Left-Libertarianism

[Genivaria]

I would think our opposition to Corporation and our support of Co-operatives. At least thats how I see it.

But then it's not really a difference of how society should be structured, but more of a personal difference. Any sufficiently large society will have both people who choose to live in a "capitalist" way, and people who choose to live in a "communist" way. It would seem there isn't as much difference between this variety of left-libertarians and right-libertarians as people might think.

You don't think that Left-Lib and Right-Lib politicians would have different policies?

[Robert Magoo]

But then it's not really a difference of how society should be structured, but more of a personal difference. Any sufficiently large society will have both people who choose to live in a "capitalist" way, and people who choose to live in a "communist" way. It would seem there isn't as much difference between this variety of left-libertarians and right-libertarians as people might think.

You don't think that Left-Lib and Right-Lib politicians would have different policies?

They do, but the question is why. If the goal is the same, those political differences shouldn't exist.

[Genivaria]

You don't think that Left-Lib and Right-Lib politicians would have different policies?

They do, but the question is why. If the goal is the same, those political differences shouldn't exist.

And what goal are you referring to? And people can agree on a goal but have differing methods to reach that goal.

[The Pretend Pub]

You don't think that Left-Lib and Right-Lib politicians would have different policies?

They do, but the question is why. If the goal is the same, those political differences shouldn't exist.

Different understandings of how best to go about it...

[Cruciland]

*sigh* I'm comparing it to Somalia because they BOTH have no government OR major rules/moral codes! Jeez...

And IM saying that its a rather useless comparison. Hell even free trade and businesses exist in Somalia (albeit limited).

NOR are there a lack of rules or moral codes in any anarchist society that exists/has existed.

Then it is not entirely Anarchist. Anarchism involves the complete lack of government, which oftentimes enforces rules. By "left-winged", I am talking about SOCIALLY, not ECONOMICALLY. Please understand that there is, actually, a third dimension on the political compass.

[Natapoc]

And IM saying that its a rather useless comparison. Hell even free trade and businesses exist in Somalia (albeit limited).

NOR are there a lack of rules or moral codes in any anarchist society that exists/has existed.

Then it is not entirely Anarchist. Anarchism involves the complete lack of government, which oftentimes enforces rules. By "left-winged", I am talking about SOCIALLY, not ECONOMICALLY. Please understand that there is, actually, a third dimension on the political compass.

All proper* value systems prioritize freedom except when that freedom harms others (ie when your freedom limits the freedom of others). Why stop at 3 dimensions? Why not more?

"Left Libertarianism" is not defined by a political graph. It's definition predates things like that. It's the "radical left" or the "left of the left". It's anarchism, Pure communism, ect.

*Proper being defined as: "Something that Natapoc will agree is good"

[The Merchant Republics]

I would think our opposition to Corporation and our support of Co-operatives. At least thats how I see it.

But then it's not really a difference of how society should be structured, but more of a personal difference. Any sufficiently large society will have both people who choose to live in a "capitalist" way, and people who choose to live in a "communist" way. It would seem there isn't as much difference between this variety of left-libertarians and right-libertarians as people might think.

Too much vitriol in the libertarian movement. Bitters the rather lovely dream, united libertarians both left and right would be a powerful force, but too many right libertarians are too willing to play apologist for cronyistic state policies that prop up corporations and far too many left libertarians are willing to play apologist for the modern welfare state and forcible state redistribution of wealth.

[Tekania]

The way I understand, a libertarian is some one who believes that people should be able to do what they want as long as they do not cause harm or infringe on the rights of others.

Leftists tend to be viewed as people who want the government to regulate business to improve the standard of living of the working class.

The only potential contradiction I see is if business owners claim that the government, by supporting socialist reforms, is infringing on their right to exploit their workers.

This is of course the single issue between the two (right vs left libertarianism); whether one person has the right to exploit another. Leftist generally say no, rightists generally say yes.

Personally I'm a parecon.

[Neo-Sincostan]

In case its not already been mentioned by the way, an anarcho-communist first coined the term "libertarian" so its not a contradiction at all.
I'm in full support of the various economic systems that come under the umbrella term "Left-Libertarian". Although I prefer to shy away from the label since I don't consider myself aligned with a lot of the positions held by the Left anymore. I started getting inspiration from post-Left anarchism, the European individualist anarchists, philosophers like Nietzsche or Stirner, elements of nihilism etc. Its made me a bit unpopular with some of the groups I associate with since theres obviously going to be very few places where anti-state communists with an egoist agenda are going to fit in perfectly but I'm not that bothered.
As for the rest of your Leftists, I have pretty much only loathing and contempt for them all. Where do I even begin? Marxism-Leninism and all its derivatives are never going to establish communism and lets hope to god they don't manage to convince people to partake in another little "revolution" of theirs. The Left in general is plagued with emotionalist and moralised arguments. The display of ignorance in regards to history, philosophy, politics etc. is astounding (although that can be applied to both "wings" I'd suppose, as well as the tendency to cling to ideas so abstract and subjective to the point of crippling impracticality). People are still clambering to "unite" the Left for reasons beyond me (yeah lets make friends with the Stalin fanboys, what an excellent proposal) nevermind the fact its almost as if people are still upset and bickering over the fact the Marxists kicked the anarchists out the First International anyway. Just everything really.

[Robert Magoo]

But then it's not really a difference of how society should be structured, but more of a personal difference. Any sufficiently large society will have both people who choose to live in a "capitalist" way, and people who choose to live in a "communist" way. It would seem there isn't as much difference between this variety of left-libertarians and right-libertarians as people might think.

Too much vitriol in the libertarian movement. Bitters the rather lovely dream, united libertarians both left and right would be a powerful force, but too many right libertarians are too willing to play apologist for cronyistic state policies that prop up corporations and far too many left libertarians are willing to play apologist for the modern welfare state and forcible state redistribution of wealth.

I know. I hate it. Having a free society should be more important than determining exactly how that society will operate, economically speaking. This is why I tend to like a lot of agorists more than self-described anarcho-capitalists (so long as they aren't violent agorists) They don't have the built-in bias against communal living, etc which makes a lot of ancaps look much less pro-freedom than they actually are. There's a lot to like about the left-wing variants of libertaranism, so long as they don't become anti-market.

[Genivaria]

But then it's not really a difference of how society should be structured, but more of a personal difference. Any sufficiently large society will have both people who choose to live in a "capitalist" way, and people who choose to live in a "communist" way. It would seem there isn't as much difference between this variety of left-libertarians and right-libertarians as people might think.

Too much vitriol in the libertarian movement. Bitters the rather lovely dream, united libertarians both left and right would be a powerful force, but too many right libertarians are too willing to play apologist for cronyistic state policies that prop up corporations and far too many left libertarians are willing to play apologist for the modern welfare state and forcible state redistribution of wealth.

Tell me friend, what is your stance economically? How do you view Corporations and Unions?
Actually... this question is for you to Robert Magoo.

[Fritstaour]

Left libertarianism isn't libertarian at all, prioritisation of " the people " over each person is collective tyranny

[Robert Magoo]

Actually... this question is for you to Robert Magoo.

I have no problem with corporations so long as they are naturally formed. LLCs shouldn't exist. Corporations should be held fully responsible for the results of their actions, same as any individual. I have no problem with unions either, so long as they aren't state sponsored. They can do a lot of good to ensure that people get a fair wage/fair treatment from their employer, and what really bothers me isn't unions, but government-forced unionization, etc. Both employer and employee should be free to bargain collectively or individually, as they see fit. This is why I'm also against "right to work" laws.

I believe in a truly free market. "Capitalist" or "communist" isn't the right question to ask.

I actually like a lot of co-ops, etc. Whatever works for the people who make up the organization. Egality is good so long as it isn't created through force or theft.

I'm not quite an anarchist (of any variety) but I sympathize a lot with certain varieties of anarchism. I think the state should be minimized as much as possible, but that some level of government, for enforcing contracts, etc will always be necessary.

[Genivaria]

Actually... this question is for you to Robert Magoo.

I have no problem with corporations so long as they are naturally formed. LLCs shouldn't exist. Corporations should be held fully responsible for the results of their actions, same as any individual. I have no problem with unions either, so long as they aren't state sponsored. They can do a lot of good to ensure that people get a fair wage/fair treatment from their employer, and what really bothers me isn't unions, but government-forced unionization, etc. Both employer and employee should be free to bargain collectively or individually, as they see fit. This is why I'm also against "right to work" laws.

I believe in a truly free market. "Capitalist" or "communist" isn't the right question to ask.

I actually like a lot of co-ops, etc. Whatever works for the people who make up the organization. Egality is good so long as it isn't created through force or theft.

I'm not quite an anarchist (of any variety) but I sympathize a lot with certain varieties of anarchism. I think the state should be minimized as much as possible, but that some level of government, for enforcing contracts, etc will always be necessary.

I see. Do you think that unions could continue to survive without the governments protection?

[The Pretend Pub]

Left libertarianism isn't libertarian at all, prioritisation of " the people " over each person is collective tyranny

Nonsense. Libertarianism is intrinsically leftist. Left-libertarians don't think of themselves as prioritizing "the people" over the individual, but rather see themselves as the ultimate individualists based on their own understanding of where the true threats to his liberty come from.

[Robert Magoo]

I have no problem with corporations so long as they are naturally formed. LLCs shouldn't exist. Corporations should be held fully responsible for the results of their actions, same as any individual. I have no problem with unions either, so long as they aren't state sponsored. They can do a lot of good to ensure that people get a fair wage/fair treatment from their employer, and what really bothers me isn't unions, but government-forced unionization, etc. Both employer and employee should be free to bargain collectively or individually, as they see fit. This is why I'm also against "right to work" laws.

I believe in a truly free market. "Capitalist" or "communist" isn't the right question to ask.

I actually like a lot of co-ops, etc. Whatever works for the people who make up the organization. Egality is good so long as it isn't created through force or theft.

I'm not quite an anarchist (of any variety) but I sympathize a lot with certain varieties of anarchism. I think the state should be minimized as much as possible, but that some level of government, for enforcing contracts, etc will always be necessary.

I see. Do you think that unions could continue to survive without the governments protection?

So long as companies they represent are required to stick to their end of contracts, yes. If a company signs a contract with a union saying they will only use their labor, they need to be held to that just as strongly as anybody else. There's no getting out of it just because they don't want to deal with the union anymore.

[NewLakotah]

I'm much more of a Conservative-Libertarian. I don't really care for Left-Libertarianism, though I don't dislike it as its just a branch of the Liberarianism ideology. As long as they stand for strong individual Liberty, then I'm all for it.

[The Merchant Republics]

Actually... this question is for you to Robert Magoo.

I have no problem with corporations so long as they are naturally formed. LLCs shouldn't exist. Corporations should be held fully responsible for the results of their actions, same as any individual. I have no problem with unions either, so long as they aren't state sponsored. They can do a lot of good to ensure that people get a fair wage/fair treatment from their employer, and what really bothers me isn't unions, but government-forced unionization, etc. Both employer and employee should be free to bargain collectively or individually, as they see fit. This is why I'm also against "right to work" laws.

I believe in a truly free market. "Capitalist" or "communist" isn't the right question to ask.

I actually like a lot of co-ops, etc. Whatever works for the people who make up the organization. Egality is good so long as it isn't created through force or theft.

I'm not quite an anarchist (of any variety) but I sympathize a lot with certain varieties of anarchism. I think the state should be minimized as much as possible, but that some level of government, for enforcing contracts, etc will always be necessary.

Exactly my sentiments.

[The USOT]

And IM saying that its a rather useless comparison. Hell even free trade and businesses exist in Somalia (albeit limited).

NOR are there a lack of rules or moral codes in any anarchist society that exists/has existed.

Then it is not entirely Anarchist. Anarchism involves the complete lack of government, which oftentimes enforces rules. By "left-winged", I am talking about SOCIALLY, not ECONOMICALLY. Please understand that there is, actually, a third dimension on the political compass.

Yes I am aware you mean socially rather than economic. If you actually knew anything about anarchist philosophy you would probably be aware of the O that often surrounds the A in traditional anarchist symbolism. The O stands for Order.
Now most anarchists beleive that the state is actually a cause of disorder and promotes heirarchic relations which lead to many crimes etc, and observe that in voluntary and anarchistic societies that a natural harmony exists (such as how in Twin Oaks there is no governing body and yet no theft etc) and the extremism in crimes in more authoritarian systems.

Now even ignoring that, both the warlords and the united islamists are in no way socially left wing or libertarian. Some are aristocraticc, many kill people for not adhering to no drinking laws, many are ultranationalists etc.

So yes I understand that there is a third political axis (actually there are a lot more, e.g. biopolitics etc) but what im saying is regardless of political axis, giving a authoritarian conservative enclave that uses capital as production is an utterly poor example of an anti-authoritarian egalitarian society.

[Genivaria]

I see. Do you think that unions could continue to survive without the governments protection?

So long as companies they represent are required to stick to their end of contracts, yes. If a company signs a contract with a union saying they will only use their labor, they need to be held to that just as strongly as anybody else. There's no getting out of it just because they don't want to deal with the union anymore.

But what incentive does a business have to allow a union to exist, instead of simply busting the union and hiring scabs as has happened so often?

[Robert Magoo]

So long as companies they represent are required to stick to their end of contracts, yes. If a company signs a contract with a union saying they will only use their labor, they need to be held to that just as strongly as anybody else. There's no getting out of it just because they don't want to deal with the union anymore.

But what incentive does a business have to allow a union to exist, instead of simply busting the union and hiring scabs as has happened so often?

Fear of the law. It's just, law that they agreed to. GM, for instance, has a contract with the UAW. They have agreed to only hire UAW labor. Sometimes it is actually beneficial to the company to hire union labor. Union workers are often better trained and more productive than their non-union counterparts. Sometimes availability of non-union labor is low, too. Force of law isn't the only factor which leads to the hiring of unionized workers. In your example, sure a company can fire their unionized employees, but if they have a contract with the union, they can't hire anybody else; they'd have to take them back eventually or go out of business because they don't have anybody to do the work.

[Trotskylvania]

I would think our opposition to Corporation and our support of Co-operatives. At least thats how I see it.

But then it's not really a difference of how society should be structured, but more of a personal difference. Any sufficiently large society will have both people who choose to live in a "capitalist" way, and people who choose to live in a "communist" way. It would seem there isn't as much difference between this variety of left-libertarians and right-libertarians as people might think.

The problem is that you're still framing this issue in terms of a "choice", implying a metaphysical notion of free will that is incompatible with both physics and social sciences.

There is no such thing as a "choice" in any meaningful sense when it comes to the form that society takes. All societies that survive for more than a single generation develop structures, institutions and attitudes in citizens to enforce and recreate the existing social relations. Societies that fail to do this invariably collapse.

This is why there is a case to be made that propertarian libertarians are at least partially rightists, in the engaged historical sense that Bluth speaks of. They are recapitulating the dominant ideological narrative of the present class society into an ideal form, where class dictatorship can be divested of it's utilitarian rationalizations and move to a purer, first principles form: that class dictatorship is a quasi-divine right conferred by the "merit" of owning property, to which the propertyless must submit to or perish of their own "free will".

[Distruzio]

But businesses are made up by people and by denying businesses to do things, you are actually denying people their right to chose what they want to do. That is not liberal at all.

I know! Denying my right to exploit or rule over others is wrong. Anyone who refuses to recognize my right as dictator is authoritarian and hypocritical. By denying my right to lead the world as benevolent dictator you're imposing on my liberties, telling me what I can and can't do. Stop that!

Nat, that's why we base our perspective on property rights. Each individual owns themself and no one else. We believe thy liberty - and civilization, for that matter - stems from the acknowledgement of that fact. A dictator, a tyrant, is restricted in the name of liberty b/c he presumes to own other individuals first and foremost.

[Bottle]

My experience with American libertarians has poisoned the word. To me, a libertarian is a privileged white person, usually male, who cares just enough about "individual liberty" to resent paying his taxes, but not quite enough to be willing to fight for civil rights for anybody else.

[Natapoc]

My experience with American libertarians has poisoned the word. To me, a libertarian is a privileged white person, usually male, who cares just enough about "individual liberty" to resent paying his taxes, but not quite enough to be willing to fight for civil rights for anybody else.

Sadly this is what Libertarian has come to mean to many people. But that's no reason to let them have that word. I see no reason why we should recognize the right of such selfish individuals to such a nice word.