Thoughts on Left libertarianism Posted by: McQ
on Friday, July 08, 2005
Some passing thoughts on an interesting discussion I'm having on "left libertarianism" in the comments section of another post. In essence the argument I'm making is left libertarianism is almost oxymoronic while some commenters are attempting to persuade me that the label has validity.
I base my argument against left libertarianism being valid on the premise that in the continuum of left and right, any move to the left tends toward collectivism and to the right toward individualism. Collectivism is to individualism as totalitarianism is to freedom. They're polar opposites.
In that light I just can’t see the disconnect that would invalidate the term "left libertarian" as being mutually exclusive of accepting, in the final analysis, the reduction of government and opening of free markets. Kind of like the difference of whether you want to look at achieving a goal from the bottom up or the top down. Lefties being grass roots oriented (give us individuals freedom and govt. will get smaller) while righties are more top down (make the govt. smaller and that will trickle down to being more freedoms for the individual.)
Well, one example I think which tends to validate my thesis over Mr. Zimmerman's can be found in today's New York Times under the name of Paul Krugman, who, for an entire column, argues that we should involve government in controlling obesity:
It is more important, however, to emphasize that there are situations in which "free to choose" is all wrong - and that this is one of them.
For one thing, the most rapid rise in obesity isn't taking place among adults, who, we hope, can understand the consequences of their decisions. It's taking place among children and adolescents.
And even if children weren't a big part of the problem, only a blind ideologue or an economist could argue with a straight face that Americans were rationally deciding to become obese. In fact, even many economists know better: the most widely cited recent economic analysis of obesity, a 2003 paper by David Cutler, Edward Glaeser and Jesse Shapiro of Harvard University, declares that "at least some food consumption is almost certainly not rational." It goes on to present evidence that even adults have clear problems with self-control.
Above all, we need to put aside our anti-government prejudices and realize that the history of government interventions on behalf of public health, from the construction of sewer systems to the campaign against smoking, is one of consistent, life-enhancing success. Obesity is America's fastest-growing health problem; let's do something about it.
Now this should come as no surprise to those familiar with Krugman. And I'm not really here to deal with the Krugman argument so much as to point out that to me, it is symptomatic of the left's penchant toward finding a solution for just about everything in government, which, by definition then means bigger government. And bigger government and more government control and involvement is a collectivist ideal. I see nothing within the left today which tends toward "give us individuals freedom and govt. will get smaller" as Mr. Zimmerman contends. In fact, another good example is the Live8 concert which, instead of asking individuals to give money for Africa, badgered heads of state to do so (which means using the power of government to exact whatever they end up promising).
That's not to say a certain element on the right doesn't have the same sort of penchant, although with a different slant. The left wants to be your mommy and tell you what you can eat, what you can or can't smoke, what doctor to see and how much you can earn and keep. The right wants to be your daddy and tell you who you can sleep with and what to do with your body. The right has a tendency to think of government as a moral force. I find that to be completely misplaced as well, but not to the same extent that I find the penchant of the left to rely on and grow government for "the common good".
The sorts of tendencies I mention on the right seem to be less pervasive and more of a product of a misunderstanding or misapplication of the principle of individual rights than an abrogation of them.
The left, on the other hand, while speaking of rights and liberties, is, in reality, more interested in equality than rights and liberty (and tends to define rights and liberty in terms of equality). Equality in all areas (not just in the law), again, is a collectivist ideal.
That brings me back to my point about the base of each the left and right in the mentioned continuum. If libertarianism, as it is understood today, is based in the individual and his/her rights, it would seem to me that the further you go to the left, the farther you move away from that base premise.
One commenter likened left and right libertarianism to different denominations of Christianity.
Fine, but when all is said and done, at base in any denomination of Christianity is a belief in Christ. You can't be a Christian if you don't believe in Christ. In terms of libertarianism and individualism, tell me how the libertarian base can possibly exist in something called "libertarian communism?"
Those on the left that claim libertarianism are actually trying to claim libertinism (for whichever particular vice they happen to be fond of at the moment.) There is a real divide between hawk and dove libertarians, but anything else is sophistry.
The only remotely reasonable use of the words "left" and "libertarianism" as one I’ve ever seen was when I saw it here in a Daniel McCarthy piece a few years back. The way he used it, it sounds like just another way of saying "libertarians that have particular rage towards religion & corporate influence-buying". But IMO that’s like calling an ardent advocate for a planned economy who happens to have a bone to pick with secular culture a "conservative socialist".
Far as I’m concerned, you cannot be both a libertarian and a leftist of any stripe. One could be an anarchist who advocates one economic system over another while not wanting to force anyone into it, but that’s not the same thing. Besides, in a libertarian nation socialists would be free to form their own voluntary collectives without interference, whereas in a socialist nation any capitalists would inevitably be violently purged. Libertarianism can allow leftism to co-exist, leftism by its very nature cannot allow libertarianism to exist.
There are no communist libertarians but there are anarchist libertarians. Communism is an extreme form of collectivism. The extreme form of indiviualism is anarchy.
But I question that as you move right, you move to individualism. Under that premise, laws against abortion or sodomy would have to be "leftist" laws. The far right (monarchy, theoracy) is every bit as authoritaian as the far left. The classic reactionary right believes in the divine right of Kings or the divine right of the church to rule the mob. Libertarians believe that individual rights trump public good (leading some from the other side to use the slur libertines). That eleminates us from either the far left OR far right since both use the public good to justify squashing indiviual rights. So where are we, on the up and down axis?
But I question that as you move right, you move to individualism.
That’s the continuum as it pertains to collectivism at one end and individualism at the other with collectivism identified on the left and individualism on the right.
So I have to ask:
The far right (monarchy, theoracy) is every bit as authoritaian as the far left.
... how is this a product of the "far right" of that continuum, keeping in mind what that means?
Wouldn’t the far right produce anarchy instead of monarchy or theocracy?
Under that premise, laws against abortion or sodomy would have to be "leftist" laws.
Why is that? If the premise of an abortion law is to protect the rights of an individual (unborn) how is it a leftist law (and for the record, I think its a misapplication of such protection).
Sodomy laws are simply using government to enforce morality. That’s really outside the perview of this discussion.
The classic reactionary right believes in the divine right of Kings or the divine right of the church to rule the mob.
The classic right were refered to as "classic liberals" who were individualists. They were the ones who fought the concept of "divine rights".
Libertarians believe that individual rights trump public good (leading some from the other side to use the slur libertines). That eleminates us from either the far left OR far right since both use the public good to justify squashing indiviual rights.
I think you’re confusing a political continuum with the collectivist/individualist continuum I’ve been talking about.
Well you did conclude with the idea of "libertarian communism", I’ll onky iterate what I said in my previous posting that I also have some difficulty consoling those two particular philosophies as I understand them. (And really what we are talking about gerneally boils down to how we understand them.)
First let me state that I tend to agree more with the philosophy condoned at http://www.politicalcompass.org which suggests that left and right do not accurately portray political philosophy, but that a north and south of Authoritarianism and Libertarianism should be added to the mix. Just to give you some better idea of where I’m coming from on this.
In all I think what we are really talking about is a disjoint in how each of us tend to define and view the whole left/right concept. I would suggest that we’ve each learned left/right from many different areas in many different ways and that, as you pointed out, these ways aren’t even the traditional ones used even just a century ago. I think that to populis America left is not Paul Krugman. That’s FAR left. Right is not Pat Buchanan. That’s FAR right (which as you notice does NOT fall in well with your concept that far right is really individualism since, as another poster pointed out, the far right would seem to suggest legislation of morality.)
So I suggest there is a disjoint in how each of us is defining left and right.
That is why I believe that the moderate left seems to advocate personal freedom, along with some of the other stuff that lots of moderate lefties don’t really agree with that suggest big government everywhere. These folks see the RIGHT as the ones who want to infringe on their freedoms because of what is perfcieved to be far right views of moral legislation. Heck, just look at the party line on legalization of marijuana. How many Republicans are voting for it? Not to mention the left loves peace, right? (At least taht is the popular conception, I woudl contend.) And all we seem to see in modern American politics is a right (meaning Republican in the popular mindset) that had at best cut taxes, but then put us into deeper and deeper debt because they haven’t cut spending, and in many cases have incresed it. That’s is, I believe, how moderate lefties view the whole definition of "right". Not to mention the view that righties are a bunch of war mongers who obviously want to initiate force to make others see the "democratic way", and the Christian way, for that matter. At least Clinton, so it would be suggested, reduced the defecit and the poor man had to suffer all that indignity and probing into his personal freedoms.
Conversely you’ve shown quite a few instances in your own blog of folks like Mr. Krugman that give us a view of exactly how those on the moderate right view what must be whatever the philosophy of "left" is, and that the whole left thing must be about big givernment.
All I’m suggesting is that by those viewpoints I could easily see how an everyday American can look at left and right and be utterly confused becuse BOTH sides seem to have libertarian ideals, but neither of them can seem to distill the good stuff liberty is made of from the not so good big government garbage they BOTH seem to contantly heap on us.
So to soemone on the right who only sees the right’s more distilled and proper philosophy (the more classical liberal one), then such a side would suggest more liberty. To someone who’d been on the left they likely see the push there for personal liberty, but perhaps they feel acknowledging that corporations, like people, sometimes are tempted and maybe we need to keep an eye on them as well, while they often think the right is all about letting big corporations run roughshod over people’s rights all they want. (I know that is not true, since libertarian principles would just as quickly step in to chastise a corporation initiating coercion as they would an individual, or at least the individuals initiating corporate policies that are infinging upon other’s right... without a contract for it, that is.... in the most simplified of terms. ;))
At any rate, in modern Amercia Left is synonymous with Democrat and right is sysnonomous with Republican and the wack jobs on both sides stand out to the others as indicative of the mainstream. And THAT is where I think you will see folks trying to make the distiction of being right or left of those very wackjobs they despise that seem to most embody the principals they despise.
It’s all a matter of perception, I say. And that is why "left libertarian", by percieving the left as being pro-personal freedoms and wanting to be diametrically opposed to the "war mongering", fundamentalist christian, moral police state side of issues they percieve to be on the right, is a valid label to that way of looking at things. Am I any clearer yet? At least in showing that the disjoint is not in how you, or they, view libertarianism, but in how you you view that label as opposed to how a self-styled "left libertarian" might view that label.
I think you’re confusing a political continuum with the collectivist/individualist continuum I’ve been talking about.
I think that is EXACTLY the problem. You are trying to view it from a collectivist/individualist viewpoint, while many others view it from the democrat/republican viewpont. Hence left doesn’t fit in with your label, but it fits in with their label because you are arguing it from two completely different viewpoints.
I guess the real argument then is... which is the "correct" way to view it? Especially when, especially in libertarian circles, the labels constantly seem to swtich definitions between those two? Got me on the answer to that. I’ve just gone with what seems to more populist consensus of demo/rep for left/right and authoritarian/libertarian for the stronger focal point of my personal political belief system.
This seems like a great place to plug one of my favorite books. "Leftism Revisited" by Erik Von Kuehnelt-Leddihin.
Best exposition on the left right dynamic I have ever read, albeit still flawed. His libertarian love of freedom leads him to give too much of a pass to Prodhoun.
"Wouldn’t the far right produce anarchy instead of monarchy or theocracy?"
McQ, Erik Von Kuehnelt-Leddihin (see my previous comment) argued that anarchy is on the right (albeit, not the anarchism that has become popular that involves levelling and the abolition of capitalism). He himself floated seemlessly between anarchist (his definition, not the popular one) and monarchist.
I don’t know that "libertarian communism" is possible if you are thinking of communism as Marxism, but it may be theoretically possible if you are thinking of one of the "purer" definitions of communism. Take many of the experimental communes, for example. Everyone is there voluntarily and coercion is not used to enforce "discipline." Everyone agrees on the rules and everyone pitches in voluntarily where needed to a achieve the goals that the members have agreed to pursue collectively. I don’t see where such a system would necessarily be incompatible with the beliefs of most libertarians (other, perhaps, than pure Randians who believe that altruism is a dangerous delusion).
On the other hand, I don’t see where such a system could be workable in anything other than a very small group of VERY like-minded individuals. Not that the impracticality of a political philosophy seems to ever rule out it finding some adherents somewhere.
Libertarian Communism = small collectives, no centralisation, each collective able to have recognised property rights, but no patent law/copyright and members of the collective each trading their labour instead of capital to aquire membership in the collective.
Only government functions are to prevent "crimes of aggression", means small government.
As the collective you contribute grows so does your wealth, this makes altruism unneccessary for growth.
The USA is not a libertarian society—not even close. If we assume libertarianism the ideal state, then how do we get there from where we are? On balance, some libertarian ideals arrive from the right, others come from the left. Thus, the idea of "left" and "right" libertarinism is mostly one of approach and compensation. But, there needs to be so many radical changes to the current system to reach this ideal balance, that it is almost ridiculous to assume that one of the current mainstream parties is closer to this ideal than others.
The USA has global (imperial) cultural and financial dominance over the globe. The government has jaded equal opportunities (liberties) through its laws and regulations. Wealth and power is therefore not a product of "free markets", "free thought" or "free" anything. Rather, it has more to do with how governments define such things to serve their own interests.
Here is a brief libertaian quia and summary of defined libertarianism that I found on the net: http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html (take it) LIBERTARIANS support maximum liberty in both personal and economic matters. They advocate a much smaller government; one that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence. Libertarians tend to embrace individual responsibility, oppose government bureaucracy and taxes, promote private charity, tolerate diverse lifestyles, support the free market, and defend civil liberties.
I took this test and scored on the line of liberal and libertarian.
Libertarian Communism = small collectives, no centralisation, each collective able to have recognised property rights, but no patent law/copyright and members of the collective each trading their labour instead of capital to aquire membership in the collective.
Uh huh ... and what if you don’t want to play the collective game anymore? What if you want your own property rights?
That would be a libertarian position. How would you square it with the ’communism’ portion?
I have to admit that this is a somewhat amusing situation ...
1) The word "libertarian" was apparently first used to denote the debate between advocates of free will and advocates of predestination in Christian doctrine.
2) Following that, it was used to denote anarchist variants of communism and socialism, as opposed to statist variants (the split in the First International was between the libertarians and the Marxists).
3) For about a century, "libertarian" was a term that almost exclusively denoted a Leftist orientation—although not a statist Leftist orientation.
4) In the mid-20th century, certain figures (most notably Rothbard) who regarded themselves as "on the Right" took up the term to distinguish themsevles from what we now call the "neoconservatives."
5) Some of those figures—Rothbard, Samuel Edward Konkin III, Karl Hess, et al—then promoted a "fusionism" of Old Right-style libertarians with the New Left over issues of foreign policy.
6) SEK3 eventually created an enduring, if small, "Movement of the Libertarian Left," which even now is experiencing a renaissance due to the re-emergence of foreign policy as the preeminent issue of the day.
7) Comes along a bunch of "neolibertarians" who expropriate the name of the Movement of the Libertarian Left’s designation and journal (New Libertarian), start hawking (pun intended) the very "neoconservative" policies which originally split the "Right" libertarians off of the New Right in the first place ... and then start claiming that they’re confused that there might be such a thing a "Left libertarianism."
In reply, I confess that I’m left only with the somewhat less than satisfactory:
What the fuck?
"Right libertarianism" is an historical aberration. "Neolibertarianism" is an aberration on top of that aberration. Your whole line of inquiry is something akin to a mutant egg incredulously questioning the idea that the chicken which laid it could exist.
Comes along a bunch of "neolibertarians" who expropriate the name of the Movement of the Libertarian Left’s designation and journal (New Libertarian), start hawking (pun intended) the very "neoconservative" policies which originally split the "Right" libertarians off of the New Right in the first place ... and then start claiming that they’re confused that there might be such a thing a "Left libertarianism."
Yup, and the "stars and bars" used to represent the Confederacy and is now considered a symbol of hate.
What’s your point, Tom?
Things change and so do the meaning of words. There’s a paradigm shift at work here and you’ve studiously avoided it as it pertains to the meaning of the word "libertarian" today.
The fact that it’s been used over the decades to represent many things doesn’t change the fact that it means something different (and specific) today.
So again, based on the premise to which it holds TODAY (individualist, egoist, rights based), how is a collectivist overlay compatible with it?
You STILL haven’t even approached answering the question, contenting yourself instead with various meandering and increasingly irrelevant history lessons on who once claimed the name "libertarian".
So what?!
All of which leave me with a less than satisfactory:
Holy shit! Does he understand the topic?
Were not here to talk history. This is about what libertarian means today in the context of a specifically stated egoist philosophy ... not 50 years ago. Terms have changed. Classic liberal is no longer the liberal of today. The mutant egg is now the chicken.
Don’t be silly. While I don’t have a monopoly on the definition of "libertarian," neither do you.
At this particular time (late 20th/early 21st century), in this particular place (the United States), your (re)definition has gained partial adoption by those who use the word. The overwhelming acceptance of that (re)definition which you seem to think exists, doesn’t.
While QandO is one of my favorite blogs (regardless of ideological disagreements), and while the "neolibertarian network" has a certain following, both are far from dominant or defining in the movement they are attempting to sway.
There is, of course, a certain strategic value in pretending that you’ve already won the day; if that’s what you’re about, fine. I’m down with propaganda and all, but I recognize it for what it is ... and I sense genuine confusion, not an attempt to simply ride roughshod over definition for strategic reasons (which is why I am bothering at all).
So, to your question:
"So again, based on the premise to which it holds TODAY"
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means"—Inigo Montoya, "The Princess Bride"
There are various premises to which libertarianism holds today. QandO/the "neolibertarian network" have made a surprisingly good start at becoming one of the middling-sized factions in the struggle to define those premises to their own purposes. A good start, however, is a far thing from a Cannae.
"(individualist, egoist, rights based), how is a collectivist overlay compatible with it?"
Well, I don’t know. How is it that all you individualists and egoists are able to blog together as a ... collective ... here at QandO?
You’re still confusing a sub-question (what mode of organization, if any, a bunch of individualists and egoists who value their rights might choose in any particular instance) with the core question that libertarianism addresses (freedom versus coercion).
Individualism and collectivism are both, as you would have it, "overlays" on the libertarian answer to that question. In some cases, both overlays are used—see, for example, Max Stirner’s The Ego and Its Own, a radical individualist egoist riff on ... communist anarchism (Stirner was one of the Young Hegelians, a contemporary of Marx, which should tell you something about just how far back this debate goes).
The sorts of tendencies I mention on the right seem to be less pervasive and more of a product of a misunderstanding or misapplication of the principle of individual rights than an abrogation of them.
Look, I don’t like leftists, but your War on Terror and the right’s War on Drugs represent far greater threats to my liberty than much of anything that Sheila Jackson Lee wants to send down the Congressional sewer pipe these days.
Look, I don’t like leftists, but your War on Terror and the right’s War on Drugs represent far greater threats to my liberty than much of anything that Sheila Jackson Lee wants to send down the Congressional sewer pipe these days.
Well I agree with your point about the War on Drugs. But the WoT isn’t "my" war. I didn’t fly two planes loaded with innocent victims into the WTC.
At that point in time, any thoughts of "splendid isolation" were DOA. You can ignore that or you can acknowledge that some sort of reaction was (and is) necessary. If you acknowledge the latter, then I certainly think there is room for argument on proper prosecution and what is or isn’t kosher in terms of actions and activities by government as pertains liberties and perceived limits on them.
But, there needs to be so many radical changes to the current system to reach this ideal balance, that it is almost ridiculous to assume that one of the current mainstream parties is closer to this ideal than others.
I never identified them as ’major parties’. Nowhere will you find the words "Democrat" or "Republican".
I identified then as "right" and "left" with the right being the individualist side of the continuum and the left being the collectivist side.
That identification keeps getting brushed aside as others impose their own (liberal/conservative, Democrat/Republican, etc.).
The question remains, if libertarianism is considered to be a specifically egoist, individualist and rights based philosophy today, how is a collectivist overlay, such as socialism or communism compatible with that base principle of individualism? To me it seems, to use a previous example, like trying to be a "Christian" without believing in Christ.
At this particular time (late 20th/early 21st century), in this particular place (the United States), your (re)definition has gained partial adoption by those who use the word. The overwhelming acceptance of that (re)definition which you seem to think exists, doesn’t.
Nonsense. It most certainly does. And that’s the point, Tom. Take the little quiz someone left here. THAT is what now defines "libertarian", like it or not. There’s no "redefinition" to it. That is now the working definition the vast majority identify with "libertarian".
While QandO is one of my favorite blogs (regardless of ideological disagreements), and while the "neolibertarian network" has a certain following, both are far from dominant or defining in the movement they are attempting to sway.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with the context and meaning of the word "libertarain" as it is understood today ... something you continue to avoid.
Well, I don’t know. How is it that all you individualists and egoists are able to blog together as a ... collective ... here at QandO?
Good lord, Tom ... you’re better than this. We don’t "blog together". We put posts up on the same blog. This is context dropping at its worst and reduces the differences between individualism and collectivism to absolute meaninglessness.
Voluntary association does not equal collectivism and you know that.
You’re still confusing a sub-question (what mode of organization, if any, a bunch of individualists and egoists who value their rights might choose in any particular instance) with the core question that libertarianism addresses (freedom versus coercion).
I’m confusing it? LOL! Read your last statement about the ’collective’ of QandO for heaven sake.
Individualism and collectivism are both, as you would have it, "overlays" on the libertarian answer to that question. In some cases, both overlays are used—see, for example, Max Stirner’s The Ego and Its Own, a radical individualist egoist riff on ... communist anarchism (Stirner was one of the Young Hegelians, a contemporary of Marx, which should tell you something about just how far back this debate goes).
Nonsense. If the base premise of libertarianism is individualism and individualism is on the right of the collectivism/individualism continuum, how is individualism an "overlay" for libertarianism?
It’s the base PREMISE of libertarianism.
Libertarinism isn’t the continuum, it RESIDES on the right side of the continuum (while communism RESIDES on the left side). And it that which has prompted the question you continue to avoid ... how can something on the opposite end of that continuum be compatible with the other end?
So the self sufficient farmer of our recent past was a fanatasy?
Yep, how self sufficient was he? Enough to purchase the latest John Deere? He has to be successful enuff to barter his labour product for the John Deere 6403
You didn’t answer the question. What would be the "collective’s" response if you decided not to share?
You are no longer in the collective. Same as if you chose not to be a shareholder in a company, only this time it is your labour you withdraw not your capital.
You are no longer in the collective. Same as if you chose not to be a shareholder in a company, only this time it is your labour you withdraw not your capital.
That’s what I thought. What you describe then, is not collectivism.
"If the base premise of libertarianism is individualism"
... which it isn’t (the base premise of libertarianism is, and always has been, non-coercion) ...
"and individualism is on the right of the collectivism/individualism continuum,"
... which it may or may not be (laissez faire advocates sat on the left side of the aisle in the convocation of the Estates-General which defined the terms "left" and "right") ...
"how is individualism an "overlay" for libertarianism?"
Since your premises are FUBAR, your question is meaningless.
"Take the little quiz someone left here. THAT is what now defines ’libertarian,’ like it or not."
You really need to get out more. The fact that your particular, insular sub-sect of a minor sect of a small movement of a political subculture defines a word a particular way doesn’t mean that everybody else does.
Of course, I also belong to another particular, insular sub-sect of a minor sect of the same small movement of the same political subculture ... but I’m not silly enough to think that my sub-sect controls the meanings ascribed to words of the English language by the other 200+million people who don’t happen to be members of that sub-sect. Apparently you are that silly. So by all means, carry on.
Let me just toss in here that the premise may have changed slightly. The premise now appears to assume that left/right = collectivism/libertarianism.
I would suggest tha while the definition mentioned by McQ of libertarianism in the modern sense is most likely the popular understanding, and certainly more egoist, the definition of right/left in those same populist terms just does not equal collectivisn/individualism. Instead to the modern American mindset left/right really does equal Dem/Rep.
If you want same/same comparisons then I would suggest you need to use populist terms throughout the equstion which means that libertarianism, by modern populist definition, is neither inhrintly right or left, by the mordern populist definition (again, sticking to American culture.) As such left and right certinaly could apply to libertarianism depening on how you place your values on libertarianism in relation to the modern populist view of left/right.
So to force Tom’s version of left/right to fit in with your version of libertarianism you both must define exactly what you mean. You simply sound like you are arguaing to different definiitons right now and as long as there is no consensus of the terms there can be no consensus in the debate.
which it isn’t (the base premise of libertarianism is, and always has been, non-coercion) ...
No it hasn’t Tom. That’s a result, not a premise.
If you believe the rights of individuals and all that entails, that results is a principle of non-coercion. The base premise involves individuals and their rights FROM WHICH COMES the principle of non-coercion.
.. which it may or may not be (laissez faire advocates sat on the left side of the aisle in the convocation of the Estates-General which defined the terms "left" and "right") ...
Which is irrelevant to the point made, as usual.
Since your premises are FUBAR, your question is meaningless.
Ummm ... you mean my premise about libertarianism always being based in ’non-coercion’.
I identified then as "right" and "left" with the right being the individualist side of the continuum and the left being the collectivist side.
Well, I know plenty of right-wing collectivists and I happen to know some lefties who are pro-markets and individualistic. Just because you may not be aware of the latter doesn’t mean that they don’t exist.
Then there’s the historical understanding of left/right where the laissez-faire radicals sat on the left. Some people still identify with this understanding rather the modern, popular understanding.
And of course there are collectivist anarchists who use the term libertarian, and they’ve been doing so since before your grandparents were born.
Face it, no one has a monopoly on the definitions of left and right. Just because some people equate the left wing with collectivism doesn’t make it so. And I would assume that those libertarians who identify with the left do so for many reasons, ranging from being more socially liberal to wanting to distinguish themselves from neoconservatives and those "libertarians" who occasionally apologize for certain aspects of corporatism.
And I would assume that those libertarians who identify with the left do so for many reasons, ranging from being more socially liberal to wanting to distinguish themselves from neoconservatives and those "libertarians" who occasionally apologize for certain aspects of corporatism.
So in reality, you and Tom Knapp argue that "libertarianism" has whatever meaning anyone wants to assign to it thereby making the term meaningless?
The classic right were refered to as "classic liberals" who were individualists. They were the ones who fought the concept of "divine rights".
If anything, Classical Liberals were on the left. Their opposites would have been the Tories who were right wing. So you can see that going from left to right does not move you toward individualism.
Well I agree with your point about the War on Drugs.
Which proves that moving right doesn’t move you toward individualism anymore than moving left does.
But the WoT isn’t "my" war. I didn’t fly two planes loaded with innocent victims into the WTC.
And any cheerleader for the Drug War can just as easily say they didn’t start the War on Drugs, "I didn’t sell crack cocaine to elementary school kids."
At that point in time, any thoughts of "splendid isolation" were DOA. You can ignore that or you can acknowledge that some sort of reaction was (and is) necessary. If you acknowledge the latter, then I certainly think there is room for argument on proper prosecution and what is or isn’t kosher in terms of actions and activities by government as pertains liberties and perceived limits on them.
Prosecution at what cost to the individual, McQ. For all your arguement from necessity for it, the War on Terror is a purely collectivist endeavor, undertaken with little regard to the rights of individuals.
So in reality, you and Tom Knapp argue that "libertarianism" has whatever meaning anyone wants to assign to it thereby making the term meaningless?
Actually, I think you have it backwards. If anyone has done that to the term, it’s those "right libertarians" who deny the historical roots of the term and support rather nonlibertarian actions, such as collectivist state warfare.
The term libertarian originated on the left. Outside of the US, most of the people who use the term associate it with the non-authoritarian left.
You have to acknowledge the historical roots of the term, as Lynette Warren just did. And as Tom Knapp mentioned earlier: ""Right libertarianism" is an historical aberration. "Neolibertarianism" is an aberration on top of that aberration."
I personally consider any brand of "libertarianism" that sheds the libertarian antiwar tradition and cheers on the State in it’s quest to bomb certain parts of the world into oblivion to be worse than a mere aberration. I call it a perversion, and a rather vulgar one at that, but the whole war issue is a whole other can of worms that is best left to another discussion some other day.
So I guess you could say that those libertarians who identity themselves with the left are to some extent trying to bring the term back to it’s historical roots. Adding the term "left" to libertarian is kinda like adding the term "classical" to liberalism to make a distinction between the liberalism of old and modern welfare-state liberalism.
Additionally, the subject of counter-economics, varying brands of Georgism, lending support toward cooperatives and other non-profit voluntary associations, etc. are also examples of how there are many different types of libertarian thinking, some of which differ from the libertarian mainstream.
The term libertarian originated on the left. Outside of the US, most of the people who use the term associate it with the non-authoritarian left.
But, of course, none of us are "outside the US" are we? Nor is it any small thing that inside the US its considered to be a ’right wing’ association, is it?
I personally consider any brand of "libertarianism" that sheds the libertarian antiwar tradition and cheers on the State in it’s quest to bomb certain parts of the world into oblivion to be worse than a mere aberration. I call it a perversion, and a rather vulgar one at that, but the whole war issue is a whole other can of worms that is best left to another discussion some other day.
No hyperbole here, is there?
But up front, I don’t subscribe nor support the concept of ’splendid isolation’ in today’s world. Of course that doesn’t then automatically mean I "cheer the state", etc.
Adding the term "left" to libertarian is kinda like adding the term "classical" to liberalism to make a distinction between the liberalism of old and modern welfare-state liberalism.
Not today it isn’t, and that’s been the point of all of this.
Which proves that moving right doesn’t move you toward individualism anymore than moving left does.
Depends on the continuum being discussed doesn’t it? I’ve been very specific about the one being discussed here.
And any cheerleader for the Drug War can just as easily say they didn’t start the War on Drugs, "I didn’t sell crack cocaine to elementary school kids."
Which has what to do with anything? Should we have simply ignored 9/11 and written if off as a bad day?
There’s no cheerleading going on here (although I see that’s a popular buzz word for you folks). I see this war as a matter of necessity. I don’t see the drug war as a matter of necessity.
Prosecution at what cost to the individual, McQ. For all your arguement from necessity for it, the War on Terror is a purely collectivist endeavor, undertaken with little regard to the rights of individuals.
Really? How horrible.
Here’s a clue: all wars are "collectivist endeavors". There’s never been one that wasn’t.
So what do we do? Just ignore an aggressor and hope he goes away because we don’t participate in "collectivist endeavors?" Yeah, that’ll work.
Frankly he does’t care one whit whether you are for or against "collectivist efforts", he just wants your stuff and/or wants you dead. You seem perfectly all right with his plans to violate your rights, just so you don’t soil yourself participating is a ’collective effort’ (even if it was of your own choosing, and btw, with the volunteer military, who’s asking you to participate anyway?).
I don’t subscribe nor support the concept of ’splendid isolation’ in today’s world.
Actually, I think the phrase "splendid isolation" may not be quite the same as "isolationism". I’m thinking through something I may eventually turn into a column on the theory that England’s "Spendid Isolationism"—and the period preceding it—was quite a good model for Neolibertarian foreign policy. Essentially, they were not isolationist, they just didn’t do anything militarily unless it was in their direct interests. They didn’t extend their military on behalf of other nations causes.
It’s too deep in the thread to take issue with too many specifics, but I’ll note that:
1) Communism is a political philosophy, so "libertarian communist" is pretty hard to reconcile. "Libertarian communes", on the other hand, could be reconciled quite easily.
2) A large part of the problem here is the ultimate rejection some have of any form of government. Leaving aside my belief that a state of anarchism is pretty clearly at odds with both human history and human nature and inherently impossible as a means of sustainable social organization, the fact is that government is with us. Now, you may regard participation in any form as "tacit approval", but that doesn’t change the fact that government is still here.
If you choose to be a conscientous objector to government, be my guest. But my own calculation is that such a tactic is fruitless, so it’s hard to see why I would do so.
3) Finally, let’s not leave that belief of mine aside. If I had complete control over society—if this whole thing were my own little God-Sim—then I’d ideally design some sort of perfectly non-coercize society in which everything was done purely voluntarily.
Meanwhile, back in reality, that’s just impossible. Even in an anarchic society, you’ve got to coerce children. And good luck solving murders without occassionally coercing cooperation from suspects. I mean, I assume you don’t plan to solve every case before you go pick up the murderer, right? That’d be a neat trick.
Finally, as to the question "what is libertarianism". Clearly, we’ll get no agreement here. I think that libertarianism is a broad tendency to individualist and liberty-enhancing policies in the framework of a limited government, rather than a strict, unbending "non-aggression" principle.
The former is libertarianism and that’s consistent with the dictionary definition: "One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state."
The latter is anarchism, and that’s just not the same thing.
If words never shifted, and always retained their original meaning, then the anarchists would have "libertarian" and us minimalists would still be called "liberals". Dale, Jon, & McQ’s magazine would be called "The New Liberal". The mainstream "Left" as realized in the Democratic Party, being pro-government in the literal sense of the term, would be our Tories and sit on the "right". As for the "social conservatives", they’d be with them also, being equally unwilling to realize government cannot guide people.
But words DO shift. The word "liberal" was stolen by left-wing statists, so we had to use something else. If anarchists want to yell at anyone, they should direct their rage at the statist Left for seizing liberalism from its rightful owners.
The terms "right" and "left" are used metaphorically to equate "republican party" and "democratic party", respectfully.
Being a "right" thinking (neo)libertarian seems to endorse several aspects of the current administration.
But, I wonder, how can any true libertarian support this current administration and its wholly intrusive and interventionist method. Would libertarians really change regime from the outside, imposing their ideal on others? This is not libertatian, its imperial.
Would a libertarian need religion, in any capacity, endorsed or reiterated to them? Would a libertarian need government to tell them what should go on in there homes and bedrooms, which shows to watch, websites to access?
My point is that the Republican party is not even close to libertarian. To support such policies in the name of (neo)libertarianism is ridiculous.
However, it does make for a good blog. Because, absurd ideology is always a nice base-point for argument.
My point is that one’s disagreement—or estimation of matters—can be both wholly valid and not very libertatian. That’s fine. Just do not believe you are libertarian when you are in fact the contrary.
I think the main reason why many libertarian-leaning folks these days seem—at first glance—like they’re supporting the republican party is that so many issues of civil liberties are politically read as "settled" by both parties, so they end up just defaulting to the one that appears to care more about economic freedom (I’d take issue w/ that portrayal, pointing out it takes more than tax cuts for that, but that’s a topic for some other time).
Despite the portrayal of a "culture war" going on, there really isn’t much disagreement between the two—when’s the last time a Democrat with any clout in the party ever argued for ending the "War on Drugs", for example? It’s considered heretical to even bring it up, despite much of the public clearly showing by their own actions that they’d be open to such.
This is what happens when interest groups run everything. There is no real discussion, it’s all about abortion now.
You seem perfectly all right with his plans to violate your rights, just so you don’t soil yourself participating is a ’collective effort’ (even if it was of your own choosing, and btw, with the volunteer military, who’s asking you to participate anyway?).
By taking my tax dollars to pay for it - Your right, McQ, they are not asking me to participate... they are forcing me.
You were getting nailed for taxes before any of this ever took place (and, btw, they haven’t gone up), so this seems to be a pretty selective whine, Pogue.
You were getting nailed for taxes before any of this ever took place (and, btw, they haven’t gone up), so this seems to be a pretty selective whine, Pogue.
Yes. It’s much better to pay for it with money we don’t have. And isn’t all whining selective, including yours. ;-)
My point is that one’s disagreement—or estimation of matters—can be both wholly valid and not very libertatian. That’s fine. Just do not believe you are libertarian when you are in fact the contrary.
What, are you going to revoke my membership? Take my card away? Throw me out of the club?
I wish I had a better term for my politics than "libertarian", because the thing I hate most about libertarianism is libertarians. Never have I see a political movement so dedicated to killing itself.
I think all this confusion is caused by the very, very close relationship between liberal and left, and conservative and right. We have a tendancy to force those conclusions. Call a spade a spade.
Liberals are left-wing when they call for increases in the minimum wages. Minimum Wage Laws are a call for “more government” giving government the power over some aspect of the wages in privately owned businesses. Liberals Are Left-Wing when they call for an earned-income tax credit. Income tax credits are a call for “more government”, enabling government to tax one segment of the population for the benefit of another segment (often called vote buying). Liberals Are Left-Wing when they call for paid medical and family leave. Again clearly, this is a call for “more government”, transferring to government the power to dictate employee policy in privately owned companies.
I am hoping you see a pattern here. A call for more government by a liberal is a left-wing action. A move to the left is always a call for more government.
Liberals are right-wing when they call for the decriminalization of certain victimless crimes, i.e. drug use, and prostitution. This is a call for “Less government”. Liberals are right-wing when they oppose government interference concerning sex between consenting adults and censorship of pornography it is a call for “Less government”. Liberals are right-wing when they oppose a military draft, it is denying government power.
I am hoping you see a pattern here as well. A call for less government by a liberal is a right-wing action. A move to the right is always a call for less government.
Conservatives are right-wing when they oppose subsidies to farms and businesses. This is a call for “less government”. They want to take away from government the power to tax one segment of the population to benefit another segment. Conservatives are Right-Wing when they oppose foreign aid, it is a call for “less government”. Conservatives are Right-Wing when they lobby for gun rights, it is a call for “less government”. Conservatives are Right-Wing when they oppose new taxes, it is a call for “less Government”.
I am hoping you see a pattern here as well. A call for less government by a conservative is a right-wing action. A move to the right is always a call for less government.
Conservatives are left-wing when they want the internet sex sites blocked. This is a call for “more government”. Conservatives are left-wing when they want government to block stem-cell research. This is a call for “more government”. Conservatives are left-wing when they call for more border control. This is a call for “more government”.
I know this will upset some of my conservative friends, but when you call for more government, it is always a move to the left.
In summary, an increase in the power and reach of government is always, ALWAYS a always a move to the left. On the other end of the spectrum a decrease in the power and reach of government is always, ALWAYS a move to the right.
Now, let us get this clearly established in our minds. It matters not what a person or a group call themselves. It matters not what someone else may call them. When a person or a group advocates more government, they are calling for a move to the left. When the “Religious Right” (so called) petition for government to legislate against stem cell research they are operating as left-wingers, because they are calling for more government.
Conversely when the “Intellectual left” (so called) calling themselves “card carrying liberals” march in protest for academic freedom, and against government censorship, they could be more accurately called the intellectual right or card carrying right wingers, because they are calling for less government.
“By jove, I think we’ve got it.” If a person or a group call for more government, they are calling for a move to the left. If they are marching for less government, they are right-wingers.
The spectrum we are plotting here, you see runs from 100% government or communism on the left. To 0% government or anarchy (Anarchy literally means no rule) on the right.
Just remember, all governmental powers were at one time individual liberties.
That would be all fine and dandy if the meaning of right and left weren’t so darned fuzzy. Go to Europe and your definition flip flops. View from the populist American point of view and if it a push by something in teh Democratic Party it’s a move to the Left. If it’s pushed for by the Republicans it’s a move to the Right. Your ALWAYS statements just don’t seem to fit the facts of how the language is commonly used in the United States these days.
Now by the definition you are asserting, absolutely there is no such thing as a left or right libertarian, per se, simply because there isn’t really a baseline of where on your right libertarianism happens to be. So simply stating libertarianism would imply being somewhere over on the right, someplace shy of anarchy, how close or how far depending upon th brand of libertarianism being discussed. (Friedman, Rand, Rothbard?)
BUT, I suggest that by populist American definitions libertarianism is neither right nor left. Rather it is up or down from that whole right/left connotation (let’s call up Authoritariansim and down Libertarianism, as sites like http://www.politicalcompass.org seem to do). In that light one could qualify their view of libertarianism as being left or right to associate more closely (or father away from) the typical American view of Democrat/Republican.
For example, wikipedia states in the entry on left-right politics, "Left-Right politics are traditional terms that represent broad competing political visions, whose meanings have evolved and can sometimes be contradictory, yet widespread acceptance has kept them in use."
Various definitions include "Collectivism (left) vrs. individualism (right)" as well as concepts such as "Whether one embraces change (left) or prefers rigorous justification for change (right)." or "Fair outcomes (left) versus fair processes (right)."
The meaning is too contradictory. In other words, there is no always to left/right politics.
That is why I suggest that in order to understand where someone is coming from when they say they are left or right libertarian you must understand what definition they are using. You simply cannot justify that they are somehow wrong in their assertion simply because you are using a different definition then they are. You would have to both agree on the definition to begin with. Try the Nolan Chart as one method of rectifying the situation if you like.
Even wikipedia has this to say about even the relavence of the terms of political spectrum, "Some contemporary political positions, such as the position known in the US as ’libertarianism’, are very hard to characterize in left-right terms. These libertarians are socially liberal, but reject the leftist advocacy of government regulation of business. Arguably, their politics are the most similar to those of the classical liberalism of the old left of 1789."
If orange is at one end of the continuum and purple is at the other, with individualism being purple, and collectivism being orange, how do orange and purple mix in something called "communist libertarianism"?
They don’t. They can’t. So if ANY -ism tends more toward collectivism than individualism (its more orange than purple) and if individualism is the base of libertarianism (its purple) how can there be "orange" libertarians?
No Lenny ... it was only an example. The point was to remove "right" and "left" from being confused with liberal and conservative or Republican and Democrat. That’s why I said to take any "ism" and apply the "orange/purple" continuum.
Ok, now you have me confused again. Your initial post refutes that somehow "left libertarianism" is an oxymoron. I suggested only that the definition of right and left have to be better defined to achieve the understanding of how that term is used and that based on some definitions (NOT the collectivism/individualism one) that it has a legitimate meaning.
Now if you only want to allow the definition of collectivism/individualism, that’s fine. In that case a "collectivist individualist" (effectively saying, to my way of thinking and apparently yours, a "communist libertarian") doesn’t really gibe in my book either. So we seem to be arguing to cross-purposes. THAT is what I keep trying to get across. By the narrow definition where Libertarianism = Individualism, then yes I don’t see particular validity to Libertarianism = Collectivism (Communism). Then again I don’t think Libertarianism is equivilant to Individualism, I think that Anarchy would actually fit that position and Libertarianism is not Anarchy. But by YOUR definition, these things certainly can be absolutes. No problem. As long as we know your definition.
I just hope to provide at least some enlightenment on the idea that your definition is not the only definition being used out there, for either libertarianism or left/right. And that folks will argue you are wrong (and you will argu they are wrong) IF they, and you, don’t realize you are arguing about different meanings. Thus the beginning of your post trying to say your side of an argument has more merit then mine only applies IF we agree to the meaning of both libertarianism AND left/right, which at that point we most certainly did not agree to.
In other words, I absolutely see what you are arguing and why, and can agree based on your definition. Can you see that the definition you are using is not always the same definition that folks visiting your blog are using?
