First: libertarian theory is libertarian theory - the NAP based on property rights. There are no "shoulds" or "buts" to this. Block is correct. How someone comes to accept this is unimportant - that they accept it is important. Again, Block is correct.
Second, how to achieve a libertarian society is a different issue. Promotion of the thinnest definition makes for the biggest tent. Repetitively…Block is correct.
How to maintain a libertarian society, if ever achieved, is a third. Different communities are free to establish different standards - call these non-libertarian standards achieved via libertarian means. I haven’t read or heard anything from Block on this.
I have read Hoppe on this and I have read, in a more general sense, those self-described left-libertarians. I believe Hoppe is correct. However, as long as different communities are free to go their own way, this need not be a point of contention; yet by bastardizing points one and two, left-libertarians make it so.
According to my research on left-libertarians vs. right-libertarians, it seems to me that right-libertarians are indeed libertarians (NAP believers) who add on personal opinions which do not violate the NAP.
Whereas left-libertarians are not libertarians at all (their beliefs violate the NAP). So we should stop calling them left-libertarians. Maybe call them "liberaltarians" instead.
Thank you RW for the start mark...Block was really, really good. He really dismantled the whole thick argument Sheldon weakly tried to make...and tried to walk back from.
I liked the wrinkle he put in about the Right libertarians also hanging things on the proverbial Xmas tree.
It's all about the NAP, and while Sheldon does briefly acknowledge that, he always adds a "but".
Rothbard introduced both anarchism and the left-anarchist term, libertarian, to the liberty movement. We should have stuck to our guns and maintained our rightful label, Liberal. Don't give an inch to the Left! We should take our label back!
I personally identify as an Libertarian Anarcho-Capitalist when Im asked about my political leaning and if said person mentions left-statists such as Bill Maher or right-statists such as Glenn Beck I'll inform them how they aren't libertarian.
If someone is a left-libertarian, does that make him also a right-statist? Seems like it would.
This whole debate reminds me of the scene from Monty Python's Life of Brian where the two Jewish insurgent gangs kill each other off in the tunnel under Pilate's palace as the Roman soldiers watch in bemused wonder... :P
These things are so frustrating, talking to leftists always runs in circles because they do not care one iota about being internally consistent or intellectually honest.
To me, the simple way to express the difference between LLs and other libs is that they have different preferences in their choice of the rules of property transfer.
Unfortunately, I'm one of the few people who sees "rules of property transfer" as a market good and thus subject to the same subjective preference treatment that Austrian economics gives other market goods. I realize that many who subscribe to subjective value theory somehow make an exception when it comes to the rules of property transfer and twist themselves into knots trying to "objectively derive" their preference, but to my eyes it's an incredible inconsistency. If we can subjectively prefer chocolate to vanilla, why isn't it sufficient to allow that some people may subjectively prefer Lockean homesteading while others prefer "use and occupation" rules of property transfer? So much hostility would go away if we'd just accept that we all have different preferences, and what matters more than trying to have a pissing contest about whose is the "best" is making sure that we have a meta-agreement that no matter what your preference, you don't impose it on others through the initiation of violence.
I thought Richman did an excellent job defending his position which I've never heard before amidst the chorus of criticisms. Richman said, "That's not what I'm saying. I believe in the NAP above feminism, racism, individualism, etc."
The sweatshop example was telling. Block's all up in his grill about having a problem with sweatshops and Richman replies in essence, "I have no problem with sweatshops inherently. I have a problem with sanctioning sweatshops ignoring that their owners utilized the state to alter economic conditions so workers are compelled to find sweatshops the best choice." Sounds like a valid libertarian position to me. Richman went on to concede non-violent racists were libertarians, etc. I heard little to object to in his statements.
More interrogatory is necessary, but so far I'm seeing less merit to the withering thin libertarian attacks on left libertarianism.
There are three separate issues, I believe:
ReplyDeleteFirst: libertarian theory is libertarian theory - the NAP based on property rights. There are no "shoulds" or "buts" to this. Block is correct. How someone comes to accept this is unimportant - that they accept it is important. Again, Block is correct.
Second, how to achieve a libertarian society is a different issue. Promotion of the thinnest definition makes for the biggest tent. Repetitively…Block is correct.
How to maintain a libertarian society, if ever achieved, is a third. Different communities are free to establish different standards - call these non-libertarian standards achieved via libertarian means. I haven’t read or heard anything from Block on this.
I have read Hoppe on this and I have read, in a more general sense, those self-described left-libertarians. I believe Hoppe is correct. However, as long as different communities are free to go their own way, this need not be a point of contention; yet by bastardizing points one and two, left-libertarians make it so.
I will edit: "different [cultural] standards..."
DeleteMeaning property owners, by definition, are free to discriminate.
Bionic,
DeleteAccording to my research on left-libertarians vs. right-libertarians, it seems to me that right-libertarians are indeed libertarians (NAP believers) who add on personal opinions which do not violate the NAP.
Whereas left-libertarians are not libertarians at all (their beliefs violate the NAP). So we should stop calling them left-libertarians. Maybe call them "liberaltarians" instead.
Thank you RW for the start mark...Block was really, really good. He really dismantled the whole thick argument Sheldon weakly tried to make...and tried to walk back from.
ReplyDeleteI liked the wrinkle he put in about the Right libertarians also hanging things on the proverbial Xmas tree.
It's all about the NAP, and while Sheldon does briefly acknowledge that, he always adds a "but".
Rothbard introduced both anarchism and the left-anarchist term, libertarian, to the liberty movement. We should have stuck to our guns and maintained our rightful label, Liberal. Don't give an inch to the Left! We should take our label back!
ReplyDeleteI personally identify as an Libertarian Anarcho-Capitalist when Im asked about my political leaning and if said person mentions left-statists such as Bill Maher or right-statists such as Glenn Beck I'll inform them how they aren't libertarian.
DeleteIf someone is a left-libertarian, does that make him also a right-statist? Seems like it would.
ReplyDeleteThis whole debate reminds me of the scene from Monty Python's Life of Brian where the two Jewish insurgent gangs kill each other off in the tunnel under Pilate's palace as the Roman soldiers watch in bemused wonder... :P
These things are so frustrating, talking to leftists always runs in circles because they do not care one iota about being internally consistent or intellectually honest.
ReplyDeleteYo, wassup, my capitalists.
ReplyDeleteTo me, the simple way to express the difference between LLs and other libs is that they have different preferences in their choice of the rules of property transfer.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, I'm one of the few people who sees "rules of property transfer" as a market good and thus subject to the same subjective preference treatment that Austrian economics gives other market goods. I realize that many who subscribe to subjective value theory somehow make an exception when it comes to the rules of property transfer and twist themselves into knots trying to "objectively derive" their preference, but to my eyes it's an incredible inconsistency. If we can subjectively prefer chocolate to vanilla, why isn't it sufficient to allow that some people may subjectively prefer Lockean homesteading while others prefer "use and occupation" rules of property transfer? So much hostility would go away if we'd just accept that we all have different preferences, and what matters more than trying to have a pissing contest about whose is the "best" is making sure that we have a meta-agreement that no matter what your preference, you don't impose it on others through the initiation of violence.
I thought Richman did an excellent job defending his position which I've never heard before amidst the chorus of criticisms. Richman said, "That's not what I'm saying. I believe in the NAP above feminism, racism, individualism, etc."
ReplyDeleteThe sweatshop example was telling. Block's all up in his grill about having a problem with sweatshops and Richman replies in essence, "I have no problem with sweatshops inherently. I have a problem with sanctioning sweatshops ignoring that their owners utilized the state to alter economic conditions so workers are compelled to find sweatshops the best choice." Sounds like a valid libertarian position to me. Richman went on to concede non-violent racists were libertarians, etc. I heard little to object to in his statements.
More interrogatory is necessary, but so far I'm seeing less merit to the withering thin libertarian attacks on left libertarianism.