Basic question about being a "left libertarian"

[Geoist]

Just so I am clear, you offered the below list (from some other thread) with no evidence or reasoning. I reject that and I have to come up with the evidence and reasoning that you never offered?

Prehistoric communities
Hunter-gatherer societies
The Pythagorean community
Modern communes like Twin Oaks
Early Christians
Revolutionary Catalonia
Rojava

These are communities that left-libertarians, scholars/academics agree are variations of left-libertarian societies. Perhaps instead of making a blanket statement "NUH UH!" you can provide an example of why one or all of these examples don't fit the definition.

 

[Geoist]

When we see humans in that 'natural stateless state' we also see double-digit infant mortality rates and adult lives that are nasty, brutish, and short.

No thanks. I'll take modern dentistry and 14 brands of sugary breakfast cereal in Aisle 5, please.

Yes, when you lack technology life is pretty short. But that is a different argument from the one the other poster was making.

Being anti-state does not mean being anti-science/technology. I'm sure you, a conservative, don't want to make the argument the state is necessary to advance technology/science.

 

[NatMorton]

Our current property taxes target improvements such as homes and other buildings. LVT taxes the value of the land minus the improvements.

Ah, so your usage fee would reduce municipal income. Interesting approach.

 

[NatMorton]

Imagine starting a traditional business in a co-op friendly society and telling a potential employee they don't get to share ownership, get no voting rights, have no say in work environment, etc.

Yes, but they do get a guaranteed income for their labor rather than working on contingency.

There is absolutely nothing stopping the labor market from becoming “co-op friendly” today except for the very important fact that employees aren’t choosing coops.

In other words, the market isn’t co-opt friendly because most workers don’t want them (or are at least are different).

 

[NatMorton]

Yes, when you lack technology life is pretty short. But that is a different argument from the one the other poster was making.

Being anti-state does not mean being anti-science/technology. I'm sure you, a conservative, don't want to make the argument the state is necessary to advance technology/science.

Being anti state and ant business means no tech, and no medicine, and no surgery, and Good Lord no NFL.

 

[NatMorton]

Why would they need to scale? Left-anarchism is inherently decentralized.

You're all over the map here. In post 196 you criticized the traditional model for supposedly not being able to scale ("You can still try and run a traditional-style business but it may be difficult to scale up in a co-op-friendly society.") Here you're saying an inability to scale is not a problem.

What you're not considering is that traditionally structured companies can scale and when they do they out compete decentralized co-ops because those larger companies with their scale produce superior products and services for less cost.

We have a largely free market today. Nothing is stopping co-ops from forming. If co-ops were a better model, we'd see it by now. We don't. They're niche players, at best.

 

[NatMorton]

Okay, after a couple of hundred posts, here are my thoughts on "left libertarianism." I will stipulate I'm basing these off just a Wiki entry and the words of several commenters here, and those commenters may not be representative of the entire tribe. That said, here's my take:

• Left libertarianism isn't real. I mean this in the sense of being a practical political/economic model that has a meaningful track-record that can be evaluated. It's little more than a thought exercise with a few fringy, cult-like examples. It is idle musing that exists for the purpose of recreation; in that way it's akin to Star Trek's "United Federation of Planets."
  
  
• The name constitutes deceptive branding. The word "libertarian" is hijacked to convey some sense of freedom or liberty, but since the ideas are in no way practical it only ever come about through authoritarianism. Its supporters don't seem to want to go there, though, and that's good.
  
  
• I think a better term for this model is "al a carte Marxism." It's the workers' paradise sans the revolution required to bring it about and without the concentration camps. Perhaps another fair label would be "Neutered Marxism." I'd accept either.
  
  
• Ultimately it is a jumble of contradictions. Its supporters here have asserted that businesses in this model can be built and maintained without amassing capital. Or that co-op models are clearly "better" when there isn't the slightest evidence workers would prefer to be paid on contingency rather than directly for their labor. All of the ideas seem devoid of even the slightest inkling of how wealth (value) is created. There's no real consideration given to how a business, or society as a whole, get from A to B. B suddenly appears and all is well. It's all jargon and pixie dust.

Final verdict (at least for now): left libertarianism is a silly set of neo-Marxist ideals, but most harmless.

 

[Geoist]

• The name constitutes deceptive branding. The word "libertarian" is hijacked to convey some sense of freedom or liberty, but since the ideas are in no way practical it only ever come about through authoritarianism. Its supporters don't seem to want to go there, though, and that's good.

The term was hijacked by American right-wingers. Libertarian originally referred to the anti-state leftists in Europe.

 

[Geoist]

You're all over the map here. In post 196 you criticized the traditional model for supposedly not being able to scale ("You can still try and run a traditional-style business but it may be difficult to scale up in a co-op-friendly society.") Here you're saying an inability to scale is not a problem.

What you're not considering is that traditionally structured companies can scale and when they do they out compete decentralized co-ops because those larger companies with their scale produce superior products and services for less cost.

We have a largely free market today. Nothing is stopping co-ops from forming. If co-ops were a better model, we'd see it by now. We don't. They're niche players, at best.

How can they out-compete the co-ops when any worker with a brain would prefer to work in the co-op? Why would an employee willingly sacrifice their power/say in their co-op to work under a company where they have little-to-no say? You can't outcompete without the workers.

 

[NatMorton]

The term was hijacked by American right-wingers. Libertarian originally referred to the anti-state leftists in Europe.

We can quibble all you like on that point, but LL views as expressed here seem to come down to limiting human behaviors to those thought to be"right" or "better." I think this doctrine values an imposed order more than individual liberty, and you'll never get the behaviors you seek unless at the point of a gun.

 

[Geoist]

Being anti state and ant business means no tech, and no medicine, and no surgery, and Good Lord no NFL.

Who said anything about being 'anti-business?' Co-ops are businesses.

 

[NatMorton]

How can they out-compete the co-ops when any worker with a brain would prefer to work in the co-op? Why would an employee willingly sacrifice their power/say in their co-op to work under a company where they have little-to-no say? You can't outcompete without the workers.

I am a worker, and in most cases I would prefer not to work on a contingency basis. Why do you think I would prefer otherwise?

 

[NatMorton]

Who said anything about being 'anti-business?' Co-ops are businesses.

You are anti-non-co-op business. Other LLs here are clearly anti-business.

 

[Geoist]

We can quibble all you like on that point, but LL views as expressed here seem to come down to limiting human behaviors to those thought to be"right" or "better." I think this doctrine values an imposed order more than individual liberty, and you'll never get the behaviors you seek unless at the point of a gun.

It's not a 'quibble' it's a fact. You stated something that was clearly false and I am correcting it.

Look at communes and hunter-gatherer societies and tell me those people are living at the point of a gun.

 

[Geoist]

I am a worker, and in most cases I would prefer not to work on a contingency basis. Why do you think I would prefer otherwise?

People work their best when they feel invested in the business. I just don't see how people would willingly give up their powers in a business once they have them. It's like democracy. Once you have it most people don't want to go back to authoritarianism.

 

[NatMorton]

It's not a 'quibble' it's a fact. You stated something that was clearly false and I am correctly it.

Once again, look at communes and hunter-gatherer societies and tell me those people are living at the point of a gun.

No, it's an opinion.

An no, hunter gatherer societies do not live at the point of a gun. They live at the point of flit-tipped spear because they lack the means to produce anything more technologically advanced.

I'm beginning to think "Libertarian Luddites" would be the better term.

 

[NatMorton]

People work their best when they feel invested in the business.

^^^ Dogma.

They work the best when they believe their work has meaning and when they believe they are fairly compensated. That compensation need not be in the form of ownership stock.

 

[NatMorton]

People work their best when they feel invested in the business. I just don't see how people would willingly give up their powers in a business once they have them. It's like democracy. Once you have it most people don't want to go back to authoritarianism.

I see where you're going wrong now. An employer-employee relationship in a modern, western economy is not an exercise in authoritarianism. It's a contract between two parties.

 

[Geoist]

No, it's an opinion.

It is not an opinion, it's a verifiable fact. You understand the difference, don't you?

An no, hunter gatherer societies do not live at the point of a gun. They live at the point of flit-tipped spear because they lack the means to produce anything more technologically advanced.

Hunter-gatherer societies are typically democratic and communist. They share and more-or-less live on equal footing. They don't do it because some authoritarian ordered it.

I'm beginning to think "Libertarian Luddites" would be the better term.

Except most left libertarians do not oppose technology. They want business, inventions, and progress. They believe people are most creative and productive when they feel personally invested into the business and do what they are passionate about.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

^^^ Dogma.

They work the best when they believe their work has meaning and when they believe they are fairly compensated. That compensation need not be in the form of ownership stock.

What does any of THAT have to do with our current crony capitalist society? There are employee shortages right now because workers feel they are treated like garbage.

 

[Geoist]

^^^ Dogma.

They work the best when they believe their work has meaning and when they believe they are fairly compensated. That compensation need not be in the form of ownership stock.

You would have to be nuts to believe most workers in the capitalist system think their work has meaning or that they are fairly compensated.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

I see where you're going wrong now. An employer-employee relationship in a modern, western economy is not an exercise in authoritarianism. It's a contract between two parties.

Not when modern corp American adopts similiar standards that become SOP in terms of “best practices”. These “best practices” all tend to follow the same path of reducing employee value while demanding more production. Reducing benefits. Employees are certainly free to leave but when most corporations have a soft collusion about these things, functionally it does become an authoritarian relationship.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

Over the last decade, for example, it has become “best practice” to consolidate internal corp services departments - i.e. the human being infrastructure of Operations, Administration, Human Resources, etc - into smaller and smaller combined units that poorly service all areas whereas previous there were departments dedicated to getting it right.

 

[Geoist]

I see where you're going wrong now. An employer-employee relationship in a modern, western economy is not an exercise in authoritarianism. It's a contract between two parties.

As much as feudalism is a contract between peasants and a lord.

If you got shipwrecked on Robinson Crusoe's island and he says you must agree to be his slave to receive his coconuts I don't care if the contract is in blood, that is not freedom.

 

[NatMorton]

It is not an opinion, it's a verifiable fact. You understand the difference, don't you?



Hunter-gatherer societies are typically democratic and communist. They share and more-or-less live on equal footing. They don't do it because some authoritarian ordered it.



Except most left libertarians do not oppose technology. They want business, inventions, and progress. They believe people are most creative and productive when they feel personally invested into the business and do what they are passionate about.

I understand you're confusing opinion with fact.

Hunter-gatherer societies are typically what the physically strongest members of the tribe wish them to be. If they ever are democracies they're not that for very long.

LL's may not oppose technology, but they seem to oppose virtually every aspect of modern society that makes technology possible. As I said above, you seem to think this stuff just appears and is not the result of some very important economic and political processes. We're back to pixie dust making it happen.