I read Hoppe’s analysis you linked to. Interestingly, I made a comment on Freedom Democrats no t too long ago about how one could recast libertarian class theory in Marxist terms

http://freedomdemocrats.org/node/3752#comment-8148

Even though I’ve been a critic of your views at times, i do find much value in your writings regarding IP and copyright. And I do have to give your props for your willingness to engage in debate. You don’t run away…

Just to clarify things, I am a radical libertarian, best summarized as being Chomsky on foreign policy/empire, Adam Smith/Hayek(the scottish tradition) on economics, Henry George when it comes to land, Bastiat when it comes to law, de jasay when it comes to politics, and radical french liberal tradition in terms of class analysis. This puts me squarely within the libertarian tradition.

Why the term “left libertarian”? Technically, “left libertarian’” in the US typically refers to those who hold to the principles of “libertarian justice,” but don’t subscribe to Lockean homesteading when it comes to land. In my case, I hold Georgist views. Left Libertarian may also refer to those who employ a “thick” dialectical methodology when deconstructing the role social institutions may play in “implied coercion.” I moderately subscribe to this. Left libertarianism may refer to a “labor theory of value” which also may or may not reject traditional interest on capital(above any administrative costs). I do not subscribe to this. Finally, Left Libertarianism may also refer to a political analysis deeply rooted in “class theory,” in other words, the “political economy.” I strongly ascribe to this.

So, technically, these are the 4 characteristics I identify with “left Libertarianism” in the individualist tradition that distinguish it from the so-called “plumbline American libertarianism.”

For clarity of argument, it is best not to conflate individualist left-libertarianism with non-individualist anarchism. “Left” is not a synonym for “non-propertarian.” I think Kinsella’s original post was mixing in commentary from left libertarians and non-propertarian anarchists and wrapping the whole thing under the guise of “left.” Kinsella also demonstrates a propensity to identify “left” with the so-called Statist progressive left, which is largely just “corporate liberalism,” an ideology I, in fact, view as being conservative.

For Left libertarians, the problems with the term “capitalism” is perhaps partly conceptual, but it’s mostly methodological. The non-propertarian anarchist critique against capitalism is entirely conceptual. Don’t conflate the the two critiques. Of course, the non-propertarian has a substantive, conceptual disagreement with capitalism. Nothing new there…

The methodological critique against capitalism is a bit different. Rest assured I’m well aware of Austrian capital theory, whether formulated in terms of the Misean Evenly Rotating Economy or Garrison’s Hayekian triangles. But what is Capitalism? Capitalism is typically characterized as sustainable economic system of private means of production and private property rights operating under rule of law regimes. Since libertarianism, historically, has been a fierce critic of ‘rule of law” in the context of the State, Capitalism, from a libertarian perspective, should really be defined as an economic system of private means of production and private property rights operating under a “Ruling Class.” Thusly, from a methodological approach, one rooted in political economy, there should be some skepticism involved in deconstructing elements of capitalism.

For example, the austrian approach views central banking and a cartelized money monopoly as a chief enabler of Statism, the social costs of this monopoly being inflation that is primarily burdens the poor and the middle class. I will paraphrase Tucker that ‘free market banking” is one of the great benefits of mankind but “monopoly banking” is one of the great scourges. Of course, we have monop0ly banking, a scourge, so it surprises me to see articles like this:

http://libertarianstandard.com/2010/04/13/should-employers-be-allowed-to-check-your-credit/

which basically justifies obedience to a scourge monopoly as a condition for employment. In a truly free market, I seriously doubt people would have to go into the degree of consumer credit card debt they have to go into now just to survive. I’m not even sure there was any such thing as credit cards, or it was a very small market confined to the wealthy, until the US officially went off the gold standard in the early 70s.

To me this argument is equivalent to progressives advocating you can’t work, or even have to go to jail, if you haven’t paid your taxes. The Bank monoply is just one step below the government monopoly.

Here’s Karen De Coster sticking up for the Bank Monopoly here:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/25625.html

Here’s Kinsella sticking up for the Bank Monopoly here:
http://blog.mises.org/9531/is-foreclosure-resistance-libertarian/

Kinsella refers to a ‘contract,’ but he is referring to a contract with a scourge monopoly, a monopoly that is held to be a scourge by radical Austrian analysis. And this is what I mean by a weakness in a methodological approach. Your are not being consistent. You might as well be defending paying taxes to the scourge monopoly of government because of the “social contract.”

Personally, I prefer the term “Laissez-faire” to Capitalism.

I don’t ridicule the idea of class analysis; see here.

I disagree with leftists who accept the state’s propaganda that without the state’s privileges corporations could not exist. I of course favor the state getting out of it altogether.

As for Bank of America etc., you must have me confused with someone else.

And finally you said

“I’m particularly amused by the fact by “Austrian” anarcho-cpaitalists tendency not to really take their theories seriously enough, with the tendency to be stauch defenders of corporate agents of the money monoploy such as Bank of America. “

I can say that your assessment of “Austrian” ancaps seems misguided or I do not understand what your talking about. I’ll admit I hold no authority over what ancaps believe but at least in my case I haven’t a clue as to what your talking about. The above quote makes no sense, at least not to me. Which theory are specifically are you referring to? And what are you referring to when you say, Bank of America Money monopoly?

The original libertarian movement died with Tucker’s emigration to Europe and the onset of the 2 global wars. The later revival of libertarianism in the 20th century was not necessarily correlated with an analysis rooted in the political economy, leading to libertarianism being identified with Chicago School Capitalist efficiency. It is quite arguable that this form of libertarianism became the dominant State institutional framework after the fall of Keynes in the latter part of the 20th century.

I’ve argued with you before regarding “corporations” and you ridiculed the notion of a “ruling class,” which, frankly, runs counter to libertarianism absolutely being rooted in class politics of the political economy. Left libertarianism is a revival of this emphasis on “plitical economy.” in addition, it is a revival of Déjacque’s “Libertarie,” which critically examines social institutions as well(IMHO, the left libertarian critique against Paleo-libertarianism as been pretty effective, in that most of the “Paleos” won’t use that term to describe themselves anymore).

Left libertarianism may reject treating “land” as a factor of capitalist production, a mode of analysis borne out of neo-callsical economics. Other than that, there really isn’t that mcuh difference between the “left-libertarian” capitalism and standard fare “capitalism’ of the Austrian School. It is a mistake to try to identify “left libertarian” with “social anrchism,” which are not the same thing, at least not in the United States. I’m particularly amused by the fact by “Austrian” anarcho-cpaitalists tendency not to really take their theories seriously enough, with the tendency to be stauch defenders of corporate agents of the money monoploy such as Bank of America. There was a past post here that defended obedience to money monpolists(“Credit Reports”) as a legitimate condition for the right to work. Now, in a libertarian society, I do think that “reputation markets” would and perhaps should play a key role, but not reputation markets measuring obidience to how one obeys monopoly institutions. You see, you call that capitalism, and I don’t…

I feel that many left-libs think that a free-society(Anarchist based) should digress in it’s ability to exploit the division of labor and capital accumulation. With some of them I get the sense that they want us to economically move backwards under anarchist conditions, and that this would be a better outcome. The self sustaining, local only cooperative, communistic type of alleged free-marketeer. It’s folly. The the fundamental reason why any geographical region becomes wealthy is due to a prolonged untainted period of time where capital was freely allowed to accumulate. Capital accumulation is the crux of a free society(anarchic), it is what makes us prosperous. Capitalism describes specifically the key tenant of a free-society which makes it rich. Being an anarchist is one thing, but society does not grow in wealth by sharing corn fields with local neighbors under a primitive barter system. The larger the division of labor becomes, the more intricate it is. The longer property rights are respected, the more capital accumulation that will ensue and ultimately the richer we all become. That is what Capitalism defines, there is no reason to be rid of it. I feel like this is an attack on the productivity of man in general, and that various forms of the communist anti-business ideology is finding it’s ways in to taint things. We’ve already lost liberalism and libertarianism has always been split. We don’t need to loose capitalism as well.

We want our capital abilities to grow, not shrink. I often get the feeling that left-libs want the opposite. Much like modern liberals who want us to digress back to the tribal stage carrying bows and arrows in an effort to save earth. Any how thats my rant. *Shrug*

What I find puzzling–to the point of complete bamboozlement–is what a libertarian, and I’m trying very hard here not to fall into the trap of defining “real” versus “fake” libertarianism, thinks is the ultimate outcome of an absolute adherence to private property rights. As the author of the post at which these comments are directed so exceptionally communicated, the root of libertarianism, in fact the underlying principle of every so-called belief held dear by libertarians–including the fabled Non-Aggression Axiom–is private property rights. As such, I am at a bit of a loss as to what anyone, be he left, right, center-cut, or deep-dish, can be promoting when he ascribes to libertarianism while simultaneously decrying capitalism. What in the hell…? Maybe I’m just confused and someone else commenting here can educate me. Please be gentle.