Left-libertarianism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Part of the Politics series on
Libertarianism

Schools of thought
Agorism
Anarchism
Geolibertarianism
Green libertarianism
Left-libertarianism
Libertarian socialism
Minarchism
Neolibertarianism
Paleolibertarianism

Origins
Individualist anarchism
Austrian School
Chicago School
Classical liberalism

Ideas
Civil liberties
Free markets
Laissez-faire
Liberty
Individualism
Non-aggression
Private property
Self-ownership
Free trade

Key issues
History
Parties
Economic views
Views of rights
Theories of law
Politics Portal ·  v • d • e 

Historically, the term libertarianism was coined by leftist followers of Mikhail Bakunin to describe their own, anti-statist version of socialism, as contrasted with the state socialism implemented by Leninist regimes. In much of the non-English speaking world, it still has this meaning. However, after the founding of the United States Libertarian Party in 1971, the term "libertarianism" in much of North America came to be associated with radical free-market ideology. For the other see libertarian socialism. This article describes two distinct movements arising out of post-war North American libertarianism, both of which designate themselves left-libertarian.

This article is incomplete, as it does not go into the fact that the term is mostly used today by anti-authoritarian socialists, while those mentioned below generally use the terms "propertarian" or "free market" to distinguish their philosophy. The first group has its origins in dissident sections of the United States Libertarian Party and anti-corporate followers of Murray Rothbard, and could therefore be called "anti-corporate left-libertarianism". It is "Left" insofar as it incorporates New Left critiques of imperialism, of state and corporate power, and of intellectual property.

The second group includes academic political philosophers such as Peter Vallentyne, Hillel Steiner, and Michael Otsuka. It is "Left" in that it advocates ownership in common of natural resources and compensation for the enclosure of those resources, within a framework of libertarian self-ownership rights. Because of its origins in academic philosophy, this group is best described as "philosophical left-libertarianism".

Contents

[edit] Anti-corporate left-libertarianism

The first attempt at rapproachement between the postwar libertarian movement and the Left came in the 1960s, when Austrian-School economist Murray Rothbard came to question libertarianism's traditional alliance with the Right in light of the Vietnam War. During this period, Rothbard came to advocate strategic alliances with the New Left over issues such as the military draft and black power.

Working with radicals like Ronald Radosh, Rothbard argued that the consensus view of American economic history, wherein government has stepped in as a countervailing interest to corporate predation, is fundamentally flawed. Rather, he argued, government intervention in the economy has largely benefitted established players at the expense of marginalized groups, to the detriment of both liberty and equality. Moreover, the "Robber Baron Period", adulated by the right and despised by the Left as a laissez-faire haven, was not laissez-faire at all but in fact a time of massive state privilege accorded to capital.

Although Rothbard eventually drifted back into the Old Right, his initial leftward impulse was maintained by Karl Hess, picked up by activists like Samuel Edward Konkin III (founder of the Movement of the Libertarian Left) and Roderick Long. These left-libertarians argue that presently-existing capitalism does not even vaguely resemble a free market, and that presently-existing corporations are the beneficiaries and chiefmost supporters of statism. By this line of reasoning, libertarianism should make common cause with the anti-corporate Left.

Rapprochement with the Left has led many left-libertarians to reject some traditional libertarian stances, such as hostility to labor unions and support for intellectual property, or even to limit valid real-property rights to use-and-occupancy.

[edit] Left-libertarians and cultural politics

Contemporary left-libertarians also show markedly more sympathy than mainstream or paleo-libertarians towards movements purporting to challenge non-governmental relations of power. For instance, left-libertarians Roderick Long and Charles Johnson have called for a recovery of the nineteenth-century alliance between radical liberalism and feminism. Left-libertarians are more likely to take recognisably leftist stances on issues as diverse as feminism, gender and sexuality, race, class, immigration, environmentalism, and foreign policy.

Current writers who have significantly impacted or explored this aspect of left-libertarianism include Chris Sciabarra, Roderick Long, Charles Johnson, Kevin Carson, and Arthur Silber.

[edit] Philosophical left-libertarianism

A number of English and American political philosophers have developed a somewhat different position, also labeled 'left-libertarianism', which argues for the validity and necessity of some social welfare programs within the context of libertarian self-ownership theory. Peter Vallentyne and Hillel Steiner edited a primer, The Origins of Left-Libertarianism : An Anthology of Historical Writings. Steiner himself wrote An Essay on Rights, a pioneering look at rights and justice from a left-libertarian perspective. Philippe Van Parijs has written extensively on what he calls "real libertarianism", an approach very similar to Steiner and Otsuka's, and usually subsumed under the rubric of left-libertarianism. And more recently, Michael Otsuka published Libertarianism Without Inequality, where he argues for incorporating egalitarian ideas into libertarian rights schemes.

Though not left-libertarians themselves, G. A. Cohen, John Roemer, and Jon Elster have also written extensively about the notions of self-ownership and equality, which provide the basis for this branch of left libertarian thought.

This self-styled left-libertarianism's historical roots in the school of analytical Marxism has cast a cloud of doubt over it for both leftists and libertarians of more conventional stripe. One mutualist wit had occasion to jest that, just as Cohen's "non-bullshit Marxism" was neither Marxist nor non-bullshit, so too was his student's "left-libertarianism" neither libertarian nor notably leftist.[citation needed]

[edit] Left-libertarianism and property

 The neutrality of this article or section may be compromised by weasel words.
You can help Wikipedia by improving weasel-worded statements.

Classical libertarian theory is sometimes called "right-libertarianism." It places a very strong emphasis on private property. Unrestricted capitalism and free markets are advocated by all right-libertarians, with some of them believing that property rights are the most basic rights of all, or that all genuine rights can be understood as property rights rooted in self-ownership (right-libertarians can and do differ on the notion of intellectual property). Vallentyne and other left-libertarian philosophers, on the other hand, take a more moderate - and, in their view, realistic - approach. They differ from right-libertarians on the issue that Robert Nozick calls the "original acquisition of holdings". That is the question of how property rights came about in the first place, and how property was originally acquired.

Right-libertarians hold that "wilderness" is unowned, and that unowned resources are made into property by use. This is generally referred to as homesteading. According to John Locke, when a person "mixes his labor" with a previously unowned object, it becomes his. A person who cultivates a field in the wilderness, by virtue of "mixing his personality" with the land, becomes the rightful owner of it.

Vallentyne and some other left-libertarians hold that "wilderness" is commonly owned by all the people in a given area. Since there is no predetermined distribution of land and (they argue) since there is no reason to believe that, all things being equal, some people deserve more property than others, it makes sense to think of resources as commonly owned. Thus this brand of left-libertarianism denies that first use or "mixing labor" has any bearing on ownership. As such, it argues that any theory of left-libertarianism must structure its social and legal system around enforcing this idea of common ownership.

Different proponents of this school of thought have different ideas about what can be done with property. Some believe that one must gain some kind of permission from their community in order to use resources. Others argue that people should be allowed to appropriate land in exchange for some kind of rent and they must either pay taxes on the profits made from the appropriated resources or allow the products of those resources to become common property.

Historically, the Georgists were a leftist tendency within libertarianism. They believed that all humanity rightfully owned all land in common and that individuals should pay rent to the rest of society for taking up space. People in this movement were often referred to as "single taxers," since they believed that the only legitimate tax was land rent. However, they did believe that private property could be created by applying labor to natural resources.

See also: Geolibertarianism.

[edit] See also

[edit] External links

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/e/f/Left-libertarianism.html"
In other languages