Left Libertarians unite!!!

[rcapo89]

I wanted to post a thread to clarify some common misconceptions about the history of Libertarianism. By the way Left Libertarianism or Libertarian Socialism, is not a contradiction, study your political science...

Left Libertarians is a broad and diverse movement that shares opposition to authority in both the state and private power.
Libertarians were associated with the left into the era of FDR when many libertarians joined the conservatives in opposition to the New Deal. The modern conservative movement of the past 30 years has used some libertarian rhetoric to gain popularity and power. Conservatives in my opinion, care more about maintaining traditionalist values, institutions, and hierarchies rather then expanding liberty.

This is not to say that the modern left is any better. The left has moved to state authority and advocating a robin hood type government.
People should recognize the distinction between libertarian socialism and state socialism. Many on the right depict socialism as synonymous with authoritarianism which is not accurate and is intellectually dishonest.

I welcome dissenting opinions and encourage debate.

Anyway here's link to a great video explaining in more detail the history of left libertarianism.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmf7k...eature=related

[leonardess]

I don't know about any of that. I just want state-supported healthcare for everyone.

Like they have here in the UK, only given the tax money that it was meant to have, instead of frittering it away to support weapons sales.

[rcapo89]

I can't be the only person here on this site who affiliates themselves under the Libertarian Left movement.
So there's nobody here who wants to debate me?

Here's a link to a great website.
http://all-left.net/

[brokensaint]

I'm a libertarian who disdains socialism.

[rcapo89]

Do you know what socialism is? I hope you are informed about the history of socialism and its origins. What type of socialism do you disdain?
You claim to be a libertarian, do you support capitalism and corporatism which are private authoritarian institutions? And I hope in your defense you don't use the term laissez faire capitalism, its a complete oxymoron.

[Thomas Paine]

I'm pretty sure I fit into this category, but I really don't know for sure. I'm like the guy who's name I post under though. I think everybody has a basic right (similar to fire and police department protection) to have an equal start on land, health, and education, and I don't think that is socialism.

I also believe that the only way we can afford to really do that is by having more liberty on everything else, and keeping our military out of other countries. I don't know if that's what Thomas Paine believed though.

[brokensaint]

Originally Posted by Thomas Paine

I'm pretty sure I fit into this category, but I really don't know for sure. I'm like the guy who's name I post under though. I think everybody has a basic right (similar to fire and police department protection) to have an equal start on land, health, and education, and I don't think that is socialism.

I also believe that the only way we can afford to really do that is by having more liberty on everything else, and keeping our military out of other countries. I don't know if that's what Thomas Paine believed though.

You probably know better than I, but I'd be very surprised if Thomas Paine believed housing, health care and education to be a human right.

[Thomas Paine]

Originally Posted by brokensaint

You probably know better than I, but I'd be very surprised if Thomas Paine believed housing, health care and education to be a human right.

Actually he had a really simple idea for it. A guaranteed minimum income, and some sort of right to land ownership when you turned 18, I think. And I'm pretty sure, free higher education.

That would have pretty much covered housing and health care back then, right?

[Witan]

I think I might fit in this category.

[bezoomny]

I look forward to the international situationist revolution. Though I suppose that's more anarchistic Marxism...

[Toad Licker]

I'm a left leaning libertarian, at least that's what an online test told me. I don't follow their party or any others though.

[Mr. Frostie]

I don't know if the left-libertarian label fits me the way the OP is defining it. I like the non-interventionist foreign policy and government fiscal responsibility parts of the libertarian platform. OTOH I want antitrust regulation and some amount of government oversight over industries like medicine, health care and food which goes against the unfettered capitalism aspect of libertarianism. I don't think that's necessarily socialist, though. I also like a government that uses tax revenue to pay for education, roads, hospitals, police, military, etc. I guess I'm a moderate with some left and libertarian leanings.

[brokensaint]

Originally Posted by Thomas Paine

Actually he had a really simple idea for it. A guaranteed minimum income, and some sort of right to land ownership when you turned 18, I think. And I'm pretty sure, free higher education.

That would have pretty much covered housing and health care back then, right?

Hmm, interesting. That kind of surprises me, to be honest.

[UltraShy]

I watched the video, all 5 minutes of it. I must admit the concept of Left Libertarianism is fairly new and foreign to me and I certainly am far from understanding it. I first realized 17 years ago that I was a Libertarian -- and I had no idea that it came with a prefix of Left or Right till the other year. Though, when one says 'Libertarian' they normally mean Right Libertarian like that of the LP or what Robert Nozick wrote of in "Anarchy, State, and Utopia."

Left Libertarian does strike me as a contradiction, though there is much I don't know about it, but that's my initial impression.

If an LL (Left Libertarian) is opposed to corporate power and economic inequality, how exactly do they remedy this "problem" without directly violating Libertarian principles? If someone has "too much" money and another has "too little" you can force Mr. Rich to hand over assets to Mr. Poor, but that seems to violate a fundamental element of libertarian thought regarding the use of force & coercion. How does a LL achieve the equality they want without resorting to such unjust use of force?

[Tangent]

I thought, as a commited socialist, I should probably get around to commenting on this thread at some point.

Personally, though the concept is a perfectly valid one (free, democratic regulation of the economy, combined with maximised personal freedoms), I do have a dislike of the term "libertarian left".

I think we should let the corporatists/neo-liberals co-opt the term "libertarian". The word is already wrapped in an aura of selfishness and right-wing indifference to human suffering - sure, that is far from its original meaning, but meanings change, and this word is a rightist one.

If you are a leftist, then call yourself a leftist, "liberal", social democrat, socialist, democratic socialist, communist, or whatever other leftist political heading you might fit under, but let us not throw around terminology like "left libertarian" - it just serves to muddy the already terribly unclear waters of political discourse. In my opinion, "libertarian" should refer exclusively to rightists. If you like having a derivative of "liberty" in your ideological heading, then we on the left still own the word "liberal" - so use that.

Originally Posted by UltraShy

If an LL (Left Libertarian) is opposed to corporate power and economic inequality, how exactly do they remedy this "problem" without directly violating Libertarian principles? If someone has "too much" money and another has "too little" you can force Mr. Rich to hand over assets to Mr. Poor, but that seems to violate a fundamental element of libertarian thought regarding the use of force & coercion. How does a LL achieve the equality they want without resorting to such unjust use of force?

Hey UltraShy

I will shortly be ressurecting my "some questions to libertarians" thread to address this issue in more detail, but for now I would simply point out that you libertarians, by your own admission, overide various concepts associated with "liberty" - such as that of the right of the people to vote over what happens to publicly owned land. While these "left libertarian" people may give power to the state to, say, increase taxes on the rich, and you undoubtedly see that as an infringement of liberty, do remember that right libertarians give power to the corporate to do pretty much whatever they want - and the state is at least elected, if corrupt, so I don't feel that "there is a contradiction in terms" is a valid point against left-libertarianism. There are, after all, two concepts of "freedom" - "negative freedom" (the libertarian kind) and "positive freedom" (the leftist kind).

[UltraShy]

Originally Posted by Tangent

I think we should let the corporatists/neo-liberals co-opt the term "libertarian".

I assume a corporatist would be one who mindlessly supports corporations regardless what they do? Please define this term so that I may address that issue. While many accuse Right Libertarians as being on the side of big corporations, this is a fallacy. RL's got mad as hell when the US Supreme Court sided with the "fat cats" who blatantly abuse eminent domain by doing things like taking modest homes away from the poor so they can build a Walmart that will bring in more tax revenue for the municipality. I most certainly don't think taking land by force to build a Walmart or a parking structure for Donald Trump is even close to being a legitimate use of eminent domain. Those most certainly are not public projects and it's an absolute outrage! As a Libertarian I believe everyone has rights regardless of their income or net worth and throwing the poor out of their own home simply because government can doesn't make it right.

The word is already wrapped in an aura of selfishness and right-wing indifference to human suffering - sure, that is far from its original meaning, but meanings change, and this word is a rightist one.

Again, I must disagree. I don't consider myself to be indifferent to human suffering. I've complained regularly about our nation's insane criminal justice system (largely drug laws) that give us the largest prison population on earth. I don't deem stuffing prisons to the brim is good social policy at all. I would argue that a lot of human suffering is the result of grossly excessive government regulations & laws. And the people who suffer the most under our laws are young, poor minorities, a group that those on the left claim to care so much about.

If you are a leftist, then call yourself a leftist, "liberal", social democrat, socialist, democratic socialist, communist, or whatever other leftist political heading you might fit under, but let us not throw around terminology like "left libertarian" - it just serves to muddy the already terribly unclear waters of political discourse.

I must agree. Everybody basically knows what a socialist or communist is, but how many know what a Left Libertarian is when even I can't manage to figure out what exactly they are.

[UltraShy]

Originally Posted by Tangent

Hey UltraShy

I will shortly be ressurecting my "some questions to libertarians" thread to address this issue in more detail, but for now I would simply point out that you libertarians, by your own admission, overide various concepts associated with "liberty" - such as that of the right of the people to vote over what happens to publicly owned land.

Publicly owned land is regularly abused as basically nobody owns it. John Stossel of 20/20 has shown things like video of folks dumping truckloads of their garbage on public lands and hardly anybody cares because they don't own it (well, they own it along with 300,000,000 others, making their share too tiny for them to care about). Now if that was private property, do you think it might get better care? How long would you or your family tolerate the neighbor dumping his trash on your front yard? I suspect you'd put a stop to this abuse of YOUR land really fast because YOU care when it belongs to YOU.

While these "left libertarian" people may give power to the state to, say, increase taxes on the rich...

I really dislike the manner in which a typical discussion of taxes is framed. It's always about taxing the rich (which means anybody with a dollar more than you). I fully support a progressive income tax system where those with more income pay a larger percentage, but I also think that taxes should be cut across the board with lower rates for everyone.

[UltraShy]

Originally Posted by Tangent

do remember that right libertarians give power to the corporate to do pretty much whatever they want...

Corporations are simply an aggregation of individual investors. Many on the left seem to forget that fact. It's much easier to attack a faceless corporation -- like Walmart -- than to attack everyone who owns Walmart stock. I am one of Walmart's owners. Walmart would be one of about 6,000 different companies I own in 40+ nations around the world by way of mutual funds. Surely a great many ordinary working stiffs have some Walmart stock within their 401k or 403b or 457 plan at work or in their IRA.

...and the state is at least elected...

Corporations are run by a board of directors this is elected as well, so same as the state in that regard. This may surprise many, but I am highly critical of many corporate boards that I feel are failing to act in the best interest of shareholders. And I think many shareholders (like huge pension funds & mutual funds) are failing to keep corporations in line. We need more activist shareholders that won't put up with any more s***, like executives getting a bonus for running the company into the ground. I believe in pay for performance, and if you fail you don't deserve a bonus for your failure.

[rcapo89]

Originally Posted by Tangent

I thought, as a commited socialist, I should probably get around to commenting on this thread at some point.

Personally, though the concept is a perfectly valid one (free, democratic regulation of the economy, combined with maximised personal freedoms), I do have a dislike of the term "libertarian left".

I think we should let the corporatists/neo-liberals co-opt the term "libertarian". The word is already wrapped in an aura of selfishness and right-wing indifference to human suffering - sure, that is far from its original meaning, but meanings change, and this word is a rightist one.

If you are a leftist, then call yourself a leftist, "liberal", social democrat, socialist, democratic socialist, communist, or whatever other leftist political heading you might fit under, but let us not throw around terminology like "left libertarian" - it just serves to muddy the already terribly unclear waters of political discourse. In my opinion, "libertarian" should refer exclusively to rightists. If you like having a derivative of "liberty" in your ideological heading, then we on the left still own the word "liberal" - so use that.

Hey Stephen I have to respectfully disagree with you. Socialism by its very definition is libertarian in nature. In not using the word libertarian you seem content with allowing people's ignorance of political history to prevail. Socialism opposes any system of state control believing in a more decentralized approach which puts the means of production directly into the hands of the workers rather than indirectly through government bureaucracies. When power is centralized it will inevitably lead to corruption and create a new elite.

The political movements throughout history have always been divided along authoritarian and libertarian wings. The left has always stood for liberty and has been opposed to tyranny and coercion in all its forms whether it be from the state or the private sector. Libertarianism advocates direct democracy, believing society should function from the bottom up. Citizens should be active members of their communities affecting change themselves. True leftism advocate freedom from authoritarian power.

By the way I'm assuming you consider yourself a "leftist", if so why do you support a government apparatus? In America the political system is owned by two major parties the Republicans and Democrats. Both are authoritarian and are financed by major corporations, thus preventing truly free elections.

Many on the modern "left" may be against capitalism and globalization but advocate the control of the means of production by the state, either through state ownership or regulation. Social democrats are not true leftists but are nothing more than state capitalists.

Has anyone here heard of Noam Chomsky? By the way I consider my self a Libertarian Socialist.
Here's a link explaining more on Libertarian Socialism.
http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/libsoc.html

[UltraShy]

Originally Posted by rcapo89

The left has always stood for liberty and has been opposed to tyranny and coercion in all its forms whether it be from the state or the private sector.

Oddly, the left comes up with a whole lot of laws, rules, and endless regulation for folks who support liberty.

-The left tells us what we can drive, demanding that it get X miles per gallon or that it run on electricity. Is that your concept of freedom? You're free to drive what we tell you you may.

-The left makes laws against building nuclear power plants. They mandate that utilities build windmills instead. Is that not coercion?

-The left decides that privately-owned bars & restaurants are "public" places and thus must follow their rules that say no smoking in "public" places.

-The left pays for all their endless social programs with tax money that is literally taken at gun point if you fail to "voluntarily" hand it over. Seizing assets, by force if need be, certainly sounds coercive to me.

-The left tries to Wite-Out the Second Amendment. Somehow an assault on the Bill of Rights is their concept of respecting rights.

-The left often isn't too fond of the First Amendment either in cases where someone dares to say something they don't like. The left in Germany tosses those who deny the Holocaust in prison, because they don't believe in the right to say stupid things.

In America the political system is owned by two major parties the Republicans and Democrats. Both are authoritarian and are financed by major corporations, thus preventing truly free elections.

Well, I can agree with you there. Both the Reps & Dems are certainly authoritarian -- the only thing they agree on is that they know better than you how to run you life and they will make a ton of laws dictating what you may & may not do. They disagree on how it should be run, but they're certain they can do a better job than you could.

Could you provide some specific examples of freedom that you support. I'd like to understand more about how the left stands for liberty and concrete examples I think would really help me.