that is fine. "

I’m saying voluntaryism implies that voluntary relations are good even if they are immoral.

“So if someone is being treated like dirt, it might not be fine but it is libertarian.”

True but being libertarian isn’t the end of the story.

Left libertarianism combines leftist and libertarian concerns.Their a package.Even if you don’t accept left-lib it’s not at all clear that you can seperate what is morally right from what is a right.It might be a right to do X but that doesn’t make it moral to do so and I think that’s worth commenting on.Otherwise thin libertarianism can sound like subtle endorsement of moral evils such as sexism.

“You don’t need to combine these other things that you are with your libertarianism. They don’t speak to your libertarianism or modify it”

I think it follows from libertarianism.It’s the next level in consistency in the same way that An-cap was more consistent than minarchism.It’s that sort of thing.

[AdrianHealey]

@nirgrahamUK

what are the goals of the right?

Good question, I don’t know. We don’t have that many self-identified ‘right-libertarians’ here as we do have ‘left-libertarians’.

One could argue that people who are libertarians and combine this with a hope for less immigration, less drugs, more homogeneous neighboorhoods and so on and so forth, together with an attitude ‘poverty is mainly caused by one’s own actions’, ‘pregnant teens are not victims who should be helped, but people who should be punished’ and so and so forth could be the counterpart of ‘left-libertarianism’. (Where the ‘left’ denotes social philosophy and ‘libertarianism’ denotes a political philosophy.)

Again: there is a difference between what rules should guide a society and what people think ought to happen given those rules.

[AnonLLF]

@AdrianHealey

"For the record, the abolition of the land owner, entrepreneur and manager isn’t something I morally or economically support. "

That’s your choice but I disagree. I don’t support abolition of land owner.No one opposes entrepreneurs and managers in the broad sense no one opposes but in the sense of them currently I see no moral reason to oppose them but I see no specific reason to morally support them either.

[AdrianHealey]

@Scott F

“but there are also regulations favoring the employee - welfare benefits, for example. How do you know that it’s unequivocally true that it’s the employee in the disadvantage?”

1. I don’t think you can really say they benefit the employee.They’re still statism and so still harmful.

2. That’s what I highlighted Carson’s primary and secondary distinction. Carson would argue as I would that welfare is secondary intervention so individuals don’t get so up in arms about statist privilege.

Of course, they are harmful. But imagine a world where there is no barriers to entry, but there is still unemployment benefits. It’s relatively clear that the unemployed employee has a bigger bargaining position at that point. There is no way to say that this benefits the employers per se.

I agree that there is a lot of regulation that lowers the potential of employees. Minimumwages, high taxes and so on. I even agree that I think that all things considered, employees are worse of vis a vis employers. But that’s an empirical matter, not a certain praxeological one.

[AnonLLF]

@AdrianHealey

I know this wasn’t to me but I’ll answer.

“Do you accept the distinction between ‘left-statists’ and ‘right-statists’?”

No.I use left and right pretty much in the historic sense.Rightists are those who favour the statist quo.

"between a set of goals wants want to achieve within a certain political framework "

That too is part of my definitions of left and right. The right seek concentration of authority and wealth in few hands - which is part and parcel of statism regardless of it’s kind - and the left seek distribution of wealth and authority in the most hands ie. anarchism. Anarchism is inherently leftist and ‘rightwing anarchy’ is a contradiction in terms. An-caps are tricky to place.They lean towards the right yet wish to be anarchist i.e. leftist.So I tend to place then in the centre- which they alone inhabit- but with a leaning towards the right.

[AdrianHealey]

@Scott F

@AdrianHealey

"For the record, the abolition of the land owner, entrepreneur and manager isn’t something I morally or economically support. "

That’s your choice but I disagree. I don’t support abolition of land owner.No one opposes entrepreneurs and managers in the broad sense no one opposes but in the sense of them currently I see no moral reason to oppose them but I see no specific reason to morally support them either.

Be careful with what you call ‘moral’ by the way. You use it in a different sense that some people here.
In any way; actually, I do. Given your sentiments and feelings - which I share to a large degree - if you favor a world where there is a bigger identity between ‘workers, managers and entrepreneurs’ - which I take it is your position - than you diminish the possibility of spreading your eggs in multipull baskets and thus lowering the possibility of people to be stronger in each of those positions. Imagine me having savings in company x, managing company y and add in some hours in company Z. This means I’m stronger vis a vis all of these, because I’ve spread the power people have over me.

But if I’m entrepreneur, manager and worker in one firm, that entity has a lot of power over me. And if it goes wrong, I loose everything.

[AnonLLF]

@AdrianHealey

“Of course, they are harmful. But imagine a world where there is no barriers to entry, but there is still unemployment benefits. It’s relatively clear that the unemployed employee has a bigger bargaining position at that point. There is no way to say that this benefits the employers per se.”

As a thought experiment it’s interesting but it’s not going to happen.And if there was no barriers to entry-I assume you mean state created ones- then there would be no need for employment benefits in the statist sense.

" But that’s an empirical matter, not a certain praxeological one. "

I disagree.But then the quibbling about whether praxeology is empirical or a prior logical is not really of much interest to me.I think it’s a mix.

[nirgrahamUK]

My point boild down to this; IF you think some sweatshop is immoral but that there should be no use of force to amend it, you have no functional difference from a ‘rightist’ who loves the fact that the sweatshop is immoral (or if thats not what rightists do , that disagrees with you that the sweatshop is immoral). As far as as you are ‘libertarian’ I see no difference, the difference is only in the place where your libertarianism is not in question and needs no modification, the difference is on your opinions of what is moral, or on your likings. Perhaps you can ‘win’ this argument by saying that libertarian modifies your ‘left’ morality and preferences. i.e. Left-Libertarianism is a strand of the LEFT by which you can be marked out from others on the LEFT who are not libertarians. This makes way more sense to me.

“You don’t need to combine these other things that you are with your libertarianism. They don’t speak to your libertarianism or modify it”

I think it follows from libertarianism.It’s the next level in consistency in the same way that An-cap was more consistent than minarchism.It’s that sort of thing.

I don’t see how left morality and left preferences follow from libertarianism. and consistency doesn’t enter into it. but maybe you will explain.

[AdrianHealey]

@Scott F

That too is part of my definitions of left and right. The right seek concentration of authority and wealth in few hands - which is part and parcel of statism regardless of it’s kind - and the left seek distribution of wealth and authority in the most hands ie. anarchism. Anarchism is inherently leftist and ‘rightwing anarchy’ is a contradiction in terms. An-caps are tricky to place.They lean towards the right yet wish to be anarchist i.e. leftist.So I tend to place then in the centre- which they alone inhabit- but with a leaning towards the right.

So, what you are saying is that ‘libertarianism is leftist’. Again; I don’t necessarily disagree - Bastiat sat left - but how does the distinction ‘left-libertarianism’ make sense than? All libertarianism is by definition left.