LEFT-LIBERTARIANISM

:''This article covers market-oriented forms, but not other forms, of libertarian socialism.''
'Left-libertarianism' is a term in political philosophy that has been adopted by several different movements and theorists. In general, it refers to any political movement or theory which is has a strong commitment to personal liberty ''and'' has an egalitarian view concerning natural resources, believing that it is illegitimate for anyone to claim private ownership of resources to the detriment of others.^[1] Most left libertarians support some form of income redistribution on the grounds of a claim by each individual to be entitled to an equal share of natural resources.^[2]
Specific movements and currents that have been described as left libertarian include mutualists, agorists, voluntaryists, geolibertarians, green libertarians, dialectical anarchists, and radical minarchists among others. Influential left-libertarians of this type include Karl Hess,^[3] Samuel Edward Konkin III,^[4] and, in the 21st century, Roderick T. Long.^[5] Murray Rothbard was a major influence on left libertarian thought, but not generally considered left libertarian himself.
"Left-libertarianism" can also refer to a philosophical position defended by certain contemporary academics such as Peter Vallentyne, Hillel Steiner, and Michael Otsuka.^[6] This variety of left-libertarianism is a synthesis of classical liberal self-ownership theory with an egalitarian perspective on the distribution of natural resources.
Thirdly, the term is sometimes used as a synonym for libertarian socialism, as noted above.

Contents

Market left-libertarianism

Rapprochement of market libertarians with the Left

Market left-libertarians and cultural politics

Left-libertarianism and property

Further reading

Notes and references

External links

Market left-libertarianism

Mutualism emerged from early 19th-century socialism, and is generally considered a market-oriented part of the libertarian socialist tradition.
Agorism is a branch of anarcho-capitalism which stresses counter-economics as a transitional strategy to statelessness.^[7] It has its origins in dissident sections of the Libertarian Party and anti-corporate followers of Murray Rothbard, and could therefore be called "anti-corporate left-libertarianism". It is "left" insofar as it promotes "revolutionary" (illegal) activity, in particular using the black or gray market operations instead of the taxed unfree market.^[8] Some agorists, including Konkin, consider intellectual property to be invalid although this is a debated issue in agorism.^[9]

Rapprochement of market libertarians with the Left

The first attempt at rapprochement between the postwar American libertarian movement and the Left came in the 1960s, when Austrian-School economist Murray Rothbard came to question libertarianism's traditional alliance with the Right in light of the Vietnam War. During this period, Rothbard came to advocate strategic alliances with the New Left over issues such as the military draft and black power.

Working with radicals like Ronald Radosh, Rothbard argued that the consensus view of American economic history, wherein government has stepped in as a countervailing interest to corporate predation, is fundamentally flawed. Rather, he argued, government intervention in the economy has largely benefited established players at the expense of marginalized groups, to the detriment of both liberty and equality. Moreover, the "Robber Baron Period", adulated by the right and despised by the left as a laissez-faire haven, was not laissez-faire at all but in fact a time of massive state privilege accorded to capital. Rothbard criticized the "frenzied nihilism" of left-libertarians but also criticized right-wing libertarians who were content to rely only on education to bring down the state; he believed that libertarians should adopt any non-immoral tactic available to them in order bring about liberty.^[10]
Rothbard's initial leftward impulse was maintained by Karl Hess, picked up by activists like Samuel Edward Konkin III (founder of the Movement of the Libertarian Left) and Roderick Long. These left-libertarians agree with Rothbard that presently-existing capitalism does not even vaguely resemble a free market, and that presently-existing corporations are the beneficiaries and chief most supporters of statism. By this line of reasoning, libertarianism should make common cause with the anti-corporate left. Rapprochement with the left has led many left-libertarians to reject some traditional libertarian stances, such as hostility to labor unions and support for intellectual property, or even to limit valid real-property rights to use-and-occupancy.

Market left-libertarians and cultural politics

Contemporary left-libertarians also show markedly more sympathy than mainstream or paleo-libertarians towards various cultural movements which challenge non-governmental relations of power. For instance, left-libertarians Roderick Long and Charles Johnson have called for a recovery of the nineteenth-century alliance between radical liberalism and feminism.^[11] Left-libertarians are more likely to take recognizably leftist stances on issues as diverse as feminism, gender and sexuality, sexual freedom, drug policy, race, class, immigration, environmentalism, and foreign policy. Current writers who have significantly impacted or explored this aspect of left-libertarianism include Chris Sciabarra, Roderick Long, Charles Johnson, Kevin Carson, and Arthur Silber.

Left-libertarianism combines the libertarian premise that each person possesses a natural right of self-ownership with the egalitarian premise that natural resources should be shared equally. Left-libertarianism holds that unappropriated natural resources are either unowned or owned in common, believing that private appropriation is only legitimate if everyone can appropriate an equal amount, or if private appropriation is taxed to compensate those who are excluded from natural resources. This contrasts with right libertarians who argue for a right to appropriate unequal parts of the external world, such as land.^[12]
A number of Anglo-American political philosophers argue for the validity and necessity of some social welfare programs within the context of libertarian self-ownership theory. Peter Vallentyne and Hillel Steiner edited a primer, ''The Origins of Left-Libertarianism: An Anthology of Historical Writings''. This text places Hugo Grotius, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Spence, Thomas Paine, John Stuart Mill, Herbert Spencer and Henry George in the left libertarian tradition.^[13] Steiner himself wrote ''An Essay on Rights'', a pioneering look at rights and justice from a left-libertarian perspective.
Philippe Van Parijs has written extensively on what he calls "real libertarianism", an approach very similar to Steiner and Otsuka's, and usually subsumed under the rubric of left-libertarianism. More recently, Michael Otsuka published ''Libertarianism Without Inequality'', where he argues for incorporating egalitarian ideas into libertarian rights schemes.
Though not left-libertarians themselves, G. A. Cohen, John Roemer, and Jon Elster have also written extensively about the notions of self-ownership and equality, which provide the basis for this branch of left libertarian thought. This self-styled left-libertarianism's historical roots in the school of analytical Marxism has cast a cloud of doubt over it for both leftists and libertarians of more conventional stripe.

Left-libertarianism and property

Pro-capitalist libertarian theory is sometimes called "right-libertarianism." It 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, or that all genuine rights can be understood as property rights rooted in self-ownership (right-libertarians can and do differ on the notion of intellectual property). As described above, the modern pro-capitalist meaning of "left-libertarian" basically retain most of these beliefs. However, Vallentyne and some other left-libertarian philosophers take a more moderate – and, in their view, realistic - approach. They differ from mainstream right-libertarians on the issue that Robert Nozick calls the "original acquisition of holdings". That is the question of how property rights came about in the first place, and how property was originally acquired.

Right-libertarians hold that "wilderness" is unowned, and that unowned resources are made into property by use. This is generally referred to as homesteading. According to John Locke, when a person "mixes his labor" with a previously unowned object, it becomes his. A person who cultivates a field in the wilderness, by virtue of "mixing his personality" with the land, becomes the rightful owner of it (subject to the Lockean proviso that equally-good land remains free for the taking for others).
Libertarian socialists generally accept property rights, but with a short abandonment time period. In other words, a person must make (more or less) continuous use of the item or else he loses ownership rights. This is usually referred to as "possession property" or "usufruct." Thus, in this usufruct system, absentee ownership is illegitimate, and workers own the machines they work with.
Vallentyne and some other left-libertarians hold that "wilderness" is commonly owned by all the people in a given area. Since there is no predetermined distribution of land and (they argue) since there is no reason to believe that, all things being equal, some people deserve more property than others, it makes sense to think of resources as commonly owned. Thus this brand of left-libertarianism denies that first use or "mixing labor" has any bearing on ownership. As such, it argues that any theory of left-libertarianism must structure its social and legal system around enforcing this idea of common ownership. Different proponents of this school of thought have different ideas about what can be done with property. Some believe that one must gain some kind of permission from their community in order to use resources. Others argue that people should be allowed to appropriate land in exchange for some kind of rent and they must either pay taxes on the profits made from the appropriated resources or allow the products of those resources to become common property.
Historically, the Georgists were a leftist tendency within libertarianism. They believed that all humanity rightfully owned all land in common and that individuals should pay rent to the rest of society for taking sole or exclusive use of that land. People in this movement were often referred to as "single taxers," since they believed that the only legitimate tax was land rent. However, they did believe that private property could be created by applying labor to natural resources.

Further reading

★