The only real difference between “left-libertarians” and mainstream libertarians is that left-libertarians believe that a truly free market would result in a greatly different economic structure than our current “capitalist” system.
And oh ya, they like using the term “capitalism” to describe what most libertarians would call “crony capitalism”, “corporatism”, ect.
Left-libertarians don’t deny the fact that problems such as inequality can be solved through the spontaneous order arising from property. In fact, that’s kind of their whole shtick.
FYI - Roderick Long picked up this thread and posted it on his blog.
bahahahaha. That’s hilarious. Thanks for sharing.
Looks like we’ve made some new friends. A few highlights:
“I protest that when I criticized… the complex of institutions of which property is the foundation stone, I never meant to forbid or suppress, by sovereign decree, ground rent and interest on capital. I think that all these manifestations of human activity should remain free and voluntary for all: I ask for them no modifications, restrictions or suppressions, other than those which result naturally and of necessity from the universalization of the principle of reciprocity which I propose.”
-Proudhon
This comes to my mind when the question of force comes up regarding anti-capitalist anarchists. Left-libertarians do not seek to employ force to prohibit certain voluntary arrangements (wage labor, rent, etc.), but recognize that they often (especially in our current system) result in top-down power dynamics that diminish one’s individuality. To oppose these institutions, left-libs generally not only allow alternatives like mutual banks and worker owned cooperatives, but explicitly endorse them.
Great. Now if you could just explain what a “left-libertarian” is and how that’s different from a “libertarian”, it would be greatly appreciated.
Woo! Looks like I ruffled some feathers over at Long’s blog. Good. I have nothing against Long, as I believe he is exceptionally knowledgeable with regards to philosophy and writes excellent papers, but I simply do not endorse LL and it’s egalitarianism (social socialism).
Great. Now if you could just explain what a “left-libertarian” is and how that’s different from a “libertarian”, it would be greatly appreciated.
In addition to this (posted before), see here, and here. Also, Urban Dictionary has pretty accurate description.
A term coined by Austrian economist Murray Rothbard to describe people who call themselves libertarians defining liberty as moral license (see libertine). They are former Marxists, contemporary liberals, practicing drug-users, homosexuals, self-appointed members of the avant-garde, haters of tradition, anti-religious (especially anti-Christian) atheists, alienated teens and young adults, politically correct leftists, humanitarians who see the established culture and morality as equally or more threatening than an expansive government. They also reject the classical liberalism that the United States of America is founded upon. In fact, many of these people have not read or do not care to read the writings of the Founders of the United States or the philosophers who influenced them. If they do appeal to the Founders, they cite quotes taken out of context to support their leftist views. They also care little for community, culture, or history.
These “libertarians” have taken on the name to justify a nihilistic view of the world, where restraint of any kind is removed so that they can indulge their appetites. Many modal libertarians have an appreciation of the free market because they realize the market can supply their drugs, pornography, and prostitutes more effectively. They confirm the fears expressed by Daniel Bell of the cultural contradictions of capitalism where increased levels of wealth produced by capitalism undermine the traditional values based on self-restraint that make capitalism successful. The same ethic of self-indulgence explains their support for abortion on demand and unrestricted euthanasia. The logic here is to kill anyone who cannot keep up and is deemed to have an inferior “quality of life.”
Former Reason magazine editor, Nick Gillespie, personifies this anti-social trend. He praises as “Heroes of Freedom” Madonna, Dennis Rodman, Larry Flynt, and William Burroughs alongside such true heroes as Milton Friedman and Barry Goldwater. Gillespie epitomizes this brand of libertarianism by posing as the angry young man hipster too cool for the rest of us poor unimaginative slobs.
These so-called libertarians are more interested in civil liberties that undercut law enforcement not because of fear of an abuse of power but because of their rejection of the imposition of pain including just punishment. Instead, they unrealistically believe that if all people are treated as equals and given opportunity to get rich in the market, then there would be no crime.
Although more traditional or paleo-libertarians such as Ron Paul are strict constitutionalists, modal libertarians are all in favor of using judicial activism to further their social goals of removing barriers to self-destructive behavior or placing barriers in the way of law enforcement and national security without regard to precedent or the text of the Constitution.
These bits of meliorism go hand in hand with their non-interventionism in foreign policy. Instead of opposing foreign wars to protect the lives and traditions of citizens of their own country, they believe that if wealth and opportunity can be expanded, then people would live harmoniously together in a peaceful cosmopolitan world. The basic assumptions about human nature and the human condition only differs from the leftist internationalist by replacing a super-statist/socialist order with a super market capitalist order that would transcend the nation state and particular local cultures. The same leftist vision is simply implemented by a different strategy. This line of thinking explains their support of mass immigration. It also explains why one does not hear these libertarians defend freedom of association.
Modal libertarians disdain tradition or any sense of social stability. They relish change for the sake of change. They crave novelty and destruction of anything that they have become bored with. Virginia Postrel, now writing for the New York Times, is a prime example of this love of frenetic activity. She misquotes Hayek on the nature of change as a thorough-going, radical process that countenances no constancy or commitment.
Modal libertarianism could be called left libertarianism. There is a variation of libertarianism which stresses voluntary collectivist social and economic arrangements that are still respectful of the right to private property and non-intervention by the State. These libertarians argue for people to choose to pool private property and live communally in various frameworks. This is not modal libertarianism. This type of leftist libertarianism is still consistent with the more traditional libertarian framework because each individual in such communities chooses to participate. There is a long history of such communities in the United States. Modal libertarians are more interested in re-shaping the world to fit their mold and defining the results as achieving freedom. Modal libertarians seem to slip on the term, ‘liberty,’ moving from what Issiah Berlin called “negative liberty” to “positive liberty.” John Stuart Mill fell into this confusion in his writing as he tried to blend liberalism with egalitarianism. Mill is the cross-over figure from classical to modern liberalism. Something similar is going on with modal libertarians.
A lot of people calling themselves libertarians on the internet are teen-agers and young adults who are simply stuck in a mindless rebellion against all authority. Modal libertarians tap into this unrelenting, destructive rebellion in many young people who have been neglected or mistreated by self-absorbed parents. Ayn Rand’s writings look especially inviting to these folks.
Even though some of the language and the policy positions cohere with those of Locke, Jefferson, Montesquieu, Mises, Hayek, Friedman, et al., the meanings they pour into the terms and phrases used by traditional libertarians and classical liberals are completely different. Unfortunately, the Libertarian Party has departed from their earlier candidates such as John Hospers, Roger MacBride, and Ron Paul and have moved to this liberal/leftist vision. We are now witnessing Bob Barr flip-flopping all over himself to appease these nihilists who have taken over the mantle of libertarianism.
Traditionalist libertarian: “I am looking at the Libertarian Party platform and see mostly a leftist agenda. What is going on here?”Modal libertarian: “Yes, we modal libertarians have moved away from that rightist repressive model of liberty to true liberty. The real enemy of the people is not the State so much as it is traditional morality, bigotry, Christianity, and nationalism. Conservatives are the real enemy now.”
From, here.
Explain to me the difference between a "right-libertarian and a “libertarian.”
“Libertarian” is a word that has changed meaning. It used to mean “libertarian socialist”, but now it implies something different, but just as narrow. Most contemporary libertarians (or “right” libertarians for sake of clarity), share a core set of values outside of the fundamental agenda of fighting State power. Among these is a general opposition to collectivism in any way shape or form. The most positive they are about such things is condescending (if you want to start your little communist enclave and subject yourself to slavery and oppression, be my guest.). They often cite the calculation problem to argue against things like worker-owned factories, despite the fact that the same critique would naturally apply to a sole proprietor. There are huge difference of opinion on the labor and subjective theories of value (though some people accept both). To be fair, I get annoyed when left-libs fail to recognize just how similar Lockean and occupancy-and-use property rights are, though this confusion goes both ways I suppose.
So right and left libertarians have views outside of strict legal theory. Some times these views are at odds. It is these views specifically that set them apart. Yes, they share a core belief in liberty and opposition to coercion and this is what makes them both “libertarians,” but you cannot deny that when the term “libertarian” appears, there is a tacit “right” modifier immediately preceding it. This is why left-libs chose their respective modifier. Personally, I don’t like the term. I prefer “anarchist.” I also happen to identify with the “left,” as did Proudhon and Bastiat, but as long as there are right-libertarians, there might as well be left.
All that just for this?
Okay, so the first Rothbard piece was the most useful. From what I gather, “left-libertarianism” is an acceptance of some free market principles, combined with an exalting of “civil rights” (which includes but is not limited to: “free-speech rights”, “gay rights”, and “rights to accomodation”) at the expense of, and to the detriment of private-property rights.
I’m not sure why you would include that bullshit definition from urban dictionary though, as it’s obviously a overtly biased smear piece written by an anger-filled, Constitution-thumping (probably) Christian moralist statist, who is no better than those he attempts to berate, as he distorts the term “libertarian” and seeks to impose his own understanding and inclinations of morality on the rest of the populace. (Unless of course, you agree with it. Then it would make sense.)
I can’t. I don’t know what a “right-libertarian” is.
(I don’t know if that was you trying to be clever or if you really wanted to know, but either way, my answer is the same.)
You lost me.
That does not add clarity. In fact, quite the opposite.
This doesn’t make any sense.
Please identify someone who simultaneously accepts the ideas that value is subjective and objective.
“Anarchist” as in, against the state but also against property rights?
The urban dictionary is funny, and full of humor. Laugh at it.
Left libertarians are pro-private property and socially liberal (Walter Block, Roderick Long, etc). You’re free to disagree with my claim.
Right libertarians are pro-private property and culturally conservative (Murray Rothbard, Hans Hermann Hoppe, etc). You’re free to disagree with my claim.
Neither is any more “libertarian” than the other. Right libertarians and Left Libertarians both want a society that is 100% private property based (if they’re constistant). What they do with their own property is going to be different. It’s a matter of lifestyle and social preference.
All of this is playing with words, however.
I think at least some people who call themselves “left-libertarians” don’t see freedom as an end in itself. Rather, they see freedom as a means to accomplish different forms of equality, and it’s those different forms of equality that they see as ends in themselves. So, in the end, they care more about those different forms of equality than they care about freedom.
As an example, I’ll cite Francois Tremblay. He was once an anarcho-capitalist, but has since moved to anarcho-communism. I can only surmise that he did so because he has the mentality that I describe above.
Also, at least some people who call themselves “left-libertarians” don’t follow Austrian-school economics.
No it isn’t. It’s full of nonsense and useless anger.
It appears that not only does Rothbard disagree with your claim, but you do as well:
Again, Rothbard asserts (in the article you linked to multiple times in this thread) that “left-libertarians” are “big government libertarians” (that was the title of the article) who change and distort the definition of “rights” to a dangerous degree, resulting in prescriptions that go against the institution of and rights inherent in private property.
Okie dokie.
Sure could have fooled me…
“[Left libertarians] are social socialists.”
-FunkedUp
That would might begin to make some sense if “left-libertarians” did not insist that one has a “right” to be served at a restaurant, or that one has a “right” to curse out his boss on company property.
Holy shit I’m confused.
Hey, Rod Long (calling him by his porn name), can you come in here and give us a brief summary of the left-lib position?
You think he set his egometer to scan the web for his porn name too?
This has nothing to do with with me being contradictory. Sometimes I can’t tell the difference between a Marxist and LL. Look at the LL that attend Occupy Wall Street rallies, for example. They are very similar in many respects
LL are social socialists. Being a social socialist has nothing to do with private property rights (unless it’s using the state to achieve those goals). That’s why I brought up CT. LL can be a CT endorsing social socialists and still be an anarcho-capitalist. Just look at most of Ron Paul’s college kid supporters.
What???
You obviously don’t understand anything that I’m saying, and your arguments are irrelevant.
I was simply using the information (and examples) provided in the article that you linked to at least two or three times in this very thread.
And maybe it’s just me, but I seem to think there’s something amiss about a self-proclaimed “libertarian” who is essentially indistinguishable from a Marxist. (Which is incidentally another point it seemed like Rothbard was making.)
On certain issues it’s very apparent: hatred of all forms of religions, vulgar hatred of police and security, hatred of hierarchies, etc. Of course, there’s profound differences pertaining to economic matters, but depending on what issue is being discussed, there is a chance that Marxists and LL are indistinguishable.
Similarly, right-libertarians can be indistinguishable from neo-cons at times
This confusion is largely due to the fact the word libertarian has been distorted and means different things. Originally, it was associated with the Left (the socialist, anti-property left) in Europe to combat the classical liberals. In the USA, everything is the opposite. The classical liberals took up the word libertarian after the progressives in the progressive era hijacked the word liberal and bastardized it. Since then, in the USA, the word liberal just means socialist, when it used to be associated with classical liberalsim (american libertarianism). This has completely distorted the whole terminology, and is the reason that libertarians can be anything from Noam Chomsky to Hans Hoppe.
Ultimately, libertarianism is about taking power away from the state and giving it to individuals. At least that’s how I interpret the word libertarian.