A Post Neo-Left Libertarian Manifesto

[mikachusetts]

Lately there has been a large presense of left libertarians on the forum explaining the intricacies of their beliefs, so I feel I have a moral obligation the present the manifesto of a new left libertarian splinter group, spirit guiding by moi.

What is Post Neo-Left LIbertarianism (PNL lib)?

PNL lib is the synthesis of anti-state libertarianism with the traditional concerns of the post neo left. As I like to call it, its libertarian means to reach PNL ends.

What do we believe?

-PNL libs are much thicker than left libs as you are about to learn. We believe in the most moral way that freest markets are no the same as free or freer markets, and that conflating them creates false dichotomies.

-Our concerns for issues unadressed by thin libertarians include: disaparities of hapiness between the rich and the poor, geocentric viewpoints regarding equality (Rothbardians neglect non-earthling rights), what price groceries will be in a stateless society, and a lack of a perfect plan to become stateless.

disaparities of hapiness between the rich and the poor: We believe that the state is the cause of hapiness in rich people, and that without it, poor people will be happy too. This must be voluntary though, so any rich people who refuse have to be made (voluntarily) to make the poor happy.

geocentric viewpoints regarding equality: aliens need to be equal to humans in a libertarian world. the fact is, most ancaps have knee jerk reactions regarding interplanetary socialism and call it communism. Its totally different.

grocery prices: whenever i talk to people about austrians they always say this “if those austrians are so good at predicting the future, why dont they know the freest market rate of groceries.” Im not saying that I have the answer, its just that Austrians are so black and white when they say its impossible to know the natural market rate. Its just way more nuanced than that.

a perfect plan: we will never achieve a stateless society without a perfect plan. Not perfect they way that ancap orthodoxy means, but in the way that we mean. Part of our plan is to transcend the false profit or loss dichotomy. Instead, businesses will receive statements from the people called “post neo left (PNL) statements.” These pnl statements will tell the market what people want and how much money they have to put towards it.

If we are going to make any progress, right wing libertarians are going to have to voluntarily compromise.

[z1235]

Awesome.

Z.

[AnonLLF]

Idiot.No wonder your all called right wing.

[Libertyandlife]

He’s not completetly making this up:

Contemporary anarchism

[Brainpolice]

Except if one actually is familiar with post-left anarchism (a misleading name if there ever was one), the content of the post has nothing to do with it. Obviously the thread is an attempt at mockery of the other thread.

[nirgrahamUK]

brainpolice, its not post-left anarchism, its post neo-left libertarianism. get your labels straight!

[Brainpolice]

Indeed.

[Libertyandlife]

^That’s why I said not completely, obviously he’s mocking.

[AdrianHealey]

@Mario Rizzo

I am not talking about peace in the world of foreign affairs, Afghanistan, Iraq or wherever else people are senselessly killing each other. That goes without saying.

I am talking about the war of words among people who subscribe to various strains of Austrian economics. I am not going to be very specific here because I do not want to stoke the fires. If you don’t know what I am talking about, that is great. Please do something more productive than reading this.

If you do know what I am talking about, then you know that much energy has been expended recently and over the past few years by Austrians who attack each other for various flaws in their Austrianism.

I am writing here a plea for peace. There is an opportunity cost to every decision. The main opportunity foregone in this case is improving our theories, our evidence and criticizing more effectively Keynesians and other interventionists.

The various participants in the intra-Austrian squabbles are not likely to convince each other. These arguments have gone on too long without measurable progress.

I assume most of the argument is being engaged in for the “benefit” of the young and impressionable. But this is a delusion.

The best way to convince the uncommitted is by the positive strength of one’s argument using both theory and evidence. Here the spillover effect is to make intellectual progress. If, on the other hand, we seek to convince people by “stealing” from other camps of Austrians, the spillovers are negative for all of us. It becomes a race to the bottom or a kind of “mutually assured destruction.”

We do not have to agree on everything. For example, Joe Salerno and I do not agree on all aspects of Austrian economics. Yet Joe and I have seen each other weekly for nearly twenty years at the NYU Colloquium. We never engage in ad hominem attacks. We treat each other with decency and respect.

I do not expect to be buddies with all with whom I disagree strongly on issues. I don’t expect to be spending time with anyone who labels him or herself an “Austrian.” But I want much more to convince the rest of the world to appreciate the insights of F.A. Hayek and Ludwig von Mises than I want to make sure my fellow Austrians agree with The Economics of Time and Ignorance.

In the meanwhile the statists and Keynesians laugh. They make fools of us because we first make fools of ourselves.

It was posted in a different context, but still relevant.

Also relevant:

@Roderik Long

Incidentally, I notice that whenever someone calls for peace between group A and group B, there are always two objections that come up.

One is that someone from group A (or B) will say “but group B [or A] said/did hostile thing X!” as though that were an objection to peace. Of course group B said/did hostile thing X; that’s part of the problem to which peace is being offered as a solution. (Plus, the fact that some people on either side won’t agree to peace is not enough reason for the rest of us to keep fighting.)

Another is that someone will say “but there are genuine disagreements between us — why should we sweep these under the rug?” No one’s asking anyone to do that; ceasing to snipe nastily at each other is not the same thing as ceasing to debate.

[Angurse]

So no joking ever?

[vaguelyhumanoid]

This fails at satire, because it doesn’t make a good point about the thing it’s satirizing. “Left-libertarians are dogmatic and obsessed with equality at the expense of genuine liberty” is a strawman heard all the time on this forum without any actual backing. There’s nothing clever about keeping the echo chamber echoing.

[Libertyandlife]

It’s not as dogmatic as it is irrelevant.

[fancyshirtman]

Genius!

[Angurse]

Because [good] jokes and satires are objective?

[liberty_student]

People who make serious commentaries about satire or expect satire to achieve any end except demonstrating absurdity, are seriosos and probably not very fun people to hang out with at a party.

[resist272727]

@Scott F

Idiot.No wonder your all called right wing.

Can you please explain how anarcho-capitalism or any variant of it is right wing?

[vaguelyhumanoid]

LS, I like satire if it actually makes a good point. Demonstrating the absurdity of something that’s not absurd won’t work.

[Angurse]

Demonstrating the absurdity of something that’s not absurd won’t work.

Catholics can’t take a joke for the same reason.

[vaguelyhumanoid]

You know what? You’re right. I should learn to make fun of my own ideas.

I’d like to see orthodox ancaps admit that they’re wrong on the internet… lol.

[Angurse]

You know what? You’re right. I should learn to make fun of my own ideas.

Or make fun of the people who present such ideas and how they present them.

I’d like to see orthodox ancaps admit that they’re wrong on the internet… lol.

Or simply accept jokes as not necessarily being serious critiques… but jokes. Who cares what “orthodox ancaps” on the internet say? It doesn’t make you any more entitled to that rod up your bum.