No one is arguing that Carson is for state created unions.
The socialist left is not libertarian if they cling to marxist class theory and a labour theory of value. This notion of an alliance is just dilution of core libertarian values in order to attract a broader following.
Since I believe socialism, by definition to be anti-liberty, would I be justified (using the same rationale) as a so-called right libertarian to ally with the state against socialism and the socialist left?
Why is it’s purpose then? The point is that Long, Carson, Johnson etc. seem to be reluctant to define the term. Unless I’m very much mistaken. In fact, as far as I can see there has been very little definition from any faction of it. It would also seem to me that Carson and his followers are doing everything they can to pander to the left to show they belong to it. Long for example, posted a very watered down critique of Carson in the JLS. Moreover, Long does almost nothing (or absolutely nothing?) in regards to Carson’s fallacious LTV, despite how well he is informed he is about praxeology.
Which is?
Well, the anti corporation rhetoric of Carson, Long and John as well as members of this forum should be self evident. As for the egalitarian ideology, to begin with there’s Long assertion that libertarians favour equality in liberty. Then there’s the pandering to the workers as the oppressed class, the whole LTV on behalf of Carson and the general aversion to hierarchy that Long exhibited about the alleged immorality of works being “pushed around”.
Now you’re looking a bit condescending so, drop the tone. I mentioned one such ad hom in regards to Hoppe, or how about Carson’s claim that Block and Huerbert much be suffering from dylexia. or whatever it is. Or the whole “misoid” buisness.
Indeed, I more than likely am. So what?
What do you mean I consider those with opposing views of property rights? Does this include statists? They’re thugs too, they’re just a lot less open about. It’s not so much about the fact that your views are different, just that, they’re wrong.
And yet, he defended the unions pushing the bailout, only to blame the CEOs, you can’t be serious. Moreover, I’ve not seen one good defense of unions. The fact is they’re cartels, like all others they’re enforced by the state.
Horrible manners? It isn’t so, first off you need to draw the line between Mises.org and the outside. This is a forum for debate, not real life. Moreover, I take no issue with left libertarians and I am more than willing to be civil and polite to anybody who will return the favour. Unfortunately BP and Juan are intellectual bankrupt, so I won’t be civil to them, no.
Well that’s fantastic, but the argument certainly seemed to be that left-libertarians of a particular “variety” were. This sentence is far from clear: “Defend unions who routinely engage in violence and wouldn’t exist without the state (especially in regards to Carson).” If it isn’t a ridiculous misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the positions of Carson and/or Johnson, they what is it? And, more importantly, what is it doing in the argument?
Yes, well, that’s a pretty bit IF, isn’t it. Are you claiming that anyone in the Long-Johnson-Carson tendency actually “clings to marxist class theory”? I’ve never seen any evidence of this. If you are, like a number of others in this broad conversation, equating “marxist theory” with stuff that you disagree with, which makes you think of commies, then, once again, you are preaching to a very particular choir, and misrepresenting libertarians in the process. As for LTVs, at least you have the sense to recognize, apparently, that there is more than one. But you’re very far from making the case that, for example, Carson’s understanding of labor and value is incompatible with being a libertarian. So far, this is just you asserting your dogma.
As for this tripe about “pandering to the left,” it is ad hominem, and it doesn’t make much sense. Why “attract” a “following” of people whose values are ultimately not your own? It’s not like any of us are getting rich and powerful because our particular version of libertarian theory is getting lots of web traffic. You might not have noticed, but “the left” is frequently just as keen on protecting its turf as some right libertarians. Trust me, my experience of being what we now call left-libertarian for many years is that nobody in their right mind would do it if they didn’t believe in what they were doing. It’s much easier to pander to existing tendency, if pandering is what you’re into.
Well, by the rationale of the explicitly anti-state libertarian left, you certainly wouldn’t be justified. But if you allied, as perhaps you already are, with folks I though were ultimately “anti-liberty,” my belief would still be just my belief, and the proof would be in the actual theories and practices of everyone involved. If you think that left-libertarians are advocating an alliance with the statist left, then you are simply wrong. So now you know better…
Nope, though it’s probably not a question that can be answered without clarifying both question and answer. It would be nice if the accusation of “defense of thugs,” like all the other accusations here, could be substantiated with regard to even a specific tendency within the libertarian left, but that seems to be too much to ask. Lacking a coherent criticism, however, we can still ask whether there are properly libertarian grounds for assuming that “all currently-recognized private property,” including that recognized by the state, but quite clearly at least in part the result of state intervention in the market, is worth defending. If the very question seems like a joke to you, then I’m not certain you take private property seriously enough.
You’re just barking up the tree of semantics over the definition of socialism again. We’ve been through this ad nauseum, so why again? And noone here is in favor of allying with the state.
It’s a perfectly valid question. Are all currently recognized private property titles (recognized and defined by the state) legitimate?
I see. I haven’t seen enough of BPs or Juans posts to know if they are really as bad as you claim. I can bare LL’s when it comes to economic disagreements. It is just the egalitarian and anti-family filth that upsets me. Also, I have a dilemma. I don’t know if I should just stop trying in school, and just read my own books all day, or if I should attempt to do well and get good grades in a school where I learn almost nothing. (meaning I would have less time to read mises.org books.) What would you recommend? I’m just wondering.
Also, I cannot figure out how to quote people for the life of me.
Oh, I’m certain that my views would qualify as “egalitarian and anti-family filth” from a conservative perspective. Except I don’t think that a libertarian criticism of arbitrary parental authority is the same thing as being “anti-family” and I see nothing inherently wrong with egalitarianism if it is defined in a libertarian context.
Growing a movement. Preaching to the choir isn’t proftable (in multiple sense of the word).
rotflmao
There is no such thing as a right libertarian. It’s a distinction manufactured by left libertarians, just as left libertarianism is a manufactured distinction. There is no Alliance of the Libertarian Right. There is no ALR webring. And yet institutions that Carson would label right, like Mises.org, continue to lead the libertarian battle on (and off) line.
No, the radical socialist left. The anti-state left. The people who do not have an intelligent view of property or value.
Property recognized by the state, does not render the property illegitimate just by that association.
FYI, don’t personalize your posts to me. I’m affording you more respect than I am receiving. I’d rather you attacked my statements and positions (once you know them) than insinuate I am some sort of right-libertarian (whatever that means to you). In other words, don’t assume. If you have a question, ask. I’ll answer it honestly (or as honestly as possible).
You are being misleading once again. There are people who openly identify as right-libertarians or conservative libertarians. Furthermore, at various points Rothbard himself identified as a “right-libertarian”, he even makes use of the term in passing in For A New Liberty. Left-libertarians did not invent the distinction, and it is not arbitrary. So you are making a disingenous semantic argument.
Yes there is. Libertarians, ever since around the time of FDR, have generally tended to ally with the political right and conservatives in reaction to the rise of state-socialism. Libertarians have generally cooperated with the libertarian-conservative fusionism that took place in America.
Rothbard himself puts foreward this view in “Left and Right: The Prospects for Liberty”. You should read it.
Not only is that a conflation, it’s an arbitrary sweeping claim and a misrepresentation.
You’re avoiding the question, which is: is it defacto legitimate? Are all currently existing or recognized private property titles legitimate? Does it follow from the theoretical defense of property rights that whatever the state happens to grant as a private property title is a valid title? This is a valid question and you’re avoiding it by shifting to an assumption about what the person asking the question thinks (I.E. that they think because the state recognizes or respects a property title that it is defacto illegitimate).
BP, I’ll respond to you as long as you post honestly, and act like an adult.
How so?
I didn’t avoid the question. It’s terribly broad. It’s not defacto anything. Neither legitimate or illegitimate. The question, as stated, is pointless.
As it pertains to the Twin Cities vandarchy, I’d be curious to know how the vandals ascertained the correct ownership status of the property they chose to vandalize. Because from where I look at it, if it was not their property, then they had no right to vandalize it. Just because I don’t know who owns something, doesn’t make it’s title undecided, only unknown.
Socially conservative for sure. But not institutionally conservative. What people choose to do in their personal lives, what their preferences are, shouldn’t be used against them, the way you have many times here. I can’t remember how many times you have called me a conservative, without being able to identify what I am exactly conservative about. Ad homs and games.
Rothbard was always what he was. So-called right libertarians don’t have to pretend he went through periods of madness or confusion, he’s accepted left and right for what it was. He tried to appeal to disparate groups not unlike most libertarians today do. Rothbard was a social conservative by all accounts. Let’s not hold that against him, or dislike the man for his personal preferences.
Again, there are no right libertarian institutions, no right libertarian webrings, or blog circles. There is no ARL logo, and the frequency of the term “right libertarian” as used by non-left libertarians is barely noticeable. If I have to correct myself, there probably are right libertarians, who identify as such. And even if we remove the ones like Giles who do it to spite the left libertarians, and clearly disassociate themselves, it’s a such a small #, of the over non-left libertarians who identify that way, when contrasted with the left libertarians who positvely identify themselves as such.
The claim that being an anti-statist socialist inherently means that you know nothing about enonomics or property theory is simply a bad ad hominem.
You need to specify. You’re avoiding addressing the implications of the question, which is about justice in distribution relative to libertarian property theory and the context of a society with a state that defines and redistributes property titles.
The question is not pointless, it has immense implications with regaurd to how property theory is applied. The degree to which currently existing private property titles granted or recognized by the state are legitimate or illegitimate by libertarian standards is not irrelevant.
What does that have to do with answering the relevant question, or is it just the basis to set up a strawman in which you accuse people of defending violence?
The fact of the matter is that Rothbard’s position on certain specific issues, state policy even, changed over time multiple times. Denying this by appealing to the benevolence of Rothbard is simply disingenous.
Your argument is disingenous because the term right-libertarian refers to a certain set of ideas or a general tendency towards those ideas. You’re playing semantics here. What’s most relevant are the specific ideas in question. Right-libertarianism refers to a general fusion between libertarian and conservative ideas in general. To simply deny that such a thing exists is ridiculous, especially given the existance of people such as Hoppe, who openly advocates right-libertarianism both economically and socially, who openly says that libertarianism and conservatism must be reconciled and are true allies. Furthermore, most of the people on this forum who I have called right-libertarians are heavily influenced by Hoppe by their own admission, even to the point of perpetually telling me to read his works when I have already.
Not to nitpick, but you are misusing the term Ad hom.
And yes, being an anti-state socialist means one knows nothing about economics or property theory. Or if they do, and still choose socialism, then they are an idiot. So it’s ignorance or stupidity, pick whichever one makes you feel good.
Why do I need to specify? I’ve answered honestly, directly. I will continue to do so. Your habit is to take what is said, and twist it to what you want to communicate. That’s not something I do regularly, or intentionally. Ask the question, get an answer. As above ^^.
Bang your own drum. My point was and is, not all titles recognized by the state are legitimate, and at the same time, not all recognized titles are illegitimate. Using state license or sanction as the sole determinant of property status is flawed.
You missed it up thread where the Twin Cities event was referenced.
I am not one of those militant anti-left cooks. So by anti-family, I mean the people like that god awful witch-man stefan moneluex(FDR guy). People like that. The aggressive people that claim the family is so oppressive, and the children must break free from the evil parents. If you are not one of those types, it wouldn’t bother me at all if we disagreed over the role of the family.
All you’re doing is making a biased assertion about people you don’t know and about ideas you don’t understand. There is no way for you to really know what someone else knows about economics and property theory, and just because someone chooses a different personal preferance than you does not make them ignorant or stupid per se.
No, you avoided addressing the issue at stake completely, and only provided a vague “some of it is legitimate, some of it isn’t legitimate”. You didn’t specify which part you consider legitimate and which part you consider illegitimate.
Your habit is to misrepresent my position, and then I type a book clarifying it to you and correcting the errors in your claims, and then you dismiss me out of hand.
Once again you are avoiding presenting a specific answer to the question, and state license or sanction as the sole determinant is not what follows from the question (it’s just a strawman of your own).
As defined by left libertarians. I’ll agree to that.
Not at all. Numerous times you have called me a conservative. You have yet to substantiate it. We’re talking dozens of times. Epic fail? I think so.
As defined by you. It’s always about how you define things. Even if I define myself one way, you have repeatedly defined me in another. It’s a very dishonest way of arguing. Maybe you get away with it in a visual medium like YouTube, but in written form, such imprecision is difficult to mask.
As defined by you.
I can’t speak for or about Hoppe, my scholarship on him is very limited although I admit I like a lot of what he has to say. Likewise actually on Long, who is great on anarchism, but really puts his foot in his mouth on economics.
Again, right libertarians are not a movement. Left libertarians are, and go out of their way to make the division obvious. I think it is juvenile, I bet Rothbard would as well, but it is what it is.
You’re starting to get a little shrill now.
You’ve accused me of being a conservative. I’ll ask you again (for the 20th time?) to explain how and why I am conservative. Remember, you’ll have to substantiate it better than just identifying me as a non-left libertarian, as left libertarians define themselves.
Actually I find Molyneux’s views on children and parenting to be about 90% correct, he just rants on about the family way too much and applies his theory wrong, which leads him to make bad armchair psychoanalysis of people. But I don’t see anything wrong with the basics of his criticism of arbitrary parental authority and parental violence.
People are entitled to their own preferences. They are not however entitled to their own facts. A is still A.
That has to be so annoying.
That’s an improper use of the term strawman.
I gave the answer. I thought it was not only clear, but covered a broad portion of the debate. Perhaps you can rephrase it so I can understand what I haven’t answered to your satisfaction.
