imported>Coindorni (Added cases on which seizure of ''private property'' is considered legitimate by Rothbard) |
imported>Coindorni mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
=== Cases of legitimate confiscation of property === | === Cases of legitimate confiscation of property === | ||
It | It says that property previously stolen by the government legitimizes the seizure of this previously stolen land and property. For example, if the state built a university with tax payers' money, applying the homesteading principle, it is rightfully the property of those who had been stolen, but since it's not easy to identify who's the university going to be given to, since it's not stolen from a precise individual, then it's rightfully property of the workers who by mixing their labor with the facilities have claimed this illegitimate property. It is, however, a prime consideration to make that although according to the homestead principle they are supposed to be rightfully property of the workers who apply their labor they are, to some extent, beneficiaries of the government, thus the second group which can be selectable for this ownership are the students themselves who have had lost their money paying for the maintanance of this ill-gotten property and the payment of the faculty. | ||
It is, however, a prime consideration to make that although according to the homestead principle they are supposed to be rightfully property of the workers who apply their labor they are, to some extent, beneficiaries of the government, thus the second group which can be selectable for this ownership are the students themselves who have had lost their money paying for the maintanance of this ill-gotten property and the payment of the faculty. | |||
This principle can be applied similarly for companies which have benefited from the robbery directly, listing Columbia University for the case, which gets 2/3 of its income from the state. This also legitimizes the seizure of them by its workers, since a big part of the benefit of them comes from stolen property it is only just that, still applying the homestead principle, they are seized by the workers. | This principle can be applied similarly for companies which have benefited from the robbery directly, listing Columbia University for the case, which gets 2/3 of its income from the state. This also legitimizes the seizure of them by its workers, since a big part of the benefit of them comes from stolen property it is only just that, still applying the homestead principle, they are seized by the workers. This slowly disbandance of the state would lead to a stateless society led by market forces and, where although a certainly big portion of property would be owned collectively (Because of this seizure process), private property is still allowed. | ||
This slowly disbandance of the state would lead to a stateless society led by market forces and, where although a certainly big portion of property would be owned collectively (Because of this seizure process), private property is still allowed. | |||
==History== | ==History== | ||
Revision as of 00:26, 8 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 a principle closer to 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 to selected capital owners and corporations. This state benefits came in shapes 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 their workers or third parties to eliminate state benefits to companies[5].
Cases of legitimate confiscation of property
It says that property previously stolen by the government legitimizes the seizure of this previously stolen land and property. For example, if the state built a university with tax payers' money, applying the homesteading principle, it is rightfully the property of those who had been stolen, but since it's not easy to identify who's the university going to be given to, since it's not stolen from a precise individual, then it's rightfully property of the workers who by mixing their labor with the facilities have claimed this illegitimate property. It is, however, a prime consideration to make that although according to the homestead principle they are supposed to be rightfully property of the workers who apply their labor they are, to some extent, beneficiaries of the government, thus the second group which can be selectable for this ownership are the students themselves who have had lost their money paying for the maintanance of this ill-gotten property and the payment of the faculty.
This principle can be applied similarly for companies which have benefited from the robbery directly, listing Columbia University for the case, which gets 2/3 of its income from the state. This also legitimizes the seizure of them by its workers, since a big part of the benefit of them comes from stolen property it is only just that, still applying the homestead principle, they are seized by the workers. This slowly disbandance of the state would lead to a stateless society led by market forces and, where although a certainly big portion of property would be owned collectively (Because of this seizure process), private property is still allowed.
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 even been a Marxist) was due to Rothbard having long embraced a reading of American history that emphasized the role of elite privilege in shaping legal and political institutions, 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 entrepreneurship freedom possible. And, although this ideology does defend property rights to an extreme extent, it especially supports workers cooperatives.
Personality
Left-Rothbardianism behaves like someone who you are sure is economically left-wing because of their rhetoric but turns out to be economically far-right.
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
Friends
Anarcho-Capitalism - Private property and anarchy!
Market Anarchism - Markets and anarchy!
Libertarianism - Pretty good, but leftist rhetoric is quite effective, you should try it
Frenemies
Mutualism - I share your love for markets but property isn't theft
Anarcho-Communism - I don't like how you dislike both property and markets but at least you're an anarchist, and you're rhetoric is pretty nice
Enemies
All far left authoritarian ideologies - Authoritarianism? Elimination of private property and markets? REEEEEEEEEEEE!!!
Further Information
- The Left-Rothbardians, Part 1: Rothbard and Part 2: After Rothbard:
- The Left Rothbardians on Minds
- Left-Austrolibertarianism 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
