(I made 2 paragraphs here.)
I’m in complete agreement with your first paragraph. The (only) way ‘left’ and ‘right’ libertarianism makes sense to me, is that we are both in agreement about what rules should guide a libertarian world - we all know them: property, non-aggression and so on and so forth - but they both have disagreements about what ought to happen in that world. Voluntarily oppose x or support y and stuff like that.
I’m not sure if I’m in agreement with the second paragraph, but it sounds oke.
“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.”
<= Gven Scott’s definition, it isn’t that illogical.
Sounds like stereotypes.It’s gross to talk of those who are downtrodden and marginalized as ‘losers’ ,making such blanket statements.
Stereotypes come about for a reason. Gross or not.
Then have you read Ludwig von Mises’ argument that syndicalism is even more preposterous as an idea for socioeconomic system than is socialism?
It’s not just odd. It’s ridiculous. With capital, just as much as with land, outside of freak coincidences, those who are best at allocating resources will not be the same individuals as those who are best at laboring with them. Furthermore, as I’ve written, paraphrasing part of Mises’ refutation of syndicalism:
As soon as the needs of society change in the slightest, how is a syndicalist order to adapt? Under capitalism, shifts in consumer demand adjust prices. In seeking profits, entrepreneurs try to anticipate these price adjustments, and thereby adjust the structure of production to best satisfy consumer wants in the new state of affairs. In the flux of the market, resources shift from one industry to another, in response to consumer demand. But, under syndicalism, why would any producer’s syndicate acquiesce to a diminution of its importance and wealth in society? Production is for the sake of consumption, never the other way around. Therefore, any system of social production worthy of the name must have some means of at least conceivably adjusting production for the sake of consumption. Even socialism ostensibly fits this bill, because the central administration at least has the authority to adjust production by diktat, in order to try to better serve society (if not the intellectual means to do so rationally). But no syndicalist has ever put forth any idea of how a syndicalist state would do so, that did not involve becoming, in essence, capitalism or socialism.
This is why Mises compared socialism favorably to syndicalism. Socialism is suicidal. But it at least it is coherent enough to begin to imagine as a social system of production in a world of changing data, even if it is ultimately completely unattainable. But with syndicalism, you can hardly go beyond just simply defining it, before you realize how nonsensical it is.
Well there are a lot of one-man companies (I don’t know the English word for it), which does combine entrepreneur, manager, capitalist and laborer in one entity. If I get the left-libertarian concept right, than they would argue along the line of: ‘in a libertarian world, there will be more of these’ and ‘there would be a bigger tendency to have a comparative advantage with companies where labor = manager = entrepreneur’. I honestly couldn’t care less about how a firm works, but I’m inclined to believe that the regulation today decreases the amount of firms who work like that. This is an empirical matter - it could also be the other way around and I don’t really care about it.
In any case, this kind of dwellings are empirical matters, which aren’t all that relevant to libertarianism per se.
It changes, however, when you want to make it illegal to act differently than the syndicalist model. Than it’s just a divergence from libertarianism as such.
They are to me. My property is a product of my life.
The definition of something which would classify it as moral or immoral, is not an ought statement. This world would be a significantly better place if people argued the subject, instead of arguing strawmen.
No. But you can tell that, by going back and reading what I have written.
There is nothing right wing about me. You can’t even define right wing, let alone find something right wing about my opinions or positions.
What were they?
You tell me what the difference between communisms positions and the positions you posted are. Show me what is unique in your ideology that isn’t also common to communism.
All you do is talk about how you are left, and other people have conservative baggage, and then you claim you reject particular dichotomies. It’s hard to take you seriously, when you don’t seem to follow what you say you believe.
I agree. You did give the most clarity possible for a muddled and incoherent libertarian philosophy.
That may be very true. I certainly have nothing like the OP to contribute.
You should try reading some Austrian economics. It might help.
Nothing I have said in anyway is related to ancap. Again, you’re the one obsessed with dichotomies. You’re the one bringing up left, or conservative, ancap or worker/owner.
Sure they do. Danny just pointed out that your positions, when summed up, are very close to syndicalism.
Do you know what historical materialism is?
That’s mighty nice of you to take such a strong and principled stand against arbitrary violence.
If they want to be treated like dirt, what business is it of yours? Who are you to have anything to say about how other people choose to live their lives?
That’s the problem with leftism. I have yet to meet a self-described leftist I was impressed by on a character level, and yet they all seem to think they are so righteous they can second guess everyone’s choices. I tried to call Kevin Carson on this, and he squirmed. I used to tell Wombatron that the biggest racists are left-libertarians. They are obsessed with race and sex relations, to the point of treating minorities and women like defacto victims in every relationship. In fact, I cannot see how your style of leftism can consistently see relationships as healthy, because you “believe” that voluntary relationships can be immoral. It’s the huge contradiction of leftism.
Another huge problem with the platform of the self-styled left-libertarians is the divisive elements.
From the OP:
“The political class.The State has throughout history to present day acted to artificially privilege the rich,corporations, landlords and employers(The political class) at the expense of everyone else particularly the poor, employees,women, black people,foreigners, tenants,small businesses,the self employed, unions and the like(the exploited class).Following from this left-libertarians are on the side of the downtrodden and the marginalized.”
The problem is that both the rich and the poor don’t understand the harmony of interests. The poor have also striven for privileges, and they have done plenty to try to “eat the rich”, believing, along with the rich, in the “Montaigne Dogma” that no man can benefit except by another man’s loss. They are ignorant of the harmony of interests. As I’ve written,
Cognizance of this harmony of interests is what underpinned the scientific liberalism (one might call it “harmonist doctrine”, as Mises does) that first arose in the writings of men like Hume, Smith, and Condillac; that intellectually won the field in the days of Ricardo and Say; and that had its greatest impact on policy in the days of Cobden and Bastiat. And it was the denial of this harmony of interests-- what amounted to a philosophy of irreconcilable conflict (or, as Mises termed it, an “anti-harmonist doctrine”)-- that underpinned the revolt against liberalism which reached its culmination in the twentieth century.
Don’t take their “side”. Don’t take anyone’s “side”. Teach anyone who will listen that, at bottom, there are no sides, because capitalism (yes, capitalism) improves everybody’s standards of living, rich and poor.
“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.”
Normal commentators ignore the moral aspect.Left-libertarians do not and see it as an important part of libertarianism too.
“But no syndicalist has ever put forth any idea of how a syndicalist state would do so, that did not involve becoming, in essence, capitalism or socialism.”
I think its entirely moral to have a sweatshop. Hell even leftist mainstreamers like Paul Krugman are fans of sweatshops,
Yep.Prejudice and discrimination. It’s not really an argument to say X stereotype exists so therefore it must be true.You could apply that to any idea or belief so that’s redundant.You sound like one of these reactionary types left libertarians are arguing against.
Ha. With very little information I’m being labeled as reactionary. Stereotyping rears its ugly head again. Yeah, discrimination and prejudice are quite necessary and serve as fairly decent time-savers. However, such an argument wasn’t actually presented, so I’m not going to refute it. (Another stereotype of lefties is coming into fulfillment as well: no sense of humour.)
No, it refers to syndicalism as such.
No syndicalist has ever put forth any idea of how it could be accomplished under syndicalism, with or without a state.