[split from here in May low content thread]
What’s your beef with Roderick Long?
a) I thought that poster was supposed to display anarchists. (Maybe I’m wrong, but I thought the “ANARCHISTS” thing at the bottom was a giveaway)
b) As far as I know, Long identifies as a “left-libertarian”
c) As far as I know, “left-libertarian” ≠ “anarchist”
That being said, I actually still don’t know what exactly a “left-libartarian” is, so maybe it is somehow a synonym for anarchist…but I doubt it. Either way, it’s a confusing, contradictory, nonsense term that does nothing to help further understanding or explanation of the political spectrum and where people fall in it, and I suppose for that reason on those grounds I immediately have a problem with anyone who insists on using it.
Dude… Roderick Long is the most anarchisty anarchist that has ever anarchisted! He founded the Molinari Institute which runs the Center For a Stateless Society, he’s published articles defending anarchism including Libertarian Anarchism: A Response To Ten Objections and Market Anarchism As Constitutionalism, the latter is not only fantastic but was also his contribution to the book Anarchism/Minarchism which he coedited with Tibor Machan as a debate between minarchists and anarchists, in which he edited the anarchist portion. He also founded the Molinari Institute which runs the Center For a Stateless society which published the amazing book "Markets Not Capitalism: Individualist Anarchism Against Bosses, Inequality, Corporate Power, and Structural Poverty to which he contributed.
-
Then why does he take the “left-libertarian” position in a debate that I can’t seem to find right now? (Incidentally his lecture is the lead video in this “introduction to left-libertarianism” playlist.)
-
There’s something fishy about that post of yours.
Founding the Molinari Institute is pretty cool, but founding the Molinari Institute as well? Badass.
^ Epic
Are you reffering to the fact that I mentioned the Molinari institute twice and generally rambled a bit? Sorry, I was a bit out of it last night, lol.
I don’t think you understand what left-libertarianism is. It’s not a half way house between progressive statism and libertarianism. It simply holds that concerns of those on the modern ‘left’ such as inequality, the prevalance of wage labour and large corporations are the result of state intervention, not of free markets. I would recommend reading Sheldon Richman’s article Libertarian Left to better understand where left-libertarianism is coming from, or go to the Alliance if the Libertarian-Left’s site.
How in the hell is that different from “libertarianism”?
In terms political prescriptions, very little, which is why I am often reluctant to call myself a left-libertarian. However, a lot of libertarians will defend aspects of the modern economy which are in fact the result of state intervention. For example, I’ve heard libertarians defend sweat shops or working conditions during the industrial revolution on the grounds that they are good for the poor because they are better than the alternatives, despite the fact that in many cases there are better alternatives which have been suppressed by the state. Left-libertarians are also typically anti-political and are “thick” libertarians.
If you notice, I didn’t ask “how different”…I asked how is it different. Simply claiming it’s a small difference doesn’t address the issue. What is this difference you speak of?
Defending the free choices of indviduals is not not-libertarian just because better options have been eliminated by state intervention. It sounds like you’re saying a “left-libertarian” would oppose “sweatshops” or “working conditions during the industrial revolution”, meaning that they would argue such things should be outlawed.
If that’s the case, that is not libertarian. If it is not the case, then please explain what you’re saying, and what exactly these “left-libertarians” say about (and more importantly, prescribe) for such situations. (And of course, explain how it’s different from “regular” libertarians).
That’s an interesting piece, as it attempts to shed light on a complex issue, but unfortunately I feel that author does an incredibly poor job. But that’s neither here nor there.
If the only difference between “left-libertarians” and “libertarians” is their being “thick”, then why not say “thick”? Or some other kind of term that more accurately describes the attribute that makes a difference…as opposed to one that implies a degree of socialism, as “left” does. Shoving those two words together is contradictory and nonsensical, and therefore, as I said, does nothing to help further understanding or explanation of the political spectrum and where people fall in it. It is not unlike the equally (or perhaps more so) idiotic terms “libertarian socialist,” and “free market anti-capitalist”, which incidentally, the description in this playlist actually uses.
As far as I can tell (and maybe someone can show me I’m wrong) those terms are purposefully contradictory so as to confuse any would-be critic or political opponent into a state of paralyzing befuddlement, as they have no way to codify what you actually believe, so they have no real way to form an assessment of your philosophy and either accept or reject (and possibly challenge) it. I think terms like that exist because people are either insecure in their philosophy (which usually means they don’t really have one, and that their beliefs are very inchoate and contradictory, and not suited for any serious consideration or challenge), or that they they are insecure in themselves (i.e. have low-self esteem) and cannot withstand any sort of criticism or challenge…so they create a barrior from criticism by surrounding their intellectual identity in a cloak of confusion and ambiguity which no one can really penetrate because there is really no way to clearly attack something that doesn’t even seem to make sense.
It’s not unlike the whole obsession with being “moderate”. Like I was saying here, there is a common exaltation for a Goldie Locks “not too this, not too that, juuuuuust right in the middle” mentality.
It’s one of the most callow assessments perpetuated today. They’re able to take advantage of the flawed way the majority of people understand the ideological spectrum where being “in the middle” is the most appropriate because that means you’re not a “crazy extremist” (i.e. a “left-winger” or a “right-winger”). It makes people feel safe in that they are “moderate” and that they incorporate views from “both sides” to find a nice balance…as if they incorporate the “best of both worlds.” This is just short of being complete nonsense. Most of the self-proclaimed “moderates” have no idea why they believe more than half the things they do. The policies and ideas they advocate are not rooted in any sort of principle they are simply a product of almost baseless “feelings” and are determined more than anything else not by actual results or deep philosophical study, but by simple interest in not being scapegoated as a “winger.”
And while it may be true that many types of so-called extremists choose to ignore the facts, this does not automatically mean that self-proclaimed moderates have somehow reached “moderate” conclusions because of more intense study or careful consideration of information.
And this is extremely similar to the people (whom I would largely consider morons) who insist on using idiotic terms like “libertarian socialist”. Except these guys take it a step farther. Instead of simply trying to maintain an aire of balance, these people go all out with terms that mean completely opposite things, to a point at which their self label makes so little sense than no one even bothers to challenge them on it.
Plus it makes them feel cool. Like they’re in this exclusive club that most people don’t even understand. This is basically what the Venus people do too, except they’ve taken it to an even greater extreme. They’re not “moderate”. They’re not even both ends of the spectrum simultaneously. They are apolitical and think the entire notion of “money” is evil, and think we should move to a “resource-based economy”. Sounds technical doesn’t it? That’s how they like it. They get to feel smarter than other people because they’re able to act like they have the answer…and no one else has even heard it before.
That is my sense of terms like “left-libertarian”.
Go ahead and tell me if I’m wrong.
Left libertarians are socialists. Kevin Carson even calls himself socialist.
Roderick Long is as much an anarchist and libertarian as Hans Hoppe. I don’t know if Long does call himself a left-libertarian but if he does he only means that his ‘flavor’ of libertarian-anarchism is different to the ‘flavor’ of libertarian-anarchism of Hoppe, which could similarly be called right-libertarian. Hoppe’s “thick” views are conservative, like Ron Paul, and Hoppe and Paul both appeal more to conservatives and pitch their arguments to conservatives more than to liberals. Long is the opposite, where he targets liberals more and pitches his arguments more towards them than conservatives. See his How to Reach the Left.
So don’t be put off by the left-libertarian label Long has. I see it as a harmless and mildly useful label if understood correctly. It could be said that Rothbard became a left-libertarian for a few years before turning back to being a right-libertarian towards the end of his life. It doesn’t mean his views changed, just that he had different approaches, different targets, different arguments… i.e. a different flavor.
Dude… Roderick Long is the most anarchisty anarchist that has ever anarchisted!
I farted, then I laughed out loud and then went for a smoke 
THANKS DUDE
It’s interesting that you would comment on the “thick vs. thin” thing, as I think that ties into the discussion we were having in the tax thread. I was actually going to cite that concept in my response to you (which is still coming…sorry I forgot for a while, plus you had a pretty lengthy post).
My beef with left-libertarians (or left-anarcho capitalists) is that they’re implict critical theory endorsers. Basically they’re social socialists. At times, I cannot tell the difference between a Marxist and an (left libertarian) Austrian; this is especially true with most of Ron Paul’s college kid supporters. Thank God Ron Paul doesn’t buy into this nonsense.
Left-libertarians are obsessed with maintatining a value-free method of analysis for all fields in the social sciences. As with the case of economics and praxeology, this value-free method is extrapolated and extended over to the realm of sociology where it is not applicable. Sociology is not a praxeological science. That is the prime difference between right and left libertarians/anarcho-capitalists.
Rothbard called left-libertarians people that you don’t want interact with, and compared them to neo-cons. I completely agree with him.
And this moderator is a left libertarian. Beware! :3~
Yes, in this article. Read the whole thing, because he blasts left-libertarians throughout the whole piece:
Rothbard: “In fact, I haven’t had the personal experience of neocons that many of you have had, but I can assure you that left-libertarians can match neocons any day in the week as people you simply would not want to interact with. Trust me on that.”
There’s also this link, which contains even more links to his positions
Rothbard was in no way a left-libertarian. This is a guy who was against open borders, blasted the women’s liberation movement, defended racially based discrimination, and proudly declared that individuals are not equal.
Left-libertarians and right-libertarians (of the ancap variety) both agree on privatization of all resources. That isn’t the contention. The contention has to do with sociological matters. Left-libertarians are under the spell of critical theory, whereas right-libertarians are not.
From the sociological stance there are times I might fall under “left” libertarian, but whatever difference it may be it’s simply like this: libertarians or “right” libertarians, aka anarcho-capitalist (of the Hoppean variety) are “right” because they are not fashionable, they do not cater to any group or position with the exception of their own position - this makes them very blunt and “stubborn” to others; left-libertarians “reach out” in ways to those interested in class analysis/privilege, racial inequalities, women’s rights, and any other minority or “oppressed” group, etc. The political structure of the theories may remain the same, but how one perceives certain social/cultural situations appears to change, the interpretation of certain actions. That’s how the differences appear to me, but it still doesn’t change the fact I’d switch out Long with someone else on that anarchist pic.
@ FunkedUp
I’m no expert on Critical Theory, I have only done some reading on it, so I ask forgiveness if my questions sound stupid.
What is so wrong with Critical Theory? Can you explain the link between left libertarianism and critical theory? Can you explain why it is so bad to “be under the spell of critical theory”?
I see left and right libertarianism as different flavors of the same ice cream so to speak. Left libertarians seem to care more strongly about certain issues which most ordinary leftists care about, whereas right libertarians seem to care most strongly about simply respecting property rights.