See, I can’t agree with you here, there is a left and right libertarianism, as there is a right and left political paradigm. To deny is for some reason is counterproductive, what is productive is to encourage the split, encourage honest discussion and scholarly discourse and to see who comes out on top. That is how science advances, whatever is worth adopting in the left libertarian ideology will be picked up by the right and vica versa.
The ‘right’ and ‘left’ political paradigm is fallacious. It exists as a tool of the state, an apparatus that boxes in everyone who identifies and uses it as terminology. It is not “left wing” or “right wing” - they are both forms of socialism.
The left / right divide within libertarianism is idiotic imo. I recognise there are differences on a number of issues, but they can hardly be enough to try distinguish or create a new brand / distinct label. Essentially, the way I see it is - those trying to establish or maintain the “left” and “right” wings, within libertarianism are doing so, due to their inability to let fully part with their previous ideology. They are still somewhat tainted.
Libertarianism is neither right, nor left. It is forwards towards freedom (Individualism), or backwards towards tyranny (Collectivism).
No, most people just don’t understand it, it’s a cultural thing. As is, to a large extent, the left - right libertarian divide, that doesn’t mean it’s meaningless and it’s certainly existant.
The mainstream “left wing” “right wing” has nothing to do with culture. It has everything to do with control. I acknowledge the existance of the left - right libertarian divide, and whilst being less in error than the mainstream, I don’t think it is productive at all. Divide and conquer on a smaller scale. It isn’t too prevalent from what I see, which is good. And heres to hoping the division doesn’t grow.
Argh. Thanks for reminding me why I avoid his essays. Anti-punishment? Race and gender… constructs?? And what is up with the ‘pro-abortion’ comment? It’s one thing to simply be pro-choice, but ‘pro’ abortion almost seems to imply he encourages more of them.
Then you are missing out. Even if you disagree with his cultural views, he has written some absolutely incredible stuff. The Nature of Law, Why Doe Justice Have Good Consequences?, How Government Solved The Health Care Crisis, and Equality: The Unknown Ideal should all be required reading for Austro-libertarians.
That is an odd way to put it.
But of course race and gender are constructs. Race especially so. Do you believe that race has a biological incidence upon one’s behavior (eg. a white man is more likely to act a certain way, regardless of culture)?
edit - I would say that I support most of the positions listed by wombatron, with the exception of “anti-big business” and “worker empowerment” the latter of which sounds like meaningless socialist jargon to me.
Long is a collectivist.
You’re right. But he is still a collectivist.
Your argument for race as a construct doesn’t apply to gender. I would be interested to read your explanation of gender as a construct, and not a natural evolution of socio-biology. Or do you think that men and women don’t have significant biological differences?
Do you think tall men might behave differently than short men? Handsome men differently than ugly men? To say that biology doesn’t matter is ridiculous. It shouldn’t matter with regards to justice, but it isn’t an artificial distinction in the marketplace. People don’t hire ugly men to be models, and people don’t hire dumb people to be researchers. Biology, capacity, matters.
It is jargon, but it’s not meaningless. There is an online constituency for that sort of socialist red meat.
Hardly different than the ‘anarcho’ conservatives/tribalists.
Some perhaps, and there are definitely at lesat a few biological differences such as in certain races resistance or being prone to various diseases. The differences between races isnt just in our heads.
It does apply to gender in as much as behavior mostly can’t be traced to biological facts. Some people have challenged that statement in the past, and I will concede that I can conceive of some ways in which behavior may be biologically determined (eg more testosterone causes aggressiveness - edit: but do consider that man is a rational being capable of controlling his animal impulses), but it seems to me that most behavior is learned. If someone wishes to provide sources to the contrary I’ll duly consider them.
Tall men don’t act a specific way because they are tall. They act in a specific way because society conditions them to act in that way - the market, for example, might condition them to take advantage of their tallness to accomplish tasks that shorter men can’t accomplish (comparative advantage). As far as I’m concerned, this is a good thing.
This is all very libertarian IMO. I can’t see why a libertarian would want to adhere to some kind of biological determinism.
Must we go down this road again?
Save the strawmen. No one said otherwise.
What do you mean ? In reality, a good deal of the positions held by Long are really libertarian (and individualist) as opposed to the collectivist ideals of the anarcho tribalists.
Oh wait. Maybe you want some sort of conservative echo-chamber telling you you’re ‘right’ ?
I only added a piece of information. I didn’t say you didn’t say it. Must you take everything as a strawman ?
So you don’t think the fact that men can mate multiple times a day, but a woman has to carry a baby 9 months to term doesn’t create a major difference between the genders when it comes to preferences and behaviours?
Watch Walter Blocks’ recent presentation at Loyola NO. It’s in the Mises Media section.
Please don’t conflate society with the market. They are two different things.
So you took the easy tall/short. What about smart/dumb?
I can’t see why a libertarian wouldn’t recognize biological diversity and exercise selection in the marketplace.
Seriously.
It would be difficult to create a sillier caracature than the reality.
Only in as much as the woman is expected to have children. There has been a trend over the recent years towards women having and desiring less children, and the market has responded by coming up with various forms of contraceptives to fulfill those preferences. This is significant precisely because it represents such a strong desire to disregard/overcome biological facts (eg. man as a rational, thinking being).
(I can’t believe I’m arguing the feminist side of this.)
Block’s hypothesis re: differences in wages between men and women seems very reasonable to me. I haven’t had the opportunity to see any data confirming it, but I have no problems with the hypothesis per se.
Commercial relations are a form of social interaction. Social interaction is how “constructs” are formed.
Smart/dumb is in fact easier because far more malleable; at least one can generally expect a person described as “tall” to indeed be tall. What makes a person “smart”, on the other hand, can vary from one place to the next. Was Karl Marx smart or dumb? What does a smart person “do”? Does he or she have some sort of teleological purpose? Of course these things are defined through social interactions. There is no “essence of smart”.