As far as I’m concerned, the main difference between LL and RL is their conception of property. LL have a soft definition of private property, while RL are in favour of private property of almost everything. In this sense, Long falls in the second definition.
I thought the terms were being used in relation to cultural preferences? I usually characterize libertarians as more or less socialist based on their conception of property, ranging from neo-Lockean (which includes Long) to mutualist (which is softer) to libertarian socialists. I think almost all reject mere claims to a resource as sufficient to own it.
Libertarian sociaist.Heh, a bit of an oxymoron.
They say the same thing about anarcho-capitalism. Its all semantics.
Also, Long is a left-libertarian because he is opposed to private forms of exploitation and oppression in addition to anti-statism, and because he prefers alliance with mutualists, radical leftists, and libertarian socialists to alliance with minarchists or paleos. Furthermore, he holds that there are limits on the harms that one can inflict on someone else, even if they are on your property, and that a form of common property is valid in addition to individual property.
His stances on property are (or should be, by neo-Lockean standards) shared by right-libertarians.
I find it funny that because someone isn’t a left-libertarian, it seems they must be allied with minachists and/or paleos. All this talk of allying seems to be more important than actually getting anything done beyond a marketing perspective.
I still don’t understand why this division between “left-libertarians” & “right-libertarians” is even a remotely good thing aside from just parroting the “right” & “left” divisions found in the statist realm.
I dunno, I’m just skeptical towards the thinking that the allying with mutualists, radical leftists, & libertarian socialists is somehow not the same possible mistake as those who ally with paleos, minarchists, & radical conservatives, etc.
Sorry, I didn’t mean to imply that. What I meant is that, traditionally, libertarians have looked to the right for allies (not to say that they all do, of course). Looking to the left instead is a defining characteristic of left-libertarianism.
Indeed, you didn’t imply it at all, I was just finding mild humor in the whole LL & RL debacle.
It just seems that that looking to the left will end up with similar mixed (or next to no results) that looking to the right did for libertarianism / anarchism. I wouldn’t be surprised if nothing more than newer rhetoric & arguments end up being co-opted by those in the left movements that have little to no regard for libertarianism at all (as the right most certainly has done regarding free-market rhetoric).
I’m not arguing for a third way or for a plumb-line either, however. I just think the entire LL & RL “wars” seems to be a huge distraction, especially for newbies, who might stumble into the latest LL vs RL debate without even knowing it & might be turned off by the sometimes vicious debate in of itself :\
Perhaps I’m just feeling jaded today, though, admitelly.
They aren’t shared by right-libertarians though, right-libertarians often react by assuming that it’s a deviation towards marxism because it “sounds like socialism”. That’s what’s so frustrating about it. Left-libertarians like myself often use neo-lockean standards to draw a completely different conclusion than right-libertarians. We don’t tend to think that feudalism and corporatism are consistant with a thoroughly applied neo-lockean standard, and we aren’t opposed to common property and worker’s organization in principle. A hardcore right-libertarian essentially is opposed to those things in principle and tends to view libertarianism more narrowly through the lense of anti-socialism.
Long isn’t merely classified as a left-libertarian, he identifies as one himself. And for a reason.
Wonderful, now then, evidence, please?
Evidence for what?
Hear, hear!
Who?
Long is actually a Dilbertarian. When he critiques capitalism and the state, he leans heavily on the funny pages, which is par for the course, considering his critique reads like a joke.
I tend to like a lot of Long’s arguments, actually. Whether he identifies himself as a Left Libertarian or not seems rather immaterial to me for the most part.
For all th assertions about right libertarians you made, what else?
I lol’d.
Your posts openly confirm my assertions. You have consistantly repeated the very premises I characterized right-libertarians as having FOR MONTHS. So don’t try to mislead people or backpeddle.
Well then it shouldn’t be hard to provide proof?