What is left-libertarianism?
Roughly...left libertarianism is the position that the political left have identified almost all the correct issues to worry about...but that they missed 1 fundamental point: the government is either the cause or the enabler of almost all the problems. If one combines actual liberal (as opposed to Democrat) sensibilities: anti-discrimination, opposition to corporate power, freedom of religion, tolerance of at least other tolerant cultures, distrust of police, anti-war, pro-drug, anti-exploitation, etc....and adds the public choice/marxist analysis that the government is AT BEST no solution to the problem, and usually a fundamental cause, and start providing examples....what comes out?
Well...19th century socialist/libertarian anarchism/communalism/mutualism is the rough answer, with a smattering of hegelian dialectic from the tradition of Sciabarra thrown in.
The question becomes how to create the world we would like, while recognizing that Mao was right: power flows from the barrel of a gun...and this is what ALL governments are founded upon, despite any pretty myths coming from American or European fantastic history.
We are clearly logically prohibited from voting, as a vote is ALWAYS a vote to use violence or threat of violence to make other people do what we want. And as per Patri, that's just morally wrong. Rather, the goal has to be to create alternative, non-violent institutions that solve problems. Much harder than the immediately attractive, but ultimately self-defeating proposition of trying to seize the power of the government (and its violence) to achieve your ends against the already existing power centers.
Where does that put one politically....opposed to everything. We are almost as opposed to the (vulgar) libertarian (effectively) pro-corporatist stance as to the Republican worship of state sponsored violence and status-quo-ism or the Democratic worship of the state's capacity to improve social circumstances.
The goal is to remove the state's influence from areas. So we might agree with the Republican that the 2nd amendment's first (and dependent) clause should be (largely) absolute, so as to get the government out of that area of life....and we might agree with the progressive that the government should not be in the business of regulating drugs...and we might hang with the cypherpunks in being pro-strong crypto...and we might prefer the cash economy, and the grey or darker markets we see...and we might violently agree with the liberal claims of obvious and odious discrimination from having a obscenely large black prison population...etc.
The most obvious (IMO) place of departure for the left-libertarian from the non-left libertarian would be to suggest starting to dismantle the state locally by abolishing the government police. Privatize crime fighting first.
The virtue of excellence
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
Cool, today's expanded meaning makes far more sense to me as being actually "lefty" than did your capsule definition yesterday!
I EMPHATICALLY fall under yesterday's capsule def'n...but I do not here/now.
Starting with yesterday's:
recognizes some sources of non-governmental power as (on the order of ) as much of a threat as government power
This I believe:
1) Bureaucratic badness scales with all enterprises -- retaliatory-force-monopolizing or not. As organizations grow, the personal trust and knowledge gluing even the best "Do No Evil" teams together gets gradually replaced by an epoxy more sinister (...replaced by metaphoric polymers that we humans are apparently TOTALLY ill-equipped&evolved to deal with!! e.g. 'meetings'!).
I disliked a lot of things about even college (how curmudgeonly, what a shock!), and much of it stemmed directly from that.
(I now believe that the ridiculous sprawling behemoth that is our mindless university system requires tons of government supports...but the point remains. Organizing brings costs, and organizations create more and more 'unnaturally' offensive costs the larger they get.)
2) Rand's pyramid of ability. That some small percentage of people is responsible for half of world progress...and that at most 20% of people historically are responsible for OVER 100% of world progress (...if only those folks could be identified ex ante and rescued from various tortures at the hands and...the bureacractic-style rules...of the rest!).
3) I bet I departed from the Left Lib's preeeeetty far back there at (2)!
Next, I dramatically address today's expanding meaning:
anti-discrimination,
umm, no. I'm rather strongly elitist/pro-discrimination in all things.
opposition to corporate power,
probably. Not sure. Depends on the alternative. I love imagining worlds of 'only' savvy sovereign individuals jointly making great and considerate pie-size-maximizing big decisions day-in/day-out in a charming COUNTRYSIDE agora...but I'm not sure how to get that on the menu :(
freedom of religion,
no. Religion should be socially treated as InSaNiTy, likely worse as a VOLUNTARY reckless insanity with an accordingly higher penalty ;)
Raise The Sanity Waterline enough, and it stops even mattering whether some agency uses FORCE to restrain the unsane.
tolerance of at least other tolerant cultures,
meh. I can't get all that excited about 'toleration' nowadays. Toleration itself is kind of a put-down (to the merely tolerated), but again it MIGHT be better than any extant alternative. CERTAINLY I greatly value living in SOME sort of pluralistic value-creating/cool-spinoffs-producing GENUINELY DIVERSE and EXPERIMENTAL culture and marketplace...I just don't know whether 'tolerance' is truly a useful concept or building block for it.
distrust of police,
YES. Policemen chose to become police for many reasons, MOSTLY psychologically scary ones. Then, they learn to see everyone as a potential threat or 'perp'.
anti-war,
YES. Massive value destruction. LIVES. Jesus.
pro-drug,
YES.
anti-exploitation,
Yes. Less flow down the pyramid, plz. kthxbye :P (Actually it is very tricky to sort out who is actually making the world better and so deserves to be less 'exploited'. Thank god we both lean so strongly toward bottom-up processes 'deciding' that for us.)
agree with the liberal claims of obvious and odious discrimination from having a obscenely large black prison population
Or I might not...if I don't at all believe in HNU (human neurological uniformity). Re: violent criminality: I mostly blame unusually high testosterone/energy PLUS social marginalization/uncertainty. Parsimoniously, these two traits also explain why young males across ALL tribal political units are similarly...'obviously and odiously'...discriminated against!! I would definitely 'profile' young males in airport security lines; every alternative I've encountered is unsane.)
the (vulgar) libertarian (effectively) pro-corporatist stance
More on this, please! My instinct is that it's your and my current most fertile ground for right-left cooperative production of new knowledge ;)
Privatize crime fighting first.
Enforcing WHAT laws? (I'm down with James A. Donald's 'natural law,' but that there's an awfully hard sell for any present State.)
And Miranda rights? The 5th Amendment? 'Fruit of the poison tree' evidence rules? No 'profiling' in airport security lines? It's all enough to drive The Incredibles' superheroes into retirement! Any police forces as bureaucratically hamstrung as our current ones...and WORSE SO because they wouldn't even enjoy the same imprimatur of AUTHORITAH...sent out to preserve and restore order in our cities...how is this better than today?
Responding:
1) bureaucracy bad, sure, but not esp. important. Issue is around capability to mess up your life, if you are living nearby, trying to do so peacefully (and poor).
1a) metaphoric polymers are some nasty sh*t.
2) leftists are relatively egalitarian, and not that concerned about pyramid of ability.
2b) left libs oftentimes consequentialist, and aware of issues...so can't be quite so egalitarian as 2a.
2c) top ability now != top potential early or top ability later...so consequences of 2b muted.
2d) doesn't matter much without coercion.
:)
Apart from metaphoric polymers, I look forward to your less abbreviated thoughts during tomorrow's anti-vampire daylight. *bares impressive teeth*
Morse did not live in vain, AND this medium ain't no telegraph.
Can't help noticing that you speak of leftists in the 3rd person.
*stop*
ARE you one of THEM, or not?
Joe McCarthy and I need to know.
I don't think I should be responding to flamebait and willful misconstruction.
discrimination: WM.
corporate power: you answered it yourself below....
religion: not surprised where you stand. I'm elsewhere. And still in the non-epsilon percentages.
tolerance: lives with the intelligent meaning of discrimination that you were dodging earlier.
Prison: Even without HNU (is the H silent, like in Gnu?), and including your normalizers, there's pretty good evidence for notable discrimination.
No argument on young males.
Police: Actually, I don't much care which laws...but remove police deference, and you're a long way towards figuring out how to deal with problems. And that would create a lot more outrage about red light cameras, if it wasn't going to gov't.
Vulgar Libertarianism...more for another post.
I prefer ambiguity.
I am not recognizable to most leftists as a leftist, due to my public choice + marxist anti-government line.
Well, and my general thoughts that conservative positions tend strongly to garner scientific support (Marriage is good, Gender is real, etc.)
I am not recognizable to most libertarians because of admission of non-governmental oppression, and opposition to large enterprises due to their poorly recognized reliance for their existence/size on government handouts like land grants, bailouts, the fed and patents.
So where do I fall?
I'm going with the zen answer:
Mu
Blogspot, despite its normalcy, is weird :)
I'm used to LJ's apparently superior comment threading system!
Prison: Even without HNU (is the H silent, like in Gnu?), and including your normalizers, there's pretty good evidence for notable discrimination.
re Gnu: heh
I AM curious enough to ask for your pretty good evidence of notable discrimination. (You definitely have the burdens of production and proof in your court of my mind, however. To whatever extent you still care at this point in my little right-wing coming-out-party!)
No argument on young males.
Police: Actually, I don't much care which laws...but remove police deference, and you're a long way towards figuring out how to deal with problems. And that would create a lot more outrage about red light cameras, if it wasn't going to gov't.
Again, doesn't REDUCING police deference mostly make crime -- and therefore cities -- WORSE?
Once again, I automatically agree with all your most GENERAL statements (the whole below)...but seem to have practically opposite emphases on the directions for actual solutions. Interesting!
Well, and my general thoughts that conservative positions tend strongly to garner scientific support (Marriage is good, Gender is real, etc.)
I am not recognizable to most libertarians because of admission of non-governmental oppression, and opposition to large enterprises due to their poorly recognized reliance for their existence/size on government handouts like land grants, bailouts, the fed and patents.
flamebait
willful misconstruction
I swear...by my life and my love it...that neither is true.
Fact is (as you would say!), I'm shocked you would say that unless it's a joke I'm not getting.
I may have fun, but I'm ultimately awfully serious about ideas.
Non-epsilon religion could be an awesome topic for future posts.
I can roughly imagine a Robin Hanson suspicious-of-all-big-disagreements epistemological caution argument, but obv I'm not buying it yet!
On Crime see Mark Kleiman:
http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/21474
The first part of the dialog about kidneys is also great.
My conclusion on this is simple. The government is simply not concerned about doing what is right, what brings value to people. Its not even on the agenda. Figuring out what is right, has no political meaning.
I have no idea why one would want to descend and degrade ones intellect by using the left right label. Surly there are better places to sit.
To be in the Libertarian direction is to believe that one ought not have the political power to implement ones will on others. It is no surprise then that Libertarians lack any political power. And thus beyond a moment of passing interest it seems no more effort should be put forth...perhaps unfortunately there may be many moments of passing interest.
"I am not recognizable to most libertarians because of admission of non-governmental oppression"
Are there really people who don't believe in non-governmental oppression? That don't believe in organized crime, street gangs etc? That done believe that a Enron or madoff scam can happen?
What is your list of top 5 non-government oppression? Who doesn't believe in them?
Ins't it really about order of magnitude? The relative size of the worst thing governments have done, compared to any other organization? That the civil war so out does all the organized crime put together that its not even in the same ball park. That the losses at F Mac's are several fold those of the others. etc etc.
If you live near an active street gang this is probably more significant that the oppression of government...but outside of this?
Corporations are bad, they are just not AS BAD as government.
The truth is Libertarians or Objectivists don't really like or trust corporations any more than they do the government. Oh certainly corporations haven't killed 200,000,000 of their own people over the last hundred years as governments have, but they do share one feature of government that Libertarians absolutely despise.
They are a way of abrogating individual responsibility to the collective.
Our heroes have names like "Rearden Steel" or Taggart Transcontinental, not ABC Holdings company Limited.
That's the problem with these giant alphabet soup companies like say AIG.
There is nobody home. No one to say, this is my company, my problem, my responsibility. Instead responsibility is abrogated to the collective, and if everyone is responsible then, as we well know, nobody is responsible. And if no one is responsible, there is noone to bear the brunt of consequences.
Rob and Mark, I find you guys incredibly annoying.
Because I totally wish I wrote EVERYthing you EACH just did in this thread. I would highlight via boldquote my favorite passages (cause my usual style is to make an excuse to do that!)...but in this case those passages would SERIOUSLY be every word of the above 3 comments -- except the bloggingheadstv pointer that I know nothing about yet.
Cool, you guys made me feel not as weird as I did yesterday :)
As I think it's unseemly for the blogger to get into extended arguments in the comments...a post will be forthcoming in order to address the concerns from the vulgar libertarian hordes comprising the commentariat on this post.
Aretae,
hahaaha awesome!
I'm just glad you FINALLY stirred together the right crazy-sounding things to post at your vulgar libertarian friends to get people actually talking.
What is your list of top 5 non-government oppression? Who doesn't believe in them?
THIS still seems the MOST worth your answering...when you feel like fleshing out your political musings to the den of vulgarity.
Viva la commentariat!!
Post a Comment