left-libertarianism

Left-Libertarians Admit Opposition to “Capitalism” is Substantive

by on April 22, 2010 @ 2:09 pm · 9 comments

in (Austrian) Economics, Libertarian Theory, The Left

I’ve noted in recent posts that while some left-libertarians seem to oppose standard libertarians’ positive endorsement of “capitalism” for semantic or strategic reasons, for others they actually oppose the substance of what libertarians mean by (non-crony, non-corporatist) capitalism (see, e.g., Capitalism, Socialism, and Libertarianism, and links in that post; see also Wirkman Virkkala’s post A capital ism?). An example of those with a more semantic or strategic concern would be Sheldon Richman, who is concerned about the “baggage” associated with the word, which will hamper our getting our pro-property rights, libertarian message out. Thus he favors using “free market” instead, but as far as I can tell this is similar to what we mean by “capitalism”–a libertarian society with a market based on respect for property rights, which of course includes private ownership of the means of production (and everything else). (See also Sheldon’s comment to Should Libertarians Oppose “Capitalism”?) Another would be Jock Coats, who notes here that while the baggage of the term “capitalism” might have turned him off had he not also seen the term “free-market anti-capitalism,” now that he understands the term he is “quite happy to be identified as an Individualist Anarchist/Mutualist and at times an Anarcho-Caplitalist,” and is “for keeping ‘capitalism’ as a word in our lexicon.”

To be clear, I think the semantical and strategic debate is one we can have, but it’s different than a substantive disagreement–and we can have that discussion too. But these are separate discussions and should not be intermingled. This leads to confusion at best and equivocation and dishonesty (on the part of leftists) at worst.

In my view there is little doubt that libertarians who have concerns about the appropriate words to use or strategic matters are of course libertarians. We just differ on the best way to convey and spread and communicate about our ideas. But those who disagree on substance may simply not be libertarians. This should not be masked by conflating the discussion with more mundane issues of semantics and strategy.

Now some of the left-libertarians more concerned about terminology and strategy deny or downplay the charge that at least some of them have much more than a mere lexical disagreement with us. So it is good that some of them are willing to explicitly admit this. Take, for instance, one Roman Pearah, who writes in Hmmm…No, Sir. I Don’t Like It.: [Keep reading…]

{ 9 comments }

Three (very) common libertarian mistakes

by on April 19, 2010 @ 7:30 pm · 12 comments

in Education

While advocating for the principles of a free society, libertarians find obstacles of all sorts. Whether one sees it as a battle of ideas  or — better yet — a sales campaign, sometimes our methods of persuasion and debate become a big part of the message. Thus sometimes our mistakes become the biggest obstacle to our success. Lets review three very common ones.

1. Thinking that libertarianism is “intuitive” or “obvious”

To be sure, certain moral positions (on stealing and murdering) are universal and intuitive enough, but the whole edifice is neither obvious nor easy to grasp. The problem is, most people forget how they learned and especially, forget their previous ignorance. Thus, they project a light of knowledge over their past as if they always knew. This is easy to observe when one reads giants like Mises and Rothbard. The second after we absorb some keen insight of theirs, we internalize it and begin to think it is “obvious” and should be so to others. Well, it isn’t. We acquired it through long years of studying dozens, sometimes hundreds, of books. Every libertarian I know continues to read and debate the fundamentals of libertarianism, not only applications to current events or history. This tells me that libertarianism is an unfinished edifice with many parts, even if one can sum it up in several ways. Those essentials and summaries will never replace the whole of the doctrine.

2. Assuming common ground with everyone

The fundamental clash throughout human history, Liberty vs. Power, can only be properly understood when the basics are properly identified. Let’s begin with liberty. In ancient times, liberty was defined as the ability to participate in collective decision-making and independence from other nations. Thus, liberty was about political participation and national sovereignty. The individual was not the relevant political unit. It wasn’t until the advent of Humanism, placing the individual at the center of political and economic analysis that Liberty could start meaning what us libertarians need it to mean in order for our insights to be popular at any time and place.

Power, on the other hand, means political power for us. It springs from the use of force or the threat thereof. Education, the media, tradition and others influence human behavior but they can be either chosen or rejected if needed. That’s why any talk of commercial billboards or TV content having power over society is ultimately doomed to fail. But in the same way any talk about “oppressive bosses” or “gender oppression” are confusing. Bosses cannot deprive oneself of rights, because to have a boss (as opposed to a slave-owner, a socialist dictator, a lord or a king) requires a contract in which one has freely entered. Ergo, bosses implies rights and where there are rights there is liberty, and power is absent. A boss may be demanding, rude, etc but as long as one has “exit”, there is no oppression. Gender oppression strictly means that women are denied their (individual) political rights to personal integrity and property. But gender discrimination when those rights are fully present such as in most Western countries, on the other hand is an exercise of others’ rights. When men are preferred for a job over women, it’s the company’s loss to deprive itself of that talent. But in many professions that deal with security and force, such discrimination is not only necessary but wise. Confusing a lack of women’s rights with an exercise of men’s rights that we dislike is worse than misleading: it will invite State intervention to “fix” a non-problem. Or at best, a problem that has to be solved (if need be) through civil, pacific means.

[Keep reading…]

{ 12 comments }

Left and Right and Wrong

by on April 8, 2010 @ 8:50 pm · 4 comments

in The Left, The Right, Vulgar Politics

I hate the terms “left” and “right” as indicators of ideological opinion. What “left” and “right” means is based on a person facing a particular direction. Change direction, the cognitive content of “left” and “right” must change. The continued use of the terms as permanent and significant markers of ideas and norms and the like cannot help but be idiotic.

Smart people should stop using them.

And yet, I use them. We all do. They are so ingrained in our political mindsets.

Libertarians, especially, should disassociate themselves from the terms, since there’s so much libertarians have to disagree with others on the alleged left and the alleged right. But, aside from not easily fitting in either category, it’s worth asking what permanent attitudes or ideas are traditionally associated with the “right” and the “left.”

I tend to repeat one idea, over and over: The left, generally, wants freedom without responsibility; the right, generally, wants responsibility without freedom. Like all generalizations, it falls apart on case by case examples, but damn the outliers, there does seem a pattern here.

It applies on issues of sexual conduct, surely. The leftists I know want and demand the right to engage in sexual play with anyone they can find to reciprocate. But the consequences of varied partnerships? Disease is one. And the expenses of treating AIDS, for instance — which often cost vast fortunes for every patient — are usually paid for by government, in this country. So, no individual responsibility there. It’s been socialized, the burden taken up by society, through the tax-and-spend system of the state.

Similarly, the leftists I know insist that taxpayers fund every woman who gives birth, if she has no income or savings to handle her responsibilities. And leftists notoriously demand a right to abortion. That’s a tidy way to clean up after one messy result of sexual play.

On the right, though, there’s a strong disgust at abortion, where abortion tends to be seen as irresponsibility incarnate. Further, there’s some resistance to taxpayer funding of social diseases. Mostly, though, you can feel the frustration, the desire (often now no longer expressed) to forbid people from having sexual freedom. Just say “no” and abstinence before marriage, etc., are still actually trotted out, among right-wingers.

This attitude may flip, though, regarding the financial risks taken by entrepreneurs and professionals. On the left, freedom of enterprise and trade no longer plays much a role, but regulation does. Freedom, no; responsibility, yes. On the right, regulations still receive some lip-service opposition, but one function of the Republican Party does seem to be to make sure that fat cats receive bailouts when they fail. Freedom to risk other people’s money? Yes. That’s a rightist position. Responsibility to bear the full cost of that? Not so much.

So, even my nifty little formula flipflops. Freedom and responsibility? That’s a minority position. That’s the libertarian position. That’s the position that makes sense.

But it’s no way to get re-elected. What do you trade? Stick to principle, stick to the ideal compromise position, and no other compromises are necessary. Social Statics: The still point in the turning world. Liberty. But politics is political process. Dynamism in the state. And it must not tolerate a principled stance against the push and pull of interest against interest.

This seems to be the general play of left and right, today. Leftists and rightists bid for competing trade-offs in liberties and responsibilities. At any given time it’s easy to distinguish one from another, but there are no sure, lasting principles, no element of constancy.

So, left and right must be context-dependent terms. They are useful designators in any given context.

But if you meet someone who insists that the terms mark something important, some lasting truth, you’ve probably met someone who resists reality in some fundamental way. For the reality of politics is that everything’s up for grabs.

Including “left” and “right.”

{ 4 comments }

Libertarians regressing to unsound, and thus, unfair Economics

by on April 1, 2010 @ 4:25 pm · 8 comments

in (Austrian) Economics, Mercantilism, Protectionism, The Basics

Capitalism (by George Reisman) There is a trend among young and “eternally rebel” types to try and conflate Capitalism and Interventionism and call the mix “Corporatism” at best or just call it “Capitalism.” This of course is not only a conceptual, but also an strategic mistake. [Keep reading…]

{ 8 comments }

Next Entries →