Right Libertarianism (Pro) vs Left Libertarianism (Con)

I will first consider the etymological history of the word “libertarian”, before refuting the arguments set out by Pro in the previous round, which were intended to show that libertarianism cannot be left-wing. Etymological history of “libertarian” Let’s quickly consider the etymological history of the word “libertarian”. Pro repeatedly claims, throughout his opening arguments, that libertarianism cannot be a left-wing ideology. However, such a claim completely ignores the entire etymological history of such a word. Firstly, it was an anarcho-communist, Joseph Dejaque – in a letter addressed to Proudhon – who first used the word, to describe his political views. [https://en.wikipedia.org...] Secondly, throughout a significant portion of history, the word “libertarian” was used to denote a left-wing, anarchist political ideology. An Anarchist FAQ, notes that “[the word libertarian] particularly outside America [it] has always been associated with anarchist ideas and movements.” [[http://www.infoshop.org...] ] Probably the most famous anarchist today, Noam Chomsky strongly agrees: “the term ‘libertarian’ means the opposite of what it means in history. ‘Libertarian throughout European history meant ‘socialist-anarchist’…’libertarian’ in Europe always meant ‘socialist’.” [https://archive.org...] It was not until the 1940s, before the term became hijacked to denote the right-wing, Pro-private property political ideology. [https://en.wiktionary.org...] It was not even until the 1970s, 1 century after Dejacque first used the term, before the first prominent right-wing political parties (think America’s Libertarian Party) started to brand their ideology as being “libertarian”. It was not even until the 20th century, or the early 21st century, before the majority of right-libertarian parties were formed. Having provided context, let’s move onto Pro’s arguments. Pro’s arguments Even if it were the case that the word “libertarian” was first used to denote a left-wing political belief, and that it was historically used in such a manner, could it be the case that libertarianism is still nevertheless incompatible with left-wing political ideology? Pro attempts to show that this is the case. According to Pro, liberty is “being free from authority” and libertarianism is when liberty is met. Pro then attempts to show that left-wing ideology is authoritarian, and thus is incompatible with libertarianism. Let’s dissect his arguments. First of all, Pro claims that in socialism “the state controls the economy or a group of people (acting as a state) does”. This is a highly dubious claim. In the case of mutualism - a system of self-employed workers and co-operatives honestly exchanging goods and services in a market without interest, rent, profit, landlords or capitalists - for instance, this is simply not the case. [https://en.wikipedia.org...(economic_theory)] Other political systems featuring decentralized economic planning, such as participatory economics, also do not rely on a central authority. [https://en.wikipedia.org...] Moving on to Pro’s next argument, Pro firstly assumes that all libertarians (he is talking about right libertarians, of course) adhere to the NAP. This is untrue. Matt Zwolinski, well-known political philosopher, for instance, does not, and provides 6 reasons why libertarians ought to reject the NAP:[http://www.libertarianism.org...] More moderate libertarians often do not. Even if their views were to be discounted, Pro’s claim that libertarians abide by the NAP begs the question. Pro is trying to use the NAP to show that socialism (which of course includes “libertarian socialism”) is authoritarian. So-called “left-libertarians” usually do not adhere to the NAP, whilst “right-libertarians” often do. Therefore, by claiming that libertarians abide by the NAP, Pro is already assuming that left-libertarianism is not a valid form of libertarianism, thus rendering this argument to be fallacious. Even if this were not to be the case, Pro has not justified the statement that the private property that socialists wish to abolish was justly acquired. Finally, he barely asserts that authority would be responsible for the elimination of private property, without providing any justification whatsoever. Regarding Pro’s next argument pertaining to the issue of restrictions by authority, not only are many on the radical left critical of authority, anarchists and left-libertarians would also be against the imposing of restrictions from authority, so I don’t see what the problem there is. Pro then argues that authority is needed to achieve libertarian socialist and anarcho-communist goals. According to him, socialism advocates the means of production to be distributed equally amongst the citizens, and communism advocates that each works according to his ability and receives according to his need. Both of his statements are somewhat misrepresentative. The definition of socialism is misrepresentative because socialism concerns itself with the means of production being socially owned by the working class, rather than the distribution of the means of production amongst the citizens. The definition of communism is misrepresentative because the notion of “works according…his need” is a Marxist concept that communists do not necessarily have to accept, because not all communists are Marxists. Finally, Pro brings up a hypothetical example of an individual making something, and selling to another individual, before claiming that this was a capitalistic enterprise, and asking the question of who would regulate such activity in a socialist society. He claims that socialists would say that the community will, and argues that this imposes authority, thus showing that libertarianism cannot be left wing. There are several things wrong with this argument. Firstly, it assumes that it is theoretically possible for capitalistic activity to arise in a socialist society in a first place. From the perspective of anarchist theory, because private property is abolished, and capitalism is defined in terms of private property, it is not possible for capitalistic activity to arise in the first place. Furthermore, in the particular example given, the individual *sells* the product to another. However, many left-libertarian models – for instance gift economies – do not require the existence of money, Pro’s example does not fully represent the ideology he is trying to attack. Finally, the biggest problem with this hypothetical example is that it is not an example of capitalism, or capitalistic activity. Capitalism is often defined in terms of private property, wage labour, and landlordism. Defining capitalism in terms of trade or markets is unsatisfactory, because market socialism, mutualism, and left-wing market anarchism (in general) requires both. Pro’s hypothetical example makes no connection with private property, wage labour, or landlordism, and thus cannot be considered an example of capitalism, or capitalistic economy. Conclusion In this round, it has been shown that the word “libertarian” has historically been used to denote a left-wing belief. It has also been shown that Pro’s arguments for libertarianism being a right-wing political ideology fall flat. The resolution has been negated.