In a brilliant blog entry, Bryan Caplan explans why he is not a left-libertarian. To do so, he undermines the arguments presented by Roderick Long, who disapproves of "asymmetries of power "(e.g., company versus consumer, landlord versus renter, employer versus employee).
I believe Caplan’s rebuttal is superbly reasoned: if “equality” were valued, we would have it.
Rod’s basic claim is that in the status quo, you have no recourse against state monopolies. Caplan’s point is that on a free market, even if contracts were lopsided, you get compenstated extra for it. The extra compensation IS the recourse. The conflict between their positions is only semantic.
Long’s ideas about equality have nothing to do with libertarianism qua libertarianism.
According to your definition, liberty student!
I think he’s addressing “power” in a more generalized sense than outright physical coercion, where hierarchy (or inegalitarian “asymmetries of power”) becomes a blight itself.
Regardless, Caplan dismantles the accusation of oppressed groups (e.g., employees, etc.).
Since you can’t articulate a definition, or defend the concept of not having a definition without appealing to Wiggenstein (which is pure intellectual laziness) …
I am very familiar with the position of Long and his cohorts. Very familiar.
Not exactly ground-breaking, I have been doing it for almost 2 years now.
I was just joking, dude. Chill.
Very impressive.
I remember when Klein, Huebert, Block spanked Carson and the others on Wal-Mart a year or two ago.
Libertarian, one who believes in liberty. Until we have a french like body that attempts to define our language officially, I believe that is about as close as you can get without excluding some who call themselves libertarian.
But I don’t want to rehash old arguments
And who the heck does not say he believes in liberty? So everybody is a libertarian.
Everybody is also against violence. Everybody is also against war. We live in libertarian paradise apparently.
Edit: Now you’re stuck! Without defining your terms, you cannot dispute anything I just said.
Left-libertarians are ridiculous in their quest to portray any other libertarian as ‘vulgar’ or whatever. Also, don’t pull the thread off topic please.
Libertarian, someone who identifies as libertarian? Honestly, you have at LEAST support some civil liberties. I’ve never heard of a libertarian who doesn’t support the right to bear arms, put whatever they want in their bodies etc etc. I think that’s the minimum.
I like the wikipedia definition though:
Libertarianism is the advocacy of individual liberty, especially freedom of thought and action.[1] Roderick T. Long defines libertarianism as “any political position that advocates a radical redistribution of power [either “total or merely substantial”] from the coercive state to voluntary associations of free individuals”, whether “voluntary association” takes the form of the free market or of communal co-operatives
I like the wikipedia definition though:
Libertarianism is the advocacy of individual liberty, especially freedom of thought and action.[1] Roderick T. Long defines libertarianism as “any political position that advocates a radical redistribution of power [either “total or merely substantial”] from the coercive state to voluntary associations of free individuals”, whether “voluntary association” takes the form of the free market or of communal co-operatives
I could fully agree with that. But like I said, I am not the final authority. Nor would I claim to be. So…
Edit: Now you’re stuck! Without defining your terms, you cannot dispute anything I just said.
You assume I would. If some Stalin wants to call himself a libertarian, I will let him. I won’t agree with his version of libertarian, but whatever. Look at all the poeple in the world who call themselves christians… I would look silly if I was like “they’re Paulites, not christians!”
On the topic of the article tho. I think Caplan makes a good point about prices falling, and consumers prefering the status quo. But I think a lot of his rebuttals assume government intervention, and do not take into account that not purchasing power != 1 man 1 vote.
My thoughts:
http://0welcometo1984.wordpress.com/2010/09/24/385/#more-385
The summary: Long’s argument makes sense if people see the kind of contracts he describes as inferior goods, which is a reasonable enough assumption because they are low-quality and it’s possible to make higher-quality ones. We no doubt do have more recourse these days compared to an hundred years ago because we can afford it now.People prefer these contracts because they can’t really afford better ones. As income goes up less of these contracts are used, intervention reduces income so more of these are used.
Long’s argument, and the argument of other left-libertarians, is that it is unjust to have imbalances in purchasing power. They completely disregard capital accumulation and entrepreneurship. They set up that people who agree to unbalanced (in their eyes) contracts freely are still being oppressed, even “the victim” is exercising their free will and personal preferences.
This ^^ is why leftism generally becomes authoritarian. An inability to accept that what we (individually) regard as unequal trades/contracts between others, may in fact be considered a great deal by both parties in those transactions. Generally, this ideology isn’t comfortable with voluntary relations, even though they pay lip service to them.
@LS
Agreed. As an aside, do you know what happened to BrainPolice?
I stopped hanging out on liberty/anarchist blogs/forums/communities about 12 months ago, I assume he is still doing his thing on YouTube, the Forums of the Libertarian Left and Polycentric Order.
is that it is unjust to have imbalances in purchasing power
Idk about Long, but my argument is that I am not sure it seems authoritarian to me to give purchasing power legal/political weight, where those with money get away with just about anything, and generally make the rules.
My disagreement with the an-cap tradition of anarchy is that I am not sure there would be anything to prevent it from becoming a style of capital-feudalism because of the aformentioned reason.
They set up that people who agree to unbalanced (in their eyes) contracts freely are still being oppressed, even “the victim” is exercising their free will and personal preferences
I think there should be legal protections against selling one’s self into slavery, yes. Hypothetically, if someone is given the choice between starve or give me 80% of your income for 5 years, I don’t find that a valid contract.
This ^^ is why leftism generally becomes authoritarian
and rightism doesn’t? Anything with extreme violent seperatism will become authoritarian.
An inability to accept that what we (individually) regard as unequal trades/contracts between others, may in fact be considered a great deal by both parties in those transactions
Or, one educated and crafty person uses his position of power to create a very one-sided contract that appears to the ignorant as something mutually beneficial.
Generally, this ideology isn’t comfortable with voluntary relations, even though they pay lip service to them.
A lot of leftists would say the same thing about the right
That can only happen when there is a monopoly law provider. Where there is competition, the guys with the most money don’t have the advantage of buying the system.
So you are against free will and for monopoly government?
Isn’t its validity up to the two parties in the contract, and not you? Where do you get the authority to override voluntary contracts?
I wasn’t making a comment about rightism. But yes, it becomes authoritarian, which is why Ancap is superior. It is neither right nor left. It isn’t confused about what it is to be an anarchist. Authoritarianism comes when property rights (contracts) are violated, and people are not allowed to make their own choices (laws against self-slavery).
As long as the contract is not fraudulent, then it doesn’t matter how imbalanced it seems to you or anyone else. You’re making my point about Long and other left anarchists. You guys don’t really believe in voluntarism, you believe in managed social relations.
Again, I am not talking about the right, nor do I care about the right. But there are no “right libertarians” the way there are “left libertarians”. If there were (national anarchists might come close) then when we have a thread about them, I would be happy to put their nonsense in place just as has been done to leftism.
I’ve never argued that imbalances in purchasing power are unjust. Most of us argue that even though voluntary trade is always mutually beneficial (or at least believed to be ex ante) when it takes place within the context of one party having very few choices or opportunities available it can still be morally problematic. Say someone rescues you from drowning on the condition you give them all your life savings. It’s un-coerced and mutually beneficial but it still leaves questions open. The solution isn’t to prevent the trade but to improve the context. To move from “being voluntary is necessary but insufficient” to “this ideology isn’t comfortable with voluntary relations” is simply a non-sequitur.
That can only happen when there is a monopoly law provider. Where there is competition, the guys with the most money don’t have the advantage of buying the system
Are you familiar with the Iron Law of Oligarchy?
I wasn’t making a comment about rightism. But yes, it becomes authoritarian, which is why Ancap is superior. It is neither right nor left
I’m not sure anybody but other an-caps would agree with you there.
Authoritarianism comes when property rights (contracts) are violated, and people are not allowed to make their own choices (laws against self-slavery).
As long as the contract is not fraudulent, then it doesn’t matter how imbalanced it seems to you or anyone else. You’re making my point about Long and other left anarchists. You guys don’t really believe in voluntarism, you believe in managed social relations.
Any legal system is “managing social relations” so I’m not sure that’s really that big of an issue anyway. If a/all judge/s do not accept said contract, are you going to force them too? I am pretty sure most of the world would agree with me that it is not valid to sell one’s self into slavery.
The distinction between a man’s alienable labor service and his inalienable will may be further explained: a man can alienate his labor service, but he cannot sell the capitalized future value of that service. In short, he cannot, in nature, sell himself into slavery and have this sale enforced — for this would mean that his future will over his own person was being surrendered in advance ~Murray N Rothbard in A Crusoe Social Philosophy.