Ask A LEFT-Libertarian Anything (1 Viewer)

[Geoist]

Inspired by @SkyChief 's thread where he responds to questions pertaining to his American right-libertarian beliefs, I thought it may be a good idea to have a thread dedicated to left-libertarianism (aka the OG of libertarianism). People often seem confused about what is meant by left-libertarianism, libertarian-socialism, etc. I'll be happy to try and address all questions on the ideology but to all my fellow left-libertarians out there (e.g. @Nomad4Ever , @Questerr ) feel free to jump in, if you wish.

Jumping off point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism

 

[Caiman]

left-libertarianism, libertarian-socialism

Those seem a lot like an Atheist Christian or a Rib-eating Vegan.

 

[Irredentist]

Inspired by @SkyChief 's thread where he responds to questions pertaining to his American right-libertarian beliefs, I thought it may be a good idea to have a thread dedicated to left-libertarianism (aka the OG of libertarianism). People often seem confused about what is meant by left-libertarianism, libertarian-socialism, etc. I'll be happy to try and address all questions on the ideology but to all my fellow left-libertarians out there (e.g. @Nomad4Ever , @Questerr ) feel free to jump in, if you wish.

Jumping off point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism

Can you explain to me what exactly is meant by "collective ownership of natural resources"? I understand that this is an important component of left-libertarian philosophy, but I am unclear how this would work in practice.

 

[Geoist]

Those seem a lot like an Atheist Christian or a Rib-eating Vegan.

Then I suggest researching the history of libertarianism.

Libertarianism originated as a form of left-wing politics such as anti-authoritarian and anti-state socialists like anarchists,[10] especially social anarchists,[11] but more generally libertarian communists/Marxists and libertarian socialists.[12][13] These libertarians sought to abolish capitalism and private ownership of the means of production, or else to restrict their purview or effects to usufruct property norms, in favor of common or cooperative ownership and management, viewing private property as a barrier to freedom and liberty.[18] While all libertarians support some level of individual rights, left-libertarians differ by supporting an egalitarian redistribution of natural resources.[19] Left-libertarian[25] ideologies include anarchist schools of thought, alongside many other anti-paternalist and New Left schools of thought centered around economic egalitarianism as well as geolibertarianism, green politics, market-oriented left-libertarianism and the Steiner–Vallentyne school.[29] Around the turn of the 21st century, libertarian socialism grew in popularity and influence as part of the anti-war, anti-capitalist and anti-globalisation movements.[30]

Libertarianism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Questerr]

Before people jump in, some basic definitions of what Left Libertarianism is and is not.

Left Libertarianism is:
-The original form of libertarianism
-Socialist
-Anarchist
-Democratic
-Non-hierarchal
-Anti-statist

Left Libertarianism is not:
-Related to the Libertarian Party
-Capitalist
-Anti-government
-Marxist

 

[Questerr]

Can you explain to me what exactly is meant by "collective ownership of natural resources"? I understand that this is an important component of left-libertarian philosophy, but I am unclear how this would work in practice.

The same way it works now. We have lots of communally owned natural resources. We use government to determine who gets to use them and how.

Left Libertarians want that government to be democratic and non-hierarchal.

 

[samiam5211]

non coercion doesn't work when you are dealing with a significant group of people.

 

[Questerr]

non coercion doesn't work when you are dealing with a significant group of people.

Explain this.

 

[samiam5211]

Explain this.

I don't think it needs explaining.

 

[Questerr]

I don't think it needs explaining.

It does. Do you mean “it’s impossible to have significant groups of people without them coercing each other” or “it’s impossible to have a society with a significant group of people unless those people are coerced into being part of it”?

 

[samiam5211]

It does. Do you mean “it’s impossible to have significant groups of people without them coercing each other” or “it’s impossible to have a society with a significant group of people unless those people are coerced into being part of it”?

It is impossible to have a society without some level of coercion.

 

[americanwoman]

Before people jump in, some basic definitions of what Left Libertarianism is and is not.

Left Libertarianism is:
-The original form of libertarianism
-Socialist
-Anarchist
-Democratic
-Non-hierarchal
-Anti-statist

How do you balance your beliefs in anarchism and democracy?

 

[Questerr]

It is impossible to have a society without some level of coercion.

Demonstrate that claim.

 

[The Stars Tremble]

Inspired by @SkyChief 's thread where he responds to questions pertaining to his American right-libertarian beliefs, I thought it may be a good idea to have a thread dedicated to left-libertarianism (aka the OG of libertarianism). People often seem confused about what is meant by left-libertarianism, libertarian-socialism, etc. I'll be happy to try and address all questions on the ideology but to all my fellow left-libertarians out there (e.g. @Nomad4Ever , @Questerr ) feel free to jump in, if you wish.

Jumping off point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism

Okay. First up, do you support democratic decision making at any level?

Possibly related, do you think "government" should always be so small scale, that consensus or super-majority is a viable way of making collective decisions?

 

[samiam5211]

Demonstrate that claim.

That is the part that i said I don't think needs explaining.

I'm not going to explain it.

 

[Questerr]

How do you balance your beliefs in anarchism and democracy?

They don’t need “balancing”. They are complementary. Anarchism is opposition to “rulers”, aka unjustified hierarchies. Democracy is how you prevent them.

 

[Geoist]

Can you explain to me what exactly is meant by "collective ownership of natural resources"? I understand that this is an important component of left-libertarian philosophy, but I am unclear how this would work in practice.

I approach the land/natural resource issue from a geoist/georgist perspective: since land was created by no one and everyone needs it to survive and prosper then logically the typical rules of property/possessions should not apply in society.

Imagine if I was Robinson Crusoe and I staked claim of property over the uninhabited island I washed up on. Then another person washes up a week later. Do I have a right to kick him back out to sea or make him my slave? Of course not. He has as much right to access the land as I do. But does he have a right to the spear I sharpened for hunting? Not so much, imo.

Of course, that is an extreme example, but I think it helps drive home the point about property. How should society as a whole deal with the issue? In my ideal society, there may still be privately-held land, but the landholder would pay a ground rent to the community for their right to do so. Mining and fossil fuel companies would pay an extraction fee to the community. This money would be either used by the elected government for programs and infrastructure, or returned directly to the citizens as a dividend. Alaska currently does this with the lands they lease out for oil companies.

Other left-libertarians may have other ideas for collective ownership of natural resources, but that is my general ideal.

 

[The Stars Tremble]

It is impossible to have a society without some level of coercion.

The smallest unit of society is two people. Is it inconceivable that two people with plenty of natural resources, could co-exist without coercion?

 

[Questerr]

That is the part that i said I don't think needs explaining.

I'm not going to explain it.

Yeah, you don’t get to just claim fiat. You have to actually demonstrate your claim.

Would you agree that if I show a society free of coercion that it would prove you wrong?

 

[samiam5211]

The smallest unit of society is two people. Is it inconceivable that two people with plenty of natural resources, could co-exist without coercion?

That is why my first post on this said with a "significant group of people"

 

[The Stars Tremble]

They don’t need “balancing”. They are complementary. Anarchism is opposition to “rulers”, aka unjustified hierarchies. Democracy is how you prevent them.

You've just stuck "unjustified" in there to reach your conclusion. It just begs the question of where "justification" comes from.

 

[samiam5211]

Yeah, you don’t get to just claim fiat. You have to actually demonstrate your claim.

Would you agree that if I show a society free of coercion that it would prove you wrong?

No.

Are you going to show me a society of a few dozen people?

No one cares about that.

Show me a society with a million people that is free of coercion.

 

[The Stars Tremble]

That is why my first post on this said with a "significant group of people"

Coercion emerges with the concept of majority rule. IE at 3 people.

 

[samiam5211]

Coercion emerges with the concept of majority rule. IE at 3 people.

Which is why libertarianism has no practical use in reality.

The noncoercion principle is the foundation of libertarianism, and if falls apart really quickly.

 

[Questerr]

Okay. First up, do you support democratic decision making at any level?

Possibly related, do you think "government" should always be so small scale, that consensus or super-majority is a viable way of making collective decisions?

Answering for myself:

1. Yes. All decision making should be as democratic as possible.

2. Scale is something that should be determined by the size of the community. You could have an anarchist urban commune with millions of people in it. But for something like a nation, what you would have in an anarchist model is a federation of communities electing representatives to the federation governing body.

The key thing though would be that under anarchism, those representatives would’ve absolutely beholden to their constituents. Unlike Congress where representatives can vote in ways their constituents don’t support and there isn’t much that can be done about it until the next election, representatives in an anarchist system would be able to be immediately overruled by their constituents or even immediately removed and replaced if they felt they no longer had confidence in them.