Basic question about being a "left libertarian"

[NatMorton]

Well, at the end of the day the solutions are as many as the people in the world, that's why we have ideologies: To agree on a direction. Liberal is one such direction. Conservatism another.

I agree there are different views, and right and left libertarianism are examples of very different views despite the similar sounding names.

 

[Juks]

I agree there are different views, and right and left libertarianism are examples of very different views despite the similar sounding names.

The reason that you perceive it in this way is beacuse tthose that call themselves Libertian arre influenced by the conservative ideology and therefor further away from the left liberals than a right liberal would be.

Liberalism is a political tradition where the central issue is always about the conditions for the individual to shape his or her own life - and in free interaction with others. The liberal ideology advocate openness, tolerance and democracy, value freedom and justice highly, and are critical of state powers. Liberals emphasize that the individual should be protected from concentrations of power in society, such as the state, and that society must be organized in a fair way that recognizes the equal value of every individual.

Liberalism's close relationship with democracy means that ideology is often associated with certain particularly distinctive freedoms and rights. These include freedom of expression, religion and organization, as well as universal and equal suffrage, human rights and property rights. Liberals also value the rule of law highly, which means, among other things, that they believe in the rule of law and the presumption of innocence. A free market economy is important.

Left-liberalism (or socialliberalism) is a vague term that has been used from time to time in the political debate in recent decades. Usually it refers to liberals that emphesize on equal education opportunities and wants a very basic form of society support. Classical liberalism is based on a negative definition of freedom (i.e. that freedom is achieved when there is no prohibition or coercion), while left liberalism also contains a positive definition of freedom. There, freedom also means being able to achieve one's own goals, regardless of material limitations. Social liberals are usually in favor of a stronger social safety net and some public intervention in the economy (as opposed to pure liberalism). But still a long way from socialism and still with emphesize on the core liberal values.

 

[NatMorton]

The reason that you perceive it in this way is beacuse tthose that call themselves Libertian arre influenced by the conservative ideology and therefor further away from the left liberals than a right liberal would be.

Liberalism is a political tradition where the central issue is always about the conditions for the individual to shape his or her own life - and in free interaction with others. The liberal ideology advocate openness, tolerance and democracy, value freedom and justice highly, and are critical of state powers. Liberals emphasize that the individual should be protected from concentrations of power in society, such as the state, and that society must be organized in a fair way that recognizes the equal value of every individual.

Liberalism's close relationship with democracy means that ideology is often associated with certain particularly distinctive freedoms and rights. These include freedom of expression, religion and organization, as well as universal and equal suffrage, human rights and property rights. Liberals also value the rule of law highly, which means, among other things, that they believe in the rule of law and the presumption of innocence. A free market economy is important.

Left-liberalism (or socialliberalism) is a vague term that has been used from time to time in the political debate in recent decades. Usually it refers to liberals that emphesize on equal education opportunities and wants a very basic form of society support. Classical liberalism is based on a negative definition of freedom (i.e. that freedom is achieved when there is no prohibition or coercion), while left liberalism also contains a positive definition of freedom. There, freedom also means being able to achieve one's own goals, regardless of material limitations. Social liberals are usually in favor of a stronger social safety net and some public intervention in the economy (as opposed to pure liberalism). But still a long way from socialism and still with emphesize on the core liberal values.

I agree with just about every thing you said except for failing to cite "left-liberalism's" inherent contradiction: creating liberty for some by drastically curtailing it for others. Public education is, IMO, an excellent idea, but the taxes I must pay to achieve it are an impingement on my liberty, and there's little use in pretending they're not. The question is always a matter of degree.

I would argue that several of the posters here arguing for their view of "left libertarianism" have gone so far to the left -- i.e. so far to the coercive side of the ledger -- their definition of "liberal" loses all resemblance to the generally accepted definition of the term. They are not liberals. They are much closer to Marxists, whether they realize it or not.

 

[Juks]

And just to clarify. I am not a liberal but a socialist. Socialism also values freedom and justice highly, but I also believe that the state needs to protect it's citiziens rights thru laws and regulation. (such as an employee should not be able to be sacked because he is a member of an organisation or speaks his mind)

Socialism also has a stronger emphasis than liberalism on economic equality. In addition, socialists more often than liberals believe that societal problems, such as crime, are caused by economic gaps. They also have a more optimistic view than liberals on economic planning and collective resource management.

 

[Juks]

I agree with just about every thing you said except for failing to cite "left-liberalism's" inherent contradiction: creating liberty for some by drastically curtailing it for others. Public education is, IMO, an excellent idea, but the taxes I must pay to achieve it are an impingement on my liberty, and there's little use in pretending they're not. The question is always a matter of degree.

I would argue that several of the posters here arguing for their view of "left libertarianism" have gone so far to the left -- i.e. so far to the coercive side of the ledger -- their definition of "liberal" loses all resemblance to the generally accepted definition of the term. They are not liberals. They are much closer to Marxists, whether they realize it or not.

Yeah they might be close to me(socialist) without realizing it...

 

[NatMorton]

such as an employee should not be able to be sacked because he is a member of an organisation or speaks his mind

Let's explore this against a measure of freedom.

I own a business. I built it slowly and successfully over 20 years and now it's doing well and providing 100 people with gainful employment. One day, after a less than satisfactory performance review, one of the employees takes to social media and begins making entirely subjective statements about the quality of our products, our methods, and how we treat employees. In short, he trashes us, and because he has a large social media following it begins to go viral and hurt sales.

Must I continue to employee that person?

 

[Juks]

Let's explore this against a measure of freedom.

I own a business. I built it slowly and successfully over 20 years and now it's doing well and providing 100 people with gainful employment. One day, after a less than satisfactory performance review, one of the employees takes to social media and begins making entirely subjective statements about the quality of our products, our methods, and how we treat employees. In short, he trashes us, and because he has a large social media following it begins to go viral and hurt sales.

Must I continue to employee that person?

Oh, I didn't mean trashing the company he is employed in. That is disloyal to ones employee and off course should you be able to sack him. What I mean is views unrelated to the workplace. More like "Your employer finds out that you are posting as a conservative on a political forum or you post your membership in the Republican party on your facebook page and since he is a devoted Democrat that literally hates al Republicans he wants to sack you".

 

[Geoist]

No, it is clear you have absolutely no idea what my ideology is. Your Crusoe example does not describe it in any way, shape, or form.

Are you a propertarian? Are you a capitalist?

 

[Geoist]

No, I'm a capitalist, a fiscal conservative, a social moderate, and a staunch advocate for human rights.

If you are a 'staunch advocate for human rights' then you wouldn't believe in putting efficiency over rights. That is what fascists do.

 

[NatMorton]

If you are a 'staunch advocate for human rights' then you wouldn't believe in putting efficiency over rights. That is what fascists do.

Where or when did I put "efficiency over rights?" Be specific.

 

[Geoist]

Let's explore this and for the sake of argument, let's suppose that it is true.

Why?

One could say it's because there is an inherent bias against co-ops. Certain government legislation specifically forbid them or certain government officials refused to change the rules to cater to co-ops (see article). Another could say the rules are molded to traditional business which just makes it more difficult, if not impossible, to secure a loan. It's likely a mix of both.

The Government Is Here to Help Small Businesses — Unless They’re Cooperatives

The Small Business Administration’s rules prevent it from helping most employee- and consumer-owned cooperatives, even though Congress specifically asked it to. The result? Co-ops are largely cut out of the mainstream financial system.

www.propublica.org

 

[NatMorton]

Oh, I didn't mean trashing the company he is employed in. That is disloyal to ones employee and off course should you be able to sack him. What I mean is views unrelated to the workplace. More like "Your employer finds out that you are posting as a conservative on a political forum or you post your membership in the Republican party on your facebook page and since he is a devoted Democrat that literally hates al Republicans he wants to sack you".

How do you feel about employees who speak out against problems perceived with BLM or the social justice movements? Or just make politically incorrect comments?

Maybe this as an example: a public spokesperson for the Black Entertainment Network (BET) starts tweeting "Hands up! Don't Loot!" on their personal twitter account. A fire-able offense?

 

[Geoist]

Where or when did I put "efficiency over rights?" Be specific.

You criticized left libertarians for putting so-called 'purity of purpose' over 'actual results.' If you care so much about 'results' then join an authoritarian state. They get things done quickly.

 

[NatMorton]

One could say it's because there is an inherent bias against co-ops. Certain government legislation specifically forbid them or certain government officials refused to change the rules to cater to co-ops (see article). Another could say the rules are molded to traditional business which just makes it more difficult, if not impossible, to secure a loan. It's likely a mix of both.

The Government Is Here to Help Small Businesses — Unless They’re Cooperatives

The Small Business Administration’s rules prevent it from helping most employee- and consumer-owned cooperatives, even though Congress specifically asked it to. The result? Co-ops are largely cut out of the mainstream financial system.

www.propublica.org

I didn't ask about government programs. I asked about banks. Help me out here. Hopefully we can agree that a defining characteristic of banks and bankers is that they wish to make money. They like to borrow money at one price and lend it out at a higher price.

You seem to be saying that banks would substitute some other motive (e.g. "bias") and forgo the opportunity to make a good investment. Does that really make sense to you?

 

[Juks]

How do you feel about employees who speak out against problems perceived with BLM or the social justice movements? Or just make as long as they do not advocate illegal activities, their rights must be upheld. For example, if their views are racist in a work environment where several blacks and / or other minorities work, they should be given warnings to express these views during working hours before the question of dismissal comes up.politically incorrect comments?

Maybe this as an example: a public spokesperson for the Black Entertainment Network (BET) starts tweeting "Hands up! Don't Loot!" on their personal twitter account. A fire-able offense?

as long as they do not advocate illegal activities, their rights must be upheld. For example, if their views are racist in a work environment where several blacks and / or other minorities work, they should be given warnings to express(in favoratism as well as in words) these views during working hours before the question of dismissal comes up. But as long as what they express or do on their sparetime isn't illegal (like threaten coworkers or disguised threats) or violate some US laws on racism, they should have the right to do so.

 

[Geoist]

I didn't ask about government programs. I asked about banks. Help me out here. Hopefully we can agree that a defining characteristic of banks and bankers is that they wish to make money. They like to borrow money at one price and lend it out at a higher price.

You seem to be saying that banks would substitute some other motive (e.g. "bias") and forgo the opportunity to make a good investment. Does that really make sense to you?

Like most capitalists, you assume capitalism always operates through cold logic with no personal bias involved. Banks and other capitalist institutions have demonstrated racial and gender bias many times throughout history, even if it meant making less money. Why give to the co-op when you can give to the traditional business? Do you think most bankers have a bias against co-ops compared to other businesses? Of course they do.

 

[Juks]

How do you feel about employees who speak out against problems perceived with BLM or the social justice movements? Or just make politically incorrect comments?

Maybe this as an example: a public spokesperson for the Black Entertainment Network (BET) starts tweeting "Hands up! Don't Loot!" on their personal twitter account. A fire-able offense?

I forgot to add: The company off course own it's name and it's image therefore the company owner can require from employees that they do not advertise their employement if their views goes against the company's. But a warning should always be given before dismissal.

 

[NatMorton]

Like most capitalists, you assume capitalism always operates through cold logic with no personal bias involved. Banks and other capitalist institutions have demonstrated racial and gender bias many times throughout history, even if it meant making less money. Why give to the co-op when you can give to the traditional business? Do you think most bankers have a bias against co-ops compared to other businesses? Of course they do.

I don't make that assumption. You are absolutely correct, sometimes societal norms are so strong (including racial prejudice) that they influence financial decisions. Though I would argue such instances often ultimately come back to a financial decision. A banker operating in Mobile, AL in the 1920s considering a loan to a black entrepreneur might think "This guy knows what he's doing, but If I lend to him I may lose many of the white customers on which my business depends. I might also get a visit from the Klan some night and there goes my building. I think not. This loan carries too much risk."

But let's get real. Are you comparing the alleged bias against co-ops to be on a similar level to what Black Americans have faced through out much of our history? Seriously?

Why give to the co-op when you can give to the traditional business?

Here you've hit the nail on the head. Businesses compete for funding (e.g. loans) just like they compete for customers and for employees. The banker asks him or herself "I only have enough funding to make one more $100k small business loan. Do I give it to the applicant whose organizational model has a stronger track record of performance or the one with the worse record of performance?"

Bankers are hardwired to choose the better investment opportunity. It's how they thrive.

 

[NatMorton]

as long as they do not advocate illegal activities, their rights must be upheld. For example, if their views are racist in a work environment where several blacks and / or other minorities work, they should be given warnings to express(in favoratism as well as in words) these views during working hours before the question of dismissal comes up. But as long as what they express or do on their sparetime isn't illegal (like threaten coworkers or disguised threats) or violate some US laws on racism, they should have the right to do so.

What if both employer and employee have agreed an at-will employment contract?

 

[Geoist]

But let's get real. Are you comparing the alleged bias against co-ops to be on a similar level to what Black Americans have faced through out much of our history? Seriously?

No, I am not saying the harm was equal to co-ops as it was to black people. I'm bringing up obvious examples of bias in the system. Please don't twist my words.

Here you've hit the nail on the head. Businesses compete for funding (e.g. loans) just like they compete for customers and for employees. The banker asks him or herself "I only have enough funding to make one more $100k small business loan. Do I give it to the applicant whose organizational model has a stronger track record of performance or the one with the worse record of performance?"

Bankers are hardwired to choose the better investment opportunity. It's how they thrive.

Except co-ops are more stable than traditional businesses. But how many lenders do you think know that? I bet not many.

Cooperatives have a higher survival rate than traditional firms, which seems to be down to greater employment stability and willingness of workers to make adjustments to allow the firm to survive, rather than other possible explanations like greater productivity or financial strength.

Worker cooperative - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[NatMorton]

No, I am not saying the harm was equal to co-ops as it was to black people. I'm bringing up obvious examples of bias in the system. Please don't twist my words.



Except co-ops are more stable than traditional businesses. But how many lenders do you think know that? I bet not many.

Cooperatives have a higher survival rate than traditional firms, which seems to be down to greater employment stability and willingness of workers to make adjustments to allow the firm to survive, rather than other possible explanations like greater productivity or financial strength.

Worker cooperative - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I'm not twisting your words. You said banks could (or do) have a bias against co-ops akin to racial bias. If that's not what you meant then don't use racial bias as an example.

Co -ps may have a higher survival rate, but it could easily viewed a young professional athlete with a high floor and low ceiling. You still haven't gotten around to answering the question why, if co-ops are better financial bet, more banks and VC firms aren't investing in them. Vague references to supposed, unproven bias aren't an answer. Banks like to make money, and if they saw co-ops as the way to go we'd see more of them.

 

[Geoist]

I'm not twisting your words. You said banks could (or do) have a bias against co-ops akin to racial bias. If that's not what you meant then don't use racial bias as an example.

Now you are clearly being dishonest. One can present two examples of bias without stating the two are equal in their harm.

Co -ps may have a higher survival rate, but it could easily viewed a young professional athlete with a high floor and low ceiling. You still haven't gotten around to answering the question why, if co-ops are better financial bet, more banks and VC firms aren't investing in them.

I've already answered that question. Did you bother reading or even skimming the Propublica article that outlined the institutional biases against co-ops?

Vague references to supposed, unproven bias aren't an answer. Banks like to make money, and if they saw co-ops as the way to go we'd see more of them.

You keep going back to that after you admitted that inherent biases can often cloud rational thinking in our capitalist institutions. Considering how co-ops are usually considered a left-wing/socialist idea, how many of these bankers do you think have a positive attitude towards them?

 

[NatMorton]

Now you are clearly being dishonest. One can present two examples of bias without stating the two are equal in their harm.


I've already answered that question. Did you bother reading or even skimming the Propublica article that outlined the institutional biases against co-ops?


You keep going back to that after you admitted that inherent biases can often cloud rational thinking in our capitalist institutions. Considering how co-ops are usually considered a left-wing/socialist idea, how many of these bankers do you think have a positive attitude towards them?

Sorry, there is no reason to bring up racial bias in this discussion unless you were likening it to the bias co-ops supposedly face. It was entirely reasonable for me to assume you were saying, in effect, that co-ops have been red-lined. If that's not what you meant, fine, but it was perfectly reasonable for me to infer that's what you meant.

I know bankers (literally, know them, talked to them) who have been chomping at the bit to lend money to newly legalized pot-shops here in MA. They are in a pickle because while it may be legal to do it at a state level it's still illegal at the federal level, and they're subject to the regulatory oversight of both. So yes, if they're willing to lend to pot-smoking hippies they'll lend to a co-op for the very same reason: they stand to make money.

 

[Geoist]

Sorry, there is no reason to bring up racial bias in this discussion unless you were likening it to the bias co-ops supposedly face. It was entirely reasonable for me to assume you were saying, in effect, that co-ops have been red-lined. If that's not what you meant, fine, but it was perfectly reasonable for me to infer that's what you meant.

No, it's not. But moving on.

I know bankers (literally, know them, talked to them) who have been chomping at the bit to lend money to newly legalized pot-shops here in MA. They are in a pickle because while it may be legal to do it at a state level it's still illegal at the federal level, and they're subject to the regulatory oversight of both. So yes, if they're willing to lend to pot-smoking hippies they'll lend to a co-op for the very same reason: they stand to make money.

Well your banker friends would be the exception to the reality:

Banks don't want to work with marijuana companies. It's time for that to change | CNN Business

The failure to find a policy solution at the federal level creates direct economic challenges for the industry and leads to unintended consequences, write John Hudak and Aaron Klein of the Brookings Institution.

www.cnn.com

Banks reluctant to serve Michigan’s cannabis industry, but options exist

Conner McClain and his business partner at In Between Dreams LLC plan to open an indoor growing facility for medical marijuana early next year in Vicksburg. Like any new small […]

mibiz.com

 

[Atreus21]

Yes, some left-libertarians are communist. Just not the Stalinist/Maoist tankie kind.

I'm sure some right-libertarians are fascists. Just not the Nazi kind.