Left and Right Libertarianism

[Nydhogg]

The main difference between the libertarian right and the libertarian left is the position on corporations, the stance on unions and strikes, and the stance on the legitimacy of the current property structure.


We contend that current big corporations can only exist via state fiat and blood money, and are thus illegitimate property, like the fruits of theft. Nationalizations or collectivizations are a worse remedy than the disease, though.

Thus, we propose that the workers should turn the evil corporations into worker-owned and worker-managed co-operatives. It sounds vaguely commie, but it ain't.

You see, wealth accumulated by insider trading, State fiat or State-enforced thuggery against your competitors is not justly acquired property.

And, since the State steals from all of us a penny at a time to favor their chosen elites, it's *very* impractical (as in impossible) to return each penny to its owner.

It is common sense that thugs shouldn't be left to enjoy the fruits of their thuggery, so a pragmatist compromise is made, and the companies are turned into co-ops.


It doesn't apply to a small business, since they're not the receivers of dirty State favors. A LLC would lose that status, although it would stop paying corporate taxes for it. Instead, the LLC would insure its liabilities (at a much smaller fee) in a free market and go its merry way, effectively keeping the status quo but without the State thugs in the mix.

Regulatory agencies would be deprived from coercive power, although they would be split as independent, worker-owned certifying institutions.


If you build a house, instead of checking with the building codes, you'd build it and get it certified for safety from an independent, non-state firm. Now it gets funny: If they certify the safety of your installation, and it is not safe, THEY get sued out of their butts in your place.

Unless there was fraud on your part, or you didn't get your stuff certified at all. In that case, YOUR butt gets sued.



The State favors the ugly corporate model over other more practical and humane and simple models, like the co-op. Without the State, mutual credit would probably replace the financial industry, and mutual defense associations would replace the police and the military.


As for law courts, we could start from scratch and drop all statutes, instead developing a humanist and libertarian common law.

For most common disputes, voluntary arbitration would be the way to go (cheaper than a trial, mutually agreed rules). If no arbitration is acceptable, then the common law of the land would be a fallback.

Roads and infrastructures would be managed as common property, electing trustees for the management thereof.

Neighbors could decide the road that passes through their lands should remain free to use, and thus maintain it, or assign the maintenance to someone else in exchange for advertising deals or the permission to set up tolls.

If someone objected, they could build their own roads .


Federal lands would be open to homesteading, driving the value of land down from its current outrageous value (which is due to artificial scarcity). Natural preserves could be established if people agreed to set them, and thus declared them common property and managed them accordingly (trustees setting rules for hunting and fire prevention, you name it).


ALL the functions of the State can be replaced with voluntaryist alternatives. Instead of the pro-corporate capitalism that is frequent in Randian circles, we left-libertarians defend a free market by and for the common Joe.



I'm not sure if I'm making my point across.



The beauty is that both left-and right-libertarianism, and even anarcho-communism, can freely coexist as long as nobody is forced to take part of either .

Everyone can withdraw consent and not be forced to take part into anything, except for restitution of damages caused, there's no opt-out for that (technically there would be, but it would essentially mean outlawry and being hunted down, so it's not a wise decision to make.)




As for Konkin, he's a pan-libertarian, in the sense that the agorist model is specifically designed to let coexist the anarcho-commies and their communes and the Rothbardians and their companies .
Agorism is a strategy: Counter-economics. Counter-economics is the sum of all peaceful and voluntary economic action that is forbidden or not regulated by the State. By involving libertarians, their political goals and their ethics in the black and grey markets, the State is deprived of revenue, the "official (regulated) markets" start becoming unattractive, and the pro-freedom crowd eventually gathers enough resources to resist and eventually rollback and crush any possibility of Statist aggression.

.

 

[chrysostom]

Thus, we propose that the workers should turn the evil corporations into worker-owned and worker-managed co-operatives. It sounds vaguely commie, but it ain't.

we didn't know that

thanks

 

[Nydhogg]

Hey, it's Kevin Carson's idea! (and whatever Carson is, a commie he is not.)

"The Iron Fist behind the Invisible Hand", a good booklet on modern mutualism. He calls it "the twenty acres and a mule analogy".

 

[chrysostom]

Hey, it's Kevin Carson's idea! (and whatever Carson is, a commie he is not.)

"The Iron Fist behind the Invisible Hand", a good booklet on modern mutualism. He calls it "the twenty acres and a mule analogy".

we didn't know that

thanks

 

[Newman]

The main difference between the libertarian right and the libertarian left is the position on corporations, the stance on unions and strikes, and the stance on the legitimacy of the current property structure.

Alright, well let's see here. I guess I'm a right-libertarian, being more in line with Rothbard, Mises, and Hayek.

We contend that current big corporations can only exist via state fiat and blood money, and are thus illegitimate property, like the fruits of theft. Nationalizations or collectivizations are a worse remedy than the disease, though.

No disagreement here.

Thus, we propose that the workers should turn the evil corporations into worker-owned and worker-managed co-operatives. It sounds vaguely commie, but it ain't.

Would this be an involuntary take over of workers? Why not let the free market decide who owns the firm? Instead of arbitrarily assigning some amorphous group of workers, and instead of the state corporatism that we have now, how about letting the market find its way to an owner?

You see, wealth accumulated by insider trading, State fiat or State-enforced thuggery against your competitors is not justly acquired property.

And, since the State steals from all of us a penny at a time to favor their chosen elites, it's *very* impractical (as in impossible) to return each penny to its owner.

Agreed.

It is common sense that thugs shouldn't be left to enjoy the fruits of their thuggery, so a pragmatist compromise is made, and the companies are turned into co-ops.

Again, why not let the free market handle who owns what business?

It doesn't apply to a small business, since they're not the receivers of dirty State favors. A LLC would lose that status, although it would stop paying corporate taxes for it. Instead, the LLC would insure its liabilities (at a much smaller fee) in a free market and go its merry way, effectively keeping the status quo but without the State thugs in the mix.

Why not do this for the big corporations?

Regulatory agencies would be deprived from coercive power, although they would be split as independent, worker-owned certifying institutions.

I've been pushing this idea for a long time. I love what Consumer Reports and Underwriters Laboratories do. Free market consumer protection and information. Beautiful!

If you build a house, instead of checking with the building codes, you'd build it and get it certified for safety from an independent, non-state firm. Now it gets funny: If they certify the safety of your installation, and it is not safe, THEY get sued out of their butts in your place.

Unless there was fraud on your part, or you didn't get your stuff certified at all. In that case, YOUR butt gets sued.

I like it. No disagreement here.

The State favors the ugly corporate model over other more practical and humane and simple models, like the co-op. Without the State, mutual credit would probably replace the financial industry, and mutual defense associations would replace the police and the military.

I agree here, but my question remains. What makes the co-op a less involuntary alternative to the "ugly corporate model" in place today?

As for law courts, we could start from scratch and drop all statutes, instead developing a humanist and libertarian common law.

For most common disputes, voluntary arbitration would be the way to go (cheaper than a trial, mutually agreed rules). If no arbitration is acceptable, then the common law of the land would be a fallback.

I'd prefer a rights-based law. Violations of life, liberty, and private property, that is.

Roads and infrastructures would be managed as common property, electing trustees for the management thereof.

Neighbors could decide the road that passes through their lands should remain free to use, and thus maintain it, or assign the maintenance to someone else in exchange for advertising deals or the permission to set up tolls.

If someone objected, they could build their own roads .

How is this different from the current system? My answer would be privatization, not collective ownership.

Federal lands would be open to homesteading, driving the value of land down from its current outrageous value (which is due to artificial scarcity). Natural preserves could be established if people agreed to set them, and thus declared them common property and managed them accordingly (trustees setting rules for hunting and fire prevention, you name it).

Again, this isn't dramatically different from the current system. Couldn't some non-profit type free market firm that accepts voluntary donations be in charge of such a venture like nature preserves and parks and forests and what not?

ALL the functions of the State can be replaced with voluntaryist alternatives. Instead of the pro-corporate capitalism that is frequent in Randian circles, we left-libertarians defend a free market by and for the common Joe.

Ayn Rand deserves a completely new thread on her own, but I agree here. I don't consider myself a Randian, and I defend the free market and the "common Joe". In fact, I feel like (and please tell me if I'm wrong) I push for free markets and private property more than you have in this OP.

I'm not sure if I'm making my point across.

I think you are doing splendidly. I just need some clarification on the process and method to making co-ops and "common property".

The beauty is that both left-and right-libertarianism, and even anarcho-communism, can freely coexist as long as nobody is forced to take part of either .

Don't forget anarcho-capitalists!

I totally agree. We, being under the large libertarian umbrella, are the most tolerant, consistent, and reason-oriented of all political ideologies.

Everyone can withdraw consent and not be forced to take part into anything, except for restitution of damages caused, there's no opt-out for that (technically there would be, but it would essentially mean outlawry and being hunted down, so it's not a wise decision to make.)

I agree.

Have you read Chaos Theory by Robert Murphy? I haven't, but I think it addresses such issues. It's free on mises.org as a pdf.

As for Konkin, he's a pan-libertarian, in the sense that the agorist model is specifically designed to let coexist the anarcho-commies and their communes and the Rothbardians and their companies .
Agorism is a strategy: Counter-economics. Counter-economics is the sum of all peaceful and voluntary economic action that is forbidden or not regulated by the State. By involving libertarians, their political goals and their ethics in the black and grey markets, the State is deprived of revenue, the "official (regulated) markets" start becoming unattractive, and the pro-freedom crowd eventually gathers enough resources to resist and eventually rollback and crush any possibility of Statist aggression.

.

I like it. I'm a non-violent, non-revolutionary type, but I like the idea.


It seems we are more in line with each other than I expected, but I could be wrong. I think our differences could be explored by discussing what exactly you mean by "co-op" and "common property".

 

[Nydhogg]

If you'll excuse the IT analogy, turning the corporations into co-operatives is what we could call "an ugly Perl hack."

There's a big conundrum with the big companies. They've got a massive head-start, caused by outright State thuggery, and they should be held responsible for the thuggery.

Bear in mind that if a company could prove they had not employed State thuggery to establish their status, they'd be exempt from the "confiscation and co-op" punishment for the corporatists, and keep it a private company .

We could re-privatize them, that is, resell them to the highest bidder. It would be the clean solution.

But: To whom go the spoils? To the former owners? They're at fault, that's why they're being expropriated. Them receiving the spoils would defeat the purpose.
As a tax rebate for the next fiscal year, to every taxpayer? It *would* fix the issue, but we're abolishing the State. There are no taxes anymore, that wouldn't work.

Only two ways remain: Either we turn the workers into the owners, or we allow the clients to choose who'll manage their contracts with them.

Carson went with the workers out of feasibility and a generally pro-worker outlook, but I admit it could go either way.

Ugly Perl hacks indeed, but there's no clean C solution .

I personally like the co-operative model, because I believe self-employment to be generally preferrable to be employed by someone else. Workers managing themselves and owning the fruit of their own labor looks quite libertarian-ish. It's collective self-employment, but self-employment nonetheless. And it's an ideal transition model: If they don't want to be a co-op, they can always make an Initial Public Offering.

When you buy shares, normal caveats about Libertopian liabilities apply . Still, companies (or co-ops) can insure their liabilities and it becomes a non-issue.

I think a well managed co-operative, while being a for-profit institution, has the potential to be a less hierarchical, more transparent and democratic institution than a company.

That doesn't mean you CAN'T start a company. Of course you can, we're speaking about the Agora! :first: The only rule in the Agora is "don't screw anyone else except through honest competition".


Privatizing the roads is well and good. Still, to whom go the spoils? We're abolishing the State! Making it non-statist common property is an effective solution.

As for roads, being vital for freedom of movement, I'd favor them being open to all competent drivers. High tolls in rural areas could effectively keep a population locked there and open
them to all forms of economic abuse.

It's something like the Alaskan oil wells. The geolibertarian approach is: You get to exploit the resources, but they're a common resource, so we all want our share of the profits.

For the game preserves and natural parks, we're speaking of the same thing with different terms! "Common property" is declared by someone homesteading the property, then declaring it open to the use of all.

"The citizens of Spokane, WA" is as good a homesteader as "The Yellowstone Preservation Fund", after all . Eventually, in practice, a non-profit, free market institution would naturally control such things.

For example, I could team up with a few hunters from the Southern Washington-Northern Oregon area, claim some land and make it a game preserve. Since we'd like to keep hunting until we're too old to hold a rifle, and our kids to hunt after us, we'd run our game preserve with the goal of keeping the animal populations stable.

Assuming we're all nice libertarians, we'd divvy up the costs of running the preserve, pay each one a share, and allow new hunters (as long as it was viable for the animal populations) to hunt in the preserve as long as they followed the rules and paid their share.


For the most part, we speak of the same things.

 

[aSeattleConserv]

I'm sure that you didn't know this chrysostom, but the Anarchist Libertarian and the Humanist Libertarian (Mises was a Humanist Newman, and if you follow him, then you are too) are both talking about economic policies (in a Libertarian's world, nothing but the almighty buck is important).

When it comes to social policies they both will agree (varying in opinion to a slight extent) that man is domain over his own body, and that the laws of our nation should reflect that (would you like examples Newman?).

Regarding Libertarian economic policies: (in the words of a Christian conservative):

"Prosperity came to our nation BECAUSE of our Christian/Judeo values; we're losing prosperity BECAUSE we're rapidly straying away from those values."

 

[WizardofOz]

I'm sure that you didn't know this chrysostom, but the Anarchist Libertarian and the Humanist Libertarian (Mises was a Humanist Newman, and if you follow him, then you are too) are both talking about economic policies (in a Libertarian's world, nothing but the almighty buck is important).

False. Humanism is a sociological/philosophical study. "Following" Mises most likely means you agree with his economic theory. He's well known for his economic theory not his humanism.

You'll do anything you can to poison the well, won't you?

When it comes to social policies they both will agree (varying in opinion to a slight extent) that man is domain over his own body, and that the laws of our nation should reflect that (would you like examples Newman?).

:doh:
Wrong. Agreeing on economic principles is hardly related to agreeing on social policies.

Kind of like Ron Paul disagreeing with the Libertarian party on abortion (he's pro-life, they are pro-choice) and him still getting the Libertarian nomination!

Regarding Libertarian economic policies: (in the words of a Christian conservative):

"Prosperity came to our nation BECAUSE of our Christian/Judeo values; we're losing prosperity BECAUSE we're rapidly straying away from those values."

Christian/Judeo values have to do with social policy not economic policy. We're failing economically because of.....poor economic policy. Bush claimed to have Christian values, but his economic policies were terrible. Therefore......

You're in way over your head as usual.

 

[Nydhogg]

blah blah blah blah God's law mandates blah blah blah blah sinners should be punished by the civil magistrate blah blah blah slavery under a theocracy is actually maximum freedom blah blah blah blah blah crap, hogwash and general worthlessness... and blah blah blah blah blah blah (fascist drivel) blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

Newman and I were trying to discuss the finer details of libertarianism. Things that you, as a Christian Taliban, are by nature utterly incapable of grasping. Go pester someone else, you're only lowering the signal to noise ratio, to the point that some suspect you're unable to produce signal at all.

To have a meaningful input on this thread, a basic commitment to the general principles of freedom is a minimum requirement. I'll ignore you on this thread, annoying little worm.

 

[Newman]

the Anarchist Libertarian and the Humanist Libertarian (Mises was a Humanist Newman, and if you follow him, then you are too)

If by "follow him" you mean "have the same ideas about the way markets work", then yes, I agree, but as for humanism, I'm not a big fan. I understand the truths of Scripture to be the only Truth. I base my understanding of morality on Jesus' example and teaching. Nothing else.

are both talking about economic policies (in a Libertarian's world, nothing but the almighty buck is important).

I'm not a Libertarian, but a libertarian. Big difference. I know it's hard for you to grasp.

Actually, I reject consumerism and the idea that we can all be happier if we just had more stuff. I'm interested in economics because I know that free markets are the best way to provide for everybody's needs.

I view Matthew 25:34-40 as goal that we should reach for personally AND economically, i.e., everybody should be clothed, fed, taken care of.

When it comes to social policies they both will agree (varying in opinion to a slight extent) that man is domain over his own body, and that the laws of our nation should reflect that (would you like examples Newman?).

I'm sure I could guess what you would bring up.

My body isn't my own. I was bought with a price. I am to glorify God with everything I do. I would like the laws of our nation to not hinder my attempt to do that at all, and I know that if I let my government try to tell me what "glorifying God" means, as well as any other interpretation of Scripture, they are sure to get it wrong. I would rather be able to rely on the Holy Spirit, Scripture, prayer, the church, my Church, my family, and my friends to guide me along such a path than the government. For one, it's not the government's place to do such a thing. Two, they will most assuredly get it wrong. And three, they would enforce it in such a way that it would be a detriment to the very cause they would be trying to promote.

As for other people's behavior, it is not my place to put a gun to their head to make them stop doing what I know to be sinful. It is my place to encourage them, pray for them, be there for them, and try to pull them into a healthy church community, but not to kill, for the simple reason that Jesus did not do this nor encourage such behavior. His ministry was marked by love, kindness, and non-violence.

A government's role is no more than to protect life and property. Anything more than this is out of bounds. Anything less than this is detrimental and would impede a society.

Regarding Libertarian economic policies: (in the words of a Christian conservative):

"Prosperity came to our nation BECAUSE of our Christian/Judeo values; we're losing prosperity BECAUSE we're rapidly straying away from those values."

I'm not sure what this Christian conservative economist was shooting for, as a few different interpretations could be made for this one quote.

I don't buy into the prosperity (false) gospel. So if the quote is saying anything along the lines that God gave us prosperity because of our actions or whatever, then I disagree.

If the quote is saying that we are prosperous because most of our politicians are Christian, then I vehemently disagree. Nothing is more unChristian than the actions committed by the average politician.

If, however, the quote is saying that since individuals in our nation generally followed the Truths set out in Scripture and that good economic times came about because of the common respect for life, charity, and private property, then I agree.

Anyways, that's what I think. Thanks for not being so rude this time around. I enjoy discussing this stuff.

 

[Nydhogg]

A better spokesman for libertarianism than I am said: Libertarianism is the radical notion that you don't own other people.


As a side note, Newman, I'm still waiting for a reply on the co-ops thing .

 

[Newman]

If you'll excuse the IT analogy, turning the corporations into co-operatives is what we could call "an ugly Perl hack."

I don't know what that is. So I guess I will excuse the IT analogy. :ha:

There's a big conundrum with the big companies. They've got a massive head-start, caused by outright State thuggery, and they should be held responsible for the thuggery.

Bear in mind that if a company could prove they had not employed State thuggery to establish their status, they'd be exempt from the "confiscation and co-op" punishment for the corporatists, and keep it a private company .

We could re-privatize them, that is, resell them to the highest bidder. It would be the clean solution.

But: To whom go the spoils? To the former owners? They're at fault, that's why they're being expropriated. Them receiving the spoils would defeat the purpose.
As a tax rebate for the next fiscal year, to every taxpayer? It *would* fix the issue, but we're abolishing the State. There are no taxes anymore, that wouldn't work.

If they only thrive because of the State support (either through direct corporatist-type funding or through lobbying or through favoritism or through benefits) then they will either downsize to their "oughttabe" size or disappear altogether. If the market/consumers aren't demanding the products or services offered by the big, evil corporation, and it loses it's state lifeline, then we shouldn't want it around even if it IS owned by the workers in a co-op scenario. It should succumb to the punishment it deserves from the free market, not get further help to stay alive.

Only two ways remain: Either we turn the workers into the owners, or we allow the clients to choose who'll manage their contracts with them.

Carson went with the workers out of feasibility and a generally pro-worker outlook, but I admit it could go either way.

I guess with those two options, I'd go with the clients making decisions about what happens to the company over the workers. But I still prefer the judgement/wrath of the free market over both of those options.

Ugly Perl hacks indeed, but there's no clean C solution .

I personally like the co-operative model, because I believe self-employment to be generally preferrable to be employed by someone else. Workers managing themselves and owning the fruit of their own labor looks quite libertarian-ish. It's collective self-employment, but self-employment nonetheless. And it's an ideal transition model: If they don't want to be a co-op, they can always make an Initial Public Offering.

I do too. Publix groceries has some worker-owner system that seems to work well. I think Chik-fil-a does too, but I may be making that up.

When you buy shares, normal caveats about Libertopian liabilities apply . Still, companies (or co-ops) can insure their liabilities and it becomes a non-issue.

I think a well managed co-operative, while being a for-profit institution, has the potential to be a less hierarchical, more transparent and democratic institution than a company.

I mean, sure. But it should only become that way through a voluntary transaction of ownership, not an arbitrary, involuntary directive to favor the workers.

That doesn't mean you CAN'T start a company. Of course you can, we're speaking about the Agora! :first: The only rule in the Agora is "don't screw anyone else except through honest competition".

:up:

Privatizing the roads is well and good. Still, to whom go the spoils? We're abolishing the State! Making it non-statist common property is an effective solution.

As for roads, being vital for freedom of movement, I'd favor them being open to all competent drivers. High tolls in rural areas could effectively keep a population locked there and open
them to all forms of economic abuse.

Common property always diminishes in value because there is no incentive for each individual to do maintenance. If you set up some sort of system in which "electing trustees for the management thereof" is how you maintain the roads, well, then you've put in place the same exact system that we have now. Common property with democratically elected managers.

Road monopolies would fail just like any other monopoly. As soon as it starts charging too much, not only does it lose business, but it would make way for a new company to build a parallel road and charge a lower price.

It's something like the Alaskan oil wells. The geolibertarian approach is: You get to exploit the resources, but they're a common resource, so we all want our share of the profits.

I prefer the homesteading approach. AKA the "first use - first own" approach. Common resources will be, as you said, exploited. In private hands, it's carefully distributed to the places where it is in highest demand by prices.

For the game preserves and natural parks, we're speaking of the same thing with different terms! "Common property" is declared by someone homesteading the property, then declaring it open to the use of all.

"The citizens of Spokane, WA" is as good a homesteader as "The Yellowstone Preservation Fund", after all . Eventually, in practice, a non-profit, free market institution would naturally control such things.

For example, I could team up with a few hunters from the Southern Washington-Northern Oregon area, claim some land and make it a game preserve. Since we'd like to keep hunting until we're too old to hold a rifle, and our kids to hunt after us, we'd run our game preserve with the goal of keeping the animal populations stable.

Deal.

Assuming we're all nice libertarians, we'd divvy up the costs of running the preserve, pay each one a share, and allow new hunters (as long as it was viable for the animal populations) to hunt in the preserve as long as they followed the rules and paid their share.

As long as it's all voluntary, then it's fine with me, but I still prefer private property approaches to common property approaches.

For the most part, we speak of the same things.

So it seems. :up:

 

[Nick M]

The main difference between the libertarian right

There is no such thing. The political scale goes from right(eous) to left, depending on how much evil you tolerate. The punishment for stealing is less than that of murder. The more you tolerate, the more liberal you are.

 

[Newman]

There is no such thing. The political scale goes from right(eous) to left, depending on how much evil you tolerate. The punishment for stealing is less than that of murder. The more you tolerate, the more liberal you are.

What about issues like Wikileaks? TSA scanners and pat-downs? The propensity to go to war? The Federal Reserve? The Food and Drug Administration? The Department of Education? Transportation?

These do not have a left/right line in the middle of them. One stance is not inherently left and the other inherently right. These separate the liberty-minded folk from the statist/fascist/socialist/authoritarian folk.

The spectrum is more than a line -- it's a plane.

 

[Newman]

bump for NickM

 

[Nydhogg]

You raise very good points, Newman.

I'm firmly geolibertarian on non-renewable natural resources (other than land): I think they belong to everyone, and that those who exploit them should give a kickback to the community in return. Yeah, I do favor common property approaches to certain problems, especially as a transition from statism to a full-blown Agora, but, on everything else, we're on the same page.

Aside from that, we're on the same page on everything else.


When I mentioned a libertarian and humanistic common law, it's obviously a rights-based law, on which no voluntary interaction is forbidden, limiting itself to protect individuals from aggression. It has to be a common law by neccessity: If we're abolishing the State, we won't have a legislature .