Who or What is a “Left Libertarian?”
By Mona
“Fat Guy” says that’s what Jim is, and I also have been told (accused?) of having become such myself during one of my rare forays over at QandO. Certainly I hold infinitely more in common with Jim and the crew at Hit ‘n Run than I do with the neolibertarians, but does that render me (or Jim) anything on the “left?”
.
Of course, Jim and I do not agree on everything, and my bar for, say, detecting racism or sexism seems set a good deal higher than his. But I don’t think that kind of issue is what they have in mind, those who hurl the “left libertarian” label. My suspicion is that it means not being in thralldom to the Republican Party, and quite willing to revolt against it when neoconservative, lawless authoritarians are in charge. It means being as hard on the GOP as libertarians have in the past been on some liberals and Democrats. It means opposing smoking bans on private property, but not finding them remotely as insidious as officially sanctioned torture and suspension of habeas corpus via Executive fiat.
.
So, that’s what I think a “left libertarian” is: one who is libertarian well before s/he is remotely a Republican, and who will decry the GOP when it is in John Yoo and American Enterprise Institute mode. In the U.S., it is a definition entirely driven by the contemporary political context.
« « The End of American Health Care Reform | Main | Definitive Proof that Neoconservatism is a Species of Mental Illness » »
Comment by Matt Weiner —
July 3, 2007 @ 1:52 pm
Jim and I had an exchange sort of about this about five year back. The last sentence of your definition of “left libertarian” comes up there too. I mean it as a compliment.
Comment by bill woolsey —
July 3, 2007 @ 1:54 pm
No doubt these things change, but in the past, right libertarians were often very hard on the Republicans. In their view, the Republicans were bad for selling out on their principles on gun rights (the Brady Bill) or taxes (breaking the “no new taxes” pledge, or they aren’t willing to get out there on push for the complete abolition of welfare, accepting a social safety net.
Of course, from that perspective, most Democrats are certainly worse than most Republicans, but the Republicans are bad because of their compromising nature.
“left” libertarians were more concerned with the Christian rights efforts against personal liberties. The war on drugs would be a big issue, of course, but also a good bit of concern about Christian right attitudes about enforcement of traditional sexual morality.
It was, of course, a bit confusing, because there are self-described libertarians who advocate the revolutionary abolition of capitalism and its replacement with some alternative that looks a lot like socialism.
Personally, I think of myself as a middle-of-the-road libertarian. With about equal concerns with personal liberties, economic libertarians, and foreign policy. And with a sort of moderate reformism across the board.
Comment by bill —
July 3, 2007 @ 2:18 pm
There is a Henley watch?
Jim should be honoured.
The various libertarians wrangling about who is where on the political spectrum just reminds of the famous “Peoples Front of Judea” scene from Life of Brian.
Comment by Mona —
July 3, 2007 @ 2:22 pm
Well, prior to Bush Junior, my primary issue far and away was the odious, obscene, liberty-and life-destroying war on drugs. When Reagan ratcheted that up I quit partisan politics and didn’t vote for a very long time, and instead focused on issues advocacy.
I’ve never opposed all so-called “safety nets” programs (and neither did Hayek), I just would cut out the rent-seeking bureaucrats and their federal fiefdoms to the extent possible. Once I was very much pro-life, but at the same time ardently pro-gay. Now, I’m very squishy on the former issue.
But the reality and horror of war, and the breeziness with which it is advocated by the neocons who tend to be (but certainly are not exclusively) Republicans has really been hitting me hard. Neocons, of course, embrace domestic social engineering, so nation-building is right up their alley — but how can that hold true for a libertarian?
Comment by SomeCallMeTim —
July 3, 2007 @ 3:12 pm
I would think “left-libertarian” now means “not a shmibertarian.” Sad that the extra designator is needed, but there it is.
Comment by Thoreau —
July 3, 2007 @ 3:15 pm
What’s a “shmibertarian”?
Comment by bill —
July 3, 2007 @ 3:35 pm
Whats a shmibertarian?
http://crookedtimber.org/2007/06/13/deluge-of-dershowitz/
Comment by Gsnorgathon —
July 3, 2007 @ 3:37 pm
Neocons do nation-building?
Comment by wjw —
July 3, 2007 @ 4:38 pm
I readily identify myself as a “left libertarian,” mostly because I don’t regard the economic market with supernatural reverence.
Comment by BruceB —
July 3, 2007 @ 4:45 pm
The usage I’m familiar with says that a left libertarian is one aiming at basically socialist outcomes through basically un-socialist means. A left libertarian is looking for a society with a high degree of functional equality in wealth and access to opportunities for advancement, extensive social support for those in need, widespread concern with the potential harm of sexism, racism, homophobia, and the like and interest in reducing the harm bigotry can do in practice, widespread organization of labor and reduction in the competitive power of capital and management to set the terms of interaction with employees and markets, and so on. They’re simply looking to do this with an emphasis on non-state tools first.
It’s worth noting, though, that part of the gap between that kind of libertarian and the sort of libertarian I think pretty much all the libertarians here are depends on a matter of definition very much like the one between anti-choice and pro-choice libertarians. If the developing embryo doesn’t possess a full suite of human rights because it’s not yet fully human in the sense we mean it for laws protecting the self, then abortion isn’t murder and pro-choice libertarians aren’t advocating murder. Left libertarians tend to feel that way about assets accumulated in the context of prevailing social injustice and may compare it to receiving stolen property innocently – if the rightful owners can show it’s theirs and the cops come for it, your innocent intent isn’t an automatic guarantee against needing to restore it to the owners, or at a minimum, there’s going to be room for some discussion of compensation (and would be more in a society with more of an emphasis on the restored wholeness of crime’s victims).
I’m having a sick week this week and am in no shape to mount an argument even on the parts of that I actually believe. (I had to stop taking a bunch of my usual medications and supplements thanks to clashes and developing allergies. Ugh.) I’m just commenting, for the moment.
Comment by BruceB —
July 3, 2007 @ 4:50 pm
Addendum: So from my point of view, at least, folks like Jim, Mona, Neel, and Leonard (together again for the first time, watch for their new hit single) are all right-libertarians who have honesty and integrity and mean what they say. None of you is looking to break up the foundations of capitalist, mercantile society in the way that a lot of left-libertarians are. It’s just that none of you is a disgusting toady to corrupt and incompetent power the way that some folks who call themselves libertarian are.
For comparison, think of the way that, say, an honest, sincere pastor who takes the Bible seriously differs both from a typically scamming evangelist and from a sincere atheist. Meaning what you say doesn’t make you mean something else, basically.
Comment by Gene Callahan —
July 3, 2007 @ 5:32 pm
Here is the best website for answering what a “left libertarian” is.
Comment by Gsnorgathon —
July 3, 2007 @ 5:40 pm
What Bruce said. It’s the reason I refer Jim as “one of the sane libertarians on the internet.”
.
From where I sit, and awful lot of libertarianism seems like an apologia for power, and a lot of the anti-government sentiment aligns all too well with the anti-democratic strain in conservatism.
Comment by Thoreau —
July 3, 2007 @ 5:47 pm
I’ve seen “left libertarian” used in different ways. It can describe people who want many of the outcomes that the far left is interested in, but without the statist means. It can describe people who often prioritize certain non-economic issues higher than economic issues. It can even describe people who (for whatever reason) view Democrats as a lesser evil relative to Republicans. (Although at the moment that last one really describes a sane libertarian of any stripe.)
Comment by Gsnorgathon —
July 3, 2007 @ 6:24 pm
Argh. *An* awful lot…
Comment by Scott —
July 3, 2007 @ 6:24 pm
A. I thought everybody here had self-identified as such, based on a pretty long post/comment thread from sometime in the last year (pre-Bruce Baugh, I know that much).
B. Yall have been labeled approvingly as such by others.
Sorry, no cites to hand for the above. I’ll retract if it’s not desired or desirable. It wasn’t meant to slander or insult.
Comment by Mona —
July 3, 2007 @ 6:46 pm
Oh heck, it doesn’t insult me, even tho the term has been lobbed at me by some who don’t intend it as a compliment. For myself, I think it has to do with helplessly living through a fiasco of a war — that took me off the fence I had ridden most of my life about Vietnam. I began reading a great deal about that earlier horror, and the parallels are so overwhelming that, much as a Cold Warrior as I was, I can see the doves were right even if some of the dirty fvcking hippies were deranged Maoists. (I was a kid then, and tended in adulthood to accept the right-wing version of that war. I no longer do, having lived though a debacle that implicates lying and absurdly rosy pronouncements by government.)
So, I’ve changed some, but the context also has. If somehow that all conspires to make me a “left libertarian,” ok. But I read the link Gene Callahan gave to a left libertarian site, and I’m not sure I’m anywhere in that camp.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
July 3, 2007 @ 6:54 pm
My first exposures to the word “neo-libertarian” back in the 20th century were denunciations by some very big-state socialists directed at pretty much the entire range of libertarian thought represented here. They called themselves “libertarians” or even just “left-libertarians”, you see, because they wanted freedom from the slavery of capitalism, unlike those money-worshiping tools of the right wing.
That’s part of why I’ve never been crazy about either term, but that matters very little for their current or future uses.
Comment by Barry —
July 3, 2007 @ 11:43 pm
Comment by Gsnorgathon —
“Neocons do nation-building?”
Hey, they tried. It’s just that they didn’t realize that there was only one Saddam in Iraq until that one was a bit ruined. If they could do it over again, I’m sure that they’d have grabbed Saddam secretly, substituted a burned/blasted body for him, run him through the plastic surgeon, and installed him as ‘Achmed Al-Smith’.
Comment by Gene Callahan —
July 4, 2007 @ 12:38 am
“From where I sit, and awful lot of libertarianism seems like an apologia for power, and a lot of the anti-government sentiment aligns all too well with the anti-democratic strain in conservatism.”
It is true that too many so-called libertarians try to justify, say, the power of multi-national corporations. But left-libertarians recognize that much of that power is tied into State power. Large corporations typically lobby for increased regulation of their industry, because the more red tape there is, the bigger their advantage over their small competitors. (A big company can much more easily afford full-time compliance staff.) They capture the bulk of export subsidies, get local governments to give them tax breaks and sieze the next site for their business through eminent domain. The elite rotate between government posts, lobbying firms, and corporate boards.
To a left-libertarian, the typical “progressive” solution to this problem is non-sensical: put even more power in the hands of the institution where power is already most concentrated! We suspect that however genuine the motives of “progressive” social reformers are, the increased concentration of power they propose will largely work to the benefit of the already powerful. We are true radicals in that we recommend going to the root of the problem, urging the rejection of all social relationships based on coercion. We do not suggest that will “fix everything” or bring about utopia, because we believe nothing can. But we do suggest it will result in a marginally better world.
Comment by josephdietrich —
July 4, 2007 @ 1:30 am
It seems to me what fat guys like “Fat Guy” call Left Libertarians are Libertarians who fail to respect and appreciate the power and authority of the State; especially its military and security apparatuses.
Comment by josephdietrich —
July 4, 2007 @ 1:32 am
In other words, Left Libertarians are Libertarians who aren’t Authoritarian enough.
Comment by Alex —
July 4, 2007 @ 6:04 am
We’re the ones who, pace Robert Anton Wilson, would vote Libertarian but don’t hate the poor enough.
Comment by Thoreau —
July 4, 2007 @ 5:04 pm
From where I sit, and awful lot of libertarianism seems like an apologia for power, and a lot of the anti-government sentiment aligns all too well with the anti-democratic strain in conservatism.
I wouldn’t say it’s an apology for power, but I will grant that on its bad days libertarianism can be an apology for the wealthy.
Yes, the two are intertwined, but they aren’t quite the same thing. That’s not meant as an excuse for anything ever done with wealth, but simply as an observation. The most powerful person in an organization isn’t always the highest paid. (Try crossing a secretary who’s trusted by key people in the organization. Just try it.) Religious leaders don’t have budgets that can compare with most governments or corporations (not to deny the accumulation of wealth in many religious organizations, of course), but they can have influence disproportionate to their budget. Generals don’t (usually) have a lot of personal wealth, and frequently their budgets are ostensibly approved by a civilian authority, but they are powerful people. Granted, at the end of the day the money and power are intertwined, but the power isn’t always where a superficial analysis of the money would suggest.
As far as libertarians and anti-democratic/anti-government sentiment, I would observe two things about libertarianism on its bad days:
1) Redistribution can be pretty damn popular, which can lead some libertarians to believe that democratic rule is the problem. Of course, this ignores the fact that undemocratic governments often do redistribute wealth, and that they also do a lot of other shitty things when freed from any sort of popular check.
2) Our system of government includes a lot of institutional features that aren’t explicitly called for in the text of the Constitution. To the extent that these entrenched interests will seek to preserve their bureaucratic domains, they may be seen as foes of libertarians. But the same inertia that can slow the reduction of government can also slow a lot of other things. The Bush administration has treated the professionals in the bureaucracy as an enemy, and early on that endeared the junta to some libertarians. But we now see that they regarded the professionals as enemies only because they preferred to run their own hyperactive amateur hour.
I’ve been meaning to put together a blog post on these ideas, but they’re still congealing, so I’m not sure I’m ready to defend everything I wrote in this comment.
Comment by bago —
July 4, 2007 @ 8:35 pm
To me a left libertarian is someone who can describe a safety net in purely selfish terms.
The most dangerous kind of person is one who has nothing left to lose, so if we give everyone a least a minimal stake of something to lose, then people will act more co-operatively.
Also, slightly progressive taxation can be justified using the same principle. People who do great things deserve great rewards, but to set up a system of stability to be a framework for doing great things and getting that wealthy you means should owe more to that framework. The changeover rate should be relatively high so that good decision makers pay more attention to politics, but the fact that warren buffet pays a lower percentage than his secretary is shameful.
Some insanely rich people do the right thing and use their power to make the world a better place, like gates and buffet. However not everyone does, and you get the paris hiltons of the world.
If you have more than a billion on hand, you should help out the framework that lets you accumulate that much.
Just consider it the cost of doing billion dollar business.
Comment by catastrophile —
July 5, 2007 @ 12:47 am
“It means opposing smoking bans on private property, but not finding them remotely as insidious as officially sanctioned torture and suspension of habeas corpus via Executive fiat.”
Yes. Thank you.
Comment by bago —
July 5, 2007 @ 3:01 am
That shouldn’t be a political affiliiation, that should just be basic citizenry and civilizational norms.
A lot of people mocked scalia for his bauer comment but that is the perfect escape clause for the ticking time bomb. If you are sure enough that it will work and save lives, no jury would convict you. There is no reason to make it legal in any circumstance, because that loophole will be endlessly exploited.
Comment by bago —
July 5, 2007 @ 3:05 am
In other words, if you are going to torture someone you need to put your balls on the line as well. If you really believe that yanking out some fingernails will save lives, you had better be prepared to go to jail for 10 years.
Comment by catastrophile —
July 6, 2007 @ 6:18 pm
Aye to what bago says, above. If you could find a prosecutor willing to pursue charges and a jury willing to convict Jack Bauer for torturing a terrorist, it’s a golden opportunity for a PotUS to use the pardon power for good rather than evil.