- One who adheres to the conviction that war, the death penalty, and murder are never right.
- One committed to limiting government activity and spending.
- One who bears in the mind the crucial difference between Governance and Government.
- One committed to upholding the Constitution, although recognizing that ratifying it was as much about “finding common ground” as it was about securing the liberties of US citizens.
- A believer in secession; a strong disbelief in racism.
- A proponent of intellectual, cultural, lifestyle, and ethnic diversity – in all government sponsored organizations.
- A supporter of free markets – as opposed to protectionism, occupational licensure, minimum wages, etc.
- One who is convinced that responsibility is concomitant to freedom – e.g., just as TANF recipients, ceteris paribus, do not receive additional fiscal support with the addition of a child, no bank is too large to go bankrupt.
- One who supports the legalization of all drugs – not just the drugs ostracized by the Parternership for a Drug-Free America.
My buddy Josh abhors political posts. But, given that many believe that libertarians are simply “right-wingers” who support drug legalization and marriage for everyone, I thought that I would post, and ask, about the convictions of a left-leaning libertarian.
So what are they?
Brian A. Pitt
have you seen this:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/
it’s not a very good test because it makes so many assumptions about underlying reality
it also asks questions that a libertarian would never ask nor answer
it also confuses “religion” and politics in a huge way so typical of Americans in particular. By religion i mean “American” religion ie fundamentalist Christianity
anyway your definition of yourself suggests that you are less libertarian than socialist if that can make sense – simply because you support government as a concept whereas a Libertarian does not.
A Libertarian assumes that all government other than short term contractual agreement to act together is inherently evil because no matter how you define it, construct it, support it, it will always be the case for humans that power in the hands of a group will always be corrupted.
Government leads to a world where the people are taxed at the point of a gun built by the corporations that can only exist in law because of government.
I sometimes ask myself which world i would rather live in – one where roving gangs of thugs kill and steal from communities or one where every single worker is bled so that the same gangs can live in stable luxury like vampires hooked up to a blood drip.
In this world the politicians are shareholders in the companies that either directly or indirectly own the weapons used against us and our so called enemies, the means to extract blood and toil from every one of the working class and the systems that facilitate preventing the people from ever being able to exercise their constitutional rights of overthrowing the government.
So i say simply, if you are a Libertarian then how can you lean left? or lean right?
You should only lean towards one principle
no government
murray
Here’s one of my favorite passages on this issue:
“Libertarians of the present day are accustomed to think of socialism as the polar opposite of the libertarian creed. But this is a grave mistake, responsible for a severe ideological disorientation of libertarians in the present world. As we have seen, conservatism was the polar opposite of liberty; and socialism, while to the “left” of conservatism, was essentially a confused, middle-of-the-road movement. It was, and still is, middle-of-the-road because it tries to achieve liberal ends by the use of conservative means.
“In short, Russell Kirk, who claims that socialism was the heir of classical liberalism, and Ronald Hamowy, who sees socialism as the heir of conservatism, are both right; for the question is on what aspect of this confused centrist movement we happen to be focusing. Socialism, like liberalism and against conservatism, accepted the industrial system and the liberal goals of freedom, reason, mobility, progress, higher living standards for the masses, and an end to theocracy and war; but it tried to achieve these ends by the use of incompatible, conservative means: statism, central planning, communitarianism, etc.”
-Murray Rothbard, in here:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard33.html
National Economic Planning: What is Left? is also great on this.
Political post? Where do you think you are, Scatterplot?
Dammit Brian, now I have to make my confessions too! Here’s what I got off the top of my head…
1.) I oppose the war in Iraq. Admittedly, I was an early supporter because Saddam Hussain had it coming and the Iraqi people deserved better, but disillusionment took over quickly. I now oppose war on public choice principles. I’d cut the military budget in half (at least).
2.) I oppose the war on drugs on consequentialist grounds. I worked with kids at a substance abuse program for 4 years and I know what drugs can do to people, but the costs of prohibition outweigh the benefits. The demand curve for drugs is pretty inelastic while the market is robust. I’d rather see those funds go elsewhere and get rid of all the negative externalities associated with black markets.
3.) I support a progressive income tax on practical grounds a la Monica Prasad’s theory that it promotes an interest groupt to fight back against tax hikes.
4.) As my last post argued, I am in favor of open borders (for labor and capital). This doesn’t necessarily mean I’m in favor of giving citizenship to everyone who moves to a country.
5.) I have a weird prejudice against wealthy people. Who says being pro-capitalism means you need to like capitalists?
6.) I’m more worried about corporate welfare than welfare queens. The latter is a drop in the bucket compared to the former.
7.) I support affirmative action when it’s done privately. The EEOC is only concerned with numbers and probably does more harm than good, but that doesn’t mean we can rest on our laurels because we have a black president now. There’s a lot of missed opportunities because people are left out of certain social networks. Affirmative action is a way to integrate those networks in a positive sum manner utilizing local knowledge.
8.) Ayn Rand was a nutball. We all have a duty to give back to our community. Voting for public programs doesn’t count.
9.) Boston sports teams are superior to New York teams. The latter of a bunch of rent-seeking, land-stealing, welfare queens. Support for the Yankees is antithetical to support for free markets.
Thanks for the feedback.
Josh: Yes, I am far more solicitous about handouts to athletic teams than an extra forty dollars worth of food stamps to a “welfare queen.”
Yes, I am all for open borders.
I happen to be a big fan of Ayn Rand, but I still believe that the woman may have suffered from a personality disorder.
Adam: I arrived at my current position, aside from fiendishly reading empirical papers on social and child welfare and working to learn public choice, by reading the works of Rothbard and, contemporarily, Steve Horwitz.
Murray: I consider myself to be a classical liberal/libertarian minarchist. And yes, I am aware of your, Hoppe, and Rothbard’s quibbles on the logical inconsistency of this position. But hey, we libertarian/classical liberal types are low on Agreeableness – so why should we agree much on this issue. Btw, Murray, do you support the overthrow of a “first-best” government like the United States. Governments like Somalia, Haiti, etc., I would love to see implode. But, as far as the overthrow of a government such as the United States, I am quite skeptical of.
I simply do not believe it is to my comparative advantage to incessantly enforce my property rights and defend my country. What is your position. Also, give me one that is somewhat different from Rothbard, Hoppe, Caplan, Hasnas, etc. I am well aware of their positions.
Labels. So frustrating, yet so useful.
Seems like freedom of speech deserves a mention, especially given the recent ruling.
If you believe war is never just, then I’d like to see you defend that in a separate post.
I see a fair bit of distance between saying drugs should be legal with some regulation, and drugs should be legal and completely unregulated.
Do you support bank regulation that attempts to prevent them from becoming too big to fail?
Brian
Just as you confuse which way to lean politically you confuse the nature of things economically.
You suggest that the USA is “first-best” but Somalia and Haiti are not.
But what you are confusing is consequence and not cause. In fact you imply that the cause of Somalia and Haiti’s “predicaments” are their political systems whereas i would suggest that the difference between such places and the USA is simply one of (initial) wealth.
The USA has been at least til now wealthy beyond dreams on the back of resources that it held in huge abundance. In particular i mean oil.
It’s easy to have social policies that make us feel safe when those policies are almost costless.
As America implodes and consumes itself in a fit of savagery as it seems to be doing since the decline of its oil reserves, for many people it will begin to feel like Haiti and Somalia. In fact you can see the effect of US foreign policy in Iraq. Not so far from Somalia is it.
You see, you are willing to sacrifice what a Libertarian stands for just so you can be lazy – “the cost of liberty is eternal vigilance” but your laziness was facilitated by the relative low cost of your safety.
When safety and comfort become very expensive you will see two things emerge: Socialism whereby the overwhelming majority vote themselves the right to strip the rich(er) of their assets and the consequent true Libertarian acts of people forming short-term arrangements to survive against others. This of course includes the formation of gangs of thugs trying to keep afloat on the backs of others. A true Libertarian act gone wrong.
In effect then, as i see it, you are the very sign that the USA is in decline – you represent the emergence of socialism (with a painted face “i’m a Libertarian”).
Libertarians accept that a consequence of Liberty, no, a requirement of Liberty, is its cost – toil, effort, vigilance, community mindedness, and all the other things that we must do to ensure our children are safe no matter what the wealth of the land we find ourselves in.
Until you give up the concept of Nation – and learn to abhor what the USA has become – and until you realize that any form of government is inherently evil.
You can never call yourself a Libertarian
murray
sorta related: http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2010/01/rename-capitalism-socialism.html
Hey Michael: I would have to know what you mean by “regulation” to give a definitive answer. That said, there are almost no regulations that I support – and banking is no different.
Thanks for the plug.
Murray: I am sorry if I offended you. But, to the extent that labels matter, and I am not convinced that they do, I enjoy quibbles about who or what is libertarian.
“But what you are confusing is consequence and not cause. In fact you imply that the cause of Somalia and Haiti’s “predicaments” are their political systems whereas i would suggest that the difference between such places and the USA is simply one of (initial) wealth.”
In my initial comment to you, I make no such claim to cause or consequence. I intimate correlation; and that is it. Nevertheless, I agree with your point!
Murray: I don’t see how you can make such unfounded assertions about the US, Haiti, etc. One of the hallmarks of econominc analysis is thinking on the margin (there was even a “revolution” surrounding this development!). When you throw relatively free countries like the US in with countries like Haiti or when you lump classical liberals in with socialists, you’re basically disavowing marginalism – the foundations of good economic analysis.
Brian:
Are you familiar with left-libertarianism? See, e.g., this, this, and this.
On minarchism: have you read Roderick Long’s article “Market Anarchism as Constitutionalism“? I think this is the most important work on libertarian anarchism.
Michael Wiebe: Thanks for the plugs. I look forward to reading the piece on Market Anarchism and the interview with Rod Long.
Right-libertarianism is basically a US phenomenon with a small UK and French contingent. Libertarian was essentially synonymous with anarchism until the 1960s when a group of intellectuals funded by big business got together to create a new ideology woven from strands of the old Right, Ayn Rand, and a largely vulgarized interpretation of Hayek and Smith.
The anti-government obsession of right-libs is in stark contrast to the classic anarchist position that all forms of hierarchy and domination are illegitimate. From Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin and to Goldman this is a common theme. Government, big business, the church, even the patriarchal family structure all restrict freedom and repress the creative will of large swaths of humanity. American right-libertarianism stunningly claims that the true impediments to human freedom are minimum wage laws, tobacco taxes or food stamps. Thank God someone tole me I was being oppressed by these things. I though the source of my oppression was the church that told me from the time that I was young that I was sick and full of sin, or perhaps the boss who denied me a raise and increased my workload. I thought the biggest victims of our system were the global indigenous population or perhaps the urban precariat stuck in the hyperghettos of the global North. I thought that the greatest threat to human liberty was militarism and domestically, the exponential growth of the prison industrial complex. But no, its welfare mothers and labor unions, work-family legislation and school lunch programs.
What a vulgar, useless ideology…..
Brian, I don’t see how the list is in any way “left leaning”. It seems to me just to be typical limited government free market libertarianism (which i support). So what exactly do you mean by left leaning? I take “left leaning” to refer to a tendency towards collectivism, as opposed to individualism. So left leaning “libertarian” in my mind would be someone like Noam Chomsky (who doesn’t seem to understand the difference between capitalism and corporatism, but i digress). Maybe I’m not understanding something here though, so could someone explain what I’m missing?