Left-libertarianism
Scott Erb
protection of liberty from all violations as a primary value, there is a
tendancy to focus only on protection from government. Governments are
just one organization of power that can use that power to limit liberty.
Big business can do that (moreso, the less government that exists), as
well as powerful people with resources. Money is power, power can be
abused to violate liberty.
There are many groups described as "left-libertarians," especially in
Europe, who mix distrust of the state and centralized government with
distrust of big business and powerful non-governmental actors. Often
they see the goal as to have government held accountable, but still be
able to act to balance other powerful actors, with liberty as the
primary goal. Have American libertarians thought about this, or is
American libertarianism a purely capitalist libertarianism that does not
believe capitalism can be exploitive of people's liberties?
Bert Hyman
> I believe that American libertarianism is misguided. Rather than
> seeing protection of liberty from all violations as a primary value,
> there is a tendancy to focus only on protection from government.
>
Like most statists, you confuse economic power with police power. The
government is the only agency that is explicitly given the authority
to use physical force to carry out its rules.
Of course, in the society you envision, police power and economic
power would in fact be combined in one agency.
--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | be...@visi.com
Harold
wrote:
>I believe that American libertarianism is misguided. Rather than seeing
>protection of liberty from all violations as a primary value, there is a
>tendancy to focus only on protection from government.
In the past, many intelligent men have noted that government has
invariably been the organization most likely to abuse its power.
I believe that I have read where some 300 million people in the last
century were killed by their own governments.
I would suspect you could ask a political scientist for details.
[deleted]
Regards, Harold (Capitalist Meanie)
----
"No government of the left has done as much for the poor as
capitalism has. Even when it comes to the redistribution of income,
the left talks the talk but the free market walks the walk."
--- Thomas Sowell, 1999
tjwilson
Scott Erb <scot...@maine.edu> wrote in message
news:3ABA586B...@maine.edu...
"Back in the days when I was a Marxist, my primary concern was that ordinary
people deserved better and that elites were walking all over them. That is
still my primary concern, but the passing decades have taught me that
political elites and cultural elites are doing far more damage than the
market elites could ever get away with doing." -- Thomas Sowell.
Brett Perlas
seeing
> protection of liberty from all violations as a primary value, there is
a
> tendancy to focus only on protection from government. Governments are
> just one organization of power that can use that power to limit
liberty.
> Big business can do that (moreso, the less government that exists), as
> well as powerful people with resources. Money is power, power can be
> abused to violate liberty.
"American libertarianism" does not, as far as I know, contend that
governemnt should be cut back so far as to preclude it from legitimately
protecting the liberty of its citizens. For example, if a "Big
Business" wanted to build a strip mall in place of your neighborhood,
and they sent thugs to extort the title to your land, than most agree
governemnt has the right to protect you. If a "Big Business" throws so
much money at you that you cannot help but accept the sale of your land,
that is not power being exerted, that is a trade being made. I'm not
sure I understand how Big Business can effectively utilize "monetary
power" in any way violative of individual rights unless the govenrment
is failing to peform its legitimate duties.
>
> There are many groups described as "left-libertarians," especially in
> Europe, who mix distrust of the state and centralized government with
> distrust of big business and powerful non-governmental actors. Often
> they see the goal as to have government held accountable, but still be
> able to act to balance other powerful actors, with liberty as the
> primary goal. Have American libertarians thought about this, or is
> American libertarianism a purely capitalist libertarianism that does
not
> believe capitalism can be exploitive of people's liberties?
"Capitalism" can only be exploitive of people's liberties if the
government allows such exploitation. Consider the strip mall example
again. There are laws such that a residence can be "zoned" into a
commercial area, thereby forcing the people to move out. Similarly,
there are laws that allow a business to sue a single or couple remaining
holdout houses if they posses a certain majority of the land deeds.
These are problems that are a direct result of government interference,
not capitalism. In a country that promotes both capitalism and
individual liberty, you would have an absolute right to hold out and
keep your property. Please don't make the common mistake of confusing
the American system of government welfare to big business as capitalism.
We have not been capitalists for nearly a century.
-BP
Garrett
> Scott Erb <scot...@maine.edu> wrote in message
> news:3ABA586B...@maine.edu...
> > I believe that American libertarianism is misguided. Rather than seeing
> > protection of liberty from all violations as a primary value, there is a
> > tendancy to focus only on protection from government. Governments are
> > just one organization of power that can use that power to limit liberty.
> > Big business can do that (moreso, the less government that exists), as
> > well as powerful people with resources. Money is power, power can be
> > abused to violate liberty.
American libertarianism, as defined by what I see on usenet is only concerned
with one right: property rights.
This is why the Libertarian party has failed to catch on in America. They
are
consumed with the idea of money and wealth. They care little or nothing for
all the other rights. Just read what they post. It always comes back to the same
subject: money.
If usenet truly represents the Libertarian party then they are a shallow
political party that lacks vision. They might as well fold and call themselves
the Anti-Tax party because they really don't have any other agenda.
Scott Erb
I think that people with a lot of idealism tend towards extremes.
That's why you see ultra marxists become ultra capitalists or
vice-versa. The fact is that ANY concentration of power: economic,
governmental, political, cultural, lends itself to abuse. Capitalist
libertarians seem to turn a blind eye to all abuses but governmental
abuses, looking for a very easy solution (just minimalize or for some
even virtually eliminate) government. I think that while their goal of
liberty is correct, the path they suggest would, for the reasons noted
in my original post, lead to less liberty and less accountability from
those who have power. This is something I think capitalist libertarians
turn a blind eye too -- though some seem at least to think about this.
Scott Erb
Brett Perlas wrote:
> "American libertarianism" does not, as far as I know, contend that
> governemnt should be cut back so far as to preclude it from legitimately
> protecting the liberty of its citizens. For example, if a "Big
> Business" wanted to build a strip mall in place of your neighborhood,
> and they sent thugs to extort the title to your land, than most agree
> governemnt has the right to protect you. If a "Big Business" throws so
> much money at you that you cannot help but accept the sale of your land,
> that is not power being exerted, that is a trade being made. I'm not
> sure I understand how Big Business can effectively utilize "monetary
> power" in any way violative of individual rights unless the govenrment
> is failing to peform its legitimate duties.
The problem is structural power -- power that is blatant or obvious use
of force to achieve an end, but "stacking the deck" by assuring that one
class of people are given much easier access to the best jobs, the best
universities, the best opportunities. It is using clout -- we all know
money is power -- to assure that regulations don't limit their ability
to produce what they want, to get their way. The result is a society
without true equal opportunity.
To me the key is not to be anti-business or anti-government in a knee
jerk manner, but simply to recognize that there is a role for government
to assure that those lacking economic clout have their interests,
liberties and opportunities protected from unjust limitation from those
who have that clout. This means a government that does not allow
capitalism a free ride. However, that government has to be held
accountable too, and currently that needs to be vastly improved.
> > There are many groups described as "left-libertarians," especially in
> > Europe, who mix distrust of the state and centralized government with
> > distrust of big business and powerful non-governmental actors. Often
> > they see the goal as to have government held accountable, but still be
> > able to act to balance other powerful actors, with liberty as the
> > primary goal. Have American libertarians thought about this, or is
> > American libertarianism a purely capitalist libertarianism that does
> not
> > believe capitalism can be exploitive of people's liberties?
>
> "Capitalism" can only be exploitive of people's liberties if the
> government allows such exploitation. Consider the strip mall example
Again, don't ignore the structural and real power that a concentration
of wealth entails. But you are right -- capitalism is only exploitive
if it is allowed by government to be exploitive. The tricky question is
what is exploitation and what is not.
> again. There are laws such that a residence can be "zoned" into a
> commercial area, thereby forcing the people to move out. Similarly,
> there are laws that allow a business to sue a single or couple remaining
> holdout houses if they posses a certain majority of the land deeds.
> These are problems that are a direct result of government interference,
> not capitalism. In a country that promotes both capitalism and
> individual liberty, you would have an absolute right to hold out and
> keep your property. Please don't make the common mistake of confusing
> the American system of government welfare to big business as capitalism.
But the zoning laws also protect property owners and communities with
little clout or power from being at the whim of wealthy businesses who
will buy out others in the region and perhaps set up a strip mall or
worse nearby. Sure, they buy off a few, but what about the rest? What
about the powerless who don't sell their property because it is not
needed, but lose their park or the nature of their neighborhood.
Big money has big power.
> We have not been capitalists for nearly a century.
We learned in the industrial revolution and early capitalism that you
need to regulate big money and big business. We will never go back. The
question is only how much -- it would be naive to think that
concentrations of wealth don't bring structural power that benefits some
at the expense of others. Perhaps the most destructive and powerful
uses of force in the world are not overt, but subtle and involve
something akin to the Godfather "making an offer you can't refuse."
Scott Erb
Bert Hyman wrote:
>
> scot...@maine.edu (Scott Erb) wrote in <3ABA586B...@maine.edu>:
>
> > I believe that American libertarianism is misguided. Rather than
> > seeing protection of liberty from all violations as a primary value,
> > there is a tendancy to focus only on protection from government.
> Like most statists,
Stop there a second. Could you define "statist"? Does that mean anyone
who thinks a government is necessary and can act to serve the people is
a statist? Or is it something more. (An aside: I think sovereignty and
the modern state may be becoming obsolete due to globalization, which
will have interesting political overtones).
>you confuse economic power with police power. The
Not really. First, without rule of law -- without an effective state --
those with economic power often become Mafias, acting with force based
on their economic power. One could say they become defacto governments,
only not held accountable by a constitution. You can't have police
power without some kind of economic power. And any use of force --
Mafia, police, thugs, etc. -- is a potential denial of liberty.
> government is the only agency that is explicitly given the authority
> to use physical force to carry out its rules.
Well, whether it is explicitly given the authority or, like a Mafia just
takes the authority, if power is used to deny liberty than a true
libertarian should oppose it, shouldn't he? It just strikes me that it
is simplistic to consider only government to be able to stop liberty,
and think that somehow without government's role to protect the public
from powerful actors people would really be more free.
Consider this: only places with rule of law and a government that can be
held accountable to the people (imperfectly accountable, to be sure)
have had prosperity and have managed to keep individual liberties. But
I don't think most libertarians oppose rule of law, do they? In other
words, how is the balance drawn. If we agree we need to do whatever
possible to prevent liberty from being threatened, then isn't a question
of what kind of balance needs to be drawn? Isn't an active government
potentially necessary and good if and only if it can be held accountable
to the people, and if it keeps promotion of individual freedom as it's
main goal?
> Of course, in the society you envision, police power and economic
> power would in fact be combined in one agency.
Not in any society I envision! Governments are by far the most violent
and repressive organization of power in the history of the planet, and
just saying they can do good and are necessary to protect liberty does
not mean one can dare trust them. Governments tend towards corruption
and abuse of power. Left libertarians (unlike traditional leftists)
want to keep governments very limited and held accountable.
-Scott
Cecil
> I believe that American libertarianism is misguided. Rather than seeing
> protection of liberty from all violations as a primary value, there is a
> tendancy to focus only on protection from government. Governments are
> just one organization of power that can use that power to limit liberty.
> Big business can do that (moreso, the less government that exists), as
> well as powerful people with resources. Money is power, power can be
> abused to violate liberty.
Ok then, show how. Give an example demonstrating how Microsoft or
GM can "violate liberty".
> There are many groups described as "left-libertarians," especially in
> Europe, who mix distrust of the state and centralized government with
> distrust of big business and powerful non-governmental actors.
What "powerful non-governmental actors" are you talking about?
> Often they see the goal as to have government held accountable, but
> still be able to act to balance other powerful actors, with liberty as the
> primary goal. Have American libertarians thought about this, or is
> American libertarianism a purely capitalist libertarianism that does not
> believe capitalism can be exploitive of people's liberties?
If you believe that laissez-faire capitalism can be "exploitive of people's
liberties" it's up to you to show how. Please do so.
Sam Barber
> seeing protection of liberty from all violations as a primary
> value, there is a tendancy to focus only on protection from
> government. Governments are just one organization of power that
> can use that power to limit liberty. Big business can do that
> (moreso, the less government that exists), as well as powerful
> people with resources. Money is power, power can be abused to
> violate liberty.
That's not entirely correct. One of the primary tenets of
Libertarianism is the inviolability of individual rights and the
legitimacy of government to protect individual rights from being
violated by force or otherwise, whatever the source.
It is true that Libertarianism, from the beginning, has focused
primarily on protection from government violations of individual
rights. But the assumption is there that protection from violations
from other sources is an unquestioned right of government, according
to law. Therefore, discussion of such is not as meaningful in the
overall context of violation of individual rights, as is the power
of the State.
Also, Libertarians tend to attack abuses of "liberty" by those other
than government by showing the connection to government of those
entitites and that such abuses could not exist if not for those
connections to governement. Libertarians picked up on the
"military-industrial complex" as an example, though they extended it
to be the military-industrial-university complex. They may well
argue with you that "Big Business" abuses exist because of laws that
would not exist under a Libertarian society.
(I may be skewered by Libertarians since I once followed
Libetarianism closely, but no longer do.)
> There are many groups described as "left-libertarians," especially
> in Europe, who mix distrust of the state and centralized
> government with distrust of big business and powerful
> non-governmental actors. Often they see the goal as to have
> government held accountable, but still be able to act to balance
> other powerful actors, with liberty as the primary goal. Have
> American libertarians thought about this, or is American
> libertarianism a purely capitalist libertarianism that does not
> believe capitalism can be exploitive of people's liberties?
What Libertarians will say right off the bat is that Capitalism, in
its pure definitional form, does not exist and therefore to
attribute to "capitalism" evils of an existing mixed-economy is
erroneous. But that's nothing new since those defending Socialism
and Communism often say the same thing.
What they will say is that capitalism and a free society are
inseparable -- one cannot exist without the other. They will also
say that under a Libertarian system, exploitation of people's
"liberties" by any entity is more difficult to achieve, more
apparent, and more swiftly dealt with.
As an aside, in the formative years of Libertarianism in the late
sixties, during the Nixon years, Vietnam, and the angry state of
affairs domestically, Libertarians were as likely to be from the New
Left as they were from the YAF. Libertarians saw themselves equally
against Republicans as Democrats, and shared some of the same ideals
of the New Left, most particularly the fight against "oppressive"
government. In fact, some Libertarians advocated forming alliances
with groups on the Left, most notably, with The Black Panthers and
the SDS:
"Everyone professing libertarianism must go hand-in-hand with SDS in
'its commitment to join with the Black Panther Party and other black
revolutionary groups in the fight against white national chauvinism
and white supremacy.'"
- S.D.S and Black Self-Deterimination, The Libertarian, May 15, 1969
It didn't go far since both groups were viewed as too Marxist to be
acceptable for Libertarians.
The Libertarian was put together and edited by Karl Hess, a former
leftist.
As time went by, Libertarianism became asscoaited with the Far
Right, probably less to do with any internal changes than with media
association of Libertarians with long-held positions on gun control
and taxation. Libertarians today are more Republican in views and
Republicans attribute the loss of at least two Senate seats to
Libertarians, skewering them as Democrats have done with Nader.
Scott Erb
Cecil wrote:
>
> >"Scott Erb" wrote:
> > I believe that American libertarianism is misguided. Rather than seeing
> > protection of liberty from all violations as a primary value, there is a
> > tendancy to focus only on protection from government. Governments are
> > just one organization of power that can use that power to limit liberty.
> > Big business can do that (moreso, the less government that exists), as
> > well as powerful people with resources. Money is power, power can be
> > abused to violate liberty.
>
> Ok then, show how. Give an example demonstrating how Microsoft or
> GM can "violate liberty".
Take away government restrictions and they could use their economic
clout to hire thugs, beat up opponents, and use their resources to their
advantage.
The fallacy of saying that because they can't do it in a regulated
system means they won't do it in an unregulated one is obvious.
> What "powerful non-governmental actors" are you talking about?
Anyone with economic resources, big business, wealthy individuals, Mafia
families, etc. Even a thug on a street who steals your wallent is a
non-governmental actor who is violating your liberty.
> If you believe that laissez-faire capitalism can be "exploitive of people's
> liberties" it's up to you to show how. Please do so.
Look at the industrial revolution for starters.
Brandon Berg
news:3ABA9AD5...@deja.com...
> American libertarianism, as defined by what I see on usenet is only
concerned
> with one right: property rights.
All true rights can be reduced to one. Whether you call it life, liberty,
property, or something else entirely makes no difference. If you
consistently support one, the rest must follow. It is only through
philosophical inconsistence that rights appear to be distinct, unrelated, or
even at odds with one another.
Non-libertarians tend to believe that libertarians are obsessed with
whatever rights they most strongly oppose. Conservatives say we care only
about abortion and drug legalization. Gun-grabbers say we're obsessed with
guns. Socialists say we'd sell our souls to eliminate taxes. If you think we
care only about money, I imagine that reflects more on you than on us.
Brandon Berg
Kumar Yelubandi
Problem is...even when it is shown and argued and explained time
and again, ideologues feign ignorance of the reality. To wit,
your ilk "argues" against Communism's failing points (eg. undue
limits on individual freedom, etc.) using a specific capitalistic
dialectic; at the same time, you disparage the arguments outlining
Communism's strengths (eg. social security, etc.) as being *mere*
marxist dialectic. If dialectic is where your peers and arguments
bed and bide and abide; then it astounds rational sense that you
would demand an extradialectical response from your opponents.
Garbage in (unrigored general claims of a superior capitalist
model)...equals garbage out (anecdotal suppliance sought from a
defined inferior communist model).
Firstly, it is up to you to demonstrate that Capitalism is _not_
the right symmetric of Communism. And here, I have aptly
described on this forum (when I last posted a few months ago) that
the two are equal counterweights; one alleges more individual
freedom and the other alleges more collective security...and the
two allege loudly about a rational center. And really, only the
rational center (which is a hybrid of individualist and socialist
interests) actually delivers anything just and/or substantial.
Capitalism and communism are _both_ evil sisters to each other
and to the rational center.
Libertarianism is _ONLY_ a far right construct; it is disjunct
from anything in leftspace. Ergo, left-libertarianism is a fool's
concoction and revenge against the intellectual center.
Cheers.
-zookumar-
Scott Erb
want, given your post. It is anti-communist and anti-capitalist, it
sees only human liberty and radical democracy as goals, it opposes power
concentrations of wealth (which can be used in a myriad of ways, easily
accessible examples include films based on true stories Erin Brokovich
and Silkwood) and government (Stalinism, etc.) Left-libertarianism is
the desire to hold ANY use of power accountable.
George Weinberg
<bran...@verizon.net> wrote:
>Non-libertarians tend to believe that libertarians are obsessed with
>whatever rights they most strongly oppose. Conservatives say we care only
>about abortion and drug legalization. Gun-grabbers say we're obsessed with
>guns. Socialists say we'd sell our souls to eliminate taxes. If you think we
>care only about money, I imagine that reflects more on you than on us.
>
>Brandon Berg
>
>
Very true. Brings to mind the classic Bob Black quote,
"A libertarian is a Republican who uses drugs". Says
nothing about libertarians, but agreat deal about Bob
Black and his ilk, namely, that they're such control
freaks that, for example, they can't conceive of anyone
except a junkie being opposed to the frug war. The
concept of freedom litterally does not exist for them.
George
Scott Erb
Sam Barber wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 22 Mar 2001 14:54:19 -0500, Scott Erb <scot...@maine.edu>
> > wrote:
> >
> > I believe that American libertarianism is misguided. Rather than
> > seeing protection of liberty from all violations as a primary
> > value, there is a tendancy to focus only on protection from
> > government. Governments are just one organization of power that
> > can use that power to limit liberty. Big business can do that
> > (moreso, the less government that exists), as well as powerful
> > people with resources. Money is power, power can be abused to
> > violate liberty.
>
> That's not entirely correct. One of the primary tenets of
> Libertarianism is the inviolability of individual rights and the
> legitimacy of government to protect individual rights from being
> violated by force or otherwise, whatever the source.
That is why I would use the term "libertarian" to describe myself,
albeit as a left-libertarian to differentiate myself from those who do
not see the same kinds of dangers in how capitalism operates that I
perceive.
> It is true that Libertarianism, from the beginning, has focused
> primarily on protection from government violations of individual
> rights. But the assumption is there that protection from violations
> from other sources is an unquestioned right of government, according
> to law. Therefore, discussion of such is not as meaningful in the
> overall context of violation of individual rights, as is the power
> of the State.
I am 100% in accord with the need to distrust government abuses of
power, and the undeniable fact that most of the evil done in the last
century has been in the name of government (King and Country, and all
that). Indeed, my lack of patriotism is not an anti-Americanism, but
rather an unwillingness to give my loyalty to an organization of power
which has proven adept at killing, brain washing, denying liberty and
controlling lives as the state.
But, when I look at capitalism and the power of big money, I see a
similar thing. Sweat shops, abuse of power (just watched Erin Brokovich
last night -- one small example of how big money can abuse power -- and,
of course, in this case government held them accountable), a global and
local distribution of wealth which is not justified by any ethical
system except "what the market will bear." I find that also dangerous.
And to me, the danger is not so much that big business will thwart
government, but that it can *become* government. It influences
governments now, if governments were to disappear or weaken
considerably, it would be able to take powers current governments.
Now, most libertarians would probably say that I'm over-exaggerating the
dangers, and all but the anarcho-capitalists would agree that businesses
should be held accountable to rule of law. More below...
> Also, Libertarians tend to attack abuses of "liberty" by those other
> than government by showing the connection to government of those
> entitites and that such abuses could not exist if not for those
> connections to governement. Libertarians picked up on the
> "military-industrial complex" as an example, though they extended it
> to be the military-industrial-university complex. They may well
> argue with you that "Big Business" abuses exist because of laws that
> would not exist under a Libertarian society.
That's where they delve into a convenient unfalsified claim that will
always give them an out (and, of course, not just libertarians do this,
most ideologues have a faith in their beliefs that can't be tested).
They can't prove their system will work, just assert that since
government is here now then all abuses can be tied to government.
> (I may be skewered by Libertarians since I once followed
> Libetarianism closely, but no longer do.)
>
> > There are many groups described as "left-libertarians," especially
> > in Europe, who mix distrust of the state and centralized
> > government with distrust of big business and powerful
> > non-governmental actors. Often they see the goal as to have
> > government held accountable, but still be able to act to balance
> > other powerful actors, with liberty as the primary goal. Have
> > American libertarians thought about this, or is American
> > libertarianism a purely capitalist libertarianism that does not
> > believe capitalism can be exploitive of people's liberties?
>
> What Libertarians will say right off the bat is that Capitalism, in
> its pure definitional form, does not exist and therefore to
> attribute to "capitalism" evils of an existing mixed-economy is
> erroneous. But that's nothing new since those defending Socialism
> and Communism often say the same thing.
Exactly. It's easy to hold on to ones' illusions if you can just assume
that if only a particular "ism" prevailed, then the problems would be
solved. You can always build a theory to support such a belief, but
reality is inherently much too complex and messy for that to really
work.
> What they will say is that capitalism and a free society are
> inseparable -- one cannot exist without the other. They will also
> say that under a Libertarian system, exploitation of people's
> "liberties" by any entity is more difficult to achieve, more
> apparent, and more swiftly dealt with.
I have strong doubts on that. My disagreement would be: 1) they have a
type of almost Marxian connection between politics and economics, albeit
with an opposite conclusion; 2) weak definitions of what freedom and
liberty mean in this context; and 3) how the last part would actually
work.
I'm rambling too much so I'll put forth the basics for my alternative
ideas:
a) Liberty means the ability of people to act in the way they wish,
unhindered by any limitation. Pure liberty is unobtainable due to
nature, and unjustifiable due to ethical concerns. The issue
is how much should liberty be limited, and through what means.
b) Liberty is denied legitimately through a contract reached
volitionally by both parties without abuse of power by either party, or
by acts of nature outside human control.
c) Illegitimate denial of liberty comes from the abuse of power by
actors who can use power differentials to limit opportunities (provide
some actors with fewer opportunities) or be able to force, either
directly or indirectly, actors to do things they otherwise would not do,
or to injure them in a way which prevents their opportunities to
exercise liberty in the future (the most egregious form of this would be
murder).
d) Human liberty can legitimately be limited by other humans acting
individually or collectively if and only if it is a limitation of a
person's freedom to illegitimately deny liberty from others through
abuse of power.
e) Relying other on markets (capitalism) or government (orthodox
socialism) to end abuses of power fails because each 'solution' empowers
a different group and fails to hold all uses of power accountable.
Markets can be manipulated by those with resources -- markets aren't
magic, but merely an imperfect method of demand communication which
powerful actors can manipulate or circumvent. Governments concentrate
too much power in an elite who can easily become corrupted, despite good
initial intentions.
f) (the Left part) Human liberty is not always limited or denied by
observable direct acts, but can be part of a structural problem whereby
the tyranny of small decisions create class differences where one group
or class of people is structurally empowered (by nature of their
position in society has greater power), and these structures often lead
to involuntary but very real denials of liberty to those lacking
structural power.
f) the solution to this dilemma is to make sure all uses of power are
potentially held accountable to the people in a way which involves both
governments and markets. Markets often lead to the structural
differences above, governments can be used to counter act them.
Practically this would mean: 1) Openness. Governments should not keep
secrets from citizens, as governments are to serve citizens. All
documents shall be open for public inspection. Businesses large enough
to have the resources to abuse power (medium to large corporations)
should have all business documents open involving use of funds, scope of
activities, and things other than the daily functioning of the business
(KFC could keep its secret recipe, for instance). 2) Decentralization.
Governments should be kept small and close to the people, in as much as
this is practical. The larger the government the more bureaucratization
and possibility of corruption and abuse. There have been ideas in these
threads about attempts to keep corporations small. That may be one
possibility. 3) governments can redistribute wealth through progressive
and equitable taxation, limiting loop holes and assuring equal treatment
in order to assure equal opportunity (not equal outcome) to counter act
the negative impact of structural power differentials.
For this I would see such things as a) a social welfare system which
provides health care, education, and social security to all regardless
of the wealth (those who earn more can pay a premium to get more care,
but a minimum should be provided for all); b) anti-discrimination laws;
and c) equal treatment under the law, working against the ability of
those with power (including structural power) to be able to buy the best
attorneys, etc. (For instance, would a poor white man from rural
Louisiana have had the same chance as acquittal as O.J. Simpson in a
similar case).
Small, open government. Limitations on the power of big business.
Governmental action (open and subject to oversight) to counter
structural power differentials. Those would be the core of the kind of
system I would envision as superior to the current one. These ideas are
so far not all that well thought out, I'd need to do more research and
reading about other ideas -- something I haven't had time to do.
> As an aside, in the formative years of Libertarianism in the late
> sixties, during the Nixon years, Vietnam, and the angry state of
> affairs domestically, Libertarians were as likely to be from the New
> Left as they were from the YAF. Libertarians saw themselves equally
> against Republicans as Democrats, and shared some of the same ideals
> of the New Left, most particularly the fight against "oppressive"
> government. In fact, some Libertarians advocated forming alliances
> with groups on the Left, most notably, with The Black Panthers and
> the SDS:
>
> "Everyone professing libertarianism must go hand-in-hand with SDS in
> 'its commitment to join with the Black Panther Party and other black
> revolutionary groups in the fight against white national chauvinism
> and white supremacy.'"
> - S.D.S and Black Self-Deterimination, The Libertarian, May 15, 1969
>
> It didn't go far since both groups were viewed as too Marxist to be
> acceptable for Libertarians.
>
> The Libertarian was put together and edited by Karl Hess, a former
> leftist.
>
> As time went by, Libertarianism became asscoaited with the Far
> Right, probably less to do with any internal changes than with media
> association of Libertarians with long-held positions on gun control
> and taxation. Libertarians today are more Republican in views and
> Republicans attribute the loss of at least two Senate seats to
> Libertarians, skewering them as Democrats have done with Nader.
Thanks for the info.
cheers, scott
Kumar Yelubandi
> I disagree. Left-libertarianism is exactly in line with what you would
> want, given your post. It is anti-communist and anti-capitalist, it
> sees only human liberty and radical democracy as goals, it opposes power
> concentrations of wealth (which can be used in a myriad of ways, easily
> accessible examples include films based on true stories Erin Brokovich
> and Silkwood) and government (Stalinism, etc.) Left-libertarianism is
> the desire to hold ANY use of power accountable.
Then we understand libertarianism differently. Libertarianism
of any sort, at least in my understanding, is that basic design
wherein the individual is _more_ important than the collective.
Superordinate. Not equal. Not subordinate.
And that's where libertarianism fails miserably, in my opinion.
Sure, we like to think that the Universe exists about us, for us.
But we really are insignificant stardust constructions in the
greater universe of things if truth be told.
And in the smaller universe of humanity, each of us is less
important than any grouping of us.
Unassailable, observable fact.
We derive individual rights, indeed, to establish maximum
freedom(s) for each of us in the ongoing context of our largest
immediate grouping. Libertarianism, OTOH, undertakes to revise
the historical context of individual rights (eg. group decreed
rights) and reassert said rights with individual superordinacy.
Whereas the natural order of things asserts itself in simple but
bold integer rank: N > ... > 2 > 1 > 0
IOW, the group is superordinate, not the individual. Indeed, the
group as represented by the human genome has evolved and survived
over millennia. The best any one individual has ever "evolved"
and survived is about 120+ years.
To wit, libertarianism seeks to override the mathematical
foundation of Nature; and it is thus doomed to failure. To assert
_real_ individual rights is to process them through the greater
collective context and not apart from it. Of course, any
philosophy that falls short of individual superordinacy, IMO, is
_not_ libertarian to begin with. Left-libertarianism then is
fictitious. For all left-philosophies respect group superordinacy
and all libertarian-philosophies respect individual superordinacy
...and that's a contradiction that cannot be reconciled. Having
said that, the rational philosophical center is perfectly placed
to receive and cancel out all political superordinacies; much
like the physical center of a simple harmonic oscillating system.
Which is why, tho' I respect your understanding of libertarianism
as an earnest one, I reject it as being impossible. Mind you, a
moderate libertarian argument exists close to the rational center
and to the right of it; and that argument may even be viable
for advanced civil society...but the kind of libertarianism often
espoused in these newsgroups is far-right in nature, and so, a
charlatan's prerogative.
Humble opinions all around.
Cheers.
-zookumar-
Brandon Berg
news:Pine.GSO.3.95.iB1.0.101...@halifax.chebucto.ns.ca.
..
> IOW, the group is superordinate, not the individual. Indeed, the
> group as represented by the human genome has evolved and survived
> over millennia. The best any one individual has ever "evolved"
> and survived is about 120+ years.
So what, exactly, is "the group?"
Brandon Berg
Alec Owen
In primitive groups such as existed in Europe (say) 8000 years ago
people hunted
or collected food in groups. The Libertarian would have soon perished
unless he sought help from the group. The Libertarian who espouses
complete freedom from any restriction on his
actions or who denies any responsibility for others is feeding off
society and giving nothing back. The individual is part of the group yet
his interests at times may not be congruent with those of the group. A
rational balance must be struck. This is
what so-called Democratic Socialists in Europe try to do; a difficult
and evolving task.
If "Left Libertarianism is the desire to hold ANY use of power
accountable", it is be lauded.
A Owen
Sam Barber
wrote:
A Libertarian, I suspect, would not say the existence of the influence
of governments is a characteristic of capitalism but would agree
that such influence does exist in the US.
>Now, most libertarians would probably say that I'm over-exaggerating the
>dangers, and all but the anarcho-capitalists would agree that businesses
>should be held accountable to rule of law. More below...
>
>> Also, Libertarians tend to attack abuses of "liberty" by those other
>> than government by showing the connection to government of those
>> entitites and that such abuses could not exist if not for those
>> connections to governement. Libertarians picked up on the
>> "military-industrial complex" as an example, though they extended it
>> to be the military-industrial-university complex. They may well
>> argue with you that "Big Business" abuses exist because of laws that
>> would not exist under a Libertarian society.
>
>That's where they delve into a convenient unfalsified claim that will
>always give them an out (and, of course, not just libertarians do this,
>most ideologues have a faith in their beliefs that can't be tested).
>They can't prove their system will work, just assert that since
>government is here now then all abuses can be tied to government.
I agree with you there.
The Libertarian view on politics and economics derive from the works
of Ludwig von Mises (Human Action, Theory and History, Socialism,
Omnipotent Government, The Theory of Money and Credit, The
Anti-Capitalistic Mentality); Frederick Hayek (Ed., Capitalism and
the Historians, The Constitution of Liberty, and his most famous
work, The Road to Serfdom); and Murray Rothbard (America's Great
Depression, For a New Liberty, Man, Economy, and State, A New
History of Leviathan (co-editor).)
The connection between capitalism and a free society is pervasive
through all these works. Ayn Rand's philosophy had a lot of
grounding in the works of Von Mises and Hayek; in turn, people
flocked to Libertarianism because of Rand even though Rand disavowed
and disparaged Libertarianism.
Rothbard was the central modern economic theorist for Libertarinism.
"A New History of Leviathan" ( published in 1972, is a collection of
essays "...on the rise of the American corporate state" ) was
co-edited with Ronald Radosh, a self-described libertarian socialist
who had been a "member of the Wisconsin Socialist Club, and
functioned as an associate editor of the radical Journal, 'Studies
on the Left,' ...who believes in the creation of a radical
conciousness as a prerequisite for the forging of a socialist
politico-economic structure." (from the preface)
The preface starts, "It is now widely understood that the United
States in mid-twentieth century is a Leviathan Corporate State--a
political economy dominated by giant multinational corporations
whose extensive domain, operating with the levers of government,..."
[...]
"The corporate leviathan began to emerge at the turn of the
twentieth century, after an era of substantial laissez-faire had
proceeded to industrialize and urbanize the nation."
As a first take, I'd say you definitely have libertarian leanings,
and I see where modern Libertarians would take issue
with many of your ideas. But you might have been right
at home on more issues with the Libertarians of the
late sixties.
Jeffrey Scott Linder
Sorry Mr Erb. A law firm held them accountable. The government did
not investigate and did not help those people.
[ snip ]
JSL
Eagle Eye
Harold <haroldb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 22 Mar 2001 14:54:19 -0500, Scott Erb <scot...@maine.edu>
>wrote:
>>I believe that American libertarianism is misguided. Rather than seeing
>>protection of liberty from all violations as a primary value, there is a
>>tendancy to focus only on protection from government.
>In the past, many intelligent men have noted that government has
>invariably been the organization most likely to abuse its power.
>
>I believe that I have read where some 300 million people in the last
>century were killed by their own governments.
Rummel estimated 160 million from 1900-87.
http://www2.hawaii.edu/~rummel/
>I would suspect you could ask a political scientist for details.
That should be, "ask a COMPETENT political 'scientist' for details."
A left-libertarian makes as much sense as a pregnant man.
=====
EE
Alex Vange
http://stormfront.org
"Eagle Eye" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
news:200103282106...@nym.alias.net...
> A left-libertarian makes as much sense as a pregnant man.
>
All libertarians are leftists. That is why "libertarian" and "liberal"
start with the same first five letters.
There are two schools of thought in the world, the right and the left.
The right is guided by what was known as Christian principles. It is for
outlawing homosexual perversion, prostitution, abortions, heroin, and other
bad things. It puts the good of the nation first and ahead of the freedom
of individuals to corrupt the culture of the nation.
Leftists believe in the Rede of Witchcraft which states-- If it harm
none, do what will you will. This sounds nice, but like the apple that the
witch gave to Snow White it has poison within. The Rede of Witchcraft is the
Bible of liberalism. It would legalize the homosexual perversion,
prostitution, drugs, etc.
The right is for building a great nation. Leftists care only about
individual freedom and are opposed to any laws that would make the nation
better. There are beaches where normal families will not go because
homosexual perverts practice their perversion on the beach. This is fine
with leftists. This is what they want. They are like children who only care
about their individual selves and are oblivious to what should be done to
make the nation great. Their philosophy for example would not allow the law
that drivers have to stop at the red lights. Their philosophy would result
in chaos and degeneracy.
Today there are some libertarians who pretend to be rightists because
they are for the freedom of the Ebenezer Scrooges to be as greedy as they
want. That group has a lot of money and they can pretend to be right wing
on TV, but what they really do is serve mammon (money). The real right wing
was not for legalizing drugs, or for using this same liberal philosophy of
the Rede of Witchcraft to legalize greed. People should not be side-tracked
into serving money if they really want to fight liberalism. Fighting
homosexual perversion with libertarianism is exactly the same as fighting a
fire with gasoline. Most libertarians know they are liberal. Anyone who
would legalize prostitution and heroin is not just a little liberal but on
the far left.
The Communist were leftist and they said they were fighting for
freedom. In Spain they sided with the anarchists. The Communists and the
anarchists were the same people or the same type of people. The Communists
were for having government but only temporarily. They said that their
government was necessary only until the whole world was Communist. After the
world was Communist they wanted to disolve the government and have an
anarchy.
What liberals want to be liberated from is Christianity, or what used
to be Christianity. Capitalists want freedom for their greed, other liberals
want freedom for degeneracy, and Communists wanted to be free to burn down
churches. They had their differences but they all joined together to fight
against the real right wing during World War Two.
The right wing cares about the future. Leftists only care about having a
good time in the present. If their philosophy results in a nightmare future
like in Soylent Green or some other futuristic nightmare they are not
interested and insist that nothing could be more important than the freedom
of individuals to be as decadant as they want. They are like the children in
the old black and white movie "Lord of the Flies".
Eagle Eye
Alex Vange <va...@i1.net> wrote:
[neo-Nazi URL flushed]
>"Eagle Eye" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
>news:200103282106...@nym.alias.net...
>> A left-libertarian makes as much sense as a pregnant man.
> All libertarians are leftists. That is why "libertarian" and "liberal"
>start with the same first five letters.
> There are two schools of thought in the world, the right and the left.
[flush]
Shows how much you know, Nazi.
As Chris Morton says, go prove you believe in racial superiority: gas yourself.
=====
EE
Sam Barber
>
>
> http://stormfront.org
>"Eagle Eye" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
>news:200103282106...@nym.alias.net...
>> A left-libertarian makes as much sense as a pregnant man.
>>
> All libertarians are leftists. That is why "libertarian" and "liberal"
>start with the same first five letters.
No, Libertarians are for Liberty; they share the first six letters.
That is why you do not like Libertarians. All Nazis hate
liberty.
Scott D. Erb
Sam Barber wrote:
Whether Left Libertarian or capitalist libertarian, I think all can agree with
you on this point, Sam.
Alex Vange
"Eagle Eye" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
news:200103290029...@nym.alias.net...
You have your beliefs because your only source of information is the
Jewish controlled media.
There was a book in ordinary bookstores called "An Empire of Their
Own". It was a pro-Jewish book but it showed that the Jews ran Hollywood.
Here are some quotes from a magazine for Jews called "Moment". It is
subtitled "The Jewish magazine for the 90's" These quotes are from the Aug
1996 edition after the Headline "Jews Run Hollywood - So What?":
"It makes no sense at all to try to deny the reality of Jewish power
and prominence in popular culture. Any list of the most influential
pruduction executives at each of the major movie studios will produce a
heavy majority of recognizably Jewish names."
"the famous Disney organization, which was founded by Walt Disney, a
gentile Midwesterner who allegedly harbored anti-Semetic attitudes, now
features Jewish personnel in nearly all its most powerful positions."
The head of Walt Disney studios is now the Jew Michael Eisner. On
studios that were bought out by the Japanese the magazine says:
"When Mitsushita took over MCA-Universal, they did nothing to undermine the
unquestioned authority of Universal's legendary - and all Jewish -
management triad of Lew Wasserman, Sid Scheinberg, and Tom Pollack."
Here are some quotes from the paper "Jews Control the Media and Rule
America"
"American Broadcasting Companies (ABC), Coumbia Broadcasting System
(CBS), and National Broadcasting Company (NBC). Each of these three has been
under the absolute control of a single man over a long enough period of
time--ranging from 32 to 55 years--for him to staff the corporation at every
level with officers of his choosing and then to place his imprint indelibly
upon it. In each case that man has been a Jew.
"Until 1985, when ABC merged with Capital Cities Communications,
Inc...the chairman of the board of directors and chief executive officer
(CEO) of the network was Leonard Harry Goldenson, a Jew...In an interview in
the April 1, 1985 issue of Newsweek, Goldenson boasted 'I built this company
(ABC) from scratch.'"
"CBS was under the domination of William S. Paley for more than half
a century. The son of immigrant Jews from Russia..."
"There has been no move by top G-E management to change the Jewish
"profile" of NBC or to replace key Jewish personel. To the contrary, new
Jewish executives have been added: an example is Steve Friedman..."
"The man in charge of the television entertainment division at CBS is
Jeff Sagansky. At ABC the entertainment division is run by two men....nearly
all of the men who shape young Amercians' concept of reality, of good and
evil, of permissible and impermissible behavior are Jews. In particular,
Sagansky and Bloomberg arre Jews. So is Tartikoff. Littlefield is the only
Gentile who has had a significant role in TV entertainment programming in
recent years."
"American Film magazine listed the top 10...entertainment companies
and their CEOs...Time Warner Communications (Steven J Ross, Jew) Walt Disney
Co. (Michael D. Eisner, Jew)...Of the 10 top entertainment CEOs listed
above, eight are Jews."
"The Newhouse media empire provides an example of more than a lack of
real competition among America's daily newspapers; it also illustrates the
insatiable appetite Jews have shown for all organs of opinion... The
Newhouse's own 31 daily newspapers, including several large and important
ones, such as the Cleveland Plain Dealer, the Newark Star-Ledger, and the
New Orleans Times-Picayune; the nation's largest trade book publishing
conglomerate, Random House, with all its subsideries; Newhouse
Broadcasting, consisting of 12 television broadcasting stations and 87
cable-TV systems, including some of the countries largest cable networks-
the Sunday supplement Parade, with a circulation of more than 22 million
copies per week; some two dozen major magazines, including the New Yorker,
Vogue, Madamoiselle, Glamour, Vanity Fair, HQ, Bride's, Gentlemen's
Quarterly, Self, Home&Garden...."
"Furthermore, even those newspapers still under Gentile ownership and
management are so thoroughly dependent upon Jewish advertising..."
"the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post.
These three...are the newspapers which set trends and guidlines for nearly
all others. They are the ones which decide what is news and what isn't, at
national and international levels. They originate the news; the others
merely copy it. And all three newspapers are in Jewish hands...The Suzberger
family also owns, through the New York Times Co. 36 other newspapers; twelve
magazines, including McCall's and Family Circle..."
"New York's other newspapers are in no better hands than the Daily
News. The New York Post is owned by billionare Jewish real-estate developer
Peter Kalikow. The Village Voice is the personal property of Leonard Stern,
the billionaire Jewish owner of..."
"There are only three newsmagazines of any note published in the United
States: Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News & World Report....The CEO of Time
Warner Communications is Steven J. Ross, and he is a Jew.
"Newsweek, as mentioned above, is published by the Washington Post
Co., under the Jewess Katherine Meyer Graham..."
"U.S. News & World Report... owned and published by Jewish real estate
developer Mortimer B. Zucherman..."
" The three largest book publishers...Random House... Simon & Schuster
, and Time Inc. Book Co....All three are owned or controlled by Jews...The
CEO of Simon & Schuster if Richard Snyder, and the president is Jeremy
Kaplan; both are Jews too."
"Western Publishing...ranks first among publishers of childrens books, with
more than 50 per cent of the market. Its chairman and CEO is Richard
Bernstein, a Jew."
"Jewish spokesmen customarily will use evasive tactics. "Ted Turner
isn't a Jew!" they will announce..."
"We are doing more than merely giving them a decisive influence on our
political system and virtual control of our government; we also are giving
them control of the minds and souls of our children..."
Alex Vange
http://stormfront.org
"Sam Barber" <samb...@prontomail.com> wrote in message
news:bc95ct04e6uo0ffaf...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2001 17:49:49 -0600, "Alex Vange" <va...@i1.net> wrote:
>
>
> That is why you do not like Libertarians. All Nazis hate
> liberty.
>
Not necessarilly. What do you think people should be at liberty to do?
Race-mixing? Homosexual perversion?
Jackson Harvey
> Not necessarilly. What do you think people should be at liberty to do?
> Race-mixing? Homosexual perversion?
Yes.
> There are two schools of thought in the world, the right and the left.
> The right is guided by what was known as Christian principles.
Very well said. "What was known as Christian principles" bears very little
relation to what Christ taught.
> It is for
> outlawing homosexual perversion, prostitution, abortions, heroin, and other
> bad things.
The outlawing of such bad things is itself a bad thing.
> It puts the good of the nation first and ahead of the freedom
> of individuals to corrupt the culture of the nation.
That is exactly the problem. A nation is just people. To give it an identity
of its own is silly, and to work for the good of a nation at the expense of the
people of the nation is ludicrous.
> Leftists believe in the Rede of Witchcraft which states-- If it harm
> none, do what will you will.
False. That is what libertarians believe; the left is just as authoritarian as
the right.
> It would legalize the homosexual perversion,
> prostitution, drugs, etc.
Good.
> The right is for building a great nation. Leftists care only about
> individual freedom and are opposed to any laws that would make the nation
> better.
You are confusing the left with freedom-loving people. The left are as
authoritarian as the right.
> Their philosophy for example would not allow the law
> that drivers have to stop at the red lights.
That is just silly, of course. Whoever owns the road should be allowed to make
the laws of the road.
> Fighting
> homosexual perversion with libertarianism is exactly the same as fighting a
> fire with gasoline.
Yes.
> Most libertarians know they are liberal.
If you mean liberal as in "classic liberal" you are right. If you mean liberal
as in "American liberal" you are completely wrong.
> Anyone who
> would legalize prostitution and heroin is not just a little liberal but on
> the far left.
The American left does not support legalizing prostitution or drugs. Those are
libertarians planks, not Democratic planks.
Jackson Harvey
"moderate" Libertarian
Brett Kottmann
> ...
> That is why I would use the term "libertarian" to describe myself,
> albeit as a left-libertarian to differentiate myself from those who do
> not see the same kinds of dangers in how capitalism operates that I
> perceive.
True libertarians do not refer to free and open markets as dangerous.
>
>
> ...
>
> Small, open government. Limitations on the power of big business.
> Governmental action (open and subject to oversight) to counter
> structural power differentials. Those would be the core of the kind of
> system I would envision as superior to the current one. These ideas are
> so far not all that well thought out, I'd need to do more research and
> reading about other ideas -- something I haven't had time to do.
Socialist rantings in libertarian trappings.
Stupendous Man
http://reagan.webteamone.com/
http://www.buyntrade.com/
___________________________________________________________
The Supreme Court said the count does not "comport with minimal
constitutional standards" and violates "rudimentary requirements of
equal treatment and fundamental fairness."
Recount is _unconstitutional_ AND _violates Federal law_. Any questions?
Eagle Eye
Alex Vange <va...@i1.net> wrote:
>"Sam Barber" <samb...@prontomail.com> wrote in message
>news:bc95ct04e6uo0ffaf...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2001 17:49:49 -0600, "Alex Vange" <va...@i1.net> wrote:
>> That is why you do not like Libertarians. All Nazis hate
>> liberty.
> Not necessarilly. What do you think people should be at liberty to do?
>Race-mixing? Homosexual perversion?
If they want to.
I also think you should have the liberty to rant about "race-mixing"
and "homosexual perversion[s]" as long as you don't try to interfere
with another's liberty.
Step over the line and actually try to harm someone and you deserve
to be ventilated.
[flush]
=====
EE
Eagle Eye
Alex Vange <va...@i1.net> wrote:
>"Eagle Eye" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
>news:200103290029...@nym.alias.net...
>> In article <bLuw6.25$Qv4.2...@news1.i1.net>
>> Alex Vange <va...@i1.net> wrote:
>> >"Eagle Eye" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
>> >news:200103282106...@nym.alias.net...
>> >> A left-libertarian makes as much sense as a pregnant man.
>> > All libertarians are leftists. That is why "libertarian" and "liberal"
>> >start with the same first five letters.
>> > There are two schools of thought in the world, the right and the
>> >left.
>> [flush]
>> Shows how much you know, Nazi.
>>
>> As Chris Morton says, go prove you believe in racial superiority: gas
>yourself.
> You have your beliefs because your only source of information is the
>Jewish controlled media.
Oy vey! You're meshuggah.
You've got chutzpah to tell me that I'm being brainwashed by the
Jews.
You putz.
[flush delusions]
=====
EE
Scott D. Erb
Brett Kottmann wrote:
> Scott Erb wrote:
>
> > ...
> > That is why I would use the term "libertarian" to describe myself,
> > albeit as a left-libertarian to differentiate myself from those who do
> > not see the same kinds of dangers in how capitalism operates that I
> > perceive.
>
> True libertarians do not refer to free and open markets as dangerous.
On the contrary, I do not think capitalist libertarians are the true
libertarians. I think they've somehow bought a myth that markets are somehow
a magical way to have a perfectly free economy. Capitalism is a system that
empowers some at the expense of others, and hence is not a path to true
liberty.
> Small, open government. Limitations on the power of big business.
> > Governmental action (open and subject to oversight) to counter
> > structural power differentials. Those would be the core of the kind of
> > system I would envision as superior to the current one. These ideas are
> > so far not all that well thought out, I'd need to do more research and
> > reading about other ideas -- something I haven't had time to do.
>
> Socialist rantings in libertarian trappings.
Well, you snipped a lot of what I wrote, especially as I detailed what I would
envision "left libertarianism" to be. Snipping the argument and then calling
it a name is hardly much of a refutation.
cheers, scott
http://violet.umf.maine.edu/~erb/
Garrett
> Scott Erb wrote:
> > That is why I would use the term "libertarian" to describe myself,
> > albeit as a left-libertarian to differentiate myself from those who do
> > not see the same kinds of dangers in how capitalism operates that I
> > perceive.
>
> True libertarians do not refer to free and open markets as dangerous.
True libertarians think that more rights exist under the sun than ones that
can be counted in dollar bills.
That is what is wrong with libertarians of today.
Eagle Eye
``Tha's too much libahtee roun' heah. Got ta staht steppin' on some necks
so these people unahstand whose da boss.''
Try listing a few rights/liberties which you've personally witnessed
libertarians claim, which you don't think should be rights/liberties.
Get specific.
=====
EE
Brett Kottmann
> Brett Kottmann wrote:
>
> > Scott Erb wrote:
> >
> > > ...
> > > That is why I would use the term "libertarian" to describe myself,
> > > albeit as a left-libertarian to differentiate myself from those who do
> > > not see the same kinds of dangers in how capitalism operates that I
> > > perceive.
> >
> > True libertarians do not refer to free and open markets as dangerous.
>
> On the contrary, I do not think capitalist libertarians are the true
> libertarians.
You are going to have to "revise" decades of libertarian writings if
you hope to Big Lie your way into the name.
Go back to Chomsky.
Scott Erb
Brett Kottmann wrote:
>
> "Scott D. Erb" wrote:
> > On the contrary, I do not think capitalist libertarians are the true
> > libertarians.
>
> You are going to have to "revise" decades of libertarian writings if
> you hope to Big Lie your way into the name.
>
> Go back to Chomsky.
Left-libertarianism has been around for awhile, and will probably grow.
A lot of us aren't going to let the capitalist libertarians steal the
"freedom and liberty" discourse, those are the values of the left, and
values often contrary to the workings of capitalism. You just have to
live with the fact that there are alternate forms of libertarian
thought, one capitalist, one from the left. And left-libertarians are
as anti-communist and anti-Stalinist as capitalist libertarians. We are
appalled at government abuses of power, government killings and
militarism as any capitalist libertarian. We just don't think the
capitalist system offers a solution that creates liberty.
I've laid out the differences, you've snipped them and responded with a
non-response. That's OK, but of course it's not enough to change my
mind.
cheers, scott
http://violet.umf.maine.edu/~erb/
Dana
news:3AC5D099...@maine.edu...
You have no idea what you are talking about. Just go grade your term papers.
To even think their are people on the left who are libertarian shows your
ignorance or dishonesty at it's best. The left is against individual
freedom, always has and always will.
> http://violet.umf.maine.edu/~erb/
Andrew J. Brehm
> You have no idea what you are talking about. Just go grade your term papers.
> To even think their are people on the left who are libertarian shows your
> ignorance or dishonesty at it's best. The left is against individual
> freedom, always has and always will.
Please do me one favour.
Look up what the word "libertarianism" means and see whether it suits a
left-winger (like a green) better than a right-winger (like a
capitalist).
You owe yourself as much as actually knowing what "libertarian" means.
And I doubt you do know it.
Sorry.
--
Fan of Woody Allen
PowerPC User
Supporter of Pepperoni Pizza
Ron Allen
> Left-libertarianism has been around for awhile, and will probably grow.
> A lot of us aren't going to let the capitalist libertarians steal the
> "freedom and liberty" discourse, those are the values of the left, and
> values often contrary to the workings of capitalism. You just have to
> live with the fact that there are alternate forms of libertarian
> thought, one capitalist, one from the left. And left-libertarians are
> as anti-communist and anti-Stalinist as capitalist libertarians. We are
> appalled at government abuses of power, government killings and
> militarism as any capitalist libertarian. We just don't think the
> capitalist system offers a solution that creates liberty.
Ron Allen answers:
Very well written post, and very much to the point.
The only difference of opinion I have with you is your
statement that "left-libertarians are as anti-communist
. . . as capitalist libertarians. I believe there is a
libertarian version of communism. I think this is also
called "communitarianism". I consider myself a left-
libertarian, and also a libertarian communist -- i.e.,
an anarcho-libertarian, demotic communism rather than
despotic communism.
<><><><><><><>
"In the early days of the Indian Territory, there were no
such things as birth certificates. You being there was
certificate enough."
-- Will Rogers
Ron Allen
> To even think there are people on the left who are libertarian shows
> your ignorance or dishonesty at it's best. The left is against individual
> freedom, always has and always will.
Ron Allen answers:
In The Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels described the
post-capitalist society they envisioned in these words:
"In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes
and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in
which the free development of each is the condition for
the free development of all."
You may think that the left proposes an organization of
society that is inadvertently and unintentionally opposed
to individual freedom, but I think that you are guilty of
misrepresentation of leftist opinion when you say that
the left is against individual freedom, as if the left
were purposefully or intentionally against individual
freedom.
Karl Marx wrote: "Follow your own bent, no matter what
people say." Are those the words of someone who is
consciously against individual liberty?
<><><><><><><><>
"A person gets from a symbol the meaning he puts into it."
-- The United States Supreme Court
Ron Allen
> Left-libertarianism has been around for awhile, and will probably grow.
> A lot of us aren't going to let the capitalist libertarians steal the
> "freedom and liberty" discourse, those are the values of the left, and
> values often contrary to the workings of capitalism. You just have to
> live with the fact that there are alternate forms of libertarian
> thought, one capitalist, one from the left. And left-libertarians are
> as anti-communist and anti-Stalinist as capitalist libertarians. We are
> appalled at government abuses of power, government killings and
> militarism as any capitalist libertarian. We just don't think the
> capitalist system offers a solution that creates liberty.
Ron Allen answers:
Very well written post, and very much to the point.
The only difference of opinion I have with you is your
statement that "left-libertarians are as anti-communist
. . . as capitalist libertarians". I believe there is a
Dana
news:3AC628F9...@bellsouth.net...
He wanted the rich as rulers, and the poor as slaves to the state.
In the first place, the rise of wages leads to overwork among the
workers. The more they want to earn the more they must sacrifice their
time and freedom and work like slaves in the service of avarice. In
doing so, they shorten their lives. But this is all to the good of the
working class as a whole, since it creates a renewed demand. This class
must always sacrifice a part of itself if it is to avoid total
destruction.
Andrew J. Brehm
> > Karl Marx wrote: "Follow your own bent, no matter what
> > people say." Are those the words of someone who is
> > consciously against individual liberty?
> >
> Marx was not for individual liberty, he was for a collective state of mind.
> He wanted the rich as rulers, and the poor as slaves to the state.
> In the first place, the rise of wages leads to overwork among the
> workers. The more they want to earn the more they must sacrifice their
> time and freedom and work like slaves in the service of avarice. In
> doing so, they shorten their lives. But this is all to the good of the
> working class as a whole, since it creates a renewed demand. This class
> must always sacrifice a part of itself if it is to avoid total
> destruction.
I now realize that you have neither looked up what "libertarianism"
means, as I asked you to, nor read any of Marx's own texts.
So what's the purpose of your discussing these things?
Scott Erb
Ron Allen wrote:
>
> Scott Erb wrote:
> > Left-libertarianism has been around for awhile, and will probably grow.
> > A lot of us aren't going to let the capitalist libertarians steal the
> > "freedom and liberty" discourse, those are the values of the left, and
> > values often contrary to the workings of capitalism. You just have to
> > live with the fact that there are alternate forms of libertarian
> > thought, one capitalist, one from the left. And left-libertarians are
> > as anti-communist and anti-Stalinist as capitalist libertarians. We are
> > appalled at government abuses of power, government killings and
> > militarism as any capitalist libertarian. We just don't think the
> > capitalist system offers a solution that creates liberty.
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> Very well written post, and very much to the point.
>
> The only difference of opinion I have with you is your
> statement that "left-libertarians are as anti-communist
> . . . as capitalist libertarians". I believe there is a
> libertarian version of communism. I think this is also
> called "communitarianism". I consider myself a left-
> libertarian, and also a libertarian communist -- i.e.,
> an anarcho-libertarian, demotic communism rather than
> despotic communism.
The danger with your formulation is that is easily twisted into
associating your ideas wrongly with Stalin and the thugs who were driven
by a desire to centralize power. These discussions turn into discursive
games, where the words you use are twisted to use against you by those
who don't care about ideas. I do think that the future lies with ideas
that recognize that liberty and community are not contradictory, and I
guess part of the battle is opening up that kind of discourse, breaking
the strangle hold the capitalist/communist left/right dichotomy has on
the western mind these days.
cheers, scott
D Stephen Heersink
>> Left-libertarianism has been around for awhile, and will probably grow.
>> A lot of us aren't going to let the capitalist libertarians steal the
>> "freedom and liberty" discourse, those are the values of the left, and
>> values often contrary to the workings of capitalism. You just have to
>> live with the fact that there are alternate forms of libertarian
>> thought, one capitalist, one from the left. And left-libertarians are
>> as anti-communist and anti-Stalinist as capitalist libertarians. We are
>> appalled at government abuses of power, government killings and
>> militarism as any capitalist libertarian. We just don't think the
>> capitalist system offers a solution that creates liberty.
Despite the Left's efforts to appropriate "libertarianism" to itself:
The appellation "libertarian" belongs not to the Left as long as the
Left is hostile to the spontaneous association of individuals to
participate freely and according to the dictates of their own
volitions, including the free market, rather than being coerced
through some form of central planning, social ownership of the means
of production, and the failure of individuals to pursuit their own
self-interests rather than those dictated to them by the State. That
IS the difference, and it makes all the difference in the world and
the word.
___________________
D. Stephen Heersink
San Francisco
dsh...@worldnet.att.net
http://home.att.net/~dshsfca/OBC.html
gjoh...@eudoramail.com
> Scott Erb <scot...@maine.edu> wrote in message
> news:3AC5D099...@maine.edu...
> We are
> > appalled at government abuses of power, government killings and
> > militarism as any capitalist libertarian. We just don't think the
> > capitalist system offers a solution that creates liberty.
>
> You have no idea what you are talking about. Just go grade your term papers.
> To even think their are people on the left who are libertarian shows your
> ignorance or dishonesty at it's best. The left is against individual
> freedom, always has and always will.
Which just goes to show that you are as ignorant as you are close-minded.
That's OK as long as you realize it. The problem is that you don't.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
gjoh...@eudoramail.com
> Marx was not for individual liberty, he was for a collective state of mind.
> He wanted the rich as rulers, and the poor as slaves to the state.
No he didn't.
Kumar Yelubandi
> Dana <dana.raf...@gci.net> wrote:
> > You have no idea what you are talking about. Just go grade your term papers.
> > To even think their are people on the left who are libertarian shows your
> > ignorance or dishonesty at it's best. The left is against individual
> > freedom, always has and always will.
> Please do me one favour.
> Look up what the word "libertarianism" means and see whether it suits a
> left-winger (like a green) better than a right-winger (like a
> capitalist).
> You owe yourself as much as actually knowing what "libertarian" means.
> And I doubt you do know it.
> Sorry.
Dana appears to be a far right ideologue (judging by his
responses) but he's correct, IMO, about the incompatibility of
what we all think as "leftness" and libertarianism.
I think you're evaluating libertarianism too generously, Andrew,
in giving it access to the rational center (which it must traverse
to reach the moderate left, assuming a continuum). IMO,
libertarianism derives directly from the_dogma_ of liberty, not
necessarily liberty itself. IOW, libertarianism flows from
decreed established political ideals and perhaps into
neophilosophical thought on the _right_ of the conventional
spectrum. But it does not flow from or into intellectual
reservoirs on the left.
There are other (greater) provisions for individual freedom
that flow from the rational center and these are received by the
moderate left. This set of individual freedoms recognizes the
integrity of the group as a prerequisite for its own existence;
and is independent of the "dogma of liberty" (which is
pollyannishly defined by manuscript and which has no palpable
concern for group integrity). Libertarianism, then, is nothing
more than an uncritical ideological allegiance to a time-worn
manuscript.
So why would anyone on the left want to associate any philosophy
of individual freedom with a time-worn manuscript, eg. through the
taxed coinage "left-libertarianism"...when there is a perennial
(eg. fresh) supply of rigored output from the intellectual center
which decrees less but delivers more individual freedom than
anything pretended by the dogma of liberties and its immediate
container, Libertarianism?
Coin a new word if you must.
IMO, it confuses things unnecessarily when we merge two disjunct
and mutually contradicting coinages (left and libertarianism).
Cheers
-zookumar-
Alex Vange
http://stormfront.org
"Dana" <dana.raf...@gci.net> wrote in message
news:tcbo4v1...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> To even think their are people on the left who are libertarian shows your
> ignorance or dishonesty at it's best. The left is against individual
> freedom, always has and always will.
All libertarians are leftists.
There are two schools of thought in the world, the right and the left.
The right is guided by what was known as Christian principles. It is for
outlawing homosexual perversion, prostitution, abortions, heroin, and other
bad things. It puts the good of the nation first and ahead of the freedom
of individuals to corrupt the culture of the nation.
Leftists believe in the Rede of Witchcraft which states-- If it harm
none, do what will you will. This sounds nice, but like the apple that the
witch gave to Snow White it has poison within. The Rede of Witchcraft is the
Bible of liberalism. It would legalize the homosexual perversion,
prostitution, drugs, etc.
The right is for building a great nation. Leftists care only about
individual freedom and are opposed to any laws that would make the nation
better. There are beaches where normal families will not go because
homosexual perverts practice their perversion on the beach. This is fine
with leftists. This is what they want. They are like children who only care
about their individual selves and are oblivious to what should be done to
make the nation great. Their philosophy for example would not allow the law
that drivers have to stop at the red lights. Their philosophy would result
in chaos and degeneracy.
Today there are some libertarians who pretend to be rightists because
they are for the freedom of the Ebenezer Scrooges to be as greedy as they
want. That group has a lot of money and they can pretend to be right wing
on TV, but what they really do is serve mammon (money). The real right wing
was not for legalizing drugs, or for using this same liberal philosophy of
the Rede of Witchcraft to legalize greed. People should not be side-tracked
into serving money if they really want to fight liberalism. Fighting
homosexual perversion with libertarianism is exactly the same as fighting a
fire with gasoline. Most libertarians know they are liberal. Anyone who
would legalize prostitution and heroin is not just a little liberal but on
the far left.
The Communist were leftist and they said they were fighting for
Dana
news:3AC6C411...@eudoramail.com...
Another leftist dictator wannabe.
h0mi
"Andrew J. Brehm" wrote:
>
> Dana <dana.raf...@gci.net> wrote:
>
> > You have no idea what you are talking about. Just go grade your term papers.
> > To even think their are people on the left who are libertarian shows your
> > ignorance or dishonesty at it's best. The left is against individual
> > freedom, always has and always will.
>
> Please do me one favour.
>
> Look up what the word "libertarianism" means and see whether it suits a
> left-winger (like a green) better than a right-winger (like a
> capitalist).
http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=libertarian
lib·er·tar·i·an (lbr-tār-n)
n.
One who believes in freedom of action and thought.
One who believes in free will.
Scott Erb
Left libertarians are usually averse to central planning or coerced
social ownership of property. The difference is that most Left
Libertarians believe that a sense of community and shared property
rights can be voluntary. The difference I see with at least my views
and those of capitalist libertarians is that the capitalist
libertarians, while correctly seeing the dangers of big, coercive
government, don't see the dangers of big coercive MONEY. They seem to
have a naive belief that markets are magic, and don't recognize that
actors who manage to gain considerable wealth and power within the
market can use that to disadvantage others and even circumvent pure
markets. Also, they don't recognize STRUCTURAL power, how classes of
people can end up with structural advantages due to the distribution of
wealth, and that this can create not just unequal outcomes, but unequal
opportunity, unequal liberty.
The answer isn't big government. But it's also not pure market
capitalism. Those two extremes each have real problems, and neither is
especially conducive to true liberty.
Andrew J. Brehm
> "Andrew J. Brehm" wrote: > > Dana <dana.raf...@gci.net> wrote: > > >
> You have no idea what you are talking about. Just go grade your term
> papers. > > To even think their are people on the left who are libertarian
> shows your > > ignorance or dishonesty at it's best. The left is against
> individual > > freedom, always has and always will. > > Please do me one
> favour. > > Look up what the word "libertarianism" means and see whether
> it suits a > left-winger (like a green) better than a right-winger (like a
> > capitalist).
>
> http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=libertarian
>
> lib·er·tar·i·an (lbr-târ-n) n.
>
> One who believes in freedom of action and thought. will.
Good.
Now tell me how a typical Green does not believe in free will.
Brett Kottmann
> Brett Kottmann wrote:
> >
> > "Scott D. Erb" wrote:
> > > On the contrary, I do not think capitalist libertarians are the true
> > > libertarians.
> >
> > You are going to have to "revise" decades of libertarian writings if
> > you hope to Big Lie your way into the name.
> >
> > Go back to Chomsky.
>
> Left-libertarianism has been around for awhile, and will probably grow.
Oh, about a decade. Ever since the Grand Sugar Daddy of socialism
imploded.
Leftists have been searching for an acceptable label ever since.
> A lot of us aren't going to let the capitalist libertarians steal the
> "freedom and liberty" discourse, those are the values of the left, and
> values often contrary to the workings of capitalism.
No one is trying to steal _discourse_. There is, however, a group
trying to relable themselves by stealing someone else's identity.
> You just have to
> live with the fact that there are alternate forms of libertarian
> thought, one capitalist, one from the left.
You can call it libertarian, just like the Soviets called their form of
government "democratic".
Few will be fooled.
> And left-libertarians are
> as anti-communist and anti-Stalinist as capitalist libertarians.
At least since 1990, when you started calling it "State Capitalism".
> We are
> appalled at government abuses of power, government killings and
> militarism as any capitalist libertarian. We just don't think the
> capitalist system offers a solution that creates liberty.
Without property there can be no freedom.
> I've laid out the differences, you've snipped them and responded with a
> non-response. That's OK, but of course it's not enough to change my
> mind.
I'm well aware that your mind is not for changing. Fanatics live--and
die--for
their cause.
Brett Kottmann
> Dana <dana.raf...@gci.net> wrote:
>
> > You have no idea what you are talking about. Just go grade your term papers.
> > To even think their are people on the left who are libertarian shows your
> > ignorance or dishonesty at it's best. The left is against individual
> > freedom, always has and always will.
>
> Please do me one favour.
>
> Look up what the word "libertarianism" means and see whether it suits a
> left-winger (like a green) better than a right-winger (like a
> capitalist).
>
> You owe yourself as much as actually knowing what "libertarian" means.
>
> And I doubt you do know it.
Help me out here, where can I find government seizing assets and dictating to
companies what and when and how they can sell in the libertarian manifesto?
I can find individual rights to freedom, rights of property and limited
government but I can't find anything like being forced to pay thirty times
the going rate for resources because my preferred source isn't politically
correct.
Ron Allen
> Left-libertarianism has been around for awhile, and will probably grow.
> A lot of us aren't going to let the capitalist libertarians steal the
> "freedom and liberty" discourse, those are the values of the left, and
> values often contrary to the workings of capitalism. You just have to
> live with the fact that there are alternate forms of libertarian
> thought, one capitalist, one from the left. And left-libertarians are
> as anti-communist and anti-Stalinist as capitalist libertarians. We are
> appalled at government abuses of power, government killings and
> militarism as any capitalist libertarian. We just don't think the
> capitalist system offers a solution that creates liberty.
Ron Allen wrote:
> Very well written post, and very much to the point.
> The only difference of opinion I have with you is your statement that
> "left-libertarians are as anti-communist . . . as capitalist libertarians".
> I believe there is a libertarian version of communism. I think this is
> also called "communitarianism". I consider myself a left-libertarian,
> and also a libertarian communist -- i.e., an anarcho-libertarian, demotic
> communism rather than despotic communism.
Scott Erb wrote:
> The danger with your formulation is that is easily twisted into associating
> your ideas wrongly with Stalin and the thugs who were driven by a desire to
> centralize power.
Ron Allen answers:
I am trying very hard to clarify my ideas and opinions,
precisely in order to preclude just such an easy twisting
of my ideas and opinions into just another paraphrase of
old-time bolshevism. It is those who oppose my ideas and
opinions, not those that respect my ideas and opinions,
who keep on interlacing my ideas and opinions with
archetypal bolshevism and fascism.
Scott Erb wrote:
> These discussions turn into discursive games, where the words you use
> are twisted to use against you by those who don't care about ideas.
Ron Allen answers:
Am I to be silenced by those who do not care about ideas,
and about the free expression of ideas?
Scott Erb wrote:
> I do think that the future lies with ideas that recognize that liberty
> and community are not contradictory, and I guess part of the battle is
> opening up that kind of discourse, breaking the strangle hold the
> apitalist/communist left/right dichotomy has on the western mind these
> days.
<><><><><><><><><><>
Dreams have as much influence as actions."
-- Stéphane Mallarmé
Kumar Yelubandi
> Scott Erb wrote:
> > Brett Kottmann wrote:
> > > "Scott D. Erb" wrote:
> > > > On the contrary, I do not think capitalist libertarians are the true
> > > > libertarians.
> > > You are going to have to "revise" decades of libertarian writings if
> > > you hope to Big Lie your way into the name.
> > > Go back to Chomsky.
> > Left-libertarianism has been around for awhile, and will probably grow.
> Oh, about a decade. Ever since the Grand Sugar Daddy of socialism
> imploded.
Of course, the ironic reality is that all the evils attributed to
socialism have involved right-wing despots at their core. Hitler
feigned socialism as a way to try and achieve "eugenics". Stalin
feigned socialism to fulfil his own megalomania and private
kingship. Likewise Menghistu, Ceaucescu, Pol Pot. Mao and his
red book cult. Saddam's palaces. North Korean and Cuban
"socialist" societies have always been cult-based and "top-down".
The recently arrested war criminal Milosevic has a vast network of
personal enterprises built under the pretext of socialism. Etc.
Etc.
Substantial socialism, the kind built from the grass roots, is
"bottom-up" in nature and has only ever existed in degrees and
democracies. Top-down socialism, OTOH, is really not socialism at
all, but a puppetshow of bloodred marionettes ultimately
controlled by a single central cult figure slash right-wing
strongman puppetmaster.
To pervert the most successful individual enterprise possible
in any human organization (eg. attain cult status), and call it
socialism...is to deny reality or spread lies or do a combination
of both. Especially egregious is that propaganda that
underreports the role of substantive socialism in the construction
of what is commonly understood as free, open, western democratic
society; and to overreport the role of capitalism in the same
construction.
To wit, the free western societal model is based on a hybrid
socialism-capitalism; not capitalism alone (eg. the reported lie)
or socialism alone. In addition, the totalitarian police state
model almost always erects via the cult paradigm (which is
essentially rightwing in nature); not socialism (eg. the reported
lie) or capitalism, but with a heavy corporate structure to it.
[...]
> Leftists have been searching for an acceptable label ever since.
Of course, idiots have been striving to promote ignorance since
the beginning of human time. So where does that leave us?
At the cusp of point-counterpoint?
> > A lot of us aren't going to let the capitalist libertarians steal the
> > "freedom and liberty" discourse, those are the values of the left, and
> > values often contrary to the workings of capitalism.
> No one is trying to steal _discourse_. There is, however, a group
> trying to relable themselves by stealing someone else's identity.
I hate to agree with a rightwing demagogue, but you're absolutely
right here. Libertarianism is not and can never be "leftist".
It is a philosophy that derives from a dogma of liberties and is
independent of actual liberty itself; it is a rightwing manifesto
of defined and decreed individual freedoms, without the burden
of proof that those freedoms exist, or if they exist, that they
exist absolutely. My advice to the people of the left: let it
go.
Again, individual freedoms and group securities are _both_
maximized at the rational hybrid center.
[...]
> > You just have to
> > live with the fact that there are alternate forms of libertarian
> > thought, one capitalist, one from the left.
> You can call it libertarian, just like the Soviets called their form of
> government "democratic".
Or the Americans call their form "democratic" even after the
recent Florida fiasco offered up much less than was claimed.
America is more about maintaining the appearance of representative
democracy than actually having it. Which is no small reason why
America is a nation of paradoxes. The most obvious one being that
it is the largest police state of all the western "democratic"
states despite its claims on individual freedom.
I'm not America-bashing. Reality-checks are seldom pleasant,
however. IMO, America still is one of the great nations of the
world. But it has much room for improvement, and will only
improve if the backwater clowns who want to take it back to George
Washington's frontier spacetime and libertarian ideals, are
willing to abandon their pants-dropping and flower-squirting
routines long enough to think about issues seriously.
> Few will be fooled.
True indeed.
[...]
> > And left-libertarians are
> > as anti-communist and anti-Stalinist as capitalist libertarians.
> At least since 1990, when you started calling it "State Capitalism".
> > We are
> > appalled at government abuses of power, government killings and
> > militarism as any capitalist libertarian. We just don't think the
> > capitalist system offers a solution that creates liberty.
> Without property there can be no freedom.
So you agree then that the millions of homeless and others in
America who exist without property, are without freedom in the
current capital shift of the hybrid capitalist-socialist western
economic model? Or do you not care about their lack of freedom?
Is there not an implied proposal for guaranteed income in your
argument?
> > I've laid out the differences, you've snipped them and responded with a
> > non-response. That's OK, but of course it's not enough to change my
> > mind.
> I'm well aware that your mind is not for changing. Fanatics live--and
> die--for
> their cause.
Fanatics. Fundamentalists. Taliban. Libertarians. Oranges.
Let's play "which one of these things..." shall we? ;c)
-zookumar-
gjoh...@eudoramail.com
> Help me out here, where can I find government seizing assets
Coming from a big Ronald Reagan fan it is kind of funny to hear the same
person railing against the government seizing assets.
gjoh...@eudoramail.com
> Scott Erb wrote:
> > We are
> > appalled at government abuses of power, government killings and
> > militarism as any capitalist libertarian. We just don't think the
> > capitalist system offers a solution that creates liberty.
>
> Without property there can be no freedom.
He wasn't talking about property, but it's no coincidence that you
should start talking about it. The only thing I've ever seen any
"libertarian"
on usenet ever talk about is property. They are obsessed with it. The only
libertarian who has ever talked about freedom on usenet WITHOUT talking
about property Scott Erb.
It makes me thing that the right-wing "libertarian" agenda on usenet is
nothing more than a bunch of conservatives who hate taxes. You don't have
another agenda, and you certainly don't care about real freedom.
> I'm well aware that your mind is not for changing. Fanatics live--and
> die--for
> their cause.
What irony.
Scott D. Erb
> Scott Erb wrote:
>
> > Brett Kottmann wrote:
> > >
> > > "Scott D. Erb" wrote:
> > > > On the contrary, I do not think capitalist libertarians are the true
> > > > libertarians.
> > >
> > > You are going to have to "revise" decades of libertarian writings if
> > > you hope to Big Lie your way into the name.
> > >
> > > Go back to Chomsky.
> >
> > Left-libertarianism has been around for awhile, and will probably grow.
>
> Oh, about a decade. Ever since the Grand Sugar Daddy of socialism
> imploded.
>
No, from long before that point. Left libertarians have always been opposed
to the kind of system in the East bloc. The first "left libertarian" movement
to gain a place in a national parliament was the West German Greens in 1983.
> Leftists have been searching for an acceptable label ever since.
>
Almost all western leftists were stridently opposed to East bloc style
communism.
Kurt Schumacher, a German Social Democrat, called Communism "red painted
fascism." It is fundamentally dishonest to try to associate that evil system
with the aspirations and belief of western leftist thought.
> > You just have to
> > live with the fact that there are alternate forms of libertarian
> > thought, one capitalist, one from the left.
>
> You can call it libertarian, just like the Soviets called their form of
> government "democratic".
Irrelevant to the point at hand, since no one is defending the Soviet form of
government.
> Few will be fooled.
>
> > And left-libertarians are
> > as anti-communist and anti-Stalinist as capitalist libertarians.
>
> At least since 1990, when you started calling it "State Capitalism".
????? You're not making any sense here.
> > We are
> > appalled at government abuses of power, government killings and
> > militarism as any capitalist libertarian. We just don't think the
> > capitalist system offers a solution that creates liberty.
>
> Without property there can be no freedom.
Who said they wanted to eliminate property?
> > I've laid out the differences, you've snipped them and responded with a
> > non-response. That's OK, but of course it's not enough to change my
> > mind.
>
> I'm well aware that your mind is not for changing. Fanatics live--and
> die--for
> their cause.
Now argumentum ad hominem? Again, you snipped the lengthy bit where I
described the ideas, ideas very different than what you assert them to be when
you try to associate them with statist communism. Thus your argument is
dishonest, and the fact you snip and refuse to respond, I suspect you know you
are being dishonest and you don't care -- you're just engaged in propaganda.
Luckily, your tactics are transparent and I doubt you fool anyone.
Andrew J. Brehm
> "Andrew J. Brehm" wrote:
>
> > Dana <dana.raf...@gci.net> wrote:
> >
> > > You have no idea what you are talking about. Just go grade your term
> > > papers. To even think their are people on the left who are libertarian
> > > shows your ignorance or dishonesty at it's best. The left is against
> > > individual freedom, always has and always will.
> >
> > Please do me one favour.
> >
> > Look up what the word "libertarianism" means and see whether it suits a
> > left-winger (like a green) better than a right-winger (like a
> > capitalist).
> >
> > You owe yourself as much as actually knowing what "libertarian" means.
> >
> > And I doubt you do know it.
>
> Help me out here, where can I find government seizing assets and dictating
> to companies what and when and how they can sell in the libertarian
> manifesto?
What are you talking about? Where did I mention that?
> I can find individual rights to freedom, rights of property and limited
> government but I can't find anything like being forced to pay thirty times
> the going rate for resources because my preferred source isn't politically
> correct.
Maybe your preferres source violates the rights of others by polluting
the air? I find it fair that you should pay for your own polution.
However, what does it have to do with looking up the word
"libertarianism"?
Scott D. Erb
h0mi wrote:
> http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=libertarian
>
> lib·er·tar·i·an (lbr-târ-n)
> n.
>
> One who believes in freedom of action and thought.
> One who believes in free will.
Dictionary definitions are very bad in discussing complex political ideologies. The
universe of people who are not libertarians ideologically but believe in freedom of
action and thought and free will is huge. Also, those definitions are a bit vague.
What, exactly, is free will? How do we know if we have it? What is freedom of
action and thought?
Andrew J. Brehm
> h0mi wrote:
>
> > http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=libertarian
> >
> > lib·er·tar·i·an (lbr-târ-n) n.
> >
> > One who believes in freedom of action and thought. will.
>
> Dictionary definitions are very bad in discussing complex political
> ideologies.
Rather not. It gives us a hint at what words we can use to make
ourselves understood. If everybody uses their own definition, statements
like "I am a socialist" don't have a meaning.
> The universe of people who are not libertarians ideologically but believe
> in freedom of action and thought and free will is huge.
Why are they not "libertarians ideologically" if they are libertarians
according to what the word means?
(I have not seen many people in this newsgroup who really strongly
believe in free will. Take the many people who argue that rights derive
from "human nature" for example.)
> Also, those definitions are a bit vague. What, exactly, is free will?
That's a simple one:
"In humans, the power or capacity to choose among alternatives or to act
in certain situations independently of natural, social, or divine
restraints. Free will is denied by those who espouse any of various
forms of determinism."
> How do we know if we have it?
We don't. We just believe it, or rather some of us do. Free will is by
definition not a fact. It is a doctrine. You can believe in it or not. I
believe in free will.
> What is freedom of action and thought?
Freedom to do what you want and to think what you want. The freedom to
think what you want might exist in modern countries, the freedom to do
what you want is always limited (by rights or laws or rules).
For example in the US you might be allowed to _think_ like a communist,
but you are not allowed to _act_ like a communist.
In the EU you are allowed to _think_ like a communist, and have a chance
to _act_ like a communist (if enough people support your ideas and vote
for the platform).
In this regard the EU allows for more freedom of action than the US.
As for your idea that the definition of "libertarianism" does not work
because it does not cover "libertarian ideology", this idea is absurd by
definition. "libertarian ideology" is defined by what "libertarian"
means, not vice versa.
The American idea to refer to certain conservative habits and morals as
"libertarian" doesn't make them libertarian.
Ron Allen
> http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=libertarian
> lib·er·tar·i·an (lbr-tār-n)
> n.
> One who believes in freedom of action and thought.
> One who believes in free will.
Scott D. Erb wrote:
> Dictionary definitions are very bad in discussing complex political
> ideologies.
Ron Allen answers:
That is very true. But also, dictionaries define word
usage -- i.e., how words are actually used.
Dictionaries are not intended to dictate word meanings
-- i.e., how words are supposed to be used.
Scott D. Erb wrote:
> The universe of people who are not libertarians ideologically but
> believe in freedom of action and thought and free will is huge.
Ron Allen answers:
But there are people who uncritically think they believe
in freedom of action, of thought, and of volition, but
in fact they have beliefs that are contrary to what they
think they believe. Libertarians tend to be more
critical of what they think, and tend to look out for
ideas and beliefs that contradict their primary concern
for and belief in human freedom. Libertarians tend to
subordinate all their other beliefs to a core belief in
human freedom.
Scott D. Erb wrote:
> Also, those definitions are a bit vague. What, exactly, is free will?
> How do we know if we have it?
Ron Allen answers:
Libertarianism assumes that we have volitional freedom.
Free will cannot be proven. If can only be postulated.
Libertarians presume human freedom. They do not prove
human freedom.
Scott D. Erb wrote:
> What is freedom of action and thought?
<><><><><><><><><>
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must,
like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it."
-- Thomas Paine
Cecil
news:1er8xpe.c8o93ox56bccN@[192.168.0.42]...
> Scott D. Erb <scot...@maine.edu> wrote:
>
> > h0mi wrote:
> >
> > > http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=libertarian
> > >
> > > lib·er·tar·i·an (lbr-târ-n) n.
> > >
> > > One who believes in freedom of action and thought. will.
> >
> > Dictionary definitions are very bad in discussing complex political
> > ideologies.
>
> Rather not. It gives us a hint at what words we can use to make
> ourselves understood. If everybody uses their own definition, statements
> like "I am a socialist" don't have a meaning.
Then it follows that you agree with the dictionary definition
of 'socialism', correct?
[...]
Andrew J. Brehm
What follows is that I agree that socialism is what the dictionary says
it is. It does not follow that I thus agree with socialism.
If I show some tolerance I might say that I agree that socialism is what
the dictionary says AND other things.
However, both are miles away from the "libertarian" point of view
demonstrated in this newsgroup where people have been called liars for
refering to themselves as libertarians using the dictionary meaning of
the word.
You will not see me call somebody a liar or moron who calls himself a
socialist and refers to the diictionary meaning of the word.
"libertarians", however, have done so for the word librtarianism.
That's the point.
Rob Robertson
"The only libertarian who has ever talked about freedom
on usenet WITHOUT talking about property Scott Erb."
Good catch, g.
_
RR
Garrett
You won't see anyone deny it either.
That's why I think the conservatives on the net that claim to be
libertarians are just anti-taxers who want a more dynamic label.
Eagle Eye
Gosh, "conservatives" want to be like me. "Liberals" want to be like
me. I feel like Mike.
The notion of a "left-libertarian" makes as much sense as a pregnant
man. The same goes for "right-libertarian," which is just another
stupid invented term used to distort reality.
Real libertarians are neither "left" nor "right." Anyone pushing
repackaged Marxist crap is not a libertarian of any direction.
=====
EE
Andrew J. Brehm
How do you define "left" and "right"? How do you define "libertarian"?
Using the traditional meanings, I can easily imagine both right-wing
libertarians and left-wing libertarians.
Eagle Eye
Andrew J. Brehm <and...@netneurotic.de> wrote:
>Eagle Eye <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>> In article <3AC904D0...@deja.com>
>> Garrett <midt...@deja.com> wrote:
>> >Rob Robertson wrote:
>> >> gjoh...@eudoramail.com wrote:
>> >> "The only libertarian who has ever talked about freedom
>> >> on usenet WITHOUT talking about property: Scott Erb."
>> >>
>> >> Good catch, g.
>> > You won't see anyone deny it either.
>> >That's why I think the conservatives on the net that claim to be
>> >libertarians are just anti-taxers who want a more dynamic label.
>> Gosh, "conservatives" want to be like me. "Liberals" want to be like
>> me. I feel like Mike.
>>
>> The notion of a "left-libertarian" makes as much sense as a pregnant
>> man. The same goes for "right-libertarian," which is just another
>> stupid invented term used to distort reality.
>>
>> Real libertarians are neither "left" nor "right." Anyone pushing
>> repackaged Marxist crap is not a libertarian of any direction.
>How do you define "left" and "right"?
I try not to. It's absurd to measure ideology on a one-dimensional
scale.
>How do you define "libertarian"?
Do what you want, so long as you don't harm others or initiate violence
(or the threat of violence). All exchanges of values must be voluntary
to be valid.
>Using the traditional meanings, I can easily imagine both right-wing
>libertarians and left-wing libertarians.
Really? Perhaps you'd be so kind as to explain how "left-libertarianism"
works, since every other writer putting forth this proposition has utterly
failed. Tell me what you do in a "left-libertopia" when I say that I do
not want to participate in any collective bullshit? What happens when
tens of millions say the same thing? Clearly, if a government forces us
to comply, taking liberty and values from us without consent, punishing
us when we have hurt no one, the system is not libertarian.
=====
EE
Andrew J. Brehm
> In article <1er9ore.3by6gik90ygwN@[192.168.0.42]>
> Andrew J. Brehm <and...@netneurotic.de> wrote:
> >Eagle Eye <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
> >> The notion of a "left-libertarian" makes as much sense as a pregnant
> >> man. The same goes for "right-libertarian," which is just another
> >> stupid invented term used to distort reality.
> >>
> >> Real libertarians are neither "left" nor "right." Anyone pushing
> >> repackaged Marxist crap is not a libertarian of any direction.
> >How do you define "left" and "right"?
>
> I try not to. It's absurd to measure ideology on a one-dimensional
> scale.
"left" and "right" exist in in two- or more-dimensional scales as well.
It simply depends on your definition of which line is the horizont.
> >How do you define "libertarian"?
>
> Do what you want, so long as you don't harm others or initiate violence
> (or the threat of violence). All exchanges of values must be voluntary
> to be valid.
The point is that this ISN'T the actual definition of the word, or at
least not the lot of it.
(If somebody claims ownership of some land and uses force to stop me
from walking there, did we engage in an exchange of value that was
voluntary or did he take the value of walking on the land away from me
without my consent?)
> >Using the traditional meanings, I can easily imagine both right-wing
> >libertarians and left-wing libertarians.
>
> Really? Perhaps you'd be so kind as to explain how "left-libertarianism"
> works, since every other writer putting forth this proposition has utterly
> failed.
Quite in the opposite I have found that the self-proclaimed advocates of
left-libertarianism here have not only explained theor philosophy very
well, but have also managed to refrain from calling people names, which
the other side has not managed so well (I am not talking about you
here).
How does "left-libertarianism" work?
Well, I don't know. Ron Allen has been trying to explain it to me for
quite some time now. I understand the basic idea is that free will
exists (hence "libertarianism") and that human beings should live in a
socialist commonwealth (hence "left") instead of a capitalist society.
Perhaps you can look up both "libertarian" and "socialist" (for "left")
in a dictionary, list all the usual meanings and show me how none of
them make any sense together. If you can do this, you have shown that
the term "left-libertarian" make no sense.
> Tell me what you do in a "left-libertopia" when I say that I do
> not want to participate in any collective bullshit?
I know what Ron says. But I would go as far as saying that
left-libertarians would have the same right to do what
right-libertarians tend to do when you say that you do not want to
participate in any private bullshit (like "this land is my property").
> What happens when tens of millions say the same thing?
A loud sound.
> Clearly, if a government forces us
> to comply, taking liberty and values from us without consent, punishing
> us when we have hurt no one, the system is not libertarian.
Maybe, but what does this have to do with left-libertarianism?
Left-libertarians do not advocate government doing anything of the
above, they simply claim that property rights as defined by
right-libertarians do not exist. They have the same right to claim that
X does not exist as others have to claim that it does, given that the X
in question is a concept, not a physical entity.
Does God exist? Some say He does, some say He does not. Does one group
have the right to slaughter the other or force them to live under the
assumption that God does or does not exist?
If you believe in private property, do you have the right to force me to
comply with the rules that derive from its existence (like "don't touch
this chair, it is mine")?
If you believe in god, do you have the right to force me to comply with
the rules that derive from His existence (like "don't commit adultery")?
If you believe in Mickey Mouse, do you have the right to force me to
comply with the rules of Disneyland?
Are there beliefs which give you a right to force others to comply with
these beliefs?
Scott Erb
"Andrew J. Brehm" wrote:
>
> Scott D. Erb <scot...@maine.edu> wrote:
>
> > h0mi wrote:
> >
> > > http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=libertarian
> > >
> > > lib·er·tar·i·an (lbr-târ-n) n.
> > >
> > > One who believes in freedom of action and thought. will.
> >
> > Dictionary definitions are very bad in discussing complex political
> > ideologies.
>
> Rather not. It gives us a hint at what words we can use to make
> ourselves understood. If everybody uses their own definition, statements
> like "I am a socialist" don't have a meaning.
Dicitonaries are virtually useless for understanding complex ideologies,
especially when terms are used whose meanings in context are always
contestable (e.g., freedom, liberty, socialism, etc.) You can use a
dictionary as a basic starting point, or to look up words you haven't
seen before, but beyond that it's too complex.
> > The universe of people who are not libertarians ideologically but believe
> > in freedom of action and thought and free will is huge.
>
> Why are they not "libertarians ideologically" if they are libertarians
> according to what the word means?
Because a dictionary is not useful for that purpose. Ideologies are
complex, built on philosophical tracts and arguments which dictionaries
can't boil down to a simple definition. You gotta throw out the
dictionary and start reading the works of the philosophers and students
of political philosophy to really understand what an ideology is.
Dictionaries help you spell words and get basic common usage; political
ideologies often get into particular usages or contestation about
usage. Remember: a dictionary only reports basic common usage, nothing
more.
> (I have not seen many people in this newsgroup who really strongly
> believe in free will. Take the many people who argue that rights derive
> from "human nature" for example.)
Yeah, it's sometimes strange. It's as if humans choosing what rights to
define and recognize is too much freedom, people feel a need to ground
their beliefs about these things in "human nature" or "God's will" or
whatever.
> > Also, those definitions are a bit vague. What, exactly, is free will?
>
> That's a simple one:
>
> "In humans, the power or capacity to choose among alternatives or to act
> in certain situations independently of natural, social, or divine
> restraints. Free will is denied by those who espouse any of various
> forms of determinism."
I'd prefer the term "volition," since "free will" seems to imply
complete control over context. Volition is simply the ability to choose
how to act within the circumstances one finds oneself, limited by one's
cognitive and emotional state. Volition is itself defined by the
individual, sometimes strong will power can overcome emotional states
for some that others cannot. Everyone has volition, but people learn to
exercise it to varying degrees. Education and open mindedness in the
thirst for knowledge is a way to overcome some cognitive problems,
though there are limits for every human.
> > How do we know if we have it?
>
> We don't. We just believe it, or rather some of us do. Free will is by
> definition not a fact. It is a doctrine. You can believe in it or not. I
> believe in free will.
Free will is a great Rush song too (Permanent Waves LP).
Anyway, I agree with you there.
> > What is freedom of action and thought?
>
> Freedom to do what you want and to think what you want. The freedom to
> think what you want might exist in modern countries, the freedom to do
> what you want is always limited (by rights or laws or rules).
And by conditions and also one's own emotional and cognitive state.
Those are barriers which can be overcome to some extent by will and
education, but there is a limit.
> For example in the US you might be allowed to _think_ like a communist,
> but you are not allowed to _act_ like a communist.
???? How does a communist act? Can't a group of people form their own
commune, or form a Communist Party and try to convince people of their
views? I'm not sure I understand your point here.
> In the EU you are allowed to _think_ like a communist, and have a chance
> to _act_ like a communist (if enough people support your ideas and vote
> for the platform).
I think the US has more liberty for political speech and action than
most EU countries. I have no idea what you mean here.
> In this regard the EU allows for more freedom of action than the US.
Why do you make that claim?
> As for your idea that the definition of "libertarianism" does not work
> because it does not cover "libertarian ideology", this idea is absurd by
> definition. "libertarian ideology" is defined by what "libertarian"
> means, not vice versa.
Dictionaries are incapable of describing complex ideologies in pithy
short definitions which only report common usage. Otherwise we wouldn't
need books, we wouldn't philosophy, we'd just memorize a dictionary.
> The American idea to refer to certain conservative habits and morals as
> "libertarian" doesn't make them libertarian.
But dictionaries report usage, so if that usage of "libertarian" becomes
common, the dictionary definition will change.
Cecil
Neither does anyone else.
>Ron Allen has been trying to explain it to me for
> quite some time now.
Both Allen and Erb speak only in vague abstractions.
They can't explain "left-libertarianism" to you or anybody
else because it doesn't exist.
>I understand the basic idea is that free will
> exists (hence "libertarianism") and that human beings should live in a
> socialist commonwealth (hence "left") instead of a capitalist society.
>
> Perhaps you can look up both "libertarian" and "socialist" (for "left")
> in a dictionary, list all the usual meanings and show me how none of
> them make any sense together. If you can do this, you have shown that
> the term "left-libertarian" make no sense.
Andrew, that's a logical fallacy, argumentum ad ignorantiam.
We don't have to prove that "left-libertarianism" doesn't exist
or make sense, you guys have to prove that it does exist and
that it does make sense.
"There is life on Mars."
"Prove it."
"No, you prove that there isn't."
"Hm. You're right. There must be life on Mars,
since I can't prove otherwise."
> > Tell me what you do in a "left-libertopia" when I say that I do
> > not want to participate in any collective bullshit?
>
> I know what Ron says. But I would go as far as saying that
> left-libertarians would have the same right to do what
> right-libertarians tend to do when you say that you do not want to
> participate in any private bullshit (like "this land is my property").
>
> > What happens when tens of millions say the same thing?
>
> A loud sound.
Only if they all say it at the same time.
> > Clearly, if a government forces us
> > to comply, taking liberty and values from us without consent, punishing
> > us when we have hurt no one, the system is not libertarian.
>
> Maybe, but what does this have to do with left-libertarianism?
>
> Left-libertarians do not advocate government doing anything of the
> above, they simply claim that property rights as defined by
> right-libertarians do not exist.
Property rights and libertarianism are inseparable.
>They have the same right to claim that
> X does not exist as others have to claim that it does, given that the X
> in question is a concept, not a physical entity.
>
> Does God exist? Some say He does, some say He does not. Does one group
> have the right to slaughter the other or force them to live under the
> assumption that God does or does not exist?
>
> If you believe in private property, do you have the right to force me to
> comply with the rules that derive from its existence (like "don't touch
> this chair, it is mine")?
If someone entered your apartment while you were home, without
your permission, and took one of your chairs, would you take any
action to stop him?
> If you believe in god, do you have the right to force me to comply with
> the rules that derive from His existence (like "don't commit adultery")?
For the bazillionth time, God has nothing to do with it.
> If you believe in Mickey Mouse, do you have the right to force me to
> comply with the rules of Disneyland?
>
> Are there beliefs which give you a right to force others to comply with
> these beliefs?
Yes. Some rights are so basic and fundamental that to
not respect them would preclude any chance of men living
together peacefully.
Andrew J. Brehm
> > Quite in the opposite I have found that the self-proclaimed advocates of
> > left-libertarianism here have not only explained theor philosophy very
> > well, but have also managed to refrain from calling people names, which
> > the other side has not managed so well (I am not talking about you
> > here).
> >
> > How does "left-libertarianism" work?
> >
> > Well, I don't know.
>
> Neither does anyone else.
maybe you shoul read a bit more.
> >Ron Allen has been trying to explain it to me for
> > quite some time now.
>
> Both Allen and Erb speak only in vague abstractions.
> They can't explain "left-libertarianism" to you or anybody
> else because it doesn't exist.
Oh, it does. It's an idea like many others.
> >I understand the basic idea is that free will
> > exists (hence "libertarianism") and that human beings should live in a
> > socialist commonwealth (hence "left") instead of a capitalist society.
> >
> > Perhaps you can look up both "libertarian" and "socialist" (for "left")
> > in a dictionary, list all the usual meanings and show me how none of
> > them make any sense together. If you can do this, you have shown that
> > the term "left-libertarian" make no sense.
>
> Andrew, that's a logical fallacy, argumentum ad ignorantiam.
Only if you forget where I started.
As I mentioned before, "libertarianism" mmeans "advocate of the doctrine
of free will". "left" usually refers to socialist politics.
There is no contradiction in believeing in free will and socialism. Some
"libertarians" in this group even claimed socialism was against human
nature, which means, according to them, that socialism even requires the
existence of free will to work.
> We don't have to prove that "left-libertarianism" doesn't exist
> or make sense, you guys have to prove that it does exist and
> that it does make sense.
It is not argumentum ad ignorantum to demand that you prove that some
idea that is described by two words that are well-defined does not
exist. You are mixing up logic and empiricism.
> "There is life on Mars."
>
> "Prove it."
>
> "No, you prove that there isn't."
>
> "Hm. You're right. There must be life on Mars,
> since I can't prove otherwise."
Try the same thing for earth and you have the above.
"There is life on earth."
"Prove it."
"Well, I refered you to looking for yourself, but you wouldn't. So now I
demand proof from you that life does not exist, even though I can see
it."
"That's argumentum ad ignorantum."
It simply doesn't work that way.
Until you can prove that there cannot be such a thing as a socialist who
believes in free will, I have no reason to believe you that
"left-libertarianism" does not exist. Demanding that proof is not
argumentum ad ignorantum, because I have already seen at least one such
person and so have you.
(Ron Allen is certainly a socialist and I am fully convinced he believes
in free will.)
> > > Tell me what you do in a "left-libertopia" when I say that I do
> > > not want to participate in any collective bullshit?
> >
> > I know what Ron says. But I would go as far as saying that
> > left-libertarians would have the same right to do what
> > right-libertarians tend to do when you say that you do not want to
> > participate in any private bullshit (like "this land is my property").
> >
> > > What happens when tens of millions say the same thing?
> >
> > A loud sound.
>
> Only if they all say it at the same time.
Certainly.
Another result might be a newsgroup full of individuals...
> > > Clearly, if a government forces us
> > > to comply, taking liberty and values from us without consent, punishing
> > > us when we have hurt no one, the system is not libertarian.
> >
> > Maybe, but what does this have to do with left-libertarianism?
> >
> > Left-libertarians do not advocate government doing anything of the
> > above, they simply claim that property rights as defined by
> > right-libertarians do not exist.
>
> Property rights and libertarianism are inseparable.
Prove it.
Prove that by believing in free will I also _have_ to believe in private
property. Furthermore, prove that I have to believe in this one specific
theory of private property that you are talking about it.
You are free to prove all your assertions, start it.
It might be a bit discouraging, but I think I might as well warn you.
NOBODY has ever managed to prove this thing and many have tried.
I believe in free will but not in the theory of private property
advocated by most "libertarians". I even find it impossible to believe
in free will and a theory of property that is often defined as "derived
from human nature".
> >They have the same right to claim that
> > X does not exist as others have to claim that it does, given that the X
> > in question is a concept, not a physical entity.
> >
> > Does God exist? Some say He does, some say He does not. Does one group
> > have the right to slaughter the other or force them to live under the
> > assumption that God does or does not exist?
> >
> > If you believe in private property, do you have the right to force me to
> > comply with the rules that derive from its existence (like "don't touch
> > this chair, it is mine")?
>
> If someone entered your apartment while you were home, without
> your permission, and took one of your chairs, would you take any
> action to stop him?
Would I do it, or would I be morally correct in doing so? What would my
answer give you? The truth or my opinion?
I happen to believe that what I created is mine. Do I have a right to
enforce this belief? I think not. I do it anyway.
> > If you believe in god, do you have the right to force me to comply with
> > the rules that derive from His existence (like "don't commit adultery")?
>
> For the bazillionth time, God has nothing to do with it.
It was an example. God is a typical thing to believe in. But does such a
belief give me any rights?
> > If you believe in Mickey Mouse, do you have the right to force me to
> > comply with the rules of Disneyland?
> >
> > Are there beliefs which give you a right to force others to comply with
> > these beliefs?
>
> Yes. Some rights are so basic and fundamental that to
> not respect them would preclude any chance of men living
> together peacefully.
This is tyranny. If there is anything I for some reason _HAVE_ to do,
what we have is tyranny. If nature commands it, there is no free will.
You have just shown how your theory is inconsistent with free will and
thus libertarianism.
Bravo.
Andrew J. Brehm
> "Andrew J. Brehm" wrote:
> >
> > Scott D. Erb <scot...@maine.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > h0mi wrote:
> > >
> > > > http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=libertarian
> > > >
> > > > lib·er·tar·i·an (lbr-târ-n) n.
> > > >
> > > > One who believes in freedom of action and thought. will.
> > >
> > > Dictionary definitions are very bad in discussing complex political
> > > ideologies.
> >
> > Rather not. It gives us a hint at what words we can use to make
> > ourselves understood. If everybody uses their own definition, statements
> > like "I am a socialist" don't have a meaning.
>
> Dicitonaries are virtually useless for understanding complex ideologies,
> especially when terms are used whose meanings in context are always
> contestable (e.g., freedom, liberty, socialism, etc.) You can use a
> dictionary as a basic starting point, or to look up words you haven't
> seen before, but beyond that it's too complex.
I usually use www.britannica.com.
In any way dictionaries are less useless than silly new definitions of
words on the LP and other web sites.
> > > The universe of people who are not libertarians ideologically but believe
> > > in freedom of action and thought and free will is huge.
> >
> > Why are they not "libertarians ideologically" if they are libertarians
> > according to what the word means?
>
> Because a dictionary is not useful for that purpose. Ideologies are
> complex, built on philosophical tracts and arguments which dictionaries
> can't boil down to a simple definition.
Tell that those who define "libertarianism" as the philosophy that does
not allow initiation of force and stop then.
Don't tell that those who define "libertarianism" as the philosophy of
free will, where free will is an actual complext theory.
> You gotta throw out the
> dictionary and start reading the works of the philosophers and students
> of political philosophy to really understand what an ideology is.
What makes you think I haven't? I just happen to also know what the
words actually mean and use them in this way.
> Dictionaries help you spell words and get basic common usage; political
> ideologies often get into particular usages or contestation about
> usage. Remember: a dictionary only reports basic common usage, nothing
> more.
Which was my point.
> > (I have not seen many people in this newsgroup who really strongly
> > believe in free will. Take the many people who argue that rights derive
> > from "human nature" for example.)
>
> Yeah, it's sometimes strange. It's as if humans choosing what rights to
> define and recognize is too much freedom, people feel a need to ground
> their beliefs about these things in "human nature" or "God's will" or
> whatever.
Yes. I see you get the point.
> > > Also, those definitions are a bit vague. What, exactly, is free will?
> >
> > That's a simple one:
> >
> > "In humans, the power or capacity to choose among alternatives or to act
> > in certain situations independently of natural, social, or divine
> > restraints. Free will is denied by those who espouse any of various
> > forms of determinism."
>
> I'd prefer the term "volition," since "free will" seems to imply
> complete control over context.
Yes.
> Volition is simply the ability to choose
> how to act within the circumstances one finds oneself, limited by one's
> cognitive and emotional state. Volition is itself defined by the
> individual, sometimes strong will power can overcome emotional states
> for some that others cannot. Everyone has volition, but people learn to
> exercise it to varying degrees. Education and open mindedness in the
> thirst for knowledge is a way to overcome some cognitive problems,
> though there are limits for every human.
You see how people might not believe in free will but something more
limited than it?
> > > How do we know if we have it?
> >
> > We don't. We just believe it, or rather some of us do. Free will is by
> > definition not a fact. It is a doctrine. You can believe in it or not. I
> > believe in free will.
>
> Free will is a great Rush song too (Permanent Waves LP).
>
> Anyway, I agree with you there.
Ok.
> > > What is freedom of action and thought?
> >
> > Freedom to do what you want and to think what you want. The freedom to
> > think what you want might exist in modern countries, the freedom to do
> > what you want is always limited (by rights or laws or rules).
>
> And by conditions and also one's own emotional and cognitive state.
> Those are barriers which can be overcome to some extent by will and
> education, but there is a limit.
Certainly. Physics is alway a limit. However, and this is the claim of
free will advocates (or libertarians, if we want to use the right word
for it), there are no limits imposed by human nature, god, or society
(aka education).
You can think what is not in your nature to think, you can think what
god doesn't want you to think, and you can think what was never taught
to you.
> > For example in the US you might be allowed to _think_ like a communist,
> > but you are not allowed to _act_ like a communist.
>
> ???? How does a communist act?
Nationalize industries in the most simple case?
> Can't a group of people form their own
> commune, or form a Communist Party and try to convince people of their
> views? I'm not sure I understand your point here.
I suppose the American constitution would not allow them to implement
their policies. I sure hope it would be possible though. A democracy
that allows for communism is the best defence against tyranny I have
seen in history.
> > In the EU you are allowed to _think_ like a communist, and have a chance
> > to _act_ like a communist (if enough people support your ideas and vote
> > for the platform).
>
> I think the US has more liberty for political speech and action than
> most EU countries. I have no idea what you mean here.
Your election system gives them no chance to implement any of their
ideas. For political speech you might have more freedom (but that is
freedom of thought), for action you do not.
> > In this regard the EU allows for more freedom of action than the US.
>
> Why do you make that claim?
Obviously because I think it's true. See above.
> > As for your idea that the definition of "libertarianism" does not work
> > because it does not cover "libertarian ideology", this idea is absurd by
> > definition. "libertarian ideology" is defined by what "libertarian"
> > means, not vice versa.
>
> Dictionaries are incapable of describing complex ideologies in pithy
> short definitions which only report common usage.
But they will point you to explanations.
Look up "libertarianism", find "free will". Look up "free will", find an
article about it, find books about it. Read them. Learn existentialism,
Satre etc.. Read about libertarian ideas of the 19th century etc.
Also read how Robert Nozick mentions in the foreword of "Anarchy, State,
and Utopia" that the word libertarianism was suddenly used differently
by some.
> Otherwise we wouldn't
> need books, we wouldn't philosophy, we'd just memorize a dictionary.
Without a dictionary people might read the word "libertarianism" and
learn about it on the LP web site instead of in literature. I don't
think this is a good thing. It's all too easy to change a good idea into
something fanatic if people refrain from looking up what words mean and
where the philosophy comes from.
> > The American idea to refer to certain conservative habits and morals as
> > "libertarian" doesn't make them libertarian.
>
> But dictionaries report usage, so if that usage of "libertarian" becomes
> common, the dictionary definition will change.
That's what I am afraid of. A perfectly good philosophical theory dies
out because some fanatics call everybody who advocated the old theory a
"liar" or "moron" and are loud enough to convince everybody that the old
theory is not needed and they can better use the word to describe their
newer ideas, even refer to them as "freedom", because the word
"libertarian" sounds like "liberty".
The fact that "libertarian" comes from "liber (lat. free, independent)
and refers to free will and not liberty is already forgotten mostly.
How do we call the theory that free will exists when the new
"libertarians" managed to convince everybody that it is their word now?
Scott D. Erb
> gjoh...@eudoramail.com wrote:
>
> "The only libertarian who has ever talked about freedom
> on usenet WITHOUT talking about property Scott Erb."
Private property is a necessity, as are markets. Central planning
creates stagnation, bureaucratic abuses of power, inefficiency, and
disregard for human rights. It also means lack of incentives to
produce, and lack of incentive for innovation.
Markets are not magic, property rights as even John Locke noted, not
absolute. But without markets and private property, you cannot have
meaningful freedom.
Scott D. Erb
Eagle Eye wrote:
>
> Really? Perhaps you'd be so kind as to explain how "left-libertarianism"
> works, since every other writer putting forth this proposition has utterly
> failed.
Perhaps you have been unconvinced, but that hardly means failure. It is a
growing movement, after all. Here again was the basics I laid out, which I
don't believe anyone has responded to specifically:
Basics of Left Libertarianism
a) Liberty means the ability of people to act in the way they wish,
unhindered by any limitation. Pure liberty is unobtainable due to
nature, and unjustifiable due to ethical concerns. The issue
is how much should liberty be limited, and through what means.
b) Liberty is denied legitimately through a contract reached
volitionally by both parties without abuse of power by either party, or
by acts of nature outside human control.
c) Illegitimate denial of liberty comes from the abuse of power by
actors who can use power differentials to limit opportunities (provide
some actors with fewer opportunities) or be able to force, either
directly or indirectly, actors to do things they otherwise would not do,
or to injure them in a way which prevents their opportunities to
exercise liberty in the future (the most egregious form of this would be
murder).
d) Human liberty can legitimately be limited by other humans acting
individually or collectively if and only if it is a limitation of a
person's freedom to illegitimately deny liberty from others through
abuse of power.
e) Relying other on markets (capitalism) or government (orthodox
socialism) to end abuses of power fails because each 'solution' empowers
a different group and fails to hold all uses of power accountable.
Markets can be manipulated by those with resources -- markets aren't
magic, but merely an imperfect method of demand communication which
powerful actors can manipulate or circumvent. Governments concentrate
too much power in an elite who can easily become corrupted, despite good
initial intentions.
f) Human liberty is not always limited or denied by
observable direct acts, but can be part of a structural problem whereby
the tyranny of small decisions create class differences where one group
or class of people is structurally empowered (by nature of their
position in society has greater power), and these structures often lead
to involuntary but very real denials of liberty to those lacking
structural power.
f) the solution to this dilemma is to make sure all uses of power are
potentially held accountable to the people in a way which involves both
governments and markets. Markets often lead to the structural
differences above, governments can be used to counter act them.
Practically this would mean: 1) Openness. Governments should not keep
secrets from citizens, as governments are to serve citizens. All
documents shall be open for public inspection. Businesses large enough
to have the resources to abuse power (medium to large corporations)
should have all business documents open involving use of funds, scope of
activities, and things other than the daily functioning of the business
(KFC could keep its secret recipe, for instance). 2) Decentralization.
Governments should be kept small and close to the people, in as much as
this is practical. The larger the government the more bureaucratization
and possibility of corruption and abuse. There have been ideas in these
threads about attempts to keep corporations small. That may be one
possibility. 3) governments can redistribute wealth through progressive
and equitable taxation, limiting loop holes and assuring equal treatment
in order to assure equal opportunity (not equal outcome) to counter act
the negative impact of structural power differentials. This is best done in a
manner held accountable to the people, and in a way to effectively create
equal opportunity rather than equal outcomes. Direct transfers are
rarely effective in that regard.
For this I would see such things as a) a social welfare system which
provides health care, education, and social security to all regardless
of the wealth (those who earn more can pay a premium to get more care,
but a minimum should be provided for all); b) anti-discrimination laws;
and c) equal treatment under the law, working against the ability of
those with power (including structural power) to be able to buy the best
attorneys, etc. (For instance, would a poor white man from rural
Louisiana have had the same chance as acquittal as O.J. Simpson in a
similar case).
Small, open government. Limitations on the power of big business.
Governmental action (open and subject to oversight) to counter
structural power differentials. Those would be the core of the kind of
system I would envision as superior to the current one.
Garrett
I guess I was wrong. Even Erb can't talk about freedom without talking
about property.
You know, when I read about the native americans they didn't have
much
use for private property. I guess they weren't free then. At least not
by usenet
definitions. In that case, white men "liberated" those indians.
And still, no so-called libertarians cares much for stuff like freedom
of speech,
and the press, and assembly. They only focus on property, property,
property.
Translation: MINE! MINE! MINE!
Is it any wonder my respect for the Libertarian party drops every
year?
Eagle Eye
>> Really? Perhaps you'd be so kind as to explain how "left-libertarianism"
>> works, since every other writer putting forth this proposition has utterly
>> failed.
>Perhaps you have been unconvinced, but that hardly means failure.
Whether I am personally convinced is immaterial.
The failure is in linking the two concepts without violating the
basic meaning of them.
>It is a growing movement, after all.
On what do you base this assertion? Can you provide any data to quantify
this claim? Your viewpoint differs from other supposed "left-libertarians"
on such important issues as property rights. This deliberately misnamed
"movement" has no consistent definition at all.
>Here again was the basics I laid out, which I don't believe anyone
>has responded to specifically:
Many have rebutted your posts. To assert otherwise is a lie.
>Basics of Left Libertarianism
Note that you have two items labeled (f). I changed the second one
to be ([g]).
The two basic problems with your plan below:
1. "Libertarianism" has a specific meaning. What you describe does
not qualify. In part ([g]) you outline a system of "redistribution
of wealth" and universal health care, education, and social security.
These, as well as other parts, clearly violate the definition of
libertarianism for the simple reason that people have no choice
whether to participate. The use of the term "libertarian" is
disingenuous, intended to hide the true nature of the proposed
system.
2. Your stated goal of using government to restrict the power of
"big business" while keeping a small, less-intrusive government
goes against common sense and the historical record.
>[g]) the solution to this dilemma is to make sure all uses of power are
But you don't justify calling it "libertarianism."
=====
EE
Eagle Eye
Andrew J. Brehm <and...@netneurotic.de> wrote:
>Eagle Eye <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>> In article <1er9ore.3by6gik90ygwN@[192.168.0.42]>
>> Andrew J. Brehm <and...@netneurotic.de> wrote:
>> >Eagle Eye <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>> >> The notion of a "left-libertarian" makes as much sense as a pregnant
>> >> man. The same goes for "right-libertarian," which is just another
>> >> stupid invented term used to distort reality.
>> >>
>> >> Real libertarians are neither "left" nor "right." Anyone pushing
>> >> repackaged Marxist crap is not a libertarian of any direction.
>> >How do you define "left" and "right"?
>> I try not to. It's absurd to measure ideology on a one-dimensional
>> scale.
>"left" and "right" exist in in two- or more-dimensional scales as well.
>It simply depends on your definition of which line is the horizont.
It's useless to use "left" and "right" if the significant differences are
"up" and "down" or "forward" and "back." Also, why bother with using such
terms when there are no consistent definitions for them?
>> >How do you define "libertarian"?
>> Do what you want, so long as you don't harm others or initiate violence
>> (or the threat of violence). All exchanges of values must be voluntary
>> to be valid.
>The point is that this ISN'T the actual definition of the word, or at
>least not the lot of it.
Says who?
The first part establishes that liberty should be absolute so long as
it hurts no one else. The second prohibits coercion.
>(If somebody claims ownership of some land and uses force to stop me
>from walking there, did we engage in an exchange of value that was
>voluntary or did he take the value of walking on the land away from me
>without my consent?)
You never had the right to walk on another person's land without their
permission.
If, on the other hand, your neighbor builds a fence so that a good
chunk of your property is included inside his fence, he has taken away
your right to use your own land.
>> >Using the traditional meanings, I can easily imagine both right-wing
>> >libertarians and left-wing libertarians.
>> Really? Perhaps you'd be so kind as to explain how "left-libertarianism"
>> works, since every other writer putting forth this proposition has utterly
>> failed.
>Quite in the opposite I have found that the self-proclaimed advocates of
>left-libertarianism here have not only explained theor philosophy very
>well, but have also managed to refrain from calling people names, which
>the other side has not managed so well (I am not talking about you
>here).
Scott Erb is one proponent. He has engaged in viscious personal attacks.
His explanations fail because what he describes does not qualify as
"libertarianism." It includes forced taxes and forced participation in
universal health care, education, and social security.
>How does "left-libertarianism" work?
>
>Well, I don't know.
There's a good reason for that. It works as well as a lead airplane.
>Ron Allen has been trying to explain it to me for
>quite some time now. I understand the basic idea is that free will
>exists (hence "libertarianism") and that human beings should live in a
>socialist commonwealth (hence "left") instead of a capitalist society.
When people are free to do what they want (liberty), they engage in
capitalistic trade. When they are made to live in a socialist commonwealth,
they are not free to do what they want (no liberty).
>Perhaps you can look up both "libertarian" and "socialist" (for "left")
>in a dictionary, list all the usual meanings and show me how none of
>them make any sense together. If you can do this, you have shown that
>the term "left-libertarian" make no sense.
>> Tell me what you do in a "left-libertopia" when I say that I do
>> not want to participate in any collective bullshit?
>I know what Ron says. But I would go as far as saying that
>left-libertarians would have the same right to do what
>right-libertarians tend to do when you say that you do not want to
>participate in any private bullshit (like "this land is my property").
You slip so easily into absurdity.
The terms "left-libertarian" and "right-libertarian" are bogus. There
is nothing inherently "right-wing" about libertarianism. "Conservatives"
and libertarians both oppose many "liberal"/"leftist"/Democrat/socialist
tenents, but they differ on key issues which characterize the "right-wing."
If you don't want to recognize property rights, then you won't mind if
I come to your house (well, it's not really YOUR house, is it?), eat
all your food, take all your expensive things, and then knock it down
with a bulldozer.
>> What happens when tens of millions say the same thing?
>A loud sound.
More loud sounds would follow, no doubt. The smell of gunpowder and
socialist brain parts would fill the air.
>> Clearly, if a government forces us to comply, taking liberty and
>> values from us without consent, punishing us when we have hurt
>> no one, the system is not libertarian.
>Maybe, but what does this have to do with left-libertarianism?
The deliberately misnamed scheme called "left-libertarianism" requires
people to do things against their will, which is why it cannot be
correctly called libertarianism.
>Left-libertarians do not advocate government doing anything of the
>above,
Every last one of the people pushing the deliberately misnamed
"left-libertarianism" that I've read do. Please point me to any who
don't.
>they simply claim that property rights as defined by
>right-libertarians do not exist. They have the same right to claim
>that X does not exist as others have to claim that it does, given
>that the X in question is a concept, not a physical entity.
Again, there is no such thing as a "right-libertarian." Libertarians
recognize the right of private property. Those who do not recognize
this right are not libertarians. They engage in the stolen concept
fallacy, asserting that "property is theft." Obviously, if there is
no such thing as property, there can be no theft. Thus, they use a
concept (property) to "prove" that it doesn't exist. Irrational.
>Does God exist? Some say He does, some say He does not. Does one group
>have the right to slaughter the other or force them to live under the
>assumption that God does or does not exist?
Non sequitur.
>If you believe in private property, do you have the right to force me to
>comply with the rules that derive from its existence (like "don't touch
>this chair, it is mine")?
Clearly and obviously I do.
The fact that you don't wander into any house or store you see and take
what you like shows you respect this right.
>If you believe in god, do you have the right to force me to comply with
>the rules that derive from His existence (like "don't commit adultery")?
>
>If you believe in Mickey Mouse, do you have the right to force me to
>comply with the rules of Disneyland?
Non sequitur.
>Are there beliefs which give you a right to force others to comply with
>these beliefs?
You don't have to believe anything. But, you still don't have the right
to steal.
=====
EE
Rob Robertson
When Glen Yeadon advocated firehosing Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. for
preaching in public, it wasn't 'social democrats' who spoke up for the
right of free speech, Garrett. Likewise when Yeadon put out a call for
a Denial of Service attack on a conservative website it was libertarians
and conservatives who denounced that attack on free speech. Or, there
are the numerous threads concerning David Horowitz's reparation ad
that was suppressed by leftist agitators on college campuses across
America, and again, libertarians and conservatives are front and center
in decrying that censorship.
The alleged focus on property rights to the exclusion of all others
is simply not true, and most likely you know that to be true, but it
serves your purpose to suggest that it is anyway.
Is it any wonder that I generally find you instantly deleteable?
_
Rob Robertson
Kumar Yelubandi
[...]
> Governmental action (open and subject to oversight) to counter
> structural power differentials. Those would be the core of the kind of
> system I would envision as superior to the current one.
If we should adopt small open government...then symmetry should
be respected: we should adopt small open businesses. Indeed,
much of the power wielded by big business derives from the fact
it usually gobbles up almost the entire business-space leaving
very little for small businesses. Outlawing the practice of
merger would be one partial solution, IMO.
-zookumar-
Eagle Eye
>
>> > Quite in the opposite I have found that the self-proclaimed advocates of
>> > left-libertarianism here have not only explained theor philosophy very
>> > well, but have also managed to refrain from calling people names, which
>> > the other side has not managed so well (I am not talking about you
>> > here).
>> >
>> > How does "left-libertarianism" work?
>> >
>> > Well, I don't know.
>> Neither does anyone else.
>maybe you shoul read a bit more.
Read what?
>> >Ron Allen has been trying to explain it to me for
>> > quite some time now.
>> Both Allen and Erb speak only in vague abstractions.
>> They can't explain "left-libertarianism" to you or anybody
>> else because it doesn't exist.
>Oh, it does. It's an idea like many others.
The tooth fairy is an idea. The tooth fairy doesn't exist.
>> >I understand the basic idea is that free will
>> > exists (hence "libertarianism") and that human beings should live in a
>> > socialist commonwealth (hence "left") instead of a capitalist society.
>> >
>> > Perhaps you can look up both "libertarian" and "socialist" (for "left")
>> > in a dictionary, list all the usual meanings and show me how none of
>> > them make any sense together. If you can do this, you have shown that
>> > the term "left-libertarian" make no sense.
>>
>> Andrew, that's a logical fallacy, argumentum ad ignorantiam.
>
>Only if you forget where I started.
>
>As I mentioned before, "libertarianism" mmeans "advocate of the doctrine
>of free will". "left" usually refers to socialist politics.
>There is no contradiction in believeing in free will and socialism.
Socialism cannot exist if everyone has free will. Given the choice,
people will do what is in their own interest, i.e. capitalism.
>Some "libertarians" in this group even claimed socialism was against human
>nature, which means, according to them, that socialism even requires the
>existence of free will to work.
It requires some humans, of their own free will, to coerce others, who
are then prevented from exercising their free will.
[snip]
>Until you can prove that there cannot be such a thing as a socialist who
>believes in free will, I have no reason to believe you that
>"left-libertarianism" does not exist.
I don't care what you believe. You cannot validly use the term "libertarian"
to describe socialism. All you can do is lie.
>Demanding that proof is not argumentum ad ignorantum, because I
>have already seen at least one such person and so have you.
>
>(Ron Allen is certainly a socialist and I am fully convinced he believes
>in free will.)
Believing in free will and respecting the free will of everyone are
two different things.
[snip]
>> > > Clearly, if a government forces us
>> > > to comply, taking liberty and values from us without consent, punishing
>> > > us when we have hurt no one, the system is not libertarian.
>> > Maybe, but what does this have to do with left-libertarianism?
>> >
>> > Left-libertarians do not advocate government doing anything of the
>> > above, they simply claim that property rights as defined by
>> > right-libertarians do not exist.
>> Property rights and libertarianism are inseparable.
>Prove it.
I suggest you educate yourself on the subject. Words are not just
convenient little stickers you can put on anything you wish. They have
meaning, established in their usage.
I suggest starting with David Friedman's "A Positive Account of Property
Rights" at:
http://www.best.com/~ddfr/Academic/Property/Property.html
>Prove that by believing in free will I also _have_ to believe in private
>property.
Believing in free will is not enough. Respecting everyone's free will
is essential.
A slave owner can believe that his slaves have free will, but refuse to
permit them to exercise it.
>Furthermore, prove that I have to believe in this one specific
>theory of private property that you are talking about it.
>
>You are free to prove all your assertions, start it.
>
>It might be a bit discouraging, but I think I might as well warn you.
>
>NOBODY has ever managed to prove this thing and many have tried.
>
>I believe in free will but not in the theory of private property
>advocated by most "libertarians". I even find it impossible to believe
>in free will and a theory of property that is often defined as "derived
>from human nature".
That sounds like a personal limitation.
>> >They have the same right to claim that
>> > X does not exist as others have to claim that it does, given that the X
>> > in question is a concept, not a physical entity.
>> >
>> > Does God exist? Some say He does, some say He does not. Does one group
>> > have the right to slaughter the other or force them to live under the
>> > assumption that God does or does not exist?
>> >
>> > If you believe in private property, do you have the right to force me to
>> > comply with the rules that derive from its existence (like "don't touch
>> > this chair, it is mine")?
>> If someone entered your apartment while you were home, without
>> your permission, and took one of your chairs, would you take any
>> action to stop him?
>Would I do it, or would I be morally correct in doing so? What would my
>answer give you? The truth or my opinion?
>
>I happen to believe that what I created is mine. Do I have a right to
>enforce this belief? I think not. I do it anyway.
So you do things you don't believe you have the right to do?
Strange.
[snip]
>> > If you believe in Mickey Mouse, do you have the right to force me to
>> > comply with the rules of Disneyland?
>> >
>> > Are there beliefs which give you a right to force others to comply with
>> > these beliefs?
>> Yes. Some rights are so basic and fundamental that to
>> not respect them would preclude any chance of men living
>> together peacefully.
>This is tyranny. If there is anything I for some reason _HAVE_ to do,
>what we have is tyranny. If nature commands it, there is no free will.
It is tyranny to expect you not to enter my house and take my things?
Nature doesn't "command" people to do things. Nature influences people,
who can decide to live in peace and order or to become thiefs and thugs.
>You have just shown how your theory is inconsistent with free will and
>thus libertarianism.
>
>Bravo.
I disagree. If I force you to pray to Allah three times a day, that's
coercion. If I use force to stop you from stealing my property, that
is retaliation.
=====
EE
George Weinberg
Brehm) wrote:
>You can think what is not in your nature to think, you can think what
>god doesn't want you to think, and you can think what was never taught
>to you.
>
This makes no sense. If you think something, then obviously
it IS in your nature to think that.
>
>The fact that "libertarian" comes from "liber (lat. free, independent)
>and refers to free will and not liberty is already forgotten mostly.
>
I don't think it's forgotten so much as untrue.
>How do we call the theory that free will exists when the new
>"libertarians" managed to convince everybody that it is their word now?
>
It's like this; the "new libertarians" are actually the old liberals,
that is, liberals started calling themselves libertarians when it
bacame clear that the word liberal had been stolen out from under
them. I think they were essentially coining a new word, with
"liberty" as its root, and the fact that there may have been a very
few individuals who used a word that is spelled and sounds the same
to mean something different wasn't terribly relevant.
The assertion "free will exists", to the extent that it means
anything, doesn't seem to have anything to do with a political
philosophy, so the attempt to link "libertarian" with a political
philosophy which is thoroughly anti-libertarian (in the political
sense) appears to be deliberately misleading.
>--
>Fan of Woody Allen
>PowerPC User
>Supporter of Pepperoni Pizza
George
Eagle Eye
It is interesting to note that you disagree with most proponents of
the deliberately misnamed concept of "left-libertarianism" by supporting
private property. They make the claim that "property is theft" (thus
engaging in the stolen concept fallacy).
=====
EE
Eagle Eye
Rob Robertson <rob.ro...@verizon.com> wrote:
>Garrett wrote:
>> "Scott D. Erb" wrote:
>> > > gjoh...@eudoramail.com wrote:
>> > > "The only libertarian who has ever talked about freedom
>> > > on usenet WITHOUT talking about property Scott Erb."
>> > Private property is a necessity, as are markets. Central planning
>> > creates stagnation, bureaucratic abuses of power, inefficiency, and
>> > disregard for human rights. It also means lack of incentives to
>> > produce, and lack of incentive for innovation.
>> >
>> > Markets are not magic, property rights as even John Locke noted, not
>> > absolute. But without markets and private property, you cannot have
>> > meaningful freedom.
>> I guess I was wrong. Even Erb can't talk about freedom without talking
>> about property.
>> You know, when I read about the native americans they didn't have
>> much use for private property.
Remember that there were many different tribes who had a wide range of
customs. Most were nomadic hunter-gatherers, but not all. Due to the
conditions, most tribes had to band together for mutual protection,
effective hunting, etc..
They still fought with other tribes over territory. For the most part,
they owned their own dwellings and personal belongings. That many
tribes were permissive about borrowing is more correctly compared with
one person in a family household borrowing his father's, sister's, etc.
belonging. Suggesting that it was akin to going into a random house
and taking a lawn mower without asking is ludicrous.
>> I guess they weren't free then.
>> At least not by usenet definitions. In that case, white men
>> "liberated" those indians.
Indians could be free, but not all of them necessarily were. There was
slavery and other forms of coercion.
So long as an individual Indian could decide whether to stay with the tribe
or go elsewhere, to do what he wanted so long as he didn't hurt others, he
was free.
>> And still, no so-called libertarians cares much for stuff like freedom
>> of speech, and the press, and assembly. They only focus on property, property,
>> property.
>> Translation: MINE! MINE! MINE!
>> Is it any wonder my respect for the Libertarian party drops every
>> year?
> When Glen Yeadon advocated firehosing Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. for
>preaching in public, it wasn't 'social democrats' who spoke up for the
>right of free speech, Garrett. Likewise when Yeadon put out a call for
>a Denial of Service attack on a conservative website it was libertarians
>and conservatives who denounced that attack on free speech. Or, there
>are the numerous threads concerning David Horowitz's reparation ad
>that was suppressed by leftist agitators on college campuses across
>America, and again, libertarians and conservatives are front and center
>in decrying that censorship.
>
> The alleged focus on property rights to the exclusion of all others
>is simply not true, and most likely you know that to be true, but it
>serves your purpose to suggest that it is anyway.
Don't forget the right to self-defense (i.e., to keep and bear arms);
the right against warrantless searches; the right to buy, possess,
and consume any drug you want; the right to prostitution; etc..
> Is it any wonder that I generally find you instantly deleteable?
Garrett is very dishonest.
=====
EE
Eagle Eye
You socialists can debate how to use government to CONTROL the free
market. Just stop pretending that has anything to do with
libertarianism.
=====
EE
Paul A Sand
It's amusing how quickly and easily the concept of `left-libertarianism'
justifies pushing people around; in this case, when they attempt to
engage in economic transactions you don't approve of.
Surely the real ``power differential'' here is between those who prohibit
such mutually-voluntary and peaceful transactions, and those who are
forcefully prevented from making them.
--
-- Paul A. Sand | I'd heard that this group existed, but it
-- University of New Hampshire | me a while to find it -- I thought it was
-- p...@unh.edu | "alt.recovery.fonics".
-- http://pubpages.unh.edu/~pas | (Carolyn Capps, alt.recovery.phonics)
Eric Gorr
> You socialists can debate how to use government to CONTROL the free
> market. Just stop pretending that has anything to do with
> libertarianism.
Now, this is something I'm curious about. What happens when the free
market becomes anything but free?
It is not unreasonable to assume (at least I don't think so) that in a
single market, the competition can, over time, get gobbled up and we are
left with a single company in absolute control of that market.
Do libertarian's believe this is a good thing?
--
== Eric Gorr ===== http://home.cox.rr.com/ericgorr ===== ICQ:9293199 ===
"Therefore the considerations of the intelligent always include both
benefit and harm." - Sun Tzu
== Insults, like violence, are the last refuge of the incompetent... ===
Eagle Eye
>The fact that "libertarian" comes from "liber (lat. free, independent)
>and refers to free will and not liberty is already forgotten mostly.
All dictionaries I have at arm's length or which I found on the web
show the etymology of the word as derived from "liberty." E.g.,
http://www.bartleby.com/61/97/L0149700.html
What is your source for the idea that it does not come from "liberty?"
>How do we call the theory that free will exists when the new
>"libertarians" managed to convince everybody that it is their word now?
The above reference provides the following definitions:
1. One who advocates maximizing individual rights and
minimizing the role of the state. 2. One who believes in free
will.
Other sources similarly provide one or both of the above.
If you want to distinguish between the belief in free will and
necessitarianism or fatalism, your preferred definition of
libertarian can work.
If you want to discuss political ideology, in which the dispute
is more about liberty and control than whether free will exists,
definition (1) above is clearly and obviously more appropriate.
=====
EE
Henry Blaskowski
> Now, this is something I'm curious about. What happens when the free
> market becomes anything but free?
> It is not unreasonable to assume (at least I don't think so) that in a
> single market, the competition can, over time, get gobbled up and we are
> left with a single company in absolute control of that market.
Yes, it is unreasonable to assume such a thing, because there will
always be lots of competitors willing to take a big risk for the
potential of big gains rather than work for a large corporation.
The scenario you describe is only theoretically possible. But if
we begin to base decisions on what is *theoretically* possible,
there is no end to the stupidity of results we could achieve.
In other words, your scenario assumes human nature will suddenly
change such that the masses of people will willing forgo gains
in exchange for safety. Ain't gonna happen.
Eagle Eye
Eric Gorr <er...@cox.rr.com> wrote:
>Eagle Eye <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>> You socialists can debate how to use government to CONTROL the free
>> market. Just stop pretending that has anything to do with
>> libertarianism.
>Now, this is something I'm curious about. What happens when the free
>market becomes anything but free?
>
>It is not unreasonable to assume (at least I don't think so) that in a
>single market, the competition can, over time, get gobbled up and we are
>left with a single company in absolute control of that market.
So long as the government doesn't interfere and there is no coercion, a
free market will not sustain a monopoly for long.
>Do libertarian's believe this is a good thing?
Not everything that happens in the free market is a good thing. Sometimes
you have to ride out a bad situation until the market resolves it.
=====
EE
Eric Gorr
> Yes, it is unreasonable to assume such a thing, because there will
> always be lots of competitors willing to take a big risk for the
> potential of big gains rather than work for a large corporation.
So, you believe every effort to break up a previous monopoly (Standard
Oil, etc..) were wasted and that a brand new competitor had a chance?
Henry Blaskowski
>> Yes, it is unreasonable to assume such a thing, because there will
>> always be lots of competitors willing to take a big risk for the
>> potential of big gains rather than work for a large corporation.
> So, you believe every effort to break up a previous monopoly (Standard
> Oil, etc..) were wasted and that a brand new competitor had a chance?
If political barriers were removed, yes. Can you name a deregulated
industry that has had a persistent monopoly? OF course you can't,
because there are none.
Henry Blaskowski
> It is quite possible, if government is too big, or too small. In the first
> case the would be monopolist can attempt to bribe the government into enforcing
> the monopoly. Lots of historical examples exist of this. In the second case,
> without rule of law, a potential monopolist could hire thugs to take out their
> competition. Now versions of this are seen in the underworld, and it can work
> for awhile, but leads to a sort of arms war and takes out a lot of innocent
> bystanders.
> Some sort of balance is preferable. Just enough government to keep
> the playing
> field confined to business, not war.
Since the question was about libertarianism, which presumes rule
of law without the ability to play favorites, I had assumed this.
Thanks for clarifying.
jigo
what Ron has been advocating is an anarchist version. That in itself is
not necessarily inconsistent with libertarianism (since presumably
everyone would not be forced to participate in it).
Alec Owen
That wouldn't work. One would lose the economic advantage of large scale
and it crudely contravenes democratic principles. However the tax system
could render it unprofitable
beyond a certain point and the proceeds could be used to encourage
economic diversity.
A Owen