Community hubs

This is the global Anarchoblogs. It collects articles from many smaller community hubs within the Anarchoblogs network. For stories from particular places, groups, or other communities within our movement, check out some of these sites.

Share this fundraiser with friends online using ChipIn!

Support Anarchist Bloggers!

Anarchoblogs depends on contributions from readers like you to stay running. We're doing a fundraising drive for the months of July and August.

Donations provide for the costs of running anarchoblogs.org and provide direct financial support to active Anarchoblogs contributors. See the donation page for more details.


Posts by wombatron

Shameless Promotion


For anyone interested in left-libertarianism, the Forums of the Libertarian Left are still up and active! There’s been a slight decrease in the number of posts as of late, but it looks like a good number of people still check in regularly. If you are already registered and haven’t posted in a while, stop by! Let everyone know how you are doing, post a rant on something, or even just send cute cat pictures.

EDIT: and for anyone interested in an Aristotelian perspective on libertarianism and classical liberalism, Geoff Plauche recently created a Facebook page for Aristotelian liberalism.

Why I Am A Left-Libertarian


I am a left-libertarian. This is a position that seems contradictory to many, both libertarian and not; libertarianism is traditionally seen as being a movement of the Right, or even the farthest extreme of the Right, existing as an apologetic philosophy for corporatism and elitism. I believe that this is fundamentally mistaken. The Right, I think, is properly seen today as being the status quo of state-capitalism, dominated by an elite of bureaucrats and plutocrats, whose ends are power and authority at the expense of everyone else. Even modern day “liberals” and social democrats are rightist in this sense; merely reforming a fundamentally evil system is not enough, and the state-socialist means of compulsion and centralization contradict their declared “leftist” ends. Thus, the Left is properly conceived as being those whose ends are peace, justice, and prosperity, and whose means don’t conflict with those ends.

For libertarians reading this, it will probably help if I explain why I am a “thick” libertarian first, as opposed to “thin” libertarianism. Thin libertarianism is the position that politics is the ethics of the use of force; nothing more and nothing less. Political philosophy doesn’t and can’t have anything to say about society, other than that aggression is wrong. Any set of social and cultural norms is seen as being compatible with the political philosophy of liberty, as long as they are non-coercive. Thick libertarianism, on the other hand, is the position that liberty is fundamentally intertwined with other concerns. Politics is broader than statements about the permissible use of force, and justice is more than non-aggression. Note that left-libertarians are not the only thick libertarians; paleolibertarian conservatives and Objectivists also hold thick views on political philosophy.

I am a left-libertarian, because I am a thick libertarian who sees that the “leftist” values of anti-authoritarianism, mutuality, and equality are fundamentally entailed by the same principles that make me anti-statist. A society built on authority and hierarchy, where social evils such as patriarchy and xenophobia are widely accepted cultural norms, is not a just society, even if it is non-coercive. A just society is one where every individual’s flourishing is not subject to the arbitrary whims of others, one where people are not held back by society, but instead encouraged to become the best person that they can be.

 

 

 

New Blog!

Its time to say goodbye to Blogger and TechnoEudaimonia. I've moved on to greener pastures: The Examined Life, hosted by WordPress. I'll leave this one up for the time being; there are some half-way decent posts buried somewhere in here.

A New Kind of Journal: Libertarian Papers

Stephen Kinsella and Jeffrey Tucker of the Mises Institute have started a new, online-only academic journal called the Libertarian Papers.  It has a slimmed-down editing process and will accept submissions from anyone.  Each article is posted as a separate blog post, as soon as it is ready, instead of being released in issues.  To add to the goodness, the Papers are using Creative Commons Liscense, so kudos to them for that  (I guess Kinsella finally felt guilty about being a patent lawyer :-) ).  As a sneaky side note, Roderick Long is on the editorial board, so lets see if we can get some left-libertarian stuff published!

List of Random Stuff that I’m calling a Blog Post

1. This will be my first post aggregated to Anarchoblogs, so to all reading, hello! Also, I'd like to take this oppurtunity to once again mention the Forums of the Libertarian Left, a great place for agorists, mutualists, geolibertarians, voluntaryists, libertarian socialists, decentralists, and other left-libertarians to discuss theory, history, and tips, tricks, and strategies on smashing the state.

2. Happy birthday Pierre-Joseph Proudhon!

3. If you will, vote for Kevin Carson's policy recommendations to the Obama administration on Change.gov.

4. That's about it. I'll close with Aristotle Quote #2:

Humor is the only test of gravity, and gravity of humor; for a subject which will not bear raillery is suspicious, and a jest which will not bear serious examination is false wit.





Rasmussen & Den Uyl and Carson on Property Rights

I just got my copy of Douglas B. Rasmussen and Douglas J. Den Uyl's Liberty and Nature: An Aristotelian Defense of Liberal Order, and I would recommend to anyone interested on a neo-Aristotelian approach to ethics and rights-justification.  While I was reading, I discovered a very interesting parallel with none other than Kevin Carson, suprisingly enough.  The passage below is in a section about justifying Lockean property rights:

In terms of specific situations and social setting, how to cash all
this out in terms of positive law and rights will be difficult and
beyond the purview of abstract moral and social thoery.  We believe a
good deal will be practically dependent on actual agreement.  Herein,
for us, lies the proper, and extremely important, place for social
contract theory.  What people are willing to agree will impact
significantly on the specific rights structure of a given society,
although it will in no way be decisive about the moral quality or
character of such a society.  Perhaps pouring cans of tomato juice into
fluid mediums (wombatron: a reference to one of Nozick's examples in Anarchy,
State, and Utopia) would be an acceptable procedure for detirmining
boundries in cases of original acquisition in some strange land of
tomato juice fetishists.  Similarly, a community of artists might
settle upon criteria of visual perspective in their society (for
example, you own what you can see) in cases of original acquisition. 
We find it highly improbable that these criteria would command
consensus; but then it is also unlikely that the Puritanical idea that
one ones what one can physically labor upon would be the only
acceptable principle of original acquisition in all societies either.
The above could just as easily apply to, say, abandonment, instead of original acquisition.  This parallels Carson where he talks about competition and arbitration of competing property meta-systems in Mutualist Political Economy.  The implications of this are interesting: given that mutualist property rules really only fundamentally differ from a traditional Lockean system in what constitute abandonment of property, one could easily ground a mutualist society in R&DU's neo-Lockean system.  More tenatively, one could even justify a form of Georgism, although I am less sure on how to go about that.

On a side note, this post has got me interested in grounding mutualist and individualist principles, such as mutuality, within a neo-Aristotelian ethical framework.  Look for more on that sometime.