Talk:Left-libertarianism

Is Geolibertarianism left-libertarian?

Are you sure about calling Georgism a form of left libertarianism? The believe in private property in everything but land. RJII 02:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Am I the only one that has read this, and gotten the stern impression that, as a left-libertarian, this article has next to nothing to do with left-libertarianism? I'm tempted to do a complete rewrite tonight. 70.18.148.99 20:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite/Revert

I strongly disagree with the reversion to the (modified) older version of this article. The article as it is/was, I maintain, simply a review of standard libertarianism with the occasional "while Left-Libertarians think this..." Instead of an article on left-libertarianism, it was an article on the similiarties/differances between them. And, furthermore, the left-libertarianism shown in the article as it is/was is really just the minority view of people like Vallentyne, who is a rather minor political figure. It is, rather unarguable, a wider concept containing the Vallentyne-esque "left-libertarianism," democratic socialism, welfare states, anarchism, and, yes, libertarian socialism. And I think I paid them all relatively equal discussion, including mentions of Nader, Kucinich, Sanders, Green Parties, and European welfare states. Bloodsorr0w 01:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course it is a minority view. However, I do not believe that it can possibly include democratic socialism and welfare states (because those are not libertarian), anarchism (because anarchism = no state while libertarianism = minimal state), or libertarian socialism (because libertarian socialism rejects private property over all the means of production, at least). Thus, we are left with the views of people like Vallentyne, plus the broad Georgist/Geolibertarian tradition. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 02:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

In 5 seconds of Googling...

1. "Chomsky[ makes] regular references to a supposed “left libertarian tradition” within Marxism..." <a href="http://www.marxist.com/Theory/chomsky_part1.htm">[1]</a>

So, Marxism can be left-libertarian in nature.

2. "Chomsky is generally regarded as a man of the political left, and his early and continuing sympathy with left-libertarian and anarchist ideas" <a href="http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/20040817.htm">[2]</a>

3. "Left-libertarians and left-anarchists, including Chomsky, see libertarian socialism (or non-aggressive, non-violent anarchism) as the true legacy of classical liberalism..." <a href="http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/20040817.htm">[2]</a>

2 and 3 show that Chomsky, and by extention, anarchism and libertarian socialism, are left-libertarianism.

4. "What is Leftlibertarianism?

Leftlibertarianism is a political philosophy that asserts both Libertarian full self-ownership and Liberal equality... Liberal equality means that all people, regardless of their abilities or situation, should, when possible, have all the opportunities needed to strive for self-fulfillment and self-actualization. This includes such basics as food, shelter, health care, and education." <a href="http://www.leftlibertarianism.org/index.php?page=faq>[3]</a>

To me, that seems like a verbatim definition of a welfare state.

5. "How is Leftlibertarianism different from Anarchism?

While there are many different forms of Anarchism, a common theme tends to be the abolition of authoritarian and heirarchical structures. Leftlibertarianism is opposed to the existence of policy that does not fully respect self-ownership, but this does not necessarily call for bringing down all power structures or heirarchies." <a href="http://www.leftlibertarianism.org/index.php?page=faq>[3]</a>

Left-libertatianism can at times be anarchistic, as it may or may not support power structures.

I completely understand if you "do not believe that it can possibly include democratic socialism and welfare states... anarchism... and libertarian socialism." I even think that most people (especially in the US) would agree with you and your interpretation of libertarianism. But that isn't the question in matter. Whether or not people like the term left-libertarianism and what it means and has come to mean doesnt change anything; it is what it is. And it is a general term for a great many political philosophies, namely those that you don't accept.Bloodsorr0w 05:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not a left-libertarian; in fact, I am no libertarian at all. I have no POV in this matter, other than my dislike of vague or redundant definitions. If "left-libertarianism" can include anything from anarchism to democratic socialism, then "left-libertarianism" is just a feel-good synonym for "left-wing", and therefore a useless term. But, in any case, that is not what your sources imply. Let's look at them one by one:

1. Chomsky says that Marxism can be left-libertarian in nature. He doesn't explain what left-libertarianism is, however. One could certainly make a Marxist argument for left-libertarianism as currently defined in this article.
2. Some people say that Chomsky has sympathy for left-libertarianism. Okay. So...? He doesn't say he IS a left-libertarian.
3. Seems to be implying that Chomsky is a left-anarchist.
4. Food, shelter, health care, and education can be provided by anarchist communes or voluntary organizations just as much as by a welfare state.
5. So left-libertarianism may or may not support the abolition of the state. I agree. How does that contradict the current text of this article?

It seems to me that it might be worthwhile to mention that left-libertarianism has been used to refer to libertarian socialism as well as the meaning explained in this article. But since libertarian socialism has its own page, I don't think we need more than a few lines at the top or bottom of this article explaining this possible second meaning. What do you think? -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 23:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the wait. College is starting back up, and my computers have been packed. I certainly agree that it's worth saying that libertarian socialism can mean left-libertarianism, and that that can be done in a paragraph or [probably] less.

I'll also concede that ""left-libertarianism" is just a feel-good synonym for "left-wing"". In all of my experiences in classes, in discussions, in research, in idle readings etc., it's a way to say "Yes, I'm a leftist, but not in the authoritarian way of Mao, Stalin, or Castro, but rather in the more libertarian way of Mandela, Nader, and Chomsky." Hense, libertarianism as opposed to authoritarianism, and not the specific libertarianism of free markets and capitalism, making it not simply a watered-down/pragmatic right-libertarianism, which is the position of the article.

1. I really don't think such an argument could be made. If there is a left-libertarian tradition within Marxism, than left-libertarianism must be quite different from what it is in this article; a watered-down right-libertarianism.

2. If he isn't a left-libertarian, than I think it at least means his politics are close.

3. How can it imply one, and not the other?

4. True. My apologies for not thinking that one our correctly

5. I think it says more than that. In the left-libertarian FAQ, the only stated difference between left-lib and anarchism is that while anarchism advocates the overthrow of governments, left-lib only does so sometimes does. If that's the case, than I think that must imply a great great many similiarities.

Finally, Left Libertarianism on the Libertarian Wiki. Thomas Paine, Ghandi, Mandela, and Anarchists all all as being left-libertarians, as well as Marxism, Anarchism, and Libertarian Socialism. Bloodsorr0w 04:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

This is NPOV:

Classical libertarian theory - sometimes called "right-libertarianism" - places a very strong emphasis on private property. Unrestricted capitalism and free markets are advocated by all right-libertarians, with some of them believing that property rights are the most basic rights of all. Left-libertarians, on the other hand, take a more moderate - and, in their view, realistic - approach.

- Reaverdrop 01:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

In what way? (I assume you mean it's POV, not NPOV). -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 11:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think its POV, as much as just wrong. I think most people would agree that right-lib advocates property rights, capitalism, markets, etc. I would (and kind of am) arguing that the last sentance is wrong, but not particularly baised. Bloodsorr0w 01:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Resolved?

I did a big re-edit, tried to highlight parties involved, disagreements over use of the term, and differences with conventional libertarianism. I hope this satisfies some of the NPOV objections. Bacchiad

An anonymous user wrote:

1. 'changed "academic" to "egalitarian" because, strictly speaking, ANY political theorist is an academic)'.

Look, I've got a pretty good handle on SEK3-style and neo-Tuckerite left-libertarianism. I have to admit that I don't have the faintest idea what Vallentyne, Otsuka et al. are driving at. BUT they do not get a monopoly on the use of 'egalitarian', since the goals of the left-Rothbardians and others are also egalitarian, although the mechanism of statist redistribution is opposed. You Vallentynists: what label would be acceptable? "Redistributionist"? "Welfarist"? "Pro-State"? I'm rather at a loss. Bacchiad

Vallentyne and Steiner are basically Georgists, or Geolibertarians... very much in the tradition of Albert J Nock... Otsuka is weird, I think he's just trying to be clever. "Pro-State" is not really fair, because they do not advocate for any more state than does Nozick or any other non-anarchist libertarian... they just advocate for a different purpose of that minimal state (ie: basic income). Colorless Green Ideas 10:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Personal POV: This is my problem with these guys. They assume that the state is just going to be a neutral automaton in redistribution, and not use that power as a lever to advance class-interests or worm its way into greater control. IMHO if there's anything that separates "left" from "liberal", it's the critique of institutional power, which has been a hallmark of left thought since the Ricardian socialists. Not to mention their historical blinders in taking the postwar American definition of 'libertarian' as the be-all and end-all of it (cf. Vallentyne's encyclopedia entry on 'libertarianism').

That being said, does the present state of the article seem workable to you? "Anti-corporate free-marketeers" and "Left-libertarianism in political philosophy"? I thought that was the best way to phrase it neutrally. Bacchiad

Well, I completely agree with you, but I really appreciate their contribution because they provide an exact counter-balance to the right-wing minimal staters, who represent feudalistic libertarianism. So I see left-libertarians, and geolibertarians even moreso, as a way to reintroduce the left to the idea of libertarianism. it's such a dirty word amongst the American left. (do you have a link to Vallentyne's encyclopedia entry on 'libertarianism'? or did i overlook it somewhere?)

The article is fine to me, and I think your terminology is good, left-libertarianism is emerging as a coalition of rothbardians (circa ~1969), georgists, and tuckerites against the right-wing coalition of objectivists, confederates, and nozickites. the key point is that it is really just re-emerging after a 30 year hiatus. but I am no authority. I am a left progressive who is making common cause with left-libertarians. We need them to be more influential in their party.

Colorless Green Ideas 02:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Here it is: http://www.missouri.edu/~klinechair/on-line%20papers/libertarianism%20for%20encyclopedia%20of%20social%20science.doc

Bacchiad 17:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Criticism Section?

I have just come to this article, and, to me, it seems to be in sharp contrast to other pages on libertarianism and/or anarchism. In particular, it does not have a 'criticism' section, which is all too important in politics-related articles to be 'left out' in this one. Anyone well-acquainted with the subject would do a great favor to the completeness of this article by adding it. Thanks Stephanos1ko 06:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Section Naming

- I also think it is a bad definition to call Libertarianism (Murray Rothbardts line) "anti-corporate", because it is also "philosophical" in nature and its defenders (f.e. Dr. Roderick Long from Auburn University). Why then the labeling with something so entirely practical and illusive. Another issue I have is that libertarianism only means left-libertarianism in Europe. This is not so, because we have pro-capitalism libertarian movements in France, Germany, Austria, especially Swiss, GB, Sweden, Polen etc. The term no longer defines leftists...

I'm not entirely comfortable with the new section names either. It used to be "anti-corporate free-marketeers" and "left-libertarians in political philosophy". Which I think was imperfect but still better. Bacchiad 18:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Charles Johnson

Can someone who knows about the 'Charles Johnson' referenced in this article please disambiguate it? There are a lot of them. The Monster 00:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Odd article

As a relative newcomer to this page, I want to resurrect the issue BloodSorrow raised above. Many, many people, particularly outside the US, who call themselves left libertarians would not recognise the description given on this page. It is completely US-centric, and erases whole traditions of political theory and activism that are commonly thought of as left libertarian. Am I alone in this view? BobFromBrockley 11:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to have (a) a section on the historical development of left libertarianism, looking at figures like Thomas Paine, Proudhon, William Morris, Edward Carpenter, Henry George, Oscar Wilde, Alex Comfort and Paul Goodman (writer), (b) a section on the New Left and its heritage (including EP Thomson, Murray Bookchin, Noam Chomsky) and (c) a section on left-libertarianism today, with the current agorism and Vallentine/Steiner material. BobFromBrockley 12:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Should we Merge this into Libertarian socialism? And if not, what should we do with it?

However we juggle things, if we keep separate Libertarian socialism and Left-libertarianism pages, we will need disambiguation, cross-referencing, and duplication. Of course one common meaning of LL includes LS (the other common meaning is a synonym for ancap) so we could merge LS into LL (more cleanly than LL into LS). Jacob Haller 21:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Added merge proposal to both pages. Probably best to conduct the discussion on the other page. Jacob Haller 06:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Against. There are huge differences between the two:

• Left-libertarianism is a branch of libertarianism, while libertarian socialism is a branch of socialism.
• Libertarian socialism tends to refer to collectivist ideologies, while left-libertarianism tends to refer to individualist ideologies.
• Libertarian socialism tends to be critical of the market, while left-libertarianism tends see the market as a just way to redistribute resources.

So No don't. C mon 12:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Having agreed this, any opinions on my suggestion above? BobFromBrockley 12:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The proposal seems to assume that "left-libertarian" is indeed "just a feel-good synonym for left-wing," in which case it seems to me that the very last thing Wikipedia needs is another ill-defined page covering left and/or libertarian politics. As there seems to be resistance to using this page to cover those groups for which "left-libertarian" has particular significance (the Agorist Movement of the Libertarian Left and the Vallentyne-Steiner group) as opposed to all those who might think of themselves as both "libertarian" and "left," my best suggestion is to use this page as a disambiguation page, with links to all the related articles. Libertatia 16:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Well the MLL-ALL tradition uses "left" in two senses: (1) no state, as opposed to limited state and often also (2) opposition to irrational authority and support of class struggle (i.e. the common sense of "left"). As written the article discusses agorism and geoism but does not connect them with each other, and the article does not discuss mutualism (which is left to the other article). In some ways grouping mutualism and the other market traditions with agorism and geoism might be clearer than grouping mutualism with communism (but then where does collectivism go?). Roderick Long has pointed out how arbitrary the division between the categories can be. Jacob Haller 13:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Where does this leave us? I have no objection to this page giving weight to gorist Movement of the Libertarian Left and the Vallentyne-Steiner group, but I think it should either give weight to other figures/movements that are commonly thought of as left libertarian (such as those I mentioned above) or at least mention them and have links to their pages. BobFromBrockley 14:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I have added in such mention, and also addressed the weird orphaned fragments ("the first" etc) left behind by back and forth editing over the months. BobFromBrockley 09:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I have a problem with agorism being represented as left libertarianism. Clearly it does not fit the definition of left libertarianism. It's simply a doctrine that advocates engaging in illegal activities to establish anarcho-capitalism. Agorists says that that's what makes it left libertarian is that it's "revolutionary." There is no scholarly secondary references to be found on "agorism." It's highly obscure. It's simply a self-described as "left." Therefore I think it should only have a small mention instead of so much elaboration in the in the introduction of this article, and it should only be said it's self-described as "left" instead of stating as a matter of fact that it's left-libertarian. Operation Spooner 16:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Agorist is "anti-capitalist" using "capitalism" in the commonly used state capitalism/actually existing capitalism sense. Also, as I've pointed out elsewhere, all libertarianism and anarchism is left - against the Old Order - in the classical sense. "Left" (like "liberal") is a slippery (useless IMO) term that changes drastically over time, and among different groups. I would contend that "right libertarian" is an oxymoron, since all libertarianism is against imposed order. Botton line: Since "left" is a fuzzy changing indeterminate term, we may as well take self-labelling as acceptable. (Note that we've reversed positions since talking about Wendy. There, I wanted to use a static defintion, and you were arguing for accepting her self-label.) PhilLiberty 18:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Look, Agorism is a very specific term describing an ideology developed by a small group of ideologically cohesive individuals - and as such has a very narrow, very specific definition. Both "Left" and "libertarian" are the exact opposite of this - to treat these terms in the same manner would require you to restrict the use of "Left-wing" to describe only a subset of French parliamentarians in the Estates General of 1789. Clearly, this would be ridiculous; the term "left-wing" or "left" describes a vague continuum of ideologies with shared notions of the collective and loosely-defined egalitarianism. Similarly, it is ludicrous to derive as highly specified and restrictive definition for "Libertarian" - based for example on the NAP - this would in a sense disenfranchise large swathes of self-identified libertarians, not to mention libertarian socialists, and would satisfy only those who cannot come to terms with ambiguity and complexity. This inability to let ambiguity in reality be faithfully represented is unfortunately encouraged by the formalism of Wikipedia, and it is something User:Operation Spooner has perhaps inadvertently manifested here. The definitions of left-libertarianism here are from academics, who are blissfully ignorant of those who do not cross their radar, such as the hierarchy-eschewing mutualists, the anarcho-entrepreneurs of agorism, never to mind the geoists and georgists. It's not these ideologies that are obscure, it's the scholars. If something calls itself a cat, and the other cats don't disagree, it's a fair indication that it is, in fact, a cat.

To this effect, I move that any ideology, organisation or tendency that refers to itself (verifiably, of course) as left-libertarian without this claim being explicitly contradicted by other left-libertarians, ought to be included in the article. In the case of a dispute, the ideology in question should be removed from the lede and treated with in a subsection. Skomorokh ^incite 19:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It's my understanding that Wikipedia is supposed to be representative of the academic opinion. That's why there are all those rules establishing what makes a reliable source. I agree that anything that considers itself to be left libertarian should be included in the article. I'm just requesting that it's said something like "Agorists consider themselves to be left libertarian" or something like that, because there is no academic opinion that agree that they're left libertarian or that even acknowlegeds their existence. And since there is no record of their existence in the literature, other than their own, so much of the introduction to this article shouldn't be devoted to them. That's why I was deleting the information which you restored. Operation Spooner 20:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Left libertarianism is not only geoism

I found a version with the following erroneous definition:

Left-libertarianism is a political philosophy which combines the libertarian premiss that each person possesses a natural right of self-ownership with the egalitarian premise that natural resources should be shared equally.

The second premise is true for geoism, but not agorism, left-Rothbardianism, etc., and only sometimes true of mutualists. Perhaps some geoist vandel has been at work. Needless to say, I reverted back to the last reasonable definition. Sorry if I erased some good edits. BTW here's an pertinent article: Defining Left Libertarianism. And here's a quote from Alliance of the Libertarian Left that might be useful (and even included in the article):

The Alliance of the Libertarian Left is a multi-tendency coalition of mutualists, agorists,

voluntaryists, geolibertarians, left-Rothbardians, green libertarians, dialectical anarchists, radical minarchists, and others on the libertarian left, united by an opposition to statism, militarism, and the prevailing corporatist capitalism falsely called a free market, as well as by an emphasis on education, direct action, and building alternative institutions, rather than on electoral politics, as our chief strategy for achieving liberation. PhilLiberty 05:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Agorism is simply not left libertarianism under the normal definition of left libertarian. That's why it doesn't fit the definition. You can't change the mainstream definition to fit a very non-standard definition of left libertarian as simply being whatever is revolutionary. Operation Spooner 05:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Agorists call themselves left because they're revolutionary. No one else defines left libertarianism as such. Being revolutionary is simply a tactic. Operation Spooner 05:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

What you are seeing is a few jokers playing around on their blogs with the term "left libertarian" without ever bothering to look it up. This very isolated use of the term "left libertarian" is just that, isolated. Maybe one day it will be accepted in mainstream reference works but it hasn't yet, and it's doubtful that it will. Operation Spooner 05:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Karl Hess, Murray Rothbard, Konkin, Roderick Long are certainly more noteworthy that the obscure acaceme's you cite. Get real - there are several definitions of left libertarian. PhilLiberty 06:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

If there are several definition then why don't you reference them with real sources? And why do you delete the defintiion that is referenced by three sources with is the most commonly accepted definition? Operation Spooner 06:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

PhilLiberty, what you're doing is crazy. You're basing your edits on blogs and web pages. There are not acceptable references. "Alliance of the Liberty Left" web page? Come on. What is that, a whole of ten people on the internet? It's a joke. Why are you letting yourself get sucked in by it? You need to get with the program and use real references. What you're doing can't be consistent with Wikpipedia policy. Operation Spooner 06:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, you need to check out the Karl Hess, Roderick Long, and various other articles. These guys, and their writings, are much more significant than those guys you cite. You are the one on a POV sectarian rampage. If a blog quotes an out-of-print book, it is a legitimate source. PhilLiberty 06:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Karl Hess advocated anarcho-capitalism: "Laissez-faire capitalism, or anarchocapitalism, is simply the economic form of the libertarian ethic..." [1] Are you saying anarcho-capitalism is left libertarian too? You're going by these blogs and fantasy internet alliance and reducing the meaning of "left libertarian" to include everything. You've trashed this article and you're helping to convince me to leave Wikipedia. If there is no common ground to agree to work within the referencing rules, there is really no point in me being here. Have at it. Operation Spooner 06:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Very good - you're too POV for Wiki. To answer your question - Yes, anarcho-capitalism can be left lib. In fact, many left libs are strongly influenced by Murray Rothbard, "father" of anarcho-capitalism. SEKIII wrote that he was more Rothbardian than Rothbard! Another consideration: Hess changed over time, and probably did not self-identify as anarcho-capitalist in later years. PhilLiberty 06:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

2p

for what it's worth why not just list all the viewpoints, with focus on the main ones, as well as listing who has these views?

To make things clearer maybe someone could set up a bullet-point list? (I'm just giving some advice on editing together, I know jack shit about the actual subject so don't expect any content-related input from me.) -- infinity0 10:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree with this. BobFromBrockley 11:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. That's why I objected to OS presenting the geoist academic view at the main and only correct view. PhilLiberty 22:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

If you read closer, you'd see that the "academic" view does not only include Geoism. It also includes people such as Benjamin Tucker who based his land doctrine on the Lockean proviso, where taking land is not legitimate unless there is enough available for others. The libertarianism entry from the Oxford Companion to Philosophy says "According to left-libertarians, however, the world's natural resources were initially unowned, or belonged equally to all, and it is illegitimate for anyone to claim exclusive private ownership of these resources to the detriment of others." That's exactly Tucker's belief. It's not the belief of agorists or anarcho-capitalists, who are not left-libertarians under the conventional defintiion of left libertarianism. Operation Spooner 21:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a citation for Tucker's use of the Lockean proviso? Liberty seems to be without much in the way of reference to Locke, or the by-then current characterizations of the doctrine, such as "enough and as good." Some geoists do conflate Proudhon's critique of property with the proviso, but they seem to be mistaken. Libertatia 21:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a citation where he says "I'm folling the Proviso," but he said "In the case of land, or of any other material the supply of which is so limited that all cannot hold it in unlimited quantities, Anarchism undertakes to protect no titles except such as are based on actual occupancy and use." There's a clear left-libertarian premise there which is the basis of the occupancy and use doctrine. The agorists/anarcho-capitalists don't have that premise, so they're not left libertarian according to the conventional definition. For reasons that only agorists can explain they call themselves left libertarian. Operation Spooner 22:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

There's no mystery about how Rothbard or Konkin were using "left," or about why they thought they could make common cause with the "left" as more "conventionally" defined. And very little has changed. If you are looking for some dividing line around the proviso, best of luck with the bit of OR. "Occupancy and use" on the model of Proudhon or the 19th century mutualists depends on a different understanding of property than that of even the proviso Lockeans, although contemporary figures have suggested that the different property systems are probably largely capatible in practical terms. That suggestion is at the heart of the most recent left-libertarian coalitions. Libertatia 22:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not "looking for some dividing line around the proviso." I'm speaking very generally. This is how left libertarian is normally defined: "Prof. Will Kymlicka "libertarianism, left-" in Honderich, Ted (2005). The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. City: Oxford U Pr, N Y. ISBN 9780199264797. “It combines the libertarian assumption that each person possesses a natural right of self-ownership over his person with the egalitarian premiss that natural resources should be shared equally. Right-wing libertarians argue that the right of self-ownership entails the right to appropriate unequal parts of the external world, such as unequal amounts of land. According to left-libertarians, however, the world's natural resources were initially unowned, or belonged equally to all, and it is illegitimate for anyone to claim exclusive private ownership of these resources to the detriment of others. Such private appropriation is legitimate only if everyone can appropriate an equal amount, or if those who appropriate more are taxed to compensate those who are thereby excluded from what was once common property.” Agorists/anarcho-capitalists are not left libertarians but right libertarians, according to the commonly accepted use of the terms. It appears that Agorists call themselves left libertarian because they're "revolutionary." It's unorthodox use of the term. They're not left libertarians but right libertarians. Operation Spooner 22:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

What Needs to be Done (August 2007)

The article has come a long way since the cadre's adoption in March. I think its an opportune time to set aside the particular quibbles and take a look at the article en masse. Obviously, much of the original article remains uncited or original research, notably the property section, but much of the rest has been cleaned up and cited. What are the challenges that remain, if, say, this article was to aim for Good article status? Thoughts? Criticisms? Suggestions? Skomorokh ^incite 04:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It's so bad that I say we put a citation requested note on nearly every sentence. What can't be referenced by a legitimate source under Wikipedia policy gets deleted. The very first citation is a website someone put up claiming an alliance of left libertarians. That's not a legitimate source. I don't like the "Academic left libertarianism" either. I'm not aware of such a term being used or such a concept in any references. There is not "academic" left libertarianism. "Left libertarianism" is a category. It's not a specific doctrine. I think any problems with this article can be solved by simply sticking strictly to Wikipedia policy on sourcing and deleting what's not sourced. Operation Spooner 04:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Steiner and Vallentyne are sufficiently well-published that sourcing policy would seem to dictate we take notice of them. They have articulated a particular range of doctrines that they deem "left-libertarianism." The Movement of the Libertarian Left dates back to 1978. In a recent Mises Institute "working paper," Walter Block lists the major "left-libertarian websites" in his defence of "libertarian centralism," and the list is basically that on the Alliance of the Libertarian Left site (agorist MLL members and mutualists). In 2002, Sam Konkin was talking about the "the main differences between left-libertarianism/agorism and anarcho-capitalism." Perhaps this page needs to be little more than a more elaborate disambiguation page. We've identified three (or so) uses of the term "left-libertarianism" that are referenced in scholarly publications, and much more broadly in primary sources. There's no question of the notability of any of the uses, nor should the fact that they are different uses matter much, except that we need to clarify the differences. Steiner and Vallentyne may logically take up a little more space on this page, since they seem to be notable primarily for carving out a space around the "left-libertarian" tag. (Maybe they're on the guaranteed income/minimum articles as well.) There should probably be a disambiguation page for "libertarian left" as well, and at least a brief article on the MLL. There's no reason that this should be difficult to put together. Libertatia 16:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Any reliable sources for the MLL? I'd write the article but I have nothing but the geocities page to go on. Skomorokh ^incite 17:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The phrase is prominent in Samuel Edward Konkin III's New Libertarian Manifesto (1980), which is online various places in text form. The KoPubCo site documents the output of Konkin's group. Block's paper, addressing the enlarged left-libertarian movement is here. And the existence of the MLL is verified by sources both internal and potentially opposed. In terms of what we can cite regarding that strain of left-libertarianism, we have good sources to establish the fact that agorists called themselves "left-libertarians," and a good contemporary scholarly source that confirms a broader coalition under that label. The recent conflict which led to the MLL label being dropped or de-emphasized by some members of that alliance, including some prominent agorists, for the Agorist Action Alliance and Alliance of the Libertarian Left labels, in sufficiently well documented in primary sources by individuals already associated with the MLL or identified as "left-libertarian" by Block, to warrant mention. The A3 and ALL are probably not, at this point, sufficiently notable by Wikipedia standards to merit more than that, but we're just trying to clarify the terrain here anyway. Libertatia 18:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

How do we know that these "alliances" have more members other than a handful of bloggers on the internet? If there aren't a substantial number of people in these organizations then what is the importance? What does these alliances accomplish? You just sign your name up to be able to say you're in an alliance? What do they do? Operation Spooner 23:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Try to stay on task, ok? We have three types of "left-libertarianism" (so far), all notable and citable by Wikipedia standards. We have Block's scholarly piece, demonstrating the current breadth of the SEK3-inspired/MLL-derived variety. All of that is well established according to sourcing rules. The origins of the A3 and ALL are well-documented by primary source material online, as is the continuity of members between the MLL and those organizations. I am not an uninterested party in the later phases of that particular "left-libertarian" story, so I won't be doing the edits here. But I don't see any obstacles to documenting the three types of left-libertarianism and minimally documenting recent developments in the agorist-MLL strand. Libertatia 16:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

On the whole, I agree that all three currents are included, but it is important that we get references from serious non-blog sources. I have tried to make the lede much simpler so that it does not appear that left libertarianism is not a marginal and overly specific current. BobFromBrockley 12:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Murray Rothbard

Philiberty, you're writing your own references. What source says that Rothbard was a left libertarian? You gave an article by Rothbard himself but I don't see him calling himself a left libertarian. More importantly, what source external to Rothbard calls Rothbard a left libertarian. This article by Walter Block in a peer-reviewed journal says "Rothbard was a libertarian of neither wing; he was an Austro-libertarian anarchist." [2] I also have sources saying anarcho-capitalism is right libertarianism. Operation Spooner 22:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Rothbard changed his political affiliations more often than his underwear. Self-identification is sufficient citation. The Block reference is useful to include as a note to clarify in case readers might get the impression that R was a leftlib and only a leftlib. Skomorokh ^incite 04:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

OS, in Rothbard's article he puts libertarianism on the left. He called himself a libertarian his whole life. QED. Skomorokh, Rothbard did change affiliations if by that you mean political alliances, but he didn't change his ideology. He laughed at the changing terminology, writing, "if I can move from 'extreme right' to 'extreme left' merely by standing in one place, drastic though unrecognized changes must have taken place throughout the American political spectrum over the last generation."[3] PhilLiberty 04:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation of the essay. It looks to me like he's just pointing out historical uses of the term. Sure, liberalism used to be considered on the left, of course. But, not today. A classical liberal or libertarian is not considered a leftist. Can you quote to any specific sentence where he says he's a left libertarian? Operation Spooner 04:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

"Radical right libertarianism—such as that of Rothbard (1978, 1982), Narveson (1988, ch. 7; 1999), and Feser (2005)—holds that that there are no fair share constraints on use or appropriation." [4] Operation Spooner 04:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Left libertarian Kevin Carson also says Rothbard is a right libertarian: "Although you will never see the issue addressed by Milton Friedman, intellectually honest right libertarians like Rothbard acknowledge the role of the state in creating European feudalism and Amerian slavery." [5] Operation Spooner 05:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Rothbard is saying that all libertarianism is left-libertarianism. Here are some pertinent quotes from the essay:

Libertarians of the present day are accustomed to think of socialism as the polar opposite of the libertarian creed. But this is a grave mistake, responsible for a severe ideological disorientation of libertarians in the present world. As we have seen, conservatism was the polar opposite of liberty; and socialism, while to the "left" of conservatism, was essentially a confused, middle-of-the-road movement. It was, and still is, middle-of-the-road because it tries to achieve liberal ends by the use of conservative means... p8

In particular, the modern libertarians forgot or never realized that opposition to war and militarism had always been a "left-wing" tradition which had included libertarians... p18

PhilLiberty 05:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

"HAD always been a left-wing tradition." Operation Spooner 05:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Today, to be a left libertarian is to have some collectivism or entitlement philosophy in your property ethics. That's why Kevin Carson is one, but Rothbard is not. Operation Spooner 05:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed Rothbard from the list. I don't think that Long, Spangler, or various others meet the "collectivism or entitlement" standard and am not even sure about Carson. Jacob Haller 05:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Left libertarians believe everyone is entitled to natural resources, and that no one may appropriate so much that it doesn't leave the same amount for others. That's what the occupancy and use doctrine is all about. Right libertarians don't have that restriction. If it's the fruit of your labor, you own it, period. Operation Spooner 05:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I found secondary references to Konkin's use of the term "left-Rothbardian" but no definition and no use in online works by Konkin. Can anyone else check? Jacob Haller 05:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that if someone is using the term "left-Rothbardian," then I would think that that means they think Rothbard is on the right (or center), otherwise there would be no need for the prefix. What the difference is I can't figure out. It seems to just be playing with terminology. Konkin says agorism is Rothbardianism. If it is then how can it be left and Rothbardianism not be left? The whole thing doesn't make sense. They're just throwing these terms around with no ryhme or reason. That doesn't mean this article should as well. Operation Spooner 05:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The political spectrum

Sentence in current version:

All three types are considered "left" according to models of the political spectrum, such as that presented by Karl Hess in his 1975 book Dear America, wherein "right" refers to centralized power and "left" refers to decentralization and opposition to institutionalized power.

I think this should be re-worked for two reasons: (1) by Hess' definition, all forms of libertarianism are left, therefore making the article completely redundant. (2) there is an artcle on political spectrum (which does not mention Hess, incidentally - perhaps it should) where the different models are made clear; there is no need to single out one. I would suggest something along the lines of:

All three types are considered "left" according to most models of the political spectrum, in that they support principles of equality and social justice.

I'm being bold and making the change. BobFromBrockley 10:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I am now being even bolder and removing that too, because the simplified lede (see above) makes it unnecessary. BobFromBrockley 12:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)