imported>Coindorni (Added history and a bit of views.) |
imported>Coindorni (Eliminated it from the Socialist category; eliminated stub; corrected some grammar and orthography mistakes; added some political balls.) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Ideology|title1 = [[File: LeftRothbardianismPix.png]] Left-Rothbardianism [[File:Leftroth.png]]|image1 = Leftroth-staswalle.png|aliases = LeftRoth<br> | {{Ideology|title1 = [[File: LeftRothbardianismPix.png]] Left-Rothbardianism [[File:Leftroth.png]]|image1 = Leftroth-staswalle.png|aliases = LeftRoth<br> | ||
Left-Voluntarism<br> | Left-Voluntarism<br> | ||
| Line 8: | Line 7: | ||
'''Left-Rothbardianism''', different from original [[File:Ancapf.png]] [[Anarcho-Capitalism|Rothbardianism]], which believes in a [[File:Property.png]][[Propertarianism|Neo-Lockean homesteading principle]]<ref>[https://archive.org/details/ethicsofliberty00roth The Ethics of Liberty]</ref>, believes in the [[File:Clib.png]] [[Classical Liberalism|Classical Lockean homesteading principle]]<ref>[https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/hollis-the-two-treatises-of-civil-government-hollis-ed The Two Treatises of Government, Bk II, Chap 5, Sect 27]</ref>. The principle as a whole states that property can only be legitimately owned by 2 means, direct trade from the past owner or applying your labor to un-owned land. The difference between the Classical principle and the Neo-Lockean one is that the first one also accepts the Lockean proviso as legitimate, which states that the homesteading principle only applies as long as there is enough and of the same quality for everybody else, while the Neo-Lockean principle rejects this proviso. | '''Left-Rothbardianism''', different from original [[File:Ancapf.png]] [[Anarcho-Capitalism|Rothbardianism]], which believes in a [[File:Property.png]][[Propertarianism|Neo-Lockean homesteading principle]]<ref>[https://archive.org/details/ethicsofliberty00roth The Ethics of Liberty]</ref>, believes in the [[File:Clib.png]] [[Classical Liberalism|Classical Lockean homesteading principle]]<ref>[https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/hollis-the-two-treatises-of-civil-government-hollis-ed The Two Treatises of Government, Bk II, Chap 5, Sect 27]</ref>. The principle as a whole states that property can only be legitimately owned by 2 means, direct trade from the past owner or applying your labor to un-owned land. The difference between the Classical principle and the Neo-Lockean one is that the first one also accepts the Lockean proviso as legitimate, which states that the homesteading principle only applies as long as there is enough and of the same quality for everybody else, while the Neo-Lockean principle rejects this proviso. | ||
Despite the [[File:Soc.png]][[Socialism|Left-]] prefix of the name this ideology, which could make some people think this is a socialist ideology, it heavily advocates for the respect of private property<ref>Lora, Ronald; Longton, Henry (1999). ''The Conservative Press in Twentieth-Century America''. Greenwood Press. p. 369.</ref> as a natural right that derives from the right of self-ownership, but they don't see property as legitimate if its a derivative of coercion, which includes, if the property derives from state benefits. | Despite the [[File:Soc.png]][[Socialism|Left-]] prefix of the name this ideology, which could make some people think this is a socialist ideology, it heavily advocates for the respect of private property<ref>Lora, Ronald; Longton, Henry (1999). ''The Conservative Press in Twentieth-Century America''. Greenwood Press. p. 369.</ref> as a natural right that derives from the right of self-ownership, but they don't see property as legitimate if its a derivative of coercion, which includes, if the property derives from [[File:Corp.png]][[Corporatocracy|state benefits]]. | ||
They oppose the common consensus that [[File:Regulationism.png]][[Regulationism|government regulation]] helps to eliminate or mitigate oppression by big corporations, saying that furthermore the state is the source of the problem it says to solve. | They oppose the common consensus that [[File:Regulationism.png]][[Regulationism|government regulation]] helps to eliminate or mitigate oppression by big corporations, saying that furthermore the state is the source of the problem it says to solve. | ||
It also opposes the view of the Gilded Age as a Laissez-Faire period where the state didn't have interference and where the free market | It also opposes the view of the [[File:Corp.png]][[Corporatocracy|Gilded Age]] as a Laissez-Faire period where the state didn't have interference and where the free market ran the world, saying that this time was marked by huge state privilege according to selected capital, such as subsidies, tax-breaks, or even direct monopolies on certain industries<ref>Kolko, Gabriel (1977). ''The Triumph of Conservatism: A Reinterpretation of American History, 1900–1916''. New York: Free.</ref>, although there indeed were certain big businesses at the time which didn't get privileges from the government. | ||
It believes that these corporations which were benefited from the state with more or less largesse should be allowed to be seized by the workers of them or third parties to eliminate state benefits to companies<ref>Rothbard, Murray (15 June 1969). "Confiscation and the Homestead Principle". ''Libertarian Forum''. '''1''' (6): 3–4.</ref>. | It believes that these corporations which were benefited from the state with more or less largesse should be allowed to be seized by the workers of them or third parties to eliminate state benefits to companies<ref>Rothbard, Murray (15 June 1969). "Confiscation and the Homestead Principle". ''Libertarian Forum''. '''1''' (6): 3–4.</ref>. | ||
| Line 19: | Line 18: | ||
==Views== | ==Views== | ||
It is a synthesis of Rothbardian Anarcho-Capitalism and Left-Market Anarchism, that is, adopting Leftist rhetoric and applying certain | It is a synthesis of [[File:Ancapf.png]][[Anarcho-Capitalism|Rothbardian Anarcho-Capitalism]] and [[File:Anmark.png]][[Left-Market Anarchism]], that is, adopting Leftist rhetoric and applying certain classical principles ([[File:Clib.png]][[Classical Liberalism|The Classical Lockean Homestead Principle]], for example) more aligned with the modern Left while maintaining an Anarcho-Capitalist framework, that is, still advocating for a stateless society in which market forces and private property and enterprises run the institutions and means of production, advocating for the maximum possible entrepreneurship freedom possible. And, although this ideology does defend property rights to an extreme extent, it especially supports workers cooperatives. | ||
==Personality== | ==Personality== | ||
| Line 64: | Line 63: | ||
</gallery>{{Libunity}} | </gallery>{{Libunity}} | ||
{{Anarchist}} | {{Anarchist}} | ||
{{Prefixes}} | {{Prefixes}} | ||
[[Category:Characters]] | [[Category:Characters]] | ||
Revision as of 11:23, 1 January 2021
Left-Rothbardianism, also called Left-Voluntarism, is an economically centre-right, anarchist and culturally ambiguous that is the child of 
Left-wing Market Anarchism and 
Anarcho-Capitalism.
Left-Rothbardianism, different from original Rothbardianism, which believes in a 
Neo-Lockean homesteading principle[1], believes in the 
Classical Lockean homesteading principle[2]. The principle as a whole states that property can only be legitimately owned by 2 means, direct trade from the past owner or applying your labor to un-owned land. The difference between the Classical principle and the Neo-Lockean one is that the first one also accepts the Lockean proviso as legitimate, which states that the homesteading principle only applies as long as there is enough and of the same quality for everybody else, while the Neo-Lockean principle rejects this proviso.
Despite the 
Left- prefix of the name this ideology, which could make some people think this is a socialist ideology, it heavily advocates for the respect of private property[3] as a natural right that derives from the right of self-ownership, but they don't see property as legitimate if its a derivative of coercion, which includes, if the property derives from 
state benefits.
They oppose the common consensus that 
government regulation helps to eliminate or mitigate oppression by big corporations, saying that furthermore the state is the source of the problem it says to solve.
It also opposes the view of the Gilded Age as a Laissez-Faire period where the state didn't have interference and where the free market ran the world, saying that this time was marked by huge state privilege according to selected capital, such as subsidies, tax-breaks, or even direct monopolies on certain industries[4], although there indeed were certain big businesses at the time which didn't get privileges from the government.
It believes that these corporations which were benefited from the state with more or less largesse should be allowed to be seized by the workers of them or third parties to eliminate state benefits to companies[5].
History
This ideology, similar to Paleolibertarianism, which was a synthesis made by Rothbard with Paleoconservatives, is a synthesis of the works done by Rothbard along with Left-Market Libertarians and Anarchists, such as Ronald Radosh[6] and Karl Hess[7]. This alliance with these Left-Market Anarchists (Ronald Radosh having been a Marxist) was due since Rothbard had long embraced a reading of American history that emphasized the role of elite privilege in shaping legal and political institutions—one, this, of course was naturally agreeable to many on the left which and came increasingly in the 1960s to seek alliances on the left. This alliance with this left sector layed the path of modern Left Market Anarchism[8] but eventually Rothbard broke with the left and ended up allying with the growing 
Paleoconservative movement[9][10].
Views
It is a synthesis of Rothbardian Anarcho-Capitalism and Left-Market Anarchism, that is, adopting Leftist rhetoric and applying certain classical principles (The Classical Lockean Homestead Principle, for example) more aligned with the modern Left while maintaining an Anarcho-Capitalist framework, that is, still advocating for a stateless society in which market forces and private property and enterprises run the institutions and means of production, advocating for the maximum possible entrepreneurship freedom possible. And, although this ideology does defend property rights to an extreme extent, it especially supports workers cooperatives.
Personality
TBA
How to Draw
LeftRoth's Design is the combination of the Anarcho-Capitalist flag with a Red Star.
- Draw a ball with eyes
- Draw a black, increasing diagonal line.
- Fill top gold, bottom black
- In the middle draw a red star.
And you're done.
There also exists an an alternate design, which is a combination of the Anarcho-Capitalist flag and the free arrow symbol.
Relationships
Further Information
- The Left-Rothbardians, Part 1: Rothbard and Part 2: After Rothbard:
- The Left Rothbardians on Minds
- The Left Rothbardians on Discord
- r/LeftVoluntaryism
- Libertarian Party Market Anarchist Caucus on Twitter
- Left-Rothbardianism on Everybody Wiki
References
- ↑ The Ethics of Liberty
- ↑ The Two Treatises of Government, Bk II, Chap 5, Sect 27
- ↑ Lora, Ronald; Longton, Henry (1999). The Conservative Press in Twentieth-Century America. Greenwood Press. p. 369.
- ↑ Kolko, Gabriel (1977). The Triumph of Conservatism: A Reinterpretation of American History, 1900–1916. New York: Free.
- ↑ Rothbard, Murray (15 June 1969). "Confiscation and the Homestead Principle". Libertarian Forum. 1 (6): 3–4.
- ↑ Rothbard; Murray; Radosh, Ronald, eds. (1972). A New History of Leviathan: Essays on the Rise of the American Corporate State. New York: Dutton.
- ↑ Hess, Karl (1975). Dear America. New York: Morrow.
- ↑ Long, Roderick T. (4 August 2006). "Rothbard's 'Left and Right': Forty Years Later". Rothbard Memorial Lecture, Austrian Scholars Conference 2006. Mises Institute. Retrieved 10 January 2020.
- ↑ Doherty, Brian (2007). Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement. New York: Public Affairs. pp. 562–565.
- ↑ Raimondo, Justin (2001). An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard. Amherst, New York: Prometheus. pp. 277–278.
Gallery
-
Credit: u/Monkeysszz, Source
