The Alliance of the Libertarian Left

[theodorelogan]

Go ahead.  The next time you get stopped by a cop, announce that you're an anarchist, and that you're against the war on drugs.  Enjoy the search.

Words have implications.  Whether or not those implications are properly understood, the commonly accepted connotation will generally be applied.

Well, when you know the "commonly acceptd" definition doesn't apply, then don't apply it.

Simply huh?

BTW, for the longest time I used to have a gut level revulsion toward the left that I didn't have toward the right.  Even in 2004 (the last election I voted in) I voted for Badnarik, I was still pulling for Bush over Kerry at a gut level.  Why?  I dunno...left over revulsion toward the left I guess.

I'm not saying that that is where you guys are coming from, but that's where I came from.  The website was really the first time I've sort of been able to get over it.  Maybe they could be smarter about naming themselves, but on my side I can recognize them for who they are and put the labels aside.

[ladyattis]

Well I do-WHERE IS SARAH CONNOR?

-- Brede

[Quexalcote]

It does both, that doesn't vindicate they're actions. It puts them in they're own little room room where standard 'libertarians' are annoyed and everyone else thinks they're idiots.

Here's some more idiocy for you:

http://praxeology.net/unblog08-05.htm#07

[theodorelogan]

The Left Lane of Liberty

Scroll to the bottom of the page and you’ll see a newly added graphic for the Blogosphere of the Libertarian Left, of which this blog is the latest member.

What makes someone a left-libertarian? I can’t answer that question: surf through the other member blogs and you’ll soon see that there’s not much in the way of a common essence.

A question I can answer is: why do I call myself a left-libertarian?

First, on many of the issues over which mainstream libertarians are divided, I end up on what would generally be perceived as the “left” side of the issue: anarchist, anti-militarist, anti-intellectual-property, anti-punishment (so a fortiori anti-death-penalty), anti-big-business, pro-immigration, pro-abortion, pro-secularism, pro-gay-rights, etc.

But beyond that, I share a lot of “left-ish” cultural concerns that are usually not thought of nowadays as libertarian issues (though historically they were), such as a concern for worker empowerment (see Beyond the Boss and Platonic Productivity) and an opposition to male supremacy (see Beyond Patriarchy, Separate But Equal?, To Serve Man, and Libertarian Feminism: Can This Marriage Be Saved?).

Plus, I think race and gender are largely social constructs; I recognise the existence of non-state forms of oppression (though I don’t advocate statism as the solution); I favour a Sciabarra-style “dialectical” methodology; I’ve had some kind words for multiculturalism, postmodernism, political correctness, environmentalism, and collective ownership; and I regard libertarianism as properly rooted in egalitarianism.

Yet for all that I’m probably a 90% orthodox Rothbardian, both about rights theory and about economics. (Indeed I sometimes call myself a “left-Rothbardian,” though not specifically in Sam Konkin’s sense of that phrase.) While I draw a lot of inspiration from so-called “voluntary socialists” like Benjamin Tucker, I’m not at all attracted to Tuckerite limitations on private land ownership (let alone Georgist ones); I don’t seek the elimination of wage labour (though I’d like to see more worker cooperatives available as a competitive alternative); I don’t accept animal rights (though I do think we have serious moral obligations to animals); and I have no patience with the philosophic relativism and/or materialism one sometimes finds among the academic left.

So that’s roughly what my “left-libertarianism” amounts to. In case you were wondering. Or even if you weren’t.

Bold added for emphasis.

What could yo possibly have a problem with there?

[dalebert]

I could see the potential for using words to attract more people to the movement also. Have you noticed how quickly you get labeled by people on the (socialist/communist) left as being an ultra right-winger as soon as you use the word "Libertarian" to describe yourself? Sometimes it's hard to get past that initial barrier of irrationality that so many people have. I'm not a fan of labels myself, but the reality is they do affect people, particularly those that have not yet freed their minds of the illusion of legitimacy of the state.

Cyro, I see your point, but I also think that the labels will probably have more influence in non-Libertarian circles than here. Afterall, most of us here tend to be smarter than the average bear, so to speak. That's why we're here.

My impression of the label is that it's little more than talking about sharing the same sort of goals that many on the political left have while also sharing our principles about the inappropriate use of force as well as our belief that those principles will be most effective in ending things like poverty and braodening everyone's access to healthcare, etc.

[Taors]

Shut the fuck up Quark nobody wants to hear it you Ferangi shithead mother fucker best get on outta here before you get JUMPED NIGGA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[theghostofbj]

Oh shit.

[ladyattis]

The Left Lane of Liberty

Scroll to the bottom of the page and you’ll see a newly added graphic for the Blogosphere of the Libertarian Left, of which this blog is the latest member.

What makes someone a left-libertarian? I can’t answer that question: surf through the other member blogs and you’ll soon see that there’s not much in the way of a common essence.

A question I can answer is: why do I call myself a left-libertarian?

First, on many of the issues over which mainstream libertarians are divided, I end up on what would generally be perceived as the “left” side of the issue: anarchist, anti-militarist, anti-intellectual-property, anti-punishment (so a fortiori anti-death-penalty), anti-big-business, pro-immigration, pro-abortion, pro-secularism, pro-gay-rights, etc.

But beyond that, I share a lot of “left-ish” cultural concerns that are usually not thought of nowadays as libertarian issues (though historically they were), such as a concern for worker empowerment (see Beyond the Boss and Platonic Productivity) and an opposition to male supremacy (see Beyond Patriarchy, Separate But Equal?, To Serve Man, and Libertarian Feminism: Can This Marriage Be Saved?).

Plus, I think race and gender are largely social constructs; I recognise the existence of non-state forms of oppression (though I don’t advocate statism as the solution); I favour a Sciabarra-style “dialectical” methodology; I’ve had some kind words for multiculturalism, postmodernism, political correctness, environmentalism, and collective ownership; and I regard libertarianism as properly rooted in egalitarianism.

Yet for all that I’m probably a 90% orthodox Rothbardian, both about rights theory and about economics. (Indeed I sometimes call myself a “left-Rothbardian,” though not specifically in Sam Konkin’s sense of that phrase.) While I draw a lot of inspiration from so-called “voluntary socialists” like Benjamin Tucker, I’m not at all attracted to Tuckerite limitations on private land ownership (let alone Georgist ones); I don’t seek the elimination of wage labour (though I’d like to see more worker cooperatives available as a competitive alternative); I don’t accept animal rights (though I do think we have serious moral obligations to animals); and I have no patience with the philosophic relativism and/or materialism one sometimes finds among the academic left.

So that’s roughly what my “left-libertarianism” amounts to. In case you were wondering. Or even if you weren’t.

Bold added for emphasis.

What could yo possibly have a problem with there?

Underlined for emphasis. Scibarra's views are basically considered post-modernism + Objectivism, so no one takes this fuckwad seriously. Least of all, me. And I'm an evil Aristotelean/Objectivist.

-- Brede

[dalebert]

Shut the fuck up Quark nobody wants to hear it you Ferangi shithead mother fucker best get on outta here before you get JUMPED NIGGA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Pfft... whatever. You haven't got the lobes for it.

[theodorelogan]

The point is that he isn't going to advocate statism to achieve it.

So who cares?  No one has EXACTLY the same worlview as you do.  SO people who eschew violence to achieve theirs are the least of your worries...and is probably an ally.

[cerpntaxt]

Objectivists aren't supposed to compromise. At least in theory...

[wtfk]

Yeah, supposedly there's no such thing, says Rand...only wrong solutions and right ones.

[theodorelogan]

I don't see how it is a compromise to join with someone who wants to fight for liberty, even if they want to live in a different way than you do.

That may very well be the case (that there is a right way and a wrong way).  Doesn't Ladyattis support a society that allows people to try out the wrong ways so long as they aren't aggressising against her?

[Taors]

Shut the fuck up Quark nobody wants to hear it you Ferangi shithead mother fucker best get on outta here before you get JUMPED NIGGA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Pfft... whatever. You haven't got the lobes for it.

Just kidding dude Quark was my favorite on DS9.

[cerpntaxt]

I don't see how it is a compromise to join with someone who wants to fight for liberty, even if they want to live in a different way than you do.

That may very well be the case (that there is a right way and a wrong way).  Doesn't Ladyattis support a society that allows people to try out the wrong ways so long as they aren't aggressising against her?

Yeah it's not a compromise. I was being antagonistic...