[trombonepolitician]

I wanted to see if there was anybody here that sympathized with the Steiner-Vallentyne tradition of left-libertarianism (this includes thought from David Ellerman, Philip Van Parijs and classics such as John Stuart Mill, Henry George, etc). I was asking because I sympathize with many of these positions (as well as a lot of analysis on the Center for a Stateless Society website and certain libertarian socialists). I often look toward proposals to localize welfare services, or allow subsidiarity in the system. I also want many businesses now to either break up, mutualize, become ESOPs (have employee stock ownership) or become full cooperatives. Mutual credit seems like a great idea, but I feel like people need to learn the various ways to mutually aid each other first. The emergence of social-benefit enterprises, community gardens, and common pools of resources can be a great route to this. I also want a public school system with vouchers for any person to choose to go to private, parochial, or to take classes outside of the public system if they choose. I do think there need to be minimal standards set for students to learn, such as reading, writing, math, and, most importantly, civil service. Important services will be organized into ministries (that ideally would be led by non-partisan workers in the field).

I am posting this to find what some of your philosophical justifications for the "need for certain social welfare programs" as well as requirements by the state and such. I know these justifications are often consequentialist and/or utilitarian. I personally want to see state intervention evaluated case-by-case, ideally so that these interventions are for "the greater good." However, utilitarian definitions of the greater good seem a bit too limited to generating the "greatest amount of happiness," whereas I also think that certain goods seen inherent in our culture should be promoted by the state, such as aid to one another, environmental protection both at home and abroad, and respect for other cultures abroad. I do understand Mill promoted many of these ideas.

So, in short, this is another "what is my ideology" thing, but I already know I'm some form of liberal. I mostly want to know what thinkers and what cultures and at what time periods have similar thought to the way I have laid out my ideals.

[Eran]

Hi there!

Have you looked at Bleeding Heart Libertarians? They offer left-wing sensibilities without compromising on freedom and private property ownership.

Their thesis (with which I whole-heartedly agree) is that the poor are best serve by strict protection of private property rights.

I can even accept the need and desirability of Social Welfare programs, while insisting that such programs be voluntarily funded.

[trombonepolitician]

Hello Eran!

Have you looked at Bleeding Heart Libertarians? They offer left-wing sensibilities without compromising on freedom and private property ownership.

I am quite the fan of BHL! I read a lot of their philosophical blog posts. Specifically I sympathize with many left-libertarians and liberal-tarians that have pointed to empirical successes of market solutions in Europe.

Their thesis (with which I whole-heartedly agree) is that the poor are best serve by strict protection of private property rights.

I definitely need to read more about what constitutes private property rights. In our current system, it seems like we have property rights for the few protected at the expense of the many.

can even accept the need and desirability of Social Welfare programs, while insisting that such programs be voluntarily funded.

While I do support a modern liberal view of certain standards for education and a minimum provision of health care for all, I think it is important to not rule out private, non-profit, and voluntary alternatives. In addition, government should fund these programs with the intent of helping these institutions be self-sufficient.

[Rich]

Hi there!

Have you looked at Bleeding Heart Libertarians?

Progressives are in dire need of a sound argument for coercively redistributing wealth,

As soon as you have a court system you redistribute wealth. If a shop keeper Jack goes to the police (or his favourite private security company) and says Bob stole my carrot. If bob disagrees and Bob is convicted and fined then property has been redistributed.

Libertarians talk like there's some sort a priori property. Take the united States. Now there's a load of people occupying the place, but they don't own it. I have as much right to use any of the land, rivers, oil or any other natural resource as any American. As it stands aggressors are monopolising those commons. So called Private property of natural resources is theft pure and simple. National ownership of natural resources is theft pure and simple. Of course I recognise that the violent aggressive military force of the united States stops me exercising my inalienable moral rights, but the American military can never turn wrong into right.

Libertarianism is one of the greatest lies in history. It dresses up aggression as non aggression.

[mum]

As soon as you have a court system you redistribute wealth. If a shop keeper Jack goes to the police (or his favourite private security company) and says Bob stole my carrot. If bob disagrees and Bob is convicted and fined then property has been redistributed.

This is delusional at best.
Courts are used to rectify property disputes and property theft. They do not "redistribute wealth" in any meaningful sense.

Libertarians talk like there's some sort a priori property. Take the united States. Now there's a load of people occupying the place, but they don't own it. I have as much right to use any of the land, rivers, oil or any other natural resource as any American.

You don't have the right use the land or oil reserves that someone else has spent their own money improving or extracting from the ground. Unless you put up your money to do it.

As it stands aggressors are monopolising those commons.

If you bothered to locate, evaluate, test and extract the oil from a previously unclaimed source you could have your own oil reserve. But you couldn't be bother so stop complaining. This is a bad case of jealousy and tall poppy syndrome.

[slybaldguy]

Their thesis (with which I whole-heartedly agree) is that the poor are best serve by strict protection of private property rights.

I can even accept the need and desirability of Social Welfare programs, while insisting that such programs be voluntarily funded.

Yes because the poor have a lot of property that needs protecting.

I can accept that you shouldn't be bludgeoned to death, while insisting that you give generously.

[Eran]

In our current system, it seems like we have property rights for the few protected at the expense of the many.

If it does (seem that way), it's because the word "property" evokes a biased image. People tend to think of "property" as being primarily land and capital - the things rich people own.

In fact, "property" is much broader than that. First and foremost, we each have property in our own bodies. Enslaving, jailing or prohibiting drug consumption are distinct forms of property right violations.

Second, our property rights imply (if anything) the right to freely dispose of our property. Thus implicit in them is the right of two legitimate property owners to exchange property they already own. In other words, it implies free trade, both internationally (the usual meaning of the term) and domestically (e.g. exchange of services for money free of professional licensing regulations).

Properly conceived, almost everything government does constitutes violations of property rights. And the people who suffer most from systematic property right violations are those with least political power - the poor (and foreigners).

While I do support a modern liberal view of certain standards for education and a minimum provision of health care for all, I think it is important to not rule out private, non-profit, and voluntary alternatives.

I suggest that it is both more moral and more effective, rather than to "not rule out private, non-profit, and voluntary alternatives" to positively rule out coercion based "solutions", and, by default, allow (rather than "rule in") all non-coercive solutions, both for- and not-for profit.

Libertarians talk like there's some sort a priori property.

Indeed. The "property" we libertarian like to talk about is the consequence of a very simple principle - don't use force against other people if they have not initiated the use of force against others. A very basic principle familiar to all (well-behaved) children and accepted with virtually no exceptions throughout society with the gaping exception that we make for government.

With the exception of government agents, or those authorised by government, people overwhelmingly incorporate this basic principle in their interaction with others. For those who doubt it, please do try and come up with exceptions.

Our problem is that we accept, for no good reason, the myth that government is somehow magically, mysteriously, inexplicably (and disastrously) exempt from this basic principle of human morality.


Once you accept this principle, property rights follow naturally. If I started doing something with a previously-unused resource (e.g. extract iron ore from underneath unused land), I have no initiated force against anybody. Consequently, nobody has a right to initiate force against my project which includes making use of that iron ore, either myself, or by others I authorised (temporarily or permanently). In other words, the iron ore (or the iron, steel or car manufactured from it) are my property.

Yes, because the poor have a lot of property that needs protecting.

It isn't about absolute quantity, but relative importance. When a poor person is about to spend $10 to have their hair done, their right to purchase this service from whomsoever they want to is part of their property rights. Professional licensing laws prohibit "unauthorised" hair braiders, thus violating the property rights of both hair braiders and those seeking their services.

If the result if this regulation is that hair braiding becomes $5 more expensive than it would otherwise be, that makes very little difference to a middle-class person, and much difference to a poor person.

Poor people own the most important resource in any human society - human bodies and minds. Government routinely violates their rights to both make a living, and use what monetary resources they do have following their best judgement.

Ask yourself a simple question - who is more likely to have their property rights violated - politically powerful rich or middle-class voters, or the politically dispossessed poor?

[slybaldguy]

I'm more interested in how people become rich in the first place. The answer: aggression. Without state enforced aggression the deeds to your property aren't worth the paper they're written on.

Would you still be a libertarian if all property was raffled off and there was a good chance you could end up with nothing?

[Eran]

You are wrong. People no longer become rich primarily through aggression.

That certainly used to be the case in pre-industrial times. In Feudal time (with legacy extending through early modern times), wealth, especially in Europe, was dominated by land-ownership, itself primarily being the legacy of conquest and aggression.

Since 1800 however, the total wealth available to humanity has increased by thousands of percent. That increase wasn't due to aggression (against whom?), but rather to innovation, creativity, savings, investment and work. The vast majority of today's wealthiest (as well as today's moderately wealthy) have made their own wealth. And while aggression (today taking the form, in the west, of crony capitalism) is certainly still a problem, it is certainly not the only or even the dominant way people get wealthy.

Moreover, aggression today is almost invariably mediated through government. To give government more power and hope thereby to alleviate the problem of aggression is silly.

Would you still be a libertarian if all property was raffled off and there was a good chance you could end up with nothing?

I could never end up with nothing, as I would always own my body and my mind. The modest wealth I have claim to today wasn't bequeathed to me by my parents. I have worked hard to create and save it for the past 30 years, despite (not thanks to) government intervention. In the process of creating my wealth, I was forced to pay millions of dollars to politicians on both sides of the Atlantic.

But to answer your question, was I given a choice into which society to be born (or into which society my yet-to-be born grandchildren will be), I'd much (much) rather be born pennyless into a libertarian society than have middle-class-level wealth in today's society (or, for that matter, the wealth of royalty in pre-capitalist society).

[lucky]

With the exception of government agents, or those authorised by government, people overwhelmingly incorporate this basic principle in their interaction with others. For those who doubt it, please do try and come up with exceptions.

Our problem is that we accept, for no good reason, the myth that government is somehow magically, mysteriously, inexplicably (and disastrously) exempt from this basic principle of human morality.

When something is hard to understand to you, it does not automatically mean it's magical and inexplicable.

Let me try to explain the tax issue, for example. It is true that we happily have a government collect taxes while we don't tend to set up and enforce our own individual tax codes. That does not mean we are all magically bipolar though. A simpler explanation is that we like the idea of having that task of governing performed by a specialized team we call government. Have them do the dirty work while the rest of us go about working on other important issues that we, in turn, specialize in. An added benefit is the rule of law, i.e. explicit and uniform rules regarding, in this case, taxes, rather than a much less ideal outcome of warring groups each trying to enforce their own rules.

Here is an analogy: with the exception of my girlfriend, I have a simple rule: no sex with anybody. Does that imply I should not be having sex with my girlfriend, or risk being diagnosed with a a multiple personality disorder if I do?

[mum]

sex with your girlfriend is (or should be) on a voluntary basis. In case you haven't noticed, taxes are not voluntary.

[lucky]

sex with your girlfriend is (or should be) on a voluntary basis. In case you haven't noticed, taxes are not voluntary.

I have noticed... I did not claim otherwise. What are you trying to say? Get to the point. And lay off the unnecessary insults.

I did not try to imply that sex and taxes are in all aspects identical, lol. That is not the meaning of an analogy. It's Eran's fallacy of faulty generalization that I was trying to demonstrate using the analogy.

[Eran]

lucky,
The issue here is moral. It isn't just the case that government agents "specialise" in tax collection.

Rather, the issue is that in our society, certain activities (such as making others pay money at threat of violent retribution) are only considered legitimate if performed by government agents.

What is inexplicable is that this authorisation is unrelated to any substantive attribute of either the body in question or the purpose or circumstances of the action.

For example, government is legitimised in enforcing all laws, both good and bad. Our personal notion of right and wrong tend to be fairly stable. Yet the same action (say smoking weed in Colorado) was justified lengthy imprisonment in conducted on 31st December 2013, but no longer as of Jan 1st 2014.

Similarly, the distinguishing characteristic isn't the democratic nature of government. People in non-democratic countries tend to view their government's actions as legitimate. Conversely, democratic institutions such as neighbourhood associations would not be considered legitimate in enforcing arbitrary rules.

One could legitimately argue that such is the case with our government as well. The constitution (lower-case 'c') of a country broadly outlines the scope of government action considered legitimate. Still, it is undoubtedly the case that all modern constitutions leave governments very broad scope for legitimised coercive action that would be unacceptable if carried out by any other person or organisation in society.

[lucky]

Rather, the issue is that in our society, certain activities (such as making others pay money at threat of violent retribution) are only considered legitimate if performed by government agents.

So, you want people to go enforcing the law by themselves, without any authorization? (Well, I know you do, lol, but it's still weird.) The moment you get authorization from authorities, you become a "government agent" by definition. Seems like a good thing to me that tax collection is not a free-for-all, and that mob lynching is not allowed.

For example, government is legitimised in enforcing all laws, both good and bad. Our personal notion of right and wrong tend to be fairly stable. Yet the same action (say smoking weed in Colorado) was justified lengthy imprisonment in conducted on 31st December 2013, but no longer as of Jan 1st 2014.

Well of course. That's part of the very important concept of Rule of Law! The whole point of the law is to have predictable enforcement. It would be a much worse state of affairs if we somehow always decided on what's OK and what isn't on a case by case basis with no rules in place.

It's not like there is a uniform agreement on what laws are good and what laws are bad! Trying to go by that criterion in law enforcement would obviously only lead to chaos. Which is why we have a much better process for deciding on this, with an extra phase: legislation.

The example you gave is simply legislation working as intended. A law got changed due to a change in general thinking about this. I don't see what you think should be improved about this process (unless you mention Defense Agencies, in which case I will just ignore that).

Still, it is undoubtedly the case that all modern constitutions leave governments very broad scope for legitimised coercive action that would be unacceptable if carried out by any other person or organisation in society.

Yes. I like the fact that the IRS can tax me according to the law, I would not like it if the neighbor could tax me according to his own rules. I don't really see what's so surprising about this. The latter would simply lead to a ... significantly more complicated and less pleasant life than the former does. Seems pretty obvious to me, and I doubt you honestly find the preference so magical and inexplicable yourself.

Similarly, the distinguishing characteristic isn't the democratic nature of government. People in non-democratic countries tend to view their government's actions as legitimate.

I agree with this. What matters more directly is the quality of governing: the Rule of Law, predictability, security, along with other government functions, and the general resulting standard of living. How the government comes into existence is secondary to me, although I do think democracy is a pretty good process.

But it's not like support for a government is unconditional... When you have an oppressive government, you find less support for it among the populace. The value of having a democracy is to have a non-violent way of expressing and fixing it.

[Eran]

Why should we want Rule of Law?

An important reason is predictability of law. As we navigate our way through society, we want the rules applicable to us to be predictable, so that we know how to plan our actions. That predictability is compromised when laws change frequently, when laws are unknown, or when their application and enforcement is arbitrary or capricious.

Along all three attributes, legislation-based law is inferior to alternative systems such as Common Law. Legislators feel it is their jobs to legislate, hence a flood of legislation (not to mention "secondary legislation" in the form of regulatory rules that have the power of law). Legislation-based law is unknowable in practice. The sheer volume of laws and regulations is beyond the comprehension of any person. Finally, its application, often in the hands of unelected regulators, is arbitrary, capricious and unpredictable. For example, even after several years, there is still great uncertainty in the financial community regarding important aspects of the Dodd-Frank legislation.

However, predictability, while important, is still only a secondary attribute of law. The primary attribute of the law is that it should be just. That its application should, with high even if not perfect probability, be moral.

If a law is bad (think of uncontroversially bad laws such as those of the former Soviet Union), having it applied predictably and consistently isn't a good thing.


So while government-legislation-and-enforcement base law is inferior in terms of its secondary attributes, it is even worse in terms of the primary attribute of justice and morality.

This is where the Marijuana legislation comes in as an obvious example. Is it moral to lock people in cages for years because they smoked weed? The answer to that question doesn't depend on whether the year is 2013 or 2014. I believe (as do most Americans) that it is wrong to do so. It is still wrong to do that even if government's legislation 'authorises' such lock-up.

It's not like there is a uniform agreement on what laws are good and what laws are bad!

Actually, if you set aside the moral exemption awarded government agents, there is a fairly broad consensus over what actions, in principle, are legitimate. As I mentioned, most people accept, in their dealing with others, the principle that it is wrong to initiate force against another person, and that force can only legitimately be used defensively.

Now there may well be disputes as to whether, in particular circumstances, an application of force falls into the first or second category. That is what judges (or arbitrators) do. Judges/arbitrators are essential for the smooth functioning of any society. Legislators, on the other hand, are not. England prospered for centuries with very little legislated law, relying instead on the Common Law.

[lucky]

This is where the Marijuana legislation comes in as an obvious example. Is it moral to lock people in cages for years because they smoked weed? The answer to that question doesn't depend on whether the year is 2013 or 2014. I believe (as do most Americans) that it is wrong to do so.

Well... now they apparently do, a year ago they didn't. Popular opinion seems to be changing right now. The whole idea behind the complex law-making process is to essentially find out if they do or not, and then formalize, and implement these things. It's also more complicated than counting Americans in an opinion poll.

You say you don't want this rule decided by legislation, but at the same time you're essentially saying it should be legislated your way once and for all because most Americans support you. You're contradicting yourself.

[Eran]

Where did I say it should be legislated one way or another?

What I said is that if we have law following most people's moral intuition, without the inherent distortions of the legislative process, we will get not just more moral laws, but also more predictable, stable, well-understood and enforceable laws.

I am not suggesting polling Americans as to their views on legislation. Most Americans, for example, support laws prohibiting other dangerous drugs. They support taxation, welfare and countless other government policies to which I object. But while most Americans support anti-drug legislation (albeit not in its current form), very few will accept the principle that one person may use force to prohibit others from peaceful activities of which he disapproves.

So, I am suggesting a system in which laws follow people's broad moral intuition. Most Americans operate under the superstitious belief that government represents authority. That government, in other words, has an exemption from everyday morality that governs their interaction with other people. I suggest we eliminate that exemption, and expects all people, not just non-government ones, to behave morally.