Libertarians already have welfare of the poor as an end, and have the proper means to boot.

Some do, some don’t. There’s nothing in the NAP saying we should worry about it which makes it external t0 what the “libertarian qua libertarian” would know. Obviously I agree the libertarians who “get it” are more correct than those on the mainstream left.

We just disagree on this. The left is not against the intermingling of state and the economy. We are.

They’re definitely selective about it but some very insightful work on government/business collusion has come from the Left. Gabriel Kolko for example, cited by Rothbard in the link you posted.

I was referring to having they end of helping people out of poverty though.

No, it’s a reasonable definition of what this political philosophy is.

It is, though arguably an incomplete one.

I agree. And as decent people, we ought to oppose “genuine” oppression. It’s just that I don’t agree that all the typical examples of oppression given by the left are really oppression. Employment, hierarchies, “bossism.”

With employment and hierarchies it’s a little more complicated than either side of the debate wants to make it. On the one hand it’s just another mutually beneficial exchange but as the same time we should perhaps be vary of one group having too much decision over the actions of another. I think a much better example would be opposition to tradition for the sake of tradition. A culture that places little value on reflection will be more likely to succumb to some kind of intolerance and less likely to accept rational ethics (ie. libertarianism).

Libertarians already have welfare of the poor as an end, and have the proper means to boot.

“An excessively broad and sweeping statement. Are you denying the possibility that any of them are genuine but just don’t understand the conclusions of what they advocate?”

Some of them are genuine but just stupid or dishonest or ignorant. Yes.

“‘True; and a principled libertarian ought to condemn the intermingling of the state and business. … As we do.’
“Yes exactly, those of us who are principled are “left-er”, on this issue at least, than those who aren’t.”

We just disagree on this. The left is not against the intermingling of state and the economy. We are.

“But a term being vague is a reason to start defining it not to throw it away. Doesn’t assuming libertarianism should only concern the use of force kinda beg the question?”

No, it’s a reasonable definition of what this political philosophy is.
I agree we should not throw “oppression” away. It’s got its uses.
“Oppression implies initiating some kind of harm, that the harm is systematic and that it’s related to the victim’s self-direction in some way that doesn’t necessarily involve violence. That’s something we can rationally take an opposition to and bother defining more carefully. I posted a link earlier that was pretty specific about what it defined as autonomy and how it could be violated.

You’re correct that only certain things count as rights violations, the initiation of force, but since I don’t claim this is an issue of rights I don’t see that as relevant. Just because someone has the right to do something doesn’t mean we should endorse it or refrain from opposing it via non-violent means.”

I agree. And as decent people, we ought to oppose “genuine” oppression. It’s just that I don’t agree that all the typical examples of oppression given by the left are really oppression. Employment, hierarchies, “bossism.” If you can make a coherent argument that a given behavior is immoral, because it is a type of real oppression, sure, I’d oppose it too. At least morally.

The question remains. There is something odd and juvenile about it.

This comes across as a bit ad hominem. So what if I’m being odd and juvenile, I’m still right (about being left).

Sure, and from other disciplines and ideologies as well.

These aren’t mutually exclusive statements and you didn’t ask anyone to prove leftism is the only thing relevant to libertarianism.

Well, by my quesiton I was trying to elicit a response which would demonstrate my contention that there are virtually no things you can mention that we need to learn from the left, that are uncontroversial. And you provided such a response.

A response which you called a-libertarian and crankish, yet contains nothing controversial?

Also what does this have to do with slightly vague statements and whether they are acceptable or not?

Maybe we should, maybe we shouldn’t. In any case the left, who harms the poor, have no place to tell us this. And no, it’s not a “leftist” concern to care about the poor.

Well it’s certainly closer to a leftist concern than a rightist one and I’m not convinced you could find many leftists who would agree they aren’t concerned about poor people, even if their solution is stupid. Again, it’s the difference between ends and means that’s important here. I don’t think I ever implied we should take their advice on the subject.

It’s a common–and dishonest–argument from the left. They are the problem, not the solution.

An excessively broad and sweeping statement. Are you denying the possibility that any of them are genuine but just don’t understand the conclusions of what they advocate?

True; and a principled libertarian ought to condemn the intermingling of the state and business. … As we do.

Yes exactly, those of us who are principled are “left-er”, on this issue at least, than those who aren’t.

This is the problem. This is where leftists get into an a-libertarian opposition to “hierarchy,” “bossism,” etc. which borders on crankish. Libertarians are opposed to aggression, not vague, amorphous “oppression.” If oppression is aggression, we are already opposed to it. If oppression is not aggresion, then we, qua libertarians, are not opposed to it.

But a term being vague is a reason to start defining it not to throw it away. Doesn’t assuming libertarianism should only concern the use of force kinda beg the question?

It is similar re the concept of “harm.” It’s a vague word. We are not against harming people. If you steal my girlfriend or build a Wal-mart next to my mom and pop store, you are “harming” me, but it is your right. Only some types of harm count as rights violations that libertairnas oppose–namely, aggression. Which we already oppose.

Actually the problem with a harm principle is it would be weird to oppose harm. Criminals for example can be harmed within reason in order to help or protect their victims. Oppression implies initiating some kind of harm, that the harm is systematic and that it’s related to the victim’s self-direction in some way that doesn’t necessarily involve violence. That’s something we can rationally take an opposition to and bother defining more carefully. I posted a link earlier that was pretty specific about what it defined as autonomy and how it could be violated.

You’re correct that only certain things count as rights violations, the initiation of force, but since I don’t claim this is an issue of rights I don’t see that as relevant. Just because someone has the right to do something doesn’t mean we should endorse it or refrain from opposing it via non-violent means.

I find this thickish project to be misguided and confused. In any event particularly leftist to argue that there are strong interrelationships between libertarian ideas and others.

I find it well thought out and insightful. Now we have two assertions, I backed mine up with a couple of arguments though and I’d like to hear your thoughts on those. Granted we aren’t the only ones with ideas on what the rest of a libertarian morality (outside of rights) should look like but I don’t remember saying we were. I said our version makes more sense from a libertarian perspective.

“‘why are they so often anymous or nyms?’
“You only had to ask, my name is James Briggs”

The question remains. There is something odd and juvenile about it.

“My point was we already have picked up lots of useful concepts from the left.”

Sure, and from other disciplines and ideologies as well.

“I’m well aware of the fact this point is a little general and unspecified but so is your question. What can “libertarianism” learn from “leftism”? Do you want a comprehensive list of every leftist ideology, every libertarian ideology and every relevant concept each one has to the others or can we agree that some generalised concepts can still have validity?”

Well, by my quesiton I was trying to elicit a response which would demonstrate my contention that there are virtually no things you can mention that we need to learn from the left, that are uncontroversial. And you provided such a response.

“‘But we libertarians already care about the poor and vulnerable minorities and everyone else. This is not a leftist concern. Or if it is, we libertarians already have it.’

“This is, in a word, nonsense. Not a leftist concern!? Why don’t you ask some leftists whether they agree with that statement? I agree completely with your argument that what most leftists advocate is very ineffective, even harmful, but I refuse to believe you don’t understand the difference between ends and means. What I’m saying is libertarians ought to take these ends more seriously.”

Maybe we should, maybe we shouldn’t. In any case the left, who harms the poor, have no place to tell us this. And no, it’s not a “leftist” concern to care about the poor. Libertarians qua libertarians of course care about the poor.

” Some do, this I’m not disputing, but being insensitive to the poor is such a common argument against us and willful ignorance can only go so far.”

It’s a common–and dishonest–argument from the left. They are the problem, not the solution.

“The uglier elements of actually existing capitalism are too often defended via free market principles;”

True; and a principled libertarian ought to condemn the intermingling of the state and business. … As we do.

“I was arguing there are other ways to oppress someone than aggression and libertarians should pay attention to this.”

This is the problem. This is where leftists get into an a-libertarian opposition to “hierarchy,” “bossism,” etc. which borders on crankish. Libertarians are opposed to aggression, not vague, amorphous “oppression.” If oppression is aggression, we are already opposed to it. If oppression is not aggresion, then we, qua libertarians, are not opposed to it.

It is similar re the concept of “harm.” It’s a vague word. We are not against harming people. If you steal my girlfriend or build a Wal-mart next to my mom and pop store, you are “harming” me, but it is your right. Only some types of harm count as rights violations that libertairnas oppose–namely, aggression. Which we already oppose.

“I was quite careful to avoid describing this as aggression and the fact you haven’t differentiated between “oppress” and “aggress” proves my point exactly. This is definitely not something present in some strains of modern libertarianism and maybe it should be. Two quick reasons why. The NAP is derived from a moral system that says “self-direction” is worth protecting so we should look at other ways it’s compromised than aggression. There is likely to be instrumental value in promoting some values over others as a means of maintaining liberty.
”

I find this thickish project to be misguided and confused. In any event particularly leftist to argue that there are strong interrelationships between libertarian ideas and others.

“Finally I noticed on my blog a link to an article called “against libertarian sectarianism” and apparently I’m mentioned in it. The link appears broken so perhaps it’s been deleted but I want to make this clear, I’m not trying to promote any kind of sectarianism this is just a debate. That’s why I called the post “challenge accepted” not “war declared”.”

Thanks.

why are they so often anymous or nyms?

You only had to ask, my name is James Briggs

I asked what can we learn from leftism? My view they can learn from us. But what can we learn from them? This paragraph argues that our origins are in the left. But so what? And that we can learn from our predecessors. Oh? Like what?

My point was we already have picked up lots of useful concepts from the left. I should hope we have taken the best parts and abandoned the nonsense; we do this with libertarianism too, like you said, so what? We’re still making use of leftist ideas. As for what we can specifically learn from our predecessors I think one of the things they, the leftists, got right but modern libertarians seem quite weak on is to stress more than rights violations as libertarian qua libertarian issues. To avoid repeating myself I’m going to argue for why this is the case in the third point but basically it’s thick libertarianism I’m advocating.

I’m well aware of the fact this point is a little general and unspecified but so is your question. What can “libertarianism” learn from “leftism”? Do you want a comprehensive list of every leftist ideology, every libertarian ideology and every relevant concept each one has to the others or can we agree that some generalised concepts can still have validity?

But we libertarians already care about the poor and vulnerable minorities and everyone else. This is not a leftist concern. Or if it is, we libertarians already have it.

This is, in a word, nonsense. Not a leftist concern!? Why don’t you ask some leftists whether they agree with that statement? I agree completely with your argument that what most leftists advocate is very ineffective, even harmful, but I refuse to believe you don’t understand the difference between ends and means. What I’m saying is libertarians ought to take these ends more seriously. Some do, this I’m not disputing, but being insensitive to the poor is such a common argument against us and willful ignorance can only go so far. The uglier elements of actually existing capitalism are too often defended via free market principles; here is a great example from Gary Chartier’s blog. Stossel’s Myths. More importantly why are we so frequently labeled “Marxian” (another generalised term?) for pointing this out? What we end up with is some libertarians do care about the vulnerable and you agree that’s a positive trait. Caring about the vulnerable as an end is generally considered leftist. Therefore being a good libertarian involves some accepting some leftist ends.

You’ve completely misunderstood argument #3. It has nothing to do with co-operatives or profit-making. This is about values that libertarians should support other than the non-aggression principle (thick libertarianism). Unfortunately this is the argument I’m most interested in too, being the most controversial one.

We don’t need leftists to tell us this. We oppose all forms of aggression

This is a caricature. Libertarians do not say this. They have never been only about the state itself. We are aware of various forms of statism

Yeah, like I was trying to argue libertarians don’t oppose aggression. Talk about a caricature! I was arguing there are other ways to oppress someone than aggression and libertarians should pay attention to this. I was quite careful to avoid describing this as aggression and the fact you haven’t differentiated between “oppress” and “aggress” proves my point exactly. This is definitely not something present in some strains of modern libertarianism and maybe it should be. Two quick reasons why. The NAP is derived from a moral system that says “self-direction” is worth protecting so we should look at other ways it’s compromised than aggression. There is likely to be instrumental value in promoting some values over others as a means of maintaining liberty.

Finally I noticed on my blog a link to an article called “against libertarian sectarianism” and apparently I’m mentioned in it. The link appears broken so perhaps it’s been deleted but I want to make this clear, I’m not trying to promote any kind of sectarianism this is just a debate. That’s why I called the post “challenge accepted” not “war declared”.

Modern libertarianism is a direct descendant from classical liberalism. Since classical liberalism was (and as we argue still should be) considered a left-wing ideology this question doesn’t work on at least one level. “I would not mind a quick summary of 3 or 5 things we libertarians can learn from the classical liberals” would be quickly met with “virtually everything considered libertarian” yet that’s not far from what he’s asking of us. Moreover a great number of causes now considered “leftist” were originally championed by the classical liberals. The left-libertarian argument is simply that modern libertarianism can learn from its predecessors. That’s almost a tautology so I don’t see why we need to make such a fuss about it.

I asked what can we learn from leftism? My view they can learn from us. But what can we learn from them? This paragraph argues that our origins are in the left. But so what? And that we can learn from our predecessors. Oh? Like what? This is not an answer. Plus it assumes too much and is too vague. We have lots of “predecessors”. And it’s not clear we are “from” the “left” especially the modern left. Or not only from the left. And if we came from them maybe we evolved, took the best parts, abandoned the nonsense. This is really weak, IMO.

From a purely consequentialist perspective, the fate of those the left usually worries about is hardly an irrelevant issue. Why should we care about those with less than average wealth? Because they make up half the planet is why. If we can’t show why these people will be better off, or even just not worse off, in libertopia then we have only ourselves to blame when lots of people start saying they don’t like libertarianism. The same goes for vulnerable minorities, it’s not logically necessary for libertarians to care about them but the world would be much happier if they were less vulnerable. Kinsella, like me, is not a consequentialist so I wouldn’t expect him to be convinced by this alone, like I’m not, but I figure it’s worth mentioning in the same way Austrian economics is.

But we libertarians already care about the poor and vulnerable minorities and everyone else. This is not a leftist concern. Or if it is, we libertarians already have it. Still waiting to hear what we have to learn from the left. In fact we care more about the poor and minorities since we oppose policies that harm them, while the g*ddamned left does not. Yeah, we have something to learn from the left: don’t callously advocate policies that harm the very people you pretend to care about (see, e.g., Sowell’s The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy).

So the second point has also not shown that we can learn anything from the left.

Finally I’ll present some theoretical arguments about libertarianism and autonomy. For the sake of keeping this short this won’t be as specific as I’d like it to be. I highly recommend this if you’re interested in a detailed analysis of what I’m talking about. Libertarianism is by definition in support of political autonomy. Does this lead to a support for other kinds of autonomy? I think it does, though exactly how it does depends on how you ground your libertarianism. There are a number of theories people derive their support for liberty from but they all have one common factor; they all believe that the only ethical use of violence is to protect political autonomy. In my case it’s very simple, libertarianism is derived from already valuing autonomy, but even when the argument follows a less direct route the fact remains that to be a libertarian requires believing that self-direction is something worth defending so some of the best arguments for liberty are also strong arguments for autonomy. As for how this relates to libertarians and the left learning from each other:

Well, libertarians can learn from leftists about – well I think that when libertarians and leftists sort of split up in the XIXth century, libertarians began specialising in understanding the benefits of market-oriented, for-profit solutions, while leftists specialised in understanding the benefits of non-profit, cooperative ways of associating.

Libertarians understand perfectly well the benefits of mutual cooperation an exchange. Businessmen, entrepreneurs, etc. can become experts at setting up particular institutions in a free society. But I’ll grant that left-libs seem more interested in living in coops, etc., so maybe they will explore this as a viable model. But I am not sure why this is a libertarian concern. We libertarians favor the conditions that give freedom and recognize property rights, that are necessary for leftists to attempt their social experiments. What they do with their freedom is up to them.

And likewise, libertarians specialised in understanding the evils of State-based forms of oppression, and leftists specialised in understanding the evils of non-State-based, private forms of oppression.

We don’t need leftists to tell us this. We oppose all forms of aggression: institutionalized; private; and we also oppose and are quite aware of the intermingling of the state and business (and other interest groups like unions and so on).

So I think what each has to learn from the other is – the leftists have to learn from libertarians good things about the market that the Left doesn’t understand and bad things about the State that the Left doesn’t understand. What libertarians need to understand is bad things about forms of private power, that libertarians tend to think ‘well, if it’s not directly supported by the State then it doesn’t matter from a libertarian point of view’

This is a caricature. Libertarians do not say this. They have never been only about the state itself. We are aware of various forms of statism (what we may call “socialism”). E.g., Rothbard’s criticism of Rand’s bemoaning of Big Business as being America’s most persecuted minority; and Hoppe’s discussion of various forms of socialism as described i nthis post, from Socialism Russian-Style, Socialism Social-Democratic Style, the Socialism of Conservatism, and the Socialism of Social Engineering.

and also, some of the benefits of forms of voluntary association that aren’t for-profit. [apparently a quote from Roderick Long]

Libertarians have never focused only on for-profit institutions and behavior. The Chicago school might but we do not. We have highlighted the benefits of freedom for one’s spirit, civil liberties, private life; we have explained over and over again how there would be more peace, cooperation, charity, brotherhood, civility, prosperity, achievement, progress, women’s rights, minority rights, and so on, under conditions of freedom. Just part of this is concerned with catallactics. Again, we have no gaps that need filling.

I asked a simple question for someone to give me a few things we can learn from the left. I hear “well we can learn from our predecessors” (general and without specificity), “we need to care about the poor” (we do), “we should care not only about profit” (we know); “we should realize direct state action is not the only way to commit aggression” (again, got it); “there are ways of setting up communities along coop lines and those details are interesting” (to libertarians qua libertarians?).

I’ll let Juan reply as to his part; I’d be curious if you agree w/ my own proposals about “capitalism” and its use.

“I have about had it with left-leaning libertarians having the gall to tell standard libertarians to learn from leftism–we are better than leftists”

We’ve said, over and over, that libertarians and leftists need to learn from EACH OTHER. Each is better on some range of issues where the other is worse.

It’s not symmetrical. We are basically right; the left is basically confused at best, evil at worst. I would not mind a quick summary of 3 or 5 things we libertarians can learn from the left–things they know, that are important for libertarianism, that we do not know, or that we are wrong on.