The risk of folk activism (to borrow a phrase from Patri).
I’ll take another shot at a qualified defense of ‘left’ or ‘right’ libertarianism. As said before; libertarianism is a political philosophy. It talks about justified political structures and asks wether or not the state and it’s agents (if anything) is justified in doing. (The answer is ‘no’.) This conclusion is derived from a more general point: thou shall not aggress other beings. We are all very clear on that.
As I said before; I take the ‘right’ and the ‘left’ to be qualifiers referring to a certain position on what would happen in a libertarian society. Obviously; ‘left’ and ‘right’ before the word ‘libertarian’ can not refer to any kind of policy as such. So - if it has any meaning - it has to refer to something else. Echoing Roderik Long describing ‘left-libertarianism’ in one sentence: 'Leftist ends by libertarian ‘means’ grasps the concept well. It doesn’t mean an means/ends-structure as with an individual action, but it does imply a certain relation: i.e. a society that will be based on libertarian principles will (according to their estimate) be ‘more’ equal, less hierarchical, more tolerant, etc. Of course; in a libertarian society it will depend on individual preferences and what not; but the ‘left-libertarians’ have a certain social (not political) analysis that current government intervention actually creates more intolerance, inequality and hierarchy than would be in a more libertarian society. Again; this is a social analysis, not a political. One can analyze a society in terms of it’s effect on social relations, without asking the question wether or not it is justified. (That’s what ‘social’ or ‘cultural’ philosophy does - or should do. I’m not responsible for everyone who can’t distinguish between social analysis and normative political ideas.)
Another interesting thing why ‘left’ and ‘right’ libertarianism are valuable in their own way is this. Again: it can not mean that there are different ‘kinds’ of libertarianism as a political ideal. But compare ‘libertarianism’ to ‘democracy’ as a certain meta-position, as defended by Rothbard in The Ethics of Liberty or by Den Uyl and Rasmussen in ‘Norms of Liberty’ or Nozick in ASU. Democracy and statism is a meta-concept; it talks about what the meta-framework is in which people act with another. But you can have a liberal democrat and a conservative democrat, i.e. both talk and act within (what they think is the ‘moral framework’) the meta framework of ‘democracy’ (and statism). Obviously; democracy and statism are immoral. But they act within it and have both distinguish opinions on what should happen within it, without losing the common background of democracy. ‘Left’ and ‘right’ libertarianism could have a similar meaning regarding this meta framework. You want a libertarian society first; but you would prefer a more tolerant, pluralistic and all society over a more hierarchical, more closed religious (or whatever) society. Again; this doesn’t invalidate you being a libertarian first - but within a libertarian society, you could still have certain preferences. Again; in a libertarian society you can not coerce people in accepting your views, but obviously there is room in a libertarian society for social advocacy.
It doesn’t follow, obviously, that one necessarily has to ‘cater’ to ‘leftists’ or ‘rightists’ to form alliances. Nor does it follow tat catering is a good idea. But it does follow that ‘left-libertarianism’ and ‘right-libertarianism’ are ideas in their own right. not as a ‘political philosophy’ as such, but as a combination of social and political thought. Like Conza said: speaking out against racism isn’t done by libertarians qua libertarians. But obviously it doesn’t follow that there is anything wrong with it.
The key issue, I think, is to make a distinction between social and political philosophy. There is nothing libertarian qua libertarian to speak out against non-government created and/or sustained power structures (like within a firm or something), but there is also nothing wrong to speak out against it when one is a libertarian. Someone who is a libertarian can also have other preferences about social organization, who are not related to libertarianism as such; but who are related to more social issues. Someone who is a libertarian and has ‘leftist’ social views can reasonably be considered a ‘left-libertarian’, just as a democracy who has ‘conservative’ views in the status quo isn’t called ‘a democrat’ but a ‘conservative’ (and the meta-framework of democracy is taken for granted).
In a libertarian world there wouldn’t be ‘political’ discussions as such - because libertarianism is the eradication of politics (and preferably all coercive actions); but there would be social discussions: wether or not certain (social) power relations should or shouldn’t exist. Again: this is outside the realm of where libertarianism qua libertarianism has opinions. It’s like Rothbard says in the ethics of liberty: libertarianism doesn’t talk about what is the moral thing to do; just wether or not someone has the right to do something. In a libertarian world the rights of people would be (relatively) well defined; but there would still be moral issues - Rothbard, for example, used ‘abortion’ as an example of something which might be immoral, but one should have a right to do it. Other examples are clear.
Again; concerning these kinds of discussions the axiomatic deduction won’t do. That’s the ‘problem’ with this part of normative philosophy. It’s even an interesting discussion wether or not one could call it normative philosophy. But it is clear that even in a libertarian world there will be differences in opinion regarding the morality of abortion, ‘power structures’ and stuff like that.
I agree with Conza that we should be more careful in distinguishing between the part of our analysis that is ‘political’, i.e. relates to rights and what is more ‘social’, which is more fluent. I don’t completely agree that all ‘left-libertarians’ make points that are completely irrelevant to political philosophy as such: if you take the center for a stateless society for example; most of the time they are arguing why the government creates more hierarchy in society than otherwise would have been - which basically relates to libertarian class analysis.
But this would be my defense of terms like ‘left’ and ‘right’ libertarianism. Obviously; I’m more of a ‘left’-leaning libertarian in this regard. But I’m first and foremost a libertarian. (Actually; I’m first and foremost a philosopher and an economist.)
^ Well said. I would say there is also a certain “ceo’s and bankers will forever be trying to set up a new state” aspect to it, and have the power to do so (the new Wall Street movie explains it well). I think Trotsky (sorry to bring up the devil ) was right with his concept of “permanent revolution” being needed to protect against a new state.
Politics is anti-market. Libertarianism is a social philosophy which places emphasis on market relations, not power (political) relations.
The concept of left and right libertarianism is nonsense. Left libertarianism in particular.
I don’t see how your third sentence follows from your second?
It’s all about the ratio of leprechuans to unicorns.
That’s real nice.