Calling All Left Libertarians
Would I be correct in understanding left-wing libertarians as believing that private property is theft, on the grounds that all private property exists because at some point some man decided to fence in a piece of land and proclaim it his, and maintain it by armed force, in spite of the fact that before that it was communally owned? If so, on what basis do left-wing libertarians base said communal ownership? Natural rights?
Scroll to see replies
Left libertarianism = political autism
Gerrard Winstanley said it best back in 1649:
The power of enclosing Land, and owning Property, was brought into the Creation by your Ancestors by the Sword; which first did murder their fellow Creatures, Men, and after plunder or steal away their Land, and left this Land successively to you, their Children. And therefore, though you did not kill or thieve, yet you hold that cursed thing in your hand, by the power of the Sword; and so you justify the wicked deeds of your Fathers.
For though you and your Ancestors got your Property by murder and theft, and you keep it by the same power from us, that have an equal right to the Land with you, by the righteous Law of Creation, yet we shall have no occasion of quarrelling (as you do) about that disturbing devil, called Particular property: For the Earth, with all her Fruits of Corn, Cattle, and such like, was made to be a common Store-house of Livelihood to all Mankind, friend, and foe, without exception.
The power of enclosing Land, and owning Property, was brought into the Creation by your Ancestors by the Sword; which first did murder their fellow Creatures, Men, and after plunder or steal away their Land, and left this Land successively to you, their Children. And therefore, though you did not kill or thieve, yet you hold that cursed thing in your hand, by the power of the Sword; and so you justify the wicked deeds of your Fathers.
For though you and your Ancestors got your Property by murder and theft, and you keep it by the same power from us, that have an equal right to the Land with you, by the righteous Law of Creation, yet we shall have no occasion of quarrelling (as you do) about that disturbing devil, called Particular property: For the Earth, with all her Fruits of Corn, Cattle, and such like, was made to be a common Store-house of Livelihood to all Mankind, friend, and foe, without exception.
(edited 8 years ago)
Yeah, definitely.
For a lot of left-libertarians, the world's resources are commonly owned (not just land but all natural resources). Which means that if you need to privatise a piece of land, that is, if you want to make it yours exclusively, you have to ask for permission from the rest of the world (and not just your fellow citizens btw). All those rights to land are pre-political and thus natural rights.
If you only want to use it, then you ought to be free to do so without asking for permission. For if you can't even use any land without permission from the rest of the owners, we'd all die before we'd reach other (we need land and natural resources to survive and arrange meetings or however else left-libertarians think natural resources ought to be managed).
For a lot of left-libertarians, the world's resources are commonly owned (not just land but all natural resources). Which means that if you need to privatise a piece of land, that is, if you want to make it yours exclusively, you have to ask for permission from the rest of the world (and not just your fellow citizens btw). All those rights to land are pre-political and thus natural rights.
If you only want to use it, then you ought to be free to do so without asking for permission. For if you can't even use any land without permission from the rest of the owners, we'd all die before we'd reach other (we need land and natural resources to survive and arrange meetings or however else left-libertarians think natural resources ought to be managed).
Original post by Cato the Elder
[O]n what basis do left-wing libertarians base said communal ownership? Natural rights?
It tends to be based upon usage and occupancy, though some left-libertarian/anarchist thinkers have criticised this as being inelegant and have proposed alternatives.
(edited 8 years ago)
libertarianism = liberty
socialism = authoritarianism
I see it as a conflict of fundamental principles, myself
socialism = authoritarianism
I see it as a conflict of fundamental principles, myself
Original post by Cato the Elder
Would I be correct in understanding left-wing libertarians as believing that private property is theft, on the grounds that all private property exists because at some point some man decided to fence in a piece of land and proclaim it his, and maintain it by armed force, in spite of the fact that before that it was communally owned? If so, on what basis do left-wing libertarians base said communal ownership? Natural rights?
I mean pretty much. If an individual doesn't own stuff, and it's fair to say animals don't own stuff, then nobody except the community is really left.
Some of us are happy to accept individual ownership of property provided that the owners compensate the community for the rights they have lost by forgoing it. In other words, to pay tax.
Original post by sleepysnooze
libertarianism = liberty
socialism = authoritarianism
I see it as a conflict of fundamental principles, myself
socialism = authoritarianism
I see it as a conflict of fundamental principles, myself
'Libertarian' used to be a term associated with the left, and in many non-anglophone countries it still is; the first person to refer themselves as a libertarian was the French anarcho-communist Joseph Dejacque. However during the mid-late 20th century, it was deliberately co-opted by American right-wing groups: Rothbard admits as much in 'The Betrayal of The American Right'.
Original post by Comus
'Libertarian' used to be a term associated with the left, and in many non-anglophone countries it still is; the first person to refer themselves as a libertarian was the French anarcho-communist Joseph Dejacque. However during the mid-late 20th century, it was deliberately co-opted by American right-wing groups: Rothbard admits as much in 'The Betrayal of The American Right'.
so what? "liberal" is a word that had its meaning changed too, just like feminism, but people move on and accept it if a movement adandons the terminology and a new one picks it up again
Original post by sleepysnooze
so what? "liberal" is a word that had its meaning changed too, just like feminism, but people move on and accept it if a movement adandons the terminology and a new one picks it up again
Except of course, the language wasn't abandoned - it was deliberately co-opted - anarchist groups as well as prominent figures such as Chomsky, Graeber and so on, still refer to themselves as libertarians and did so then.
May I ask why you think that workers' ownership of the means of production is necessarily authoritarian?
Original post by Comus
Except of course, the language wasn't abandoned - it was deliberately co-opted - anarchist groups as well as prominent figures such as Chomsky, Graeber and so on, still refer to themselves as libertarians and did so then.
May I ask why you think that workers' ownership of the means of production is necessarily authoritarian?
May I ask why you think that workers' ownership of the means of production is necessarily authoritarian?
1) surely you recognise though that the usual meaning of "libertarian" isn't the meaning that such a minority of left wing "libertarians" are implying?
2) because how is the ownership going to be realised without force?
Original post by sleepysnooze
1) surely you recognise though that the usual meaning of "libertarian" isn't the meaning that such a minority of left wing "libertarians" are implying?
2) because how is the ownership going to be realised without force?
2) because how is the ownership going to be realised without force?
1) I'll concede that in English-speaking countries the usage of the term 'libertarian' tends to be used to refer to a right-wing political ideology influenced by classical liberalism; however this does not invalidate the older usage of the term.
2) Are you trying to say that the dismantling of a hierarchical relation is somehow more authoritarian than the existence of said hierarchical relation and, in regard to this particular hierarchical relation, the potential for state violence necessary to maintain it?
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Comus
1) I'll concede that in English-speaking countries the usage of the term 'libertarian' tends to be used to refer to a right-wing political ideology influenced by classical liberalism; however this does not invalidate the older usage of the term.
2) Are you trying to say that the dismantling of a hierarchical relation is somehow more authoritarian than the existence of said hierarchical relation and, in regard to this particular hierarchical relation, the potential for state violence necessary to maintain it?
2) Are you trying to say that the dismantling of a hierarchical relation is somehow more authoritarian than the existence of said hierarchical relation and, in regard to this particular hierarchical relation, the potential for state violence necessary to maintain it?
1) it's somewhat of an archaic usage in that sense then
2) hierarchy = authoritarianism/illegitimacy. a hierarchy might be based on merit, for instance, and a hierarchy as a social relation (e.g. wealth hierarchy) isn't illegitimate if it's not based on coercion. to try and force them to give their wealth away would be authoritarianism/coercion, though. and state violence as you call it is violence as self-defence. if you're saying that self-defence is illegitimate then frankly I don't understand your reasoning.
Original post by Comus
Except of course, the language wasn't abandoned - it was deliberately co-opted - anarchist groups as well as prominent figures such as Chomsky, Graeber and so on, still refer to themselves as libertarians and did so then.
May I ask why you think that workers' ownership of the means of production is necessarily authoritarian?
May I ask why you think that workers' ownership of the means of production is necessarily authoritarian?
All libertarians I know would take liberal over libertarian any day. In fact, Hayek disliked the term libertarian intensely and used ridiculously antiquated terms like Burkean Whig instead to describe his beliefs.
Unfortunately, the terms change. And the term liberal evolved just the same way the term libertarian did. There are still, btw, right-wing libertarians who call themselves liberal (usually classical liberal). That some people still use it in the old fashioned way doesn't mean that the language is not abandoned. By and large, libertarian in the Atlantic sense means free-market capitalist. By and large, liberal in the Atlantic sense means social democrat/democratic socialist.
Tragic, I know, but there's no conspiracy on the part of US libertarians to "steal" anything from the anarchist socialists. Note a good deal of right-wing anarchists (anarcho-capitalists) were/are influenced by classic anarchist authors (who self-identified as libertarian - hence the connection)
Original post by Sisuphos
Tragic, I know, but there's no conspiracy on the part of US libertarians to "steal" anything from the anarchist socialists. Note a good deal of right-wing anarchists (anarcho-capitalists) were/are influenced by classic anarchist authors (who self-identified as libertarian - hence the connection)
Tragic, I know, but there's no conspiracy on the part of US libertarians to "steal" anything from the anarchist socialists. Note a good deal of right-wing anarchists (anarcho-capitalists) were/are influenced by classic anarchist authors (who self-identified as libertarian - hence the connection)
I wasn't suggesting there was any such 'grand conspiracy', rather a small of individuals, Rothbard et al, appropriated the term in much the same way that (and it should go without saying but I'm not comparing the two in any other respect than this) the Nazis attempted to appropriate the term 'socialist', and it simply happened to catch-on. Though I can see why that term in particular caught on - even Ayn Rand devotees rarely call themselves 'objectivists' nowadays. Putting aside debates as to whether it is ahistoric to refer to Ancaps as anarchists, I've yet to see one refer to Proudhon or Kropotkin or any of the others.
Original post by sleepysnooze
1) it's somewhat of an archaic usage in that sense then
2) hierarchy = authoritarianism/illegitimacy. a hierarchy might be based on merit, for instance, and a hierarchy as a social relation (e.g. wealth hierarchy) isn't illegitimate if it's not based on coercion. to try and force them to give their wealth away would be authoritarianism/coercion, though. and state violence as you call it is violence as self-defence. if you're saying that self-defence is illegitimate then frankly I don't understand your reasoning.
2) hierarchy = authoritarianism/illegitimacy. a hierarchy might be based on merit, for instance, and a hierarchy as a social relation (e.g. wealth hierarchy) isn't illegitimate if it's not based on coercion. to try and force them to give their wealth away would be authoritarianism/coercion, though. and state violence as you call it is violence as self-defence. if you're saying that self-defence is illegitimate then frankly I don't understand your reasoning.
1) Perhaps.
2) Capitalism is a product of state violence, a combination of the Enclosures - which forced peasant communities off the land - and vagabondage laws, produced a landless working class with little option but to engage in wage labour. Also, it isn't just 'self-defence', capitalism has a long and bloody history of imperialism (not that I'm suggesting imperialism is unique to capitalism) as well as a long history of the suppression of workers' movements.
Original post by Comus
1) Perhaps.
2) Capitalism is a product of state violence, a combination of the Enclosures - which forced peasant communities off the land - and vagabondage laws, produced a landless working class with little option but to engage in wage labour. Also, it isn't just 'self-defence', capitalism has a long and bloody history of imperialism (not that I'm suggesting imperialism is unique to capitalism) as well as a long history of the suppression of workers' movements.
2) Capitalism is a product of state violence, a combination of the Enclosures - which forced peasant communities off the land - and vagabondage laws, produced a landless working class with little option but to engage in wage labour. Also, it isn't just 'self-defence', capitalism has a long and bloody history of imperialism (not that I'm suggesting imperialism is unique to capitalism) as well as a long history of the suppression of workers' movements.
capitalism is in no way a product of state violence. it defends property rights when there has been a just acquisition of property. that violence, hence, is an exercise of self-defence against illegitimate and initial violence. if a thief tries to steal my **** and I use violence to prevent from being able to do so - am I being "unfairly violent" or am I being "reasonable and justified"? if somebody can't afford to live somewhere then they don't have a claim to that land. also, imperialism =/= capitalism. socialism has a bloody history too, in that sense and therefore no ideology would be good. and honestly, do you really think that I'm going to consider capitalism as bad just because capitalists in the past might have been *******s? I'm in favour of egalitarian capitalism - one where everybody has equal rights. I don't support corporate welfare/bailouts, or corporate handouts. I support competition, not subsidies. no business is too big to fail, not even the banks.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by sleepysnooze
capitalism is in no way a product of state violence. it defends property rights when there has been a just acquisition of property.
Property acquisition virtually everywhere in the world was historically violent and involved state coercion.
that violence, hence, is an exercise of self-defence against illegitimate and initial violence.
Define violence. I wouldn't say theft is necessarily violent.
Original post by Sisuphos
right-wing anarchists (anarcho-capitalists)
Lol. Amuses me every time.
Original post by anarchism101
Define violence. I wouldn't say theft is necessarily violent.
see, when you say stupid things like this you make it impossible to take you seriously. why make life so difficult for yourself?
Original post by sleepysnooze
see, when you say stupid things like this you make it impossible to take you seriously. why make life so difficult for yourself?
As I expected, you didn't answer my question. Define violence?
I personally, would define it as the use of physical coercion directly against another person. Though I guess you could expand it to animals for a technical definition, though here an ethical one is more important.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 5 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 5 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 5 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 5 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 5 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 5 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
