• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Left Libertarianism

gunner

gunner

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2007
Messages
6,551
Reaction score
2,879
Location
uk
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Is Left Libertarianism a coherent political philosophy?

Left Libertarianism is not much discussed, from what I can see, within academia. Libertarianism in the normative sense is covered quite extensively. Robert Nozick in 'justice as entitlement' has been challenged not only from a liberal (Rawls, J), but a communitarian (Otsuka, M) perspective.

As an example, one argument has been over distributive justice:

Robert Nozick (American philosopher) :: The entitlement theory of justice -- Encyclopedia Britannica

What would a left Libertarian have to say on this, and other issues?

Paul
 
The idea that because Joe worked to earn a loaf of bread that his neighbor Sam was "denied access" to that job and thus is entitled to half of that loaf of bread is insane. What this Libertarian believes is that if the proceeds of work are to be shared then the incentive of any individual to do any work falls off greatly.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The idea that because Joe worked to earn a loaf of bread that his neighbor Sam was "denied access" to that job and thus is entitled to half of that loaf of bread is insane
Click to expand...

Before I argue against this, who is it that actually argues this?

What this Libertarian believes is that if the proceeds of work are to be shared then the incentive of any individual to do any work falls off greatly.
Click to expand...

I can see that leads on from your premise above. The 'incentive' argument is the biggest challenge when countering Libertarianism. I'll get to it when you answer the above :)

Paul
Click to expand...
 
gunner said:
ttwtt78640 said:
Before I argue against this, who is it that actually argues this?



I can see that leads on from your premise above. The 'incentive' argument is the biggest challenge when countering Libertarianism. I'll get to it when you answer the above :)

Paul
Click to expand...

I used a greatly over simplified example with one poor person and one non-poor person; that has all of the elements needed to test the "least among us" idea and the concept of a "fair share" of total wealth/income. The concept does not require a scale of millions to be tested and it seems that great pains must be taken when drawing the lines to have a "big middle" that neither gets nor gives in the "fairness" model ideal. So long as those that must pay are outnumbered by those that get help and many are exempted from personal affect it appears to be popular. One can be very generous when spending the money of another. ;)
Click to expand...
 
No type of libertarianism is a coherent political philosophy.

There are many reasons to support this claim, but the main one is: no nation ever has (or ever will have) a functioning libertarian government.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
No type of libertarianism is a coherent political philosophy.

There are many reasons to support this claim, but the main one is: no nation ever has (or ever will have) a functioning libertarian government.
Click to expand...

And I would add that it's incoherent because it rests on two notions: That govt is inherently evil and a hazy notion of "natural rights", neither of which has a basis in reality
 
sangha said:
And I would add that it's incoherent because it rests on two notions: That govt is inherently evil and a hazy notion of "natural rights", neither of which has a basis in reality
Click to expand...

While I agree with your points, I don't think that it's fair to limit this criticism to libertarian thinking. Your criticism that a political ideology isn't based on objective absolutes is true about pretty much all positions.
 
gunner said:
Is Left Libertarianism a coherent political philosophy?

Left Libertarianism is not much discussed, from what I can see, within academia. Libertarianism in the normative sense is covered quite extensively. Robert Nozick in 'justice as entitlement' has been challenged not only from a liberal (Rawls, J), but a communitarian (Otsuka, M) perspective.

As an example, one argument has been over distributive justice:

Robert Nozick (American philosopher) :: The entitlement theory of justice -- Encyclopedia Britannica

What would a left Libertarian have to say on this, and other issues?

Paul
Click to expand...

The left has a need to corrupt much of the English language.

Liberal has lost it's traditional meaning. Progressive has lost it's traditional meaning. Libertarian is the latest cloak some on the left wish to wear in an attempt to hide their true beliefs.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
gunner said:
I used a greatly over simplified example with one poor person and one non-poor person; that has all of the elements needed to test the "least among us" idea and the concept of a "fair share" of total wealth/income. The concept does not require a scale of millions to be tested and it seems that great pains must be taken when drawing the lines to have a "big middle" that neither gets nor gives in the "fairness" model ideal. So long as those that must pay are outnumbered by those that get help and many are exempted from personal affect it appears to be popular. One can be very generous when spending the money of another. ;)
Click to expand...

So that I understand you correctly: are you for or against distributive justice? Or, do you see it as not the responsibility of the government?

Paul
Click to expand...
 
CanadaJohn said:
The left has a need to corrupt much of the English language.

Liberal has lost it's traditional meaning. Progressive has lost it's traditional meaning. Libertarian is the latest cloak some on the left wish to wear in an attempt to hide their true beliefs.
Click to expand...

You're a tad broad there, John, especially as we are in the Philosophical section ;)

So, as yet, no one can point to a coherent Left Libertarian position?

Paul
 
Last edited:
DifferentDrummr said:
No type of libertarianism is a coherent political philosophy.

There are many reasons to support this claim, but the main one is: no nation ever has (or ever will have) a functioning libertarian government.
Click to expand...

The same could've been said of Communism for about three thousand years. Ever read any of Plato's work?
 
Jesse Booth said:
The same could've been said of Communism for about three thousand years. Ever read any of Plato's work?
Click to expand...

As a Libertarian, have you got a coherent response to the question? (it is always helpful to include philosophers that you follow :))

Do you believe and follow social contract theory? (particularly John Rawls version)

Paul
 
zyzygy said:
Did you have a particular work in mind?
Click to expand...

In addition. I would ask, is it pertaining to the opening question(s).

Paul
 
sangha said:
And I would add that it's incoherent because it rests on two notions: That govt is inherently evil and a hazy notion of "natural rights", neither of which has a basis in reality
Click to expand...

The government isn't evil; just inefficient and easily corrupted, like any other monopoly. As for the natural rights part, could you go into more detail please?
 
Jesse Booth said:
The government isn't evil; just inefficient and easily corrupted, like any other monopoly. As for the natural rights part, could you go into more detail please?
Click to expand...

Holding a 'Libertarian' position, you should be more than a little converse in the subject of natural rights (the bedrock of Libertarian philosophy). If (and don't take this as me being rude) you are in any way unfamiliar with the debate over 'rights', you have absolutely NO authority to suggest you are a Libertarian.

Paul
 
gunner said:
You're a tad broad there, John, especially as we are in the Philosophical section ;)

So, as yet, no one can point to a coherent Left Libertarian position?

Paul
Click to expand...

Fair enough - I'll stay out of the discussion.
 
Unrepresented said:
While I agree with your points, I don't think that it's fair to limit this criticism to libertarian thinking. Your criticism that a political ideology isn't based on objective absolutes is true about pretty much all positions.
Click to expand...

While it is true that political ideologies are not based on objective absolutes, they can be (and often are) based on ethical values that are nearly universal while recognizing that those values are not an objective truth. In my experience, libertarians take the two concepts I mentioned as objective absolutes and allow no (or sometimes, little) consideration for the possibility that they are not.
 
Jesse Booth said:
The government isn't evil; just inefficient and easily corrupted, like any other monopoly. As for the natural rights part, could you go into more detail please?
Click to expand...

I probably could but I'm not going to. As a libertarian, you ought to be pretty familiar with the concept even if you don't believe in it.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
True communism has never functioned on a national scale, either.
Click to expand...
No pure, uncorrupted ideology has ever functioned on a national scale. Scale demands compromise.
sangha said:
While it is true that political ideologies are not based on objective absolutes, they can be (and often are) based on ethical values that are nearly universal while recognizing that those values are not an objective truth. In my experience, libertarians take the two concepts I mentioned as objective absolutes and allow no (or sometimes, little) consideration for the possibility that they are not.
Click to expand...
There are always ideologues in every bunch. The concept of limited government involvement in social matters can coexist with the concept of greater government involvement in economic matters, even if there will be a natural limit that either extreme can meet without violating the other, but it's as worthwhile a goal as any IMO.
 
Unrepresented said:
No pure, uncorrupted ideology has ever functioned on a national scale. Scale demands compromise.

There are always ideologues in every bunch. The concept of limited government involvement in social matters can coexist with the concept of greater government involvement in economic matters, even if there will be a natural limit that either extreme can meet without violating the other, but it's as worthwhile a goal as any IMO.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why you're distinguishing between social and economic matters when, as far as I can tell, libertarianism does not. And my experiences, though the perception they've led me to is very subjective, leads me to believe that left libertarians are more supportive of govt in social matters than they are with govt involvement in economic matters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom