Once again, that’s exactly what Rothbard said about “left-libertarians” in the article you linked to at least two or three times in this very thread.
You are incredibly confusing. You link to these sources, and then not only assert notions that are not even brought up in them, but proclaim things that fly directly in the face of them. I essentially summarize Rothbard’s description of “left-libertarians” from the article you sent me to to get a definition, and use his examples, and you tell me I don’t understand what you’re saying and my arguments are irrelevant.
You then proceed to make a bunch of claims that don’t seem to be anywhere in the sources you listed (aside from that ridiculous urban dictionary piece, which, for all I know you only think is funny because you authored it).
Tell me, are you now suggesting that Rothbard’s description is inaccurate?
Fair criticism. (I did not author the Urban Dictionary though, Hah).
After re-reading my comments I can see what you mean, and my chronology is messy and I didn’t explain myself thoroughly. The word left-libertarian can mean many things because its roots lie in so many philosophies: left libertarian socialist, left libertarian syndicalist, left libertarian minarchist, left libertarian anarcho capitalist, etc. All of those groups could be considered to be left libertarians. I chose to focus my critiques on left libertarian anarcho capitalists, whereas Rothbard mostly criticized left libertarian minarchists - hence the confusion.
What it really sounds like is that your definition of “left-libertarian” is largely different from any of these others. You seem to think that the “left” part simply refers to personal lifestyle choices. I’ve never heard that suggestion before, but what’s more, it makes absolutely no sense. “Left” in this kind of context (i.e. political) generally refers to the direction of the political philosophy lean…that is, toward or away from statism. Therefore, “left” could be read as “socialist” (regardless of the degree). (Indeed, as I mentioned before, “libertarian socialist” is another term at least some of these people use to describe themselves.)
It is for this reason Rothbard regards them as “big government”…and the term itself as “oxymoronic” (along with “big government conservative”). How you can claim that Rothbard is even describing minarchists (let alone libertarians in general) when he specifically titles the piece big government libertarians, and proceeds to detail the socialist tenets of these people, is beyond me.
What Rothbard seems to be describing are a certain breed of socialist who happen to support some aspects of the free market, but have a very warped understanding of “rights” and distort the term beyond the recognition of any actual proponent of liberty. Indeed, as Rothbard says in the second paragraph:
The weird thing about Big Government Libertarianism, of course, is that it clearly violates the very nature and point of libertarianism: devotion to the ideal of either no government at all or government that is minuscule and strictly confined to defense of person and property: to what the ex-libertarian philosopher Robert Nozick called “ultra-minimal” government, or what the great paleolibertarian writer H.L. Mencken called “government that barely escapes being no government at all.”
Self-proclaimed “left libertarians” like Roderick Long may allege that they fit in the “libertarian” category Rothbard describes, and indeed may even advocate the abolishment of the state and the privatization of legislative, adjudicative, and protective functions usually monopolized by government…a doctrine Long calls “market anarchism”. But I see little difference between this and anarcho-communism if one’s understanding of “property” is such that people have “rights” beyond the boundaries of the property of others. (i.e. private property doesn’t really exist…or at least, so-called “civil rights” trump property rights.) (Which, interestingly enough sounds a lot like what one Webster Tarpley claims is the case.)
You don’t seem to acknowledge any of this. You seem to only be concerned with what boils down to personal taste…as in, “‘left-libertarianism’ means you’re libertarian who happens to be a hedonist and atheist and probably promiscuous or a drug user or all of the above, whereas ‘right-libertarianism’ means you’re libertarian who happens to be god-fearing, Constitution-pounding, Bible beating and ‘alternative-lifestyle’-hating.”
This makes absolutely no sense. It conflates political leanings with personal lifestyle choices. As in, if I’m a Christian, that means I’m “right-[something]”. If I’m gay, that means I’m “left-[something]”. That has to be the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard.
Once again, in this kind of context “left” and “right” are understood to designate political leanings…as in toward or away from statism. This has nothing to do with personal religious beliefs or sexual preferences or feelings about “tradition” or anything of the sort. And to claim that someone is “left” or “right” depending on how they feel about sex out of wedlock is even more asinine than the oxymoron of being an anti-statist who “leans toward statism”.
So here’s my understanding so far:
“Left-libertarian” is someone who claims to be in favor of no or minimal government, but believes in alleged “civil rights” which override the genuine rights of private property, and tends to use a co-mingling of “public” and “private” property to help enforce this view.
“Anarcho-communist” is someone who claims to be in favor of no government, but supports the abolishment of private ownership of “the means of production and distribution” and advocates direct democracy as a means to manage such things (while keeping private ownership of other goods inact…“your watch is your own, but the watch factory belongs to ‘the people’.”)
“Anarcho-syndicalist” is an Anarcho-communist who pays special favor to the “plight” of labor, and comes at anarchism from that angle, and may suggest revolutionary tactics that other anarcho-communists may not.
For left libertarian anarcho capitalists and right libertarian anarcho capitalists, the differences do boil down to personal lifestyle choices. I already explained that I was referring to left libertarian anarcho capitalists when I was making my left libertarian critique. Read.
Why don’t you explain to me the differences between these two competing strands (right/left anarcho capitalists) without invoking lifestyle choices.
I did. This was your main point, and the rest of your post was just riddled with jargon filled nonsense, and I didn’t feel like dignifying it with a response. It’s astonishing how you’re merely trying to lecture me.
Are you going to answer my question? Can you explain to me the differences between right/left anarcho capitalists without invoking lifestyle choices?
I honestly have no idea how you could have even read the first 8 sentences and still end up asking that question.
You’re asking how one differentiates between “two competing strands” of political philosophy called “right and left anarcho capitalism” without invoking lifestyle choices.
First of all, if the ideologies are the same, I don’t exactly see where the “competition” comes in.
Second, I made it quite clear (multiple times) that the terms “left” and “right” in this kind of context are understood to designate political leanings…as in toward or away from statism. Therefore terms like “left-anarcho-capitalism” and “left-libertarianism” are oxymoronic. (And by the same token, “right-libertarianism” would be redundant, assuming one is referring to “paleo” or “Old Right”).
These are useless, nonsensical terms and yet you continue to not only use them, but ask me to define them.
I mean, are you willing to openly admit you are adopting the generally understood political terms of “left” and “right” to imply things that have nothing to do with political philosophy? If you would do that then I suppose it would make this much clearer.
So the main differences between right-libertarians and left-libertarians appear to be emphasis and “marketing”, or the way in which they portray their beliefs. They believe all of the same things about the harmful effects of the state as right-libertarians, but market more toward leftists, and emphasize that the economic system without a state would not simply be the status quo or worse from an egalitarian perspective. Most of the paradigm set up by left-libertarians is great, but the anti-boss attitude is a bit off-putting and unrealistic.
Thanks for sharing those. They sound basically like what has been said before, particularly with Evilsceptic’s “thick” link. To be honest I still don’t really see a difference. Many of the things described could easily be attributed to libertarians in general.
“a tendency to use free market economics to demonstrate how state intervention negatively affects interests that may be concerns of “the left”, by demonstrating how the state harms workers, reduces living standards, causes prices to rise, enables environmental damage, concentrates private power and backs up monopolies. Left-libertarianism can be used to demonstrate how the likely outcome of a genuinely free economy is comparatively egalitarian in light of currently existing economic structures, and how it is possible for things such as voluntary unions and cooperatives to exist in a genuinely free market.”
They claim these conclusions are “leftish”…but the conclusions would be the only things not leftish about any of that. I would agree the general focus on workers and egalitarianism are definitely characteristic of the Left…but to allege that simply showing how free-markets are better for those things makes you “left” anything is stretching to a point of misleading.
I mean, does this make Friedman a “left-libertarian”?..
And I’ve never heard of a libertarian who, when confronted with typical Leftist concerns like poverty and inequality and the like wouldn’t acknowledge how a free society would improve things in those areas. Again, to suggest that to do so one must be a “left-libertarian”, or put another way, that doing so makes one a “left-libertarian”, is just asinine.
Now neither of those mention anything about how “left-libertarians” define “civil rights” or how they arrive at their conclusions regarding property (or even what those conclusions are)…and this of course is the most important part, as it seems to be the area that these people are actually “left”…as in, socialist. It sounds like those definitions are incomplete…focusing on the secondary and ancillary aspects that make these people Leftists, and completely ignoring the underlying beliefs about property and rights that inform their preoccupation with and concern for egalitarianism and the like.
Speaking of which, I find it quite interesting that FunkedUp would list Walter Block as an example of a “left-libertarian” (and the first one, to boot), when I would be willing to bet Block would have real issues with that. Indeed, Block’s response to a student asking for input on socialist teachers who call him a hypocrite for being anti-state yet attending a state school:
As for hypocrisy, if you don’t mind failing your courses, ask your pinko professors if they have a car, house, tennis racket, golf clubs, television, computer, etc., and how they square these possessions with their crappy egalitarianism.
A left-libertarian is simply someone who has stumbled upon the logic of economics but still wants to appear politically and intellectually fashionable.
Ok, first things first, Left-libertarians like Long are essentially Rothbardians – they are neo-lockeans regarding property and support the NAP (in fact, I think some of these guys refer to themselves as left-rothbardians). So their theory on property is likely no different from yours, except maybe a few spots regarding communal ownership and other things that even mainstream libertarians might not unanimously agree about.
There’s a difference between acknowledging that free markets actually benefit laborers and emphasizing it. And its not solely emphasizing leftist interests that sets Long, et. al., apart from general libertarians, but also the belief that this concern for inequalities between man and woman, boss and employee, white and black, etc. are fundamentally part of libertarianism. In other words, Long would say that it would be inconsistent for one to adopt the general Rothbardian position without also adopting those additional concerns.
The reason why Long would say such a thing, is the whole “thickness” issue. Its not just that he thinks its a good idea to concern one’s self with these issues. One point of thickness, is to show that the grounds on which one supports the NAP would also lead one to adopt additional social positions. So for example, since the NAP is supported because it is a principle of justice, then the libertarian ought to hold other principles of justice, even if they don’t address the political issue of force. Insofar as the relationships between employer / employee are unjust, then the libertarian ought to concern himself with these issues.
That being said, Long doesn’t believe that these issue somehow override property rights or the NAP. He certainly doesn’t advocate any sort of state action to address these issues. The point is that NAP and property rights don’t make sense on their own, and that the left libertarian position (according to Long, et al) compliment and complete the philosophy.
Also, you are correct to point out that these are secondary and ancillary ties to leftism, but this isn’t why the title is adopted. Instead, left-libs (of Long’s persuasion) are highlighting the historical tie to the left – early american individualists like Benjamin Tucker called themselves socialists. Also, the “left” prefix helps to separate this position from what could be called “right” libertarianism, which might say that you can’t really be a good Rothbardian without adopting concerns for traditional family structures, cultural homogeneity in neighborhoods, christian values, etc.
So another issue concerns different definitions of “justice”. “Left-libertarians” may use a broader definition than “non-left-libertarians”.
The problem IMO is that, when you define “justice” to concern more than the political issue of force (to use your terminology), the question then arises as to whether things which don’t involve the political issue of force can be considered more “unjust” than the political issue of force against them. This brings us right in line with 19th-century utilitarianism and so forth.
Well I think the definition of justice has to necessarily be broader than simply adherence to the NAP if its going to be used as a justification for it. Otherwise, advocating the NAP for the sake of justice would be no different than advocating the NAP for the sake of advocating the NAP. So that being said, I think there has to be at least some aspect of justice which is not entirely addressed in terms of aggression.
Well, on the one hand, I would think this a good thing. If your primary concern is justice, and it turns out that there exists a case where the use of force turns out to be the most just course of action, then you would really want to know which case that is. For example, take the issue of whether you can use force to push someone out of the way of oncoming traffic. It seems to me that standing by and letting someone get run over by a bus is a far greater injustice than violating his rights by pushing him.
On the other hand, though, I don’t see how this is any more of a problem then various other issues that libertarians face without reference to justice. Abortion, children, etc. are tricky grounds with no general consensus as to what the libertarian solution is. To say that these issues are sufficient to reject the general libertarian framework is absurd – and I would say the same about rejecting a broader understanding of justice simply because it raises those issue.
That’s pretty ironic…considering Rothbard was evidently one of their strongest critics.
And I don’t think I’ve ever heard a more asinine term than “left-rothbardians”…and I wouldn’t be surprised if Rothbard wouldn’t be very happy about that, and probably outright resent it.
…not enough of one to necessitate an extra new label that confuses the reality of political philosophy. As I was telling FunkedUp, and as I’ve said throughout this thread, the terms “left” and “right” in this kind of context are understood to designate political leanings…as in toward or away from statism. Therefore terms like “left-anarcho-capitalism” and “left-libertarianism” are oxymoronic. These are useless, confusing, contradictory, nonsense terms that do nothing to help further understanding or explanation of the political spectrum and where people fall in it.
That makes absolutely no sense. The Rothbardian position of NAP and property rights is a fully philosophy in itself. It does not require one to adopt special “concerns” for specific causes.
So basically a “left-libertarian” believes that a situation in which no property rights have been violated can still be “unjust” and therefore must be given attention (whatever that means and entails) if one is to be a “true” libertarian?
You don’t need to advocate a state to override property rights or NAP. And it’s quite possible Long is an example of that.
How is that, exactly?
This still doesn’t make any sense. You’re saying that I have to be especially concerned about the alleged “plight” of the working man before I can be a real libertarian with a “complete” philosophy?
Great…so it’s just paying homage to a history in which terms had different meanings? How is that helpful in identifying (as opposed to confusing) someone’s political philosophy (which is what I thought terms like this were supposed to do)?
That makes just as little sense as “left-libertarian”. I still don’t see how NAP and property rights necessarily has anything to do with any of that.
I thought its already been established that there are a number of very different ideologies all going by the name of left libertarian. If the article doesn’t address Roderick Long, Charles Johnson, or Gary Chartier by name, and it says things wildly opposite of what I’m telling you I know to be true, just assume the article is addressing the “other” kind of left lib. Just imagine if I was trying to talk to you about liberals, and I meant it in the classical sense, and you kept finding articles in national review using the same term to mean social democrat. Obviously we aren’t going to get anywhere in the conversation.
Okayy, but this is not what is usually meant by left and right. I mean, if I was talking about the New Left of the 1960’s, nobody would think that I was refering to people who identified themselves, or were identified by others, as more statist than the mainstream right. Ultimately, if this whole thing is about not liking the term “left,” I don’t know what to tell you. I certainly don’t identify myself that way, and I can see how it might not help clarify their position, but its what they are going with.
I’m just telling you what the position is. If you believe that the Rothbardian position doesn’t entail a commitment to additional social concerns, thats fine. My point is that there are actual justifications for why left libs believe this – if you support X on grounds G, then you should support Y and Z if they also rest on grounds G. If you think that A, B, and C will lead to a libertarian society, and you desire a libertarian society, you should persue A, B, and C. It has nothing to do with being a “true” libertarian, I don’t think thats the argument being made.
A good example of an additional commitment that libertarians should hold, I think, is Austrian Economics. You don’t need to be an Austrian to be a libertarian, but it wouldn’t make sense for libertarians not to learn as much as they could about Austrian theory. Assuming you agree with this, just imagine holding the same kind of opinion about something like gender relations. That’s what it means to “give attention” to.
I can assure you that Long isn’t an example of that.
Well, for one, nobody supports the NAP for its own sake. It is just a means to some further end. So if that further end is something like justice, and I think it usually is, then the NAP only makes sense in reference to justice. And if its in reference to justice, then it makes a lot of sense to incorporate other issues regarding justice into libertarian philosophy. Doctors prescribe meds to make people better, but saying that they are in the business of prescribing meds misses the mark – they are really in the business of making people better. Likewise, libertarians aren’t just in the business of NAP and property, they are in the business of just social orders in general.
I think there is a lot of room to disagree with the content of left-lib theory (e.g. Are gender relations actually unjust?), but the reason why they concern themselves with these issues is pretty reasonable. Whether it’s significant enought to constitute a prefix on the term libertarian is a matter of preference. I think it does help to make sense of the difference, but other might disagree.
This isn’t a fair assesment unless you are willing to stop using every term in the anarcho-capitalist lexicon which doesn’t jive with modern usage. The reality is that those early american anarchists from whom Rothbard takes a lot of inspiration saw themselves as “left” and socialist because of their social concerns. Left libs highlighting this fact, and trying to move the ideology back towards those roots, is no different from Lew Rockwell highlighting the impact of the Old Right Conservatives on Rothbard, and trying to move the ideology back towards those roots.
It’s about trying to understand what the hell these people are talking about when they use such nonsense terminology. Any bit of “not liking” it is about preferring clarity over ambiguity. Understanding over confusion.
…
“it would be inconsistent for one to adopt the general Rothbardian position without also adopting those additional concerns.”
“the left libertarian position (according to Long, et al) compliment and complete the philosophy.”
“you can’t really be a good Rothbardian without adopting concerns for traditional family structures, cultural homogeneity in neighborhoods, christian values, etc.”
?
But you can’t be libertarian and hold a non-libertarian position on gender relations. That doesn’t make sense. So in essence what you’re saying is that a “left-libertarian” is simply trying to reassure people of his concern for pinko interests. As in, “I’m a libertarian, which means I believe in little to no government and the sovereignty of the individual…but, no, really, I really care about that…like really. I mean like, I’m really concerned with wage slaves.”
So long doesn’t understand “civil rights” to include the “right to service” (e.g. in a restaurant) or the “right to free speech” to meaning I can curse out my boss on company property and he has no grounds to do anything about it?
That analogy implies that there is more needed to be done/ can be done to have social order. I’m very curious to know what these other elements beside NAP and property rights are.
uh…except for the little tiny existence of the purposeful qualifiers that are included specifically to make sure people understand which definition of the word is being referred to. Why is it “Old Right” (with capital letters, even)? Why is it “Classical liberal” (again with a capital C)? I’ll tell you why. Because the person saying it is trying to make clear what they’re talking about. They understand and acknowledge the terms have come to mean different things over time and accommodate for that accordingly, so as to not defeat the entire purpose using descriptive terms in the first place…which, if what you’re telling me is true, is what terms like “left-libertarian” do.
Right, but no one (that I’m defending at least) would take a position on gender relations which would violate property. Just like no libertarian would say that we should force people to become knowledgeable in Austrian economics, no left lib would say we should force people to change their opinions on gender issues.
Correct, he is not in favor of those things.
How is the NAP and property rights enforced? We probably agree that competitive market with a high degree of division of labor is much more efficient at doing that than every man defending himself. Both options are logically compatible with libertarianism, but which one is more like to result in a stable libertarian order?
If certain economic outcomes are more favorable to libertarianism, why can’t certain ethical / social outcomes be more favorable as well?
