Left Libertarian: A Tradition That Champions Equality and Social Justice - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Classical liberalism. The individual before the state, non-interventionist, free-market based society.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15238383
Can libertarians be of the Left?

Many would laugh at such a question. After all, libertarianism tends to be a fervently pro-free market ideology. But all ideologies have their shades of grey. With libertarianism being no exception to the trend.

The left libertarian tradition is one that champions equality and social justice under the framework of a free-market economy. The leftist libertarian political economy stresses a separation of economy and state while championing mutual ownership of resources in a voluntary manner.

Left Libertarians’ Unique Views

A strong skepticism of the prevailing mixed economy defines what is a left libertarian.

Their beliefs on ownership are particularly nuanced. Natural resources such as land, oil, and trees can be subject to collective ownership. While left libertarians respect private property more than most of the prominent forces on the left, they do not fully eschew collective forms of property ownership.

Voluntary co-operatives, communes, and other worker-driven arrangements can be used to empower workers and allow them to enjoy material benefits without having to face capitalist exploitation.

Going back to natural resources, individuals in a leftist libertarian order can still use the aforementioned commonly-owned goods. But there’s a catch: The use of such resources can only occur after society grants these individuals permission. In order to gain permission, individuals must make a payment to society at large.

The Intellectual Basis for Left Libertarian Economic Thought

Such logic is inspired by the thought of 19th century economist Henry George, who pushed for a land tax. George’s views on property rights were somewhat unique by United States standards, which tended to be more rooted in classical liberalism or free-market conservatism. In contrast, George saw land as a commonly-held resource and could not be held exclusively by an individual.

This conception of land ownership stood in contrast to the views of John Locke, who believed that land could be privately owned and homesteaded by individuals. Lockean views of private property tend to be more prevalent among Republicans, right-wing libertarians, and other classical liberal adjacent movements.

The Overlap and Differences Between Leftist Libertarians and Anti-Property Movements

Left-wing libertarians have a lot in common with collectivist and Marxist views on private property, at least in a conceptual sense. Although the similarities have limits. Advocates of collectivism on the authoritarian left are more likely to use state power to achieve their ends at the expense of individual freedom.

At the end of the day, left libertarians come in all shapes. They don’t generally dismiss the insights of Marxism and incorporate some of the anti-property beliefs of the renowned left anarchist thinker Pierre-Joseph Proudhon.

Proudhon is widely viewed as the father of the political philosophy of anarchism and is famous for his quip “property is theft.”

Like libertarian socialists, the libertarians of the left go beyond concepts of self-ownership and stress the need for voluntary institutions that close inequality gaps. Left-wing libertarians sympathize with economic redistribution of resources, albeit in a voluntary manner to correct disparities in inequality.

American philosopher Gary Chartier is a prominent anarchist who blends certain facets of libertarian thought with an anarchist agenda to create a stateless society. Chartier’s brand of anarchism doesn’t take a statist approach to addressing the question of allocating resources, but his vision for a stateless society remains rather unique.

Continue reading Left Libertarian: A Tradition That Champions Equality and Social Justice on Libertas Bella
#15238395
libertasbella wrote:



Going back to natural resources, individuals in a leftist libertarian order can still use the aforementioned commonly-owned goods. But there’s a catch: The use of such resources can only occur after society grants these individuals permission. In order to gain permission, individuals must make a payment to society at large.



*Here's* the catch -- how will 'society', collectively in some way, actually 'collect' that payment made, and who would *control* that revenue, exactly -- ?

As soon as there's a *receipt* of the payment, there's a 'receiver', and then who, exactly, or *what*, exactly, would be receiving the payment?

If it's a *standing body*, or 'administration' of some kind, then it's effectively a *state*, and those who do administrative duties, like collecting-payments, happen to be *bureaucrats*, by-definition, by societal function.

These administrators / bureaucrats will be *specialized* in their socio-political function of 'collecting payments', and will *not* be toiling to produce *commodities* for society, for people's individual needs and wants in any way, shape, or form.

'Left libertarians' sound a lot like *Stalinists*.



Advocates of collectivism on the authoritarian left are more likely to use state power to achieve their ends at the expense of individual freedom.



'[The] ends', though, are what matter -- a workers state, or 'dictatorship of the proletariat', is what's objectively needed to match-up-to, and take-on, and *defeat* the world's ruling class bourgeois governments.

Once humanity has full control over the world's productive implements (means of mass industrial production), then it will be able to produce for itself, for the first time ever in human history.



Chartier’s brand of anarchism doesn’t take a statist approach to addressing the question of allocating resources,



'Lateral barter' (my terming), though, just won't cut it, because even *barter* (this-for-that), has *implicit* exchange values in the transaction, and people could just get caught-up all over again, in 'ownership' values (implicit exchange values), and play-the-market for the best barter-exchanges, instead of whatever the initial anarchist vision was, on such a bad material-economic social premise.

(Note the middle section on the following diagram for a fuller treatment of the same.)


Emergent Central Planning

Spoiler: show
Image
#15238427
ckaihatsu wrote:
'ownership' values



Clarification: These would be *localist* values, in relation to other communes.

(A '[tax] payment' implies *money* / currency, which is the regular, problematic material-economic 'hands-off' *dependence* on the realm of exchange values as an abstract intermediary layer for valuations and exchanges -- and decidedly libertarian, with its emphasis on private property / property values. *Anarchism*, by comparison, might ditch the money / currency, but it would still use *barter* for inter-communal exchanges (*implicit* exchange values), which could then take on a life all of its own as people could readily play-the-market for good and better *barters* / trades, rather than producing for the sake of the communal collectivist ethos.)
#15238658
ckaihatsu wrote:*Here's* the catch -- how will 'society', collectively in some way, actually 'collect' that payment made, and who would *control* that revenue, exactly -- ?


Oh no no no, none of this would actually ever work in practice. Its basically resetting the board for the worst kind of tyrant to take over the world.
#15238662
ckaihatsu wrote:
*Here's* the catch -- how will 'society', collectively in some way, actually 'collect' that payment made, and who would *control* that revenue, exactly -- ?



libertasbella wrote:
Oh no no no, none of this would actually ever work in practice. Its basically resetting the board for the worst kind of tyrant to take over the world.



You're unable or unwilling to fully describe the *main economic portion* of what you advocate, and now you're *backing away* from whatever position you *did* take.

Maybe take a tip from *yourself*, and steer clear of anything -- like this geoism of yours -- that smacks of an *unaccountable Stalinist-type standing administration*. Many would say that your politics / political-economy is too dependent on *statism*.
#15248611
libertasbella wrote:Can libertarians be of the Left?

After all, libertarianism tends to be a fervently pro-free market ideology.

There are ways in which Leftism can be more "free market" oriented. This is probably an area that has not received a lot of intellectual thought from the mainstream Left.

I think there's an inherent tendency in the Left to want to place more regulations on things as the solutions and not to use market solutions.

Most of those on the Left don't even seem to have any idea how to be able to integrate their goals with market solutions. It's almost like these are viewed as separate spheres.

Let me give an example. Typically when the Left is giving away free low income housing they ration it out with a lottery.
But a market approach to that might involve instead auctioning those homes off to the highest bidder, and then dividing up the remaining proceeds among all those who were qualified but did not get that housing. Perhaps in the form of vouchers to help pay for housing elsewhere.

The market option actually turns out to be more equitable because the benefits end up being distributed to all instead of just some. It results in higher economic efficiency (greatest amount of need met) because instead of two people each trying to grab something for free, those two people can decide among themselves which one will benefit the most, and then the other one will get benefit in a more liquid form that gives them options for something else which may more closely match their needs.
#15248623
libertasbella wrote:
After all, libertarianism tends to be a fervently pro-free market ideology.


Puffer Fish wrote:
There are ways in which Leftism can be more "free market" oriented.



(Groan.)


= )


---


Puffer Fish wrote:
There are ways in which Leftism can be more "free market" oriented. This is probably an area that has not received a lot of intellectual thought from the mainstream Left.

I think there's an inherent tendency in the Left to want to place more regulations on things as the solutions and not to use market solutions.



Yeah, because the *greatest* economies-of-scale can only be realized by *government administration* -- nationalization.

Look at what *Europe* is doing now -- nationalization, in the face of runaway market profiteering / finance over energy.



The German government has already put Gazprom Germania, a unit of Kremlin-controlled Gazprom, and a subsidiary of Russian oil company Rosneft (ROSN.MM) under trusteeship - a de facto nationalisation. Including Uniper's bailout, the bill amounts to about 40 billion euros.



https://www.reuters.com/business/energy ... 022-09-21/



Also, keep in mind that the 'winning' / prevailing powers *always* want centralization on their side, as with the military, any time of the day -- such syndicalism uses (organizational) *politics* for handling sums, displacing all internal market functioning, eliminating all of that inherently chaotic economic overhead.

In other words it's socialism for the *rich* and capitalism for *everyone else*.

Finally, profit is a *cost* to the public purse -- I did some diagrammatic illustrations recently, pointedly on this topic:


material-economic exploitation

Spoiler: show
Image


Spoiler: show
Image



Social Production Worldview

Spoiler: show
Image



---


Puffer Fish wrote:
Most of those on the Left don't even seem to have any idea how to be able to integrate their goals with market solutions. It's almost like these are viewed as separate spheres.

Let me give an example. Typically when the Left is giving away free low income housing they ration it out with a lottery.
But a market approach to that might involve instead auctioning those homes off to the highest bidder,



Gotta stop you there -- this approach / method unfortunately implies that each dollar is perfectly *valued* somehow -- 'the customer is king'. In terms of *operations*, it's the *shareholder* that value must be produced for.


[11] Labor & Capital, Wages & Dividends

Spoiler: show
Image



labor and capital, side-by-side

Spoiler: show
Image



---


Puffer Fish wrote:
and then dividing up the remaining proceeds among all those who were qualified but did not get that housing. Perhaps in the form of vouchers to help pay for housing elsewhere.



Vouchers / UBI have the major *downside* of continuing to valuate the *private sector*. Every time someone says 'UBI', they're really saying 'Cycle it through dollars, and then through private equity, first, 'k -- ?'

Contrast that with the archetypal '70s-style 'welfare state' where actual social service *infrastructure* and *support* was built-out -- far-from-perfectly, of course. We can always look to how 'natural monopolies' are being handled at any point in time, like water, sewage, schools, roads, electricity, etc.


Puffer Fish wrote:
The market option actually turns out to be more equitable because the benefits end up being distributed to all instead of just some. It results in higher economic efficiency (greatest amount of need met) because instead of two people each trying to grab something for free, those two people can decide among themselves which one will benefit the most, and then the other one will get benefit in a more liquid form that gives them options for something else which may more closely match their needs.



There's no feasible way to maintain the 'baseline social cohesion' required from everyone -- acting by rules in *common* -- while every single person is pursuing individual-centric *gains*, at the *expense* of common resources, even all the way to sacrificing public *goodwill*, and *sanity* (Trumpism).

The 'market' option benefits those who are materially *positioned* to benefit from the market -- meaning, *having money* with which to participate in financial and economic matters, pro-actively, instead of working for a wage.

'Perhaps' really isn't good enough, anyway, so you're just being disingenuous and facile.
#15290621
ckaihatsu wrote:The 'market' option benefits those who are materially *positioned* to benefit from the market -- meaning, *having money* with which to participate in financial and economic matters, pro-actively, instead of working for a wage.

'Perhaps' really isn't good enough, anyway, so you're just being disingenuous and facile.

The example I gave would theoretically distribute an equal benefit to all (or among the group of people being seen as in need), even if some people start out with more money.

Lack of market solutions (or maybe I should say "market-type" solutions) typically leads to scarcity ("a shortage", in economics-speak) and arbitrary forms of rationing.

A market sends economic signals to help efficiently allocate resources. In the absence of any sort of market, it could be very difficult to try to calculate where resources should best go.
China, with their Communist controlled government, has come to rely on a market to run their government-owned and controlled companies.
#15290940
I take this opportunity to repeat what I explained many times: socialism is not only compatible with market, but market is the best way to implemment socialism. Market socialism combines market et collective ownership. The mode of ownership is much more important as a social institution than the mode of distribution concerning the division of society in social classes.
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

We're getting some shocking claims coming through.[…]

Most of us non- white men have found a different […]

we ought to have maintained a bit more 'racial hy[…]

@Unthinking Majority Canada goes beyond just t[…]