New at Reason

Tim Cavanaugh | January 20, 2005

Do hypothetical hairy people have a duty to weave for hypothetical bald people? Tom G. Palmer reviews Michael Otsuka's Libertarianism Without Inequality.

Comments

|1.20.05 @ 4:44PM|#

I guess I would call myself a practicle libertarian. I like the idea of freedom, but see the need to change the system from within, and slowly.

WSDave

|1.20.05 @ 4:54PM|#

Be careful with stones and glass houses. If you dig too deeply into "left libertarianism" you may start to chip at the foundation that supports "right libertarianism" too.

|1.20.05 @ 4:58PM|#

Since "left libertarianism" is little more than window dressing for the redistribution that is anathema to real libertarianism, I'm not too worried, R.

|1.20.05 @ 5:13PM|#

I suppose I'll call myself a Capitalist, then.

|1.20.05 @ 5:16PM|#

I'll just shun labels altogether!

|1.20.05 @ 5:20PM|#

Depends on what you mean by left-libertarianism. As I recall from reading this review in the print edition, Otsuka's ideas differ substantially from my own self-described left-libertarianism.

My version of left-libertarianism is basically a matter of how we prioritize genuinely libertarian goals. Since in the real world we will not see the state disintegrate overnight, we have to ask which issues are most important. The way I prioritize is different from how the more conservative libertarians prioritize, but I share the same basic goals.

While I certainly don't object to repealing gun control laws so that we can defend ourselves, I give greater priority to ending the prohibitionist policies that fuel a lot of street violence. While I certainly don't object to deregulation (well, genuine deregulation, not the arcane legislation that sometimes gets slapped with that label) I'm more interested in ending farm subsidies and other forms of corporate welfare. While I certainly don't object to tax cuts, I'm more interested in cutting payroll taxes and flattening the income tax (to reduce efficiency-killing economic micromanagement via the tax code) than in cutting income taxes in the highest bracket.

And so forth. I don't object to any of the right-leaning libertarians' goals (except maybe on issues where even a lot of libertarians disagree), I just have different priorities.

It sounds like Otsuka's goals are substantially different from mine. Let's not let him tarnish the good name of the left-libertarians.

|1.20.05 @ 5:29PM|#

Thoreau,

I had always thought left-libertarianism was exactly what you just described. That's the only definition that makes any sense.

|1.20.05 @ 5:36PM|#

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/libertarianism/

in addition to the better-known version of libertarianism -- right-libertarianism -- there is also a version known as "left-libertarianism." Both endorse full self-ownership, but they differ with respect to the powers agents have to appropriate unappropriated natural resources (land, air, water, etc.). Right-libertarianism holds that typically such resources may be appropriated by the first person who discovers them, mixes her labor with them, or merely claims them -- without the consent of others, and with little or no payment to them. Left-libertarianism, by contrast, holds that unappropriated natural resources belong to everyone in some egalitarian manner. It can, for example, require those who claim rights over natural resources to make a payment to others for the value of those rights. This can provide the basis for a kind of egalitarian redistribution.

Larry A|1.20.05 @ 5:40PM|#

Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from the highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort. Robert Heinlein

OTOH anyone who posits a "non-consensual" uber-government is grossly abusing any label derived from the word "liberty." He's also historically illiterate if he believes such a government will provide for or even concern itself with the desires of any individual.

|1.20.05 @ 5:56PM|#

Rikurzhen-

I admit that I might have some philosophical sympathy for some of those notions regarding natural resources. However, I have some serious practical concerns that generally lead me to endorse the more right-libertarian stance (but perhaps with a more lefty implementation).

To wit, I remember reading in The Economist that in Mexico fossil fuels are deemed a public resource, but the inefficiency of the state-run enterprises means that they aren't able to tap those resources very efficiently. So while egalitarian ownership of nature sounds nice, it just doesn't seem to work.

|1.20.05 @ 5:58PM|#

The other thing that crops up under the label of 'left libertarianism' is the Land Tax (tm) gang. If you thought the Ayn Rand crowd was cultish, they have nothing on the Georgists.

It takes a special way of looking at the world to decide that the best description of my ideology is "feudal fetishism". Somehow, it happens every time I get into a discussion with a Georgist, though.

|1.20.05 @ 6:04PM|#

p.s. I'm not a left-libertarian

I find that poking holes in left-libertarianism has a tendency to reveal problems with right-libertarianism as well.

No political philosophy is perfect. So it's actually a worthwhile exercise.

|1.20.05 @ 6:10PM|#

No political philosophy is perfect.

Don't you realize that libertarianism is perfect?

We have found a heretic! May we burn him?

All we have to do now is verify that Rikurzhen weighs as much as a duck :-)


P.S. Is your screen name taken from the mathematical term "recursion"?

|1.20.05 @ 6:14PM|#

I object most to the government that intrudes on fundamental rights in fundamental ways - the right of self defence is completely non negotiable to me, for example, but if I am comfortable with that the fundamentals are secured to certain critical levels, I really become a consequentialist.

I object to economic policy that harms growth. Period. The economic stuff matters so much to me because the choice to inhibit growth is absolutely ghastly in opportunity cost. People starve when they don't have to, they die of diseases they didn't have to die of, they suffer, and, worst of all, they are forced to subsidize the mechanism of their misery through the tax code. Opportunity cost is the least appreciated important idea in the world.

|1.20.05 @ 6:16PM|#

Opportunity cost is the least appreciated important idea in the world.

Amen!

|1.20.05 @ 6:23PM|#

Is your screen name taken from the mathematical term "recursion"? yup

|1.20.05 @ 7:44PM|#

It is rarely understood that the 'right' libertarian property law structure is the MOST compatibile system with 'leftist' moral goals. Which system properly utilizes opportunity costs and consequently helps most people lead better lives? Capitalism. The Chomskyesque definition for left libertarian is to remove the concept of property rights altogether. They fail to realize that this gigantic power void will come to be filled by the most vile and capricious rulers.

|1.20.05 @ 7:45PM|#

Rikurzhen,

Now that we know that rikurzhen comes from recursion, is there a deep meaning behind it? Math people like myself want to know!

|1.20.05 @ 7:49PM|#

Chomskyism is not any form of libertarianism at all. He should be shot for calling himself a libertarian. He's also as much of a liar as any pol I can remember. The man is evil incarnate, but he does look and act like a nice old guy. He reminds me of Saddam--another evil man that seems like a nice guy at first glance.

|1.20.05 @ 7:55PM|#

Count me in thoreau's definition of a left libertarian as well. I think you will often find disagreements between libertarians (left and right) regarding environmental concerns. If you and I are on the same river and you pollute it, who pays? Does your right to use the river override my right of clean water from the river? Though this may fall under thoreau's broad "except maybe on issues where even a lot of libertarians disagree" exception.

Opportunity cost is the least appreciated important idea in the world
I disagree, the least appreciated important idea in the world is sunk costs. Politically, economically, etc. people just don't seem to appreciate the concept.

Opportunity costs are a close second though. Naw, they're both pretty fricken important, I just like being contrarian. :)

|1.20.05 @ 8:24PM|#

First, I want to apologize for saying that Chomsky should be shot. That was bad form.

Second, I dislike left and right labels for any libertarians. The cores of The Left and The Right are enemies of human freedom. I prefer the label moderate libertarian, which is similar to rational libertarian.

Third, I'm not so sure the environmentalism is really left libertarian. If you shit in a stream and it floats into a righty's pond, he'll be very pissed-off. I think that the concept of property rights implies some form of environmental protection. Basically, one is not allowed to use one's property in any way that harms the property of others. I'm probably biased, though, since were I a billionaire, I'd buy up as much of the remaining old-growth forests that I could afford so that I could protect them.

|1.20.05 @ 8:25PM|#

Which one of you cockroaches wants to draw the Mason-Dixon of right-left for us anarchists?

|1.20.05 @ 8:32PM|#

Ruthless,

Isn't anarchism just that? I've never been able to understand the meaning of either left or right anarchism. Both concepts seem oxymoronic.

|1.20.05 @ 9:55PM|#

Real,
Exactly!
Are we anarchists good at "framing," or what?

|1.20.05 @ 11:01PM|#

The Real Bill: Pavel is right that it is the pro-capitalist use of "libertarian" that is relatively new. I discuss this in some detail at http://groups-beta.google.com/group/soc.history.what-if/msg/e3cf4ffbbe02ebe2

All this of course has nothing to do with the *merits* of libertarianism as the term is used by free-market advocates in the US today. It is merely to say that they have no right to be indignant about the "misuse" of the word by left-wingers who in fact have a better historical claim to it.

|1.21.05 @ 6:21AM|#

David:

If the Euro-anarchists want "libertarian" back so bad, can we have "liberal" back from the social democrats?

And, in the spirit of SHWI, I'd like to send Chomsky into whatever parallel universe is run according to his policy prescriptions. That wouldn't be cruel and unusual, would it?

Kevin

|1.21.05 @ 9:18AM|#

Let's just call it "compassionate libertarianism" and then we can mock it like we mock "compassionate conservatism". The mockees won't mind because they're all compassionate an' shit.

drf|1.21.05 @ 11:03AM|#

a little late, but somewhat on topic:

does this mean that there will be a subsidy on mehair?

|1.21.05 @ 11:16AM|#

Rikhurzen and others,

Regarding the dictionary definition of "left-libertarianism", would the Alaska Permanent Fund be a textbook example of a natural-resource-exploitation payment to a group at large? From what I've read of the Permanent Fund, it's a perfect storm of good luck and low corruptability, and firmly entrenched in the electorate.

And it contrasts well with the social approach of Norway, the kleptocratic approach of the middle east, and the undercapitalized approach of Mexico.

|1.21.05 @ 10:19PM|#

Kevrob "If the Euro-anarchists want 'libertarian' back so bad, can we have 'liberal' back from the social democrats?'

Wouldn't object to that at all. In much of Europe, the word liberalism is still used to mean pro-free-market.