Libertarianism is on the left!

[BillKauffman]

http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0706b.pdf

Is libertarianism of the Left or of the Right? We often avoid this question with a resounding
"Neither!" Given how these terms are used today, this response is understandable. But it is
unsatisfying when viewed historically.

In fact, libertarianism is planted squarely on the Left, as I will try to demonstrate here.
The terms were apparently first used in the French Legislative Assembly after the
revolution of 1789. In that context those who sat on the right side of the assembly were steadfast
supporters of the dethroned monarchy and aristocracy — the ancien régime — (and hence were
conservatives) while those who sat on the left opposed its reinstatement (and hence were
radicals). It should follow from this that libertarians, or classical liberals, would sit on the left.
Indeed, that is where they sat. Frédéric Bastiat, the radical laissez-faire writer and activist,
was a member of the assembly (1848–1850) and sat on the left side along with Pierre-Joseph
Proudhon, the "mutualist" whose adage "Liberty is the mother, not the daughter, of order" graced
the masthead of Liberty, the newspaper of the American libertarian and individualist anarchist
Benjamin Tucker.

(Proudhon is also famous for saying, "Property is theft," but the full context of his work
makes clear that he meant absentee ownership resulting from state privilege, for he also wrote, in
Theory of Property, "Where shall we find a power capable of counterbalancing this formidable
might of the State? There is no other except property.... The absolute right of the State is in
conflict with the absolute right of the property owner. Property is the greatest revolutionary force
which exists.")

From early on libertarians were seen, and saw themselves, as on the Left. Obviously, "the
Left" could comprise people who agreed on very little — as long as they opposed the established
regime (or restoration of the old regime). The French Left in the first half of the 19th century
included individualists and collectivists, laissez-faire free-marketeers and those who wanted state
control of the means of production, state socialism. One could say that the Left itself had left and
right wings, with the laissez-fairists on the left-left and the state socialists on the right-left.
But however you slice it, libertarianism was of the Left.

Left, Right, and the state
Left and Right did not refer merely to which side of the assembly one sat on or one's
attitude toward the regime. That attitude was a manifestation of a deeper view of government. The
Left understood that historically the state was the most powerful engine of exploitation, although
the various factions disagreed on the exact nature of exploitation or what do to about it. Marx had
no monopoly on the idea. On the contrary, he appropriated it (then degraded it) from the early
19th-century bourgeois radical liberals Charles Comte and Charles Dunoyer, who first formulated
the theory of class conflict. In the liberal version two classes (castes) arose the moment
government engaged in plunder: the plunderers and plundered. The plunderers were those who
used the state to live off the work of others. The plundered were those the fruits of whose labor
were stolen — all members of the industrious classes, which included those in the marketplace
who produced and exchanged peacefully and who were not themselves plundering others. (Marx
changed the Comte-Dunoyer thesis for the worse by moving employers with no links to the state
from the industrious to the exploiter class. This related to his labor theory of value, which divided
groups on the Left, an interesting issue that is beyond the scope here. For more, see my article
"Libertarian Class Analysis," Freedom Daily, June 2006.)

Thus the Left was identified with the liberation of workers (broadly defined). Today we
don't associate libertarians with such a notion, but it was at the heart of the libertarian vision. You
can see it in Bastiat, Richard Cobden, John Bright, Thomas Hodgskin, Herbert Spencer, Lysander
Spooner, Tucker, and the rest of the early liberals who never failed to emphasize the role of labor
in production.

It is worth pointing out here that the word "socialism" also has undergone change from
earlier days. Tucker, who proudly accepted the description "consistent Manchester man"
(Manchesterism denoted the laissez-faire philosophy of the English free-traders Cobden and
Bright), called himself a socialist. "Capitalism" was identified with state privileges for owners of
capital to the detriment of workers, and hence was despised as an exploitative system.
Interventions such as taxes, regulations, subsidies, tariffs, licensing, and land policy restricted
competition and hence limited the demand for labor as well as opportunities for self-employment.
Such measures reduced labor's bargaining power and depressed wages, which for the Left
libertarians constituted state-sponsored plunder. Their solution was a thoroughgoing laissez faire,
freeing competition and maximizing workers' bargaining power. (Unions were seen as a way for
workers to help themselves, at least until laissez faire could be ushered in. Later, the big
government-connected unions were suspected of being part of an effort to co-opt the labor
movement and lull it safely into the establishment.)

Libertarians also showed their Left colors by opposing imperialism, war, and the
accompanying violations of civil liberties, such as conscription and arbitrary detention. (See, for
example, the writings of Bastiat, Cobden, and Bright.) Indeed, they didn't simply condemn war as
misguided; they also identified it as a key method by which the ruling class exploits the domestic
industrious classes (not to mention the foreign victims) for its own wealth and glorification.
Libertarianism and the anti-war movement went hand in hand from the start.

[BillKauffman]

Left libertarianism is left on economics - without the state - based on the proposition of equal liberty.

[BillKauffman]

many of them have somewhat different ideas about what left libertarianism supposedly "really" means... and they debate that quite endlessly in an attempt to convince others to adopt that label.   

The internal debate within left-libertarianism seem to break down as such:

1. Locke - proviso-ists vs. non proviso-ists

Then for non proviso-ists...

2. Hierarchy - a critique of all forms of hierarchy via power not just the state.

[AntonLee]

clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right. ..

[Becky Thatcher]

clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right. ..

[John Edward Mercier]

Song had some meaning didn't it.

[AntonLee]

it sure does 

[jaqeboy]

I shall continue to refer to libertarianism as radical right...

Libertarians oppose the radical right!

[jaqeboy]

Libertarians oppose the radical right!

Just for sake of context, but when you use the term libertarian, are you referring to economic left-anarchism, or do you mean libertarianism in the american sense of the word the way the term is commonly used in this country?

Libertarianism = opposed to the initiation of force

Also, when you use the phrase, "radical right," do you mean anarcho-capitalism, or do you mean stereotypical "radical right" according to what the media idiots say radical right means (i.e. religious fundamentalists, O'Reilly, Hannity, Huckabee, Pat Robertson, etc...)?  [I'm assuming the former, opposing anarcho-capitalism]

Anarcho-capitalism = an unfortunately contracted pair of opposites, but those who call themselves that are libertarians, or left-libertarians, though some don't self-identify as that. The radical right (also, see the article quoted in the initial post of this thread) favor monopoly, war, de-basing the currency, eliminating pesky civil rights, empire, etc. Best example: the neo-cons. See also this thread on NHFree and this thread on NHTeaParty for further clarifications. I think your use of "the right" is not a good one in that it associates you with the fascists in most peoples' minds (which I believe is the correct association).

Just trying to clarify who opposes what.  The why part is kind of obvious, so I won't ask that.

The Richman article is a good attempt to clarify usage, but here is another one (Rothbard's Left and Right) that should be helpful. Someone asked me recently "Why do you keep bringing this up - everybody already uses the terms the other way?" My reason is that it keeps a lot of people in confusion to not be clear on their (movement's) history and what they're called, and in some cases, who are their allies.

[Caleb]

maybe what we need is total communication

[jaqeboy]

Here's a good passage from the Rothbard article:

...there developed in Western Europe two great political ideologies, centered around this new revolutionary phenomenon: one was liberalism, the party of hope, of radicalism, of liberty, of the Industrial Revolution, of progress, of humanity; the other was conservatism, the party of reaction, the party that longed to restore the hierarchy, statism, theocracy, serfdom, and class exploitation of the Old Order. Since liberalism admittedly had reason on its side, the Conservatives darkened the ideological atmosphere with obscurantist calls for romanticism, tradition, theocracy, and irrationalism. Political ideologies were polarized, with liberalism on the extreme "left," and conservatism on the extreme "right," of the ideological spectrum. That genuine liberalism was essentially radical and revolutionary was brilliantly perceived, in the twilight of its impact, by the great Lord Acton (one of the few figures in the history of thought who, charmingly, grew more radical as he grew older). Acton wrote that "Liberalism wishes for what ought to be, irrespective of what is."

[jaqeboy]

maybe what we need is total communication

Yeah, me and Alex under a big bag!

Yeah, bagism, that's the ticket!

[BillKauffman]

Here's a good passage from the Rothbard article:

...there developed in Western Europe two great political ideologies, centered around this new revolutionary phenomenon: one was liberalism, the party of hope, of radicalism, of liberty, of the Industrial Revolution, of progress, of humanity; the other was conservatism, the party of reaction, the party that longed to restore the hierarchy, statism, theocracy, serfdom, and class exploitation of the Old Order. Since liberalism admittedly had reason on its side, the Conservatives darkened the ideological atmosphere with obscurantist calls for romanticism, tradition, theocracy, and irrationalism. Political ideologies were polarized, with liberalism on the extreme "left," and conservatism on the extreme "right," of the ideological spectrum. That genuine liberalism was essentially radical and revolutionary was brilliantly perceived, in the twilight of its impact, by the great Lord Acton (one of the few figures in the history of thought who, charmingly, grew more radical as he grew older). Acton wrote that "Liberalism wishes for what ought to be, irrespective of what is."

Yes, and he also said that socialism then occupies the "confused" middle. An attempt to use "rightists" means (the state) to achieve "leftists" goals (equal liberty).

Rothbard quote from the article cited originally:

"Thus, with Liberalism abandoned from within, there was no longer a Party of Hope in the Western
world, no longer a "Left" movement to lead a struggle against the State and against the unbreached
remainder of the Old Order. Into this gap, into this void created by the drying up of radical liberalism,
there stepped a new movement: Socialism. 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."

[jaqeboy]

Here's a good passage from the Rothbard article:

...there developed in Western Europe two great political ideologies, centered around this new revolutionary phenomenon: one was liberalism, the party of hope, of radicalism, of liberty, of the Industrial Revolution, of progress, of humanity; the other was conservatism, the party of reaction, the party that longed to restore the hierarchy, statism, theocracy, serfdom, and class exploitation of the Old Order. Since liberalism admittedly had reason on its side, the Conservatives darkened the ideological atmosphere with obscurantist calls for romanticism, tradition, theocracy, and irrationalism. Political ideologies were polarized, with liberalism on the extreme "left," and conservatism on the extreme "right," of the ideological spectrum. That genuine liberalism was essentially radical and revolutionary was brilliantly perceived, in the twilight of its impact, by the great Lord Acton (one of the few figures in the history of thought who, charmingly, grew more radical as he grew older). Acton wrote that "Liberalism wishes for what ought to be, irrespective of what is."

Yes, and he also said that socialism then occupies the "confused" middle. An attempt to use "rightists" means (the state) to achieve "leftists" goals (equal liberty).

Rothbard quote from the article cited originally:

"Thus, with Liberalism abandoned from within, there was no longer a Party of Hope in the Western
world, no longer a "Left" movement to lead a struggle against the State and against the unbreached
remainder of the Old Order. Into this gap, into this void created by the drying up of radical liberalism,
there stepped a new movement: Socialism. 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."

OMG, of course, I should have included that! This is the passage that really clarifies it! It also explains why alliances with conservatives take libertarians into a strange confusing labyrinth and, sorry Alex, leads you to have to defend yourself from true liberals when you've called yourself "on the right", with the qualification that "I'm not like THOSE people on the right! I'm against what they believe!!!?

[jaqeboy]

I see quite a few of the right-libertarians are starting to adopt this left-libertarian label as their newest fad....

A 219 year old "fad", eh? Actually, it's a return to reason and meaning, and flee from the confusion.