Showing posts with label left-libertarianism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label left-libertarianism. Show all posts

Sunday, July 10, 2016

tom Hickey — some reflections on liberalism and left and right libertarianism

Liberalism and left and right libertarianism

Classical liberalism can be viewed through the lens of John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty and Utilitarianism.

Mill saw liberalism as the struggle against authoritarianism and dogmatism. Liberalism can be seen as the culmination of the struggle against authority, then the remnants of the dominance of religious hierarchies and dogmas and of feudalism as social and political hierarchies that established privilege. Authority was seen as curtailing liberty.

Mill’s classical statement of liberalism is this:
The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right...The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns him, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign. — John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, Introductory 
The basis for valuation in this conception of liberalism is utilitarianism, a category of consequentialist ethics, characterized by Epicurus and Jeremy Bentham, in contrast to deontological and virtue ethics, characterized by Kant and Aristotle respectively.

Mill described utilitarianism as follows:
The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure. To give a clear view of the moral standard set up by the theory, much more requires to be said; in particular, what things it includes in the ideas of pain and pleasure; and to what extent this is left an open question. But these supplementary explanations do not affect the theory of life on which this theory of morality is grounded—namely, that pleasure, and freedom from pain, are the only things desirable as ends; and that all desirable things (which are as numerous in the utilitarian as in any other scheme) are desirable either for the pleasure inherent in themselves, or as means to the promotion of pleasure and the prevention of pain. — John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism, Chapter 2
This is a paradigm, and it would be illiberal to regard it as dogmatic. This paradigm has provided the platform for subsequent debate about social, political and economic liberalism.

Liberalism in the strict senses emphasizes individual liberty against hierarchically imposed authority, as is found in states organized on the military model, and collectivism, such as the tyranny of the majority over minorities and individuals, such as occurs in representative democracies. In fact, in representative democracies, minority positions can be imposed on majorities by representatives elected by the majority.

Libertarianism addresses these issues from different points of view across a political spectrum ranging from individual sovereignty and global privatization and to the commons and community based on consensus.

Consequently, libertarians of both left and right are opposed to tradition organization of states and governments, since historically they have arisen a context of authoritarianism and perpetuate authoritarianism. 

Libertarians are "anarchists" in the sense of opposing involuntary imposition of authority that curtails individual liberty.

Libertarians of the right appeal to natural spontaneous order arising from individual liberty exercised within the bounds of security of person and property. Libertarians of the right hold that the only basic rights are the right to security of person and property.

Libertarians of the left emphasize consensus in governance and universal human and civil rights under the rule of law in accordance with self-determination and equality of persons.
Libertarians of the left hold that liberty grows out of the commons and therefore the commons must be recovered from enclosure. As a result, they view a constellation of rights as necessary to protect individuals and minorities.

Different positions have been staked out along this range, the extremes of which are utopian and unlikely to be realized on a mass scale. Moreover, left and right converge toward the center, so there are center-left and center-right libertarians. 

The New Left of the Sixties was an attempt to create a coalition of left and right libertarians, for example. Murray Rothbard and Karl Hess were involved but nothing came of it beyond agreement on the anti-war issue. See Murray Rothbard, The New Left Was Great (Before It Collapsed).

Monday, November 24, 2014

Branco Milanovic — Why individualism does not necessarily imply preference for a minimalist state?


Rand, Mises, Hayek, and left libertarianism briefly compared and contrasted.

Global Inequality
Why individualism does not necessarily imply preference for a minimalist state?
Branco Milanovic

Wednesday, June 18, 2014

Roderick Long — Whose Left? Which Libertarianism?

Over at C4SS I’ve posted the abstract to a paper on Left-Libertarianism: Its Past, Its Present, Its Prospects that I’ll be presenting at theMANCEPT 2014 Workshop on the Current State of Libertarian Philosophy in Manchester UK in September. 
As it happens, Kevin Carson has a more detailed post up on the same topic: What Is Left-Libertarianism?

Bleeding Heart Libertarians
Whose Left? Which Libertarianism?
Roderick Long

Monday, May 5, 2014

Chris Dillow — Keeping the rich rich

When investment is in private hands, it will only occur if those hands can be reasonably certain of a return. In this sense, economic growth - at least within a capitalist economy - requires the state to guarantee capitalists' wealth.

Instead, my point is simple. If Andrew is serious about wanting the state not to intervene in the economy to keep the rich rich, he must adopt a very radical position indeed. I warmly welcome him into the left-libertarian fold.
Stumbling and Mumbling
Keeping the rich rich
Chris Dillow | Investors Chronicle

Monday, March 10, 2014

Mark Ames — Found: Libertarians' "Lying To Liberals" Guide Book

This Saturday’s "StopWatching.Us" protest in Washington DC promises to be the Mother Of All StrangeBedfellowsPaloozas, the apotheosis of sentimental Boomer politics in which right-wingers hold hands with left-wingers in a righteous People’s Crusade against the government Death Star.
I wouldn't be the first to point out how embarrassingly easy it has been for rancid Koch libertarian front groups to convince those on the Left that they are all on the same team. As Salon writer Tom Watson wrote, the event is "fatally compromised by the prominent leadership and participation of the Libertarian Party and other libertarian student groups [who stand] in direct opposition to almost everything I believe in as a social democrat."
What hasn't been revealed until now, however, is how the libertarians got so good at fooling their lefty marks. For that you have to look back 35 years, to an amazing series of articles in the Koch brothers' REASON magazine in which prominent libertarians lay out to a new generation of followers a playbook of "tricks" to fool earnest leftists, liberals and hippies into supporting their cause....
More dupe the rubes bankrolled by billionaires promoting laissez-faire. Again, follow the money.

NSFW Corp

Thursday, February 27, 2014

Chris Dillow — Libertarians & Marxism

There is, though, a third option here. It's to recognize that capitalism and real freedom aren't wholly compatible, and to look for economic institutions - of which a basic income is one - which better promote freedom. Libertarianism and Marxism have much in common.
Of course, Libertarianism of the right and libertarianism of the left have a lot in common in that they both value freedom. Freedom entails rights, and rights entail responsibility. The disagree is over prioritizing rights and responsibilities.

Libertarianism of the right accords the right to security of person and property much greater weight than does libertarianism of the left, which views human and civil rights as having the highest priority. Libertarianism of the right emphasizes individual independence, whereas libertarianism of the left emphasizes balancing individual independence, equality of persons, and interdependence.

Stumbling and Mumbling
Libertarians & Marxism
Chris Dillow | Investors Chronicle

Friday, January 4, 2013

Libertarianism


There have been some comments lately seeking clarification on the meaning of libertarianism so here is the wiki link to libertarianism.  Some key excerpts:
The word stems from the French word libertaire. The use of the word "libertarian" to describe a set of political positions can be tracked to the French cognate, libertaire, which was coined in 1857 by French anarchist Joseph Déjacque who used the term to distinguish his libertarian communist approach from the mutualism advocated by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon.[11] Hence libertarian has been used by some as a synonym for left anarchism since the 1890s.[12] The term libertarianism is commonly considered to be a synonym of anarchism in countries other than the US.[9] Albert Jay Nock and H.L. Mencken were the first prominent conservatives in the US to call themselves "libertarians," which they used to signify their allegiance to individualism and limited government, feeling that Franklin D. Roosevelt had co-opted the word "liberal" for his New Deal policies, which they opposed.
So looks like this whole concept came out of France in the latter half of the 1800s.  No coincidence then that the "Statue of Liberty" idol came from France to the U.S. in the late 1800s.  It must have been really big in France back then and eventually just spilled over into the U.S. and got in.

More information about the characteristics of this secular philosophy:
Libertarianism is the group of political philosophies which advocate minimizing coercion and emphasize freedom, liberty, and voluntary association. Libertarians generally advocate a society with significantly less government compared to most present day societies. There is no consensus on the precise definition of libertarianism. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines libertarianism as the moral view that agents initially fully own themselves and have certain moral powers to acquire property rights in external things.[1] George Woodcock, author of a history of libertarianism, defines it as the philosophy that fundamentally doubts authority and advocates transforming society by reform or revolution.[2] Libertarian philosopher Roderick Long defines libertarianism as "any political position that advocates a radical redistribution of power from the coercive state to voluntary associations of free individuals", whether "voluntary association" takes the form of the free market or of communal co-operatives.[3] According to the U.S. Libertarian Party, libertarianism is the advocacy of a government that is funded voluntarily and limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence.
So it looks like this philosophy "libertarianism" has no place in human history before the mid 19th century, and this relatively new to the scene philosophy is basically anti-authority and anti-civil government, really anti-civilization and anarchical.  It has found a place both on the political left and the political right in the present era which is interesting... hedged in from both sides!

This philosophy is at core what blinds the minds of those who are ignorant of, adverse to and oppose a tax "driven" state currency system like that which we have in place today here in the U.S.  Even though this is the type of system we have, the libertarians continue to deny this reality and are living in some sort of fantasy world of gold standards or private currencies, reserve banking, you name it; all sorts of ignorant libertarian ficticious alternatives to reality.

Some opposed are more overt about their opposition and up-front about it, for instance the Rothbardian right-libertarians, the right "gun culture", "gold lovers", etc..;  but this philosophy is also blinding the minds of the left-libertarians who just can't seem to embrace and understand the idea of a state currency system, and cling to the "we're out of money!" and "we're a debtor nation!" and the "we need a balanced budget!" mantras.

These left-libertarians are the ones Bill Mitchell has referred to as:  "friends like these...".

The left's libertarianism is covert, but it is always there and is a powerful enemy in this intellectual warfare we are engaged in.