By the way BP, how about that debate mentioned in the other topic?
You’re in no position to ask me for proof when you ARE the proof.
Which in specific? Certainly not Hoppe. They’re positions that flow directly from the neo-Lockean conception of property rights. It’s inconsistent to reject them whilst maintaining the neo-Lockean theory, though it’s quite another thing to be predisposed disfavourably toward them.
Essentially the entire left-libertarian criticism of the corporate economy (as a logical extension of neo-lockean property rights) and the entire concern about vulgar libertarianism is dismissed out of hand and poo-pooed by hardcore right-libertarians. To see this you should only need to look at the debates that have been going on here for months. Now, this might not necessarily apply to all right-libertarians, who might show a certain level of tolerance, but most certainly the hard-right ones. Giles and a few others, however, have consistantly essentially rejected the entire left-libertarian movement, and are full of ridiculous mischaracterizations. They see red where it doesn’t exist. That’s precisely why I say it isn’t shared by right-libertarians, because the tendency is to mischaracterize those things as being red. They are far from being shared - they are dismissed out of hand as “leftist”.
Jon asked “which in specific”. Would it be too much trouble for you to slow down on the strawmen, and back up your statements with specifics?
Or is the plan to continue to make unsubstantiated claims and generalizations, while fomenting an artificial debate?
Your statements are highly misleading, given the perpetual debates that have gone on which are evidence by themselves as to what I’m refering to. I haven’t made any strawmen or any unsubstantiated claims. Stop trying to mislead people. Your motive is clear.
You have, and you do. An increasing number of people are taking you to task for your generalizations now.
My motive is to get at the truth. What’s misleading is constantly making arguments about a fictional group of people you refuse to identify. The record is clear for anyone following along, and I trust they will be able to make their own minds up on what is legit, and what is totally bogus.
No, what’s misleading is your continual insistance that I’m completely making things up, as if there hasn’t been months and months of debates on various threads that indicate exactly who I’m talking about, which you yourself participated in often. You already know who I’m talking about: people like Giles, Byzantine and Stranger - all of whom have explicitly identified themselves as conservative libertarians and have explicitly defended the positions that I critisize. I only place you in a somehat separate category because you serve the function of trolling on and off while I debate them.
BP, you still haven’t answer my question. Up are willing to be part of the debate I previously mentioned? If LS bothers you so much it would be a solution
And for the last two months, I have been asking you to back up your statements, because I had noticed how often you were attributing positions and statements to me, that I clearly never said or made.
Why is it so hard to quote what you claim was said? I’ve already offered to save you the hassle of research, and I will answer any direct question honestly, so you can make points within the discussion and I will even provide you with the reference material to argue against me with!
And you still insist upon taking a lot of license with making unsupported claims!
I’m never sure. You just claimed that LvMI is right libertarian. That’s a pretty broad brush affecting a lot of people. Did you mean the staff? The people in the community? The founders? Everyone?
That said, you have accused me of being a conservative numerous times, without actually being able to pinpoint exactly I am conservative about or how it conflicts with libertarianism. False claims like that irritate me, and so, I have taken you to task for going to the well of deceit one too many times.
I can see how someone who asks “Who, What, When” each time you make your broad an unspecific claims could be a troll. It must be very annoying to be held to a high standard when you post, instead of the freedom you might enjoy elsewhere making claims that no one looks very hard at, let alone stops to analyze and question what is being said.
And it ought to be completely rejected. Left libertarians want to have their cake and eat it too. You have anti-statism alright, but throw in the mix rhetoric that comes across as anti-business and at times ouright hostile to property. Using some LL’s arguments, almost every business in existence could be seen as a legitimate ‘target’ for homesteading. (Some) LLs cheer on violence against business simply because it is ‘corporate’ (remember the Macys in Minnesota?).
When you look at some of those in isolation, they would seem outright socialist to an outsider unfamilar with the whole ‘right’ (as in, correct) libertarian vs left libertarian debate. And that is because it is. It is no accident that you LLs prefer allying with the most-anti business/property anarchists.
All you’re doing is perpetuating a mischaracterization of people and demonstrating your own lack of comprehension of the ideas. To my knowledge, noone in the libertarian left is normatively “anti-buisiness”. So please stop jumping to conclusions based on prejudices. Being normatively anti-buisiness is no more rational than being normatively pro-buisiness. Both are irrational. Your own statements seem to imply a normative pro-buisiness sentiment. Either of those positions drops context. The same is true of being “pro-property” or “anti-property”. Noone in their right mind is either “pro-property” or “anti-property” as an absolute regaurdless of context. That’s what a theory of property rights is for, to provide the context. The claimed property of a theif or a state, for example, is not legitimate as a property rights claim.
But thankyou for helping to confirm my accusations about right-libertarian’s overt hostility and misunderstanding. You guys are making hanus blanket statements based on your own prejudice of what things “sound like” to you rather than what people actually mean. Instead of actually taking the time to comprehend the ideas you just red-bait. It’s a very weak and dishonorable tactic.
OK, enough. There are three (four?) other threads on this topic. If you want to debate the (de)merits of left or right libertarianism do so there. This thread is merely one in search of an answer on Long’s classification as a libertarian, and so this entire… discussion is extraneous.
OK, I think I understand. You call left libertarians whose who are the “radical ones” (anti-state and support acts of civil disobedience) and right-libertarians who are the more “conservative ones” (pro-state, don’t support that acts, reformists).
We can put into the first category people like Murray Rothbard, Roederick Long, David Friedman, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, just to name a few. And into the second category, we have Frederic Bastiat, Ayn Rand, Ron Paul, Ludwig Von Mises, and most members of the Libertarian Party, for example.
But among radical (left) libertarians, we have those who have a neo-Lockean theory of property (just doesn’t matter what conclusions they derive from it, like in the case of corporations) and those who simply not. Given this distinction, the first ones are more on the “right side” of the spectrum (just a little more conservatives, to say it another way), and in this category we have anarcho-capitalists, like Rothbard, Long and Friedman. The other ones are the most “leftish” libertartarians, the “collectivist” ones, who oppose private property of the means of production. Here we can put mutualist, anarcho-collectivists and anarcho-communists. For example, Kropotkin, Bakunin and Chomsky.
I think you have it right, but that is why I said it makes sense to only apply the labels “left” and “right” to cultural preferences (Hoppe is a cultural conservative whereas Long is pro-feminism, anti-bossism &c.), and use the property characterizations to differentiate the various forms of anarchism. We’re all “left” in the sense that we’re radically anti-state and against involuntary relations of authority, so that’s really a non-starter.