What the left libertarianism think of us:
http://libertarianleft.freeforums.org/i-suppose-that-the-purge-comes-next-t194.html
To answer the question, one can only hope the purge does come next.
There are a lot of different sects of left-libertarians.
As a voluntaryist, I object to “Left-Libertarianism” automatically affiliating over voluntaryism, especially when some in the the LL marketing effort may actually refuse private property in some cases. I find it funny that somehow this marketing effort will somehow not backfire like the one with the Right did.
Whatever happened to “good ideas” vs. “bad ideas”, not this “thin / left/ thick/ right/rainbow/monochrome/” showdown of semantic soups?
I’m also annoyed by what seems like a counter-hijack against the vast, great big enemy that is right-libertarianism, which seems to also include people who do not care to be labeled most of the time (me, increasingly, as of late). The paranoia over collectives being more dominant than others in a given movement is counter-productive to a debate of ideas, methinks.
I used to care about what they thought, until I realised that they dont care about the free market at all. They accuse us of being ‘vulgar’, all the while defending ‘anarchist’ thug violence and promoting union cartels. I also notice that allying with Georgist socialists is OK to them.
Of course, every LL has their own sect.
But we need to be thankful that enlightened individuals such as BP had the patience (as pointed out, of a saint no less) no attempt to show us the truth. Of course, the posts of the “paleocon Misoid trolls” were so replete with fallacious arguments that the left libertarians were able to point them out endlessly as opposed to say, merely asserting that they were so.
They make too much of the fact that there are two neofeudalists total in like the entire world (both on this forum).
I am a bit confused.
Why do they think that the misean tradition holds up kingdoms and manoralism? I understand that Hoppe makes the point that a kingdom gives arguably better incentives for good governance than does democracy, however he is not advocating it, in fact if anything he is renouncing it alongside every other form of the state.
this quote in particular has me baffled:
Is this person missing the very basic argument about the illegitimacy of state ownership? I have yet to see where the misean tradition holds coercion as a possibility, nor where anything is forced in the least.
This one as well:
Perhaps I am missing something. Other than giles being a social conservative which in no way is a reflection on the misean/rothbardian philosophy I see no where that people are suggesting that those forms of authority in the monopoly of coercion are legitimate. BP, you seem to be active on those forums and disgusted with what we say here. Perhaps you could point me to where these things are being advocated.
In addition the entire philosophy of egalitarianism is in conflict with liberty. Elaglitarianism prescribes positive rights to all individuals. Positive rights are anti-liberty because they do not work without one of two conditions: Either the majority of people act in such a way that they are willing to sacrifice their goods for another in all situations OR an enforcement mechanism to force those who would not freely sacrifice. Since we don’t live in utopia and all people are not willing to evenly distribute goods then you must find a way to create a way to have the goods distributed. Scarcity is in fact the reason that your system of left-libertarianism is impractical.
My critique of left-libertarianism here:
http://corktageous.blogspot.com/2008/08/critique-of-left-libertarianism.html
While I do share the affinity some of them have for Tucker and Spooner, they can get pretty obnoxious.
I hope you are a beautiful woman, because I am madly in love with you. Very nice write up.
Now prepare to be assaulted by ten thousand whiney but culturally sensitive ankle biters.
Oh sure. Ask people to be mature. Like that will happen. [:)]
Great point. Apparently accordng to Wombatron, I am a center libertarian guilty of not calling out the right, but they won’t call out the vandarchists. Oh, but when I don’t prove a negative, I’m bad. When they don’t prove a negative, they are right. Or left. Whatever.
The great thing about left-libertarians is, if there is anything, anywhere within the libertarian sphere to bitch about, they wil gladly accept the challenge of picking nits as they are wont to do on their forums and blogs.
I remember months ago when Jon and I would be accused of being monarchists, when I hadn’t even heard of Hoppe at that point, and Jon was still house training his first pet dragon.
You have just stepped into a world of rhetorical pain. Don’t worry, I’ve got your six.
Basically, many left-libertarians believe you can have voluntary socialism. That’s what Parecon is. Where people voluntarily pool profits and redistribute them, and organize democratically.
Now technically, they are right. Or left. Whatever. Technically, in a voluntary society, you can decide to live communally.
But that doesn’t mean that it is
- ideal
- efficient
- free market
- sustainable
- capable of resolving property disputes
- etc
A lot of left-libertarianism seems really anachronistic to me. Much of the silly arguments Rod Long and Kevin Carson make might find an ear amongst the sane of 80 years ago, but today, people have more freedom, more mobility and a better understanding of markets and economics. Central planning has failed. Socialism and democracy are failures. And the market must have competition, not the collusion of egalitarianism, if it is truly going to “work”.
Somehow, if they voluntarily choose collectivism, that validates collectivism. The theory goes, that choosing collectivism freely is an example of the market.
Welcome to the forum. I’ve read your work before, and am a fan.
“Us” = meaning you, pretty much.
Anyone who is reading this should skim the post linked to in the LL post, to give it some context.
We do call out the vandarchists. BP, for example, has done so several times in his blog posts. And you do occasionally ignore the right’s flaws; that was especially bad then.
If you have something to say to me, you can communicate with me publicly or privately. Snickering with a bunch of crybabies behind your back isn’t something I would do to you, no matter how poor I think your positions are.
I’d be interested to know if you have actually met any of these strange creatures.
Is that kind of like on Seasame Street where Grover does the “near”/“far” thing? Most of the rest of us have gained the ability to deal with more than two concepts. I guess that makes me more a fan of the Count. 1…2…3…4…4 invaders on my flag pole…wait…bang…bang…bang…bang…0…0 invaders on my flag pole.
The entire philosophy? You do realize that economic and socio-cultural equality are not the only kinds, right? LLs do not support formal equality within a statist system or any system as you describe it or positive rights. Who wants to be equally shoved around? Equality, rightly understood, is the Lockean concept of equality of political authority. The NAP for example is grounded in the assumption of egalitarianism, rightly understood. Are you saying that the concept that everyone has over herself and only herself is in conflict with liberty? Interesting theory. Perhaps you can explain how that works.
You do realize that the left-libertarians that were linked to above (myself included) are market anarchists right? That reject collectivism, central planning, collusion and lack of competition? Where did you get the idea that any of this represents the view of left market anarchists? To be left simply means recognizing that libertarian principles entail endorsing certain other fights against forms of non-economic coercion (your not mentioning a single non-economic point is telling) like sexism, racism etc. Perhaps you are lumping us in with anarcho-communists etc. which I suppose is left also but that’s not what the forum linked to above advocates.
Welcome to the forums!
I thought consistency was a good thing, & I think it’s somewhat valid to express a view that the word soup regarding some of the arguments of “x” vs. “x” seems to get in the way of arguing what works & what doesn’t. I will not respond to your further if you wish to act like a child towards posts I’ve made in cautious, good faith for the sake of conversation, & not out of some desire to marginalize other individuals. Please note that I’ve registered at the Forums of the LL, & while I mostly lurk, I do pop in now and then to read up on stuff.
Hopefully, you won’t generalize one or more other members as indicative of the forum audience here; so if Giles or someone else comes along and is an ass towards you in this thread, leave me out of it.
As an aside, I’ve met plenty of them on the anarchist sub-reddit @ Reddit.com, which, when I last checked, is probably largley the same target audience that the LL marketing effort is geared towards, aside from Statist Leftists & the assorted sympathizers.
Quite honestly, from the exchanges I’ve had, “left-libertarianism” has it’s work cut out for it before it’s target audience begins to equate market-anarchism with anarcho-capitalism (something they most assurdely already despise with a collectivist disdain), & subsequently, “left-libertarianism” with the rest of libertarianism.
More relevantly, I do not think it’s out of line to think that Mutualism, Stateless Socialism, etc. might be in conflict with concepts of private property regarding Volunaryism, especially since I don’t think believing in the labour theory of value (the LTV, which, I think Mutualism does hold to believe in) is a pre-requesite for being a Voluntaryist (I learn far more towards the Subjective Theory of Value, or STV).
Bearing with my lazy quoting from wikipedia, I use it for a quick referrence as to where I find Mutualism & Voluntaryism more fundamentally differ
First, Mutualism [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(economic_theory) ]
Sadly, the wikipedia article for voluntaryism is vague other than remarking “strong private property rights”, but I’d imagine it would be of a similar vein of anarcho-capitalism. I’d imagine mutualism already has a bit of a bone to pick with capitalism in of itself; Voluntaryism, to my knowledge, holds capitalism valid & from a similar viewpoint that of anarcho-capitalism (i.e. capitalism within the stateless society and/or the voluntary system).
If you can provide evidence that being a Voluntaryist necessarily involves believing in similar things that Mutualists do, by all means, post it.
Otherwise, while I can’t & don’t wish to prevent some “left-libertarians” from hailing Voluntaryism as a branch of their marketing movement, I’m afraid Voluntaryism would probably find some conflict with Mutualism, indeed.
I hope you are not put off my posts & this related thread, & continue the dialouge both here and at your local forum 