I must confess a bias: I do not entirely trust that “left” and “libertarian” are in any way compatible.
Something makes me think that anarchosyndicalists would not be content just to have their own worker-run factory on their own property, but would come for mine.
Something makes me think that when the state withers away and Marx’s pure communist paradise arrives, the New Socialist Man isn’t going to just let me do what I want.
And something makes me think that some left libertarians are not simply libertarians who want to place an extra focus on helping people through private, voluntary means, but are instead…something else. I am not entirely sure what yet.
That said, I must further confess that I have not studied left libertarianism much. My instincts have made me skeptical, but I would need to know more in order to justify my instincts.
As such, then, I have not paid much attention to Zwolinski. I recently read an old article by him about Herbert Spencer, and I liked that. But I begin with a bias, however irrational (or Scrooge-like) it may be, against people who self-describe as “bleeding hearts.” Maybe I am just being reactionary against the left’s unbroken history of failure, oppression, and mass murder, and thus reacting unfairly to the term. I admit that is possible.
So all of that is just preamble to my question for you, Max. I do not know Zwolinski’s work well enough—is he willing to allow for government redistribution of any kind? Like, he describes himself as a moderate libertarian. Does that mean he would allow for government to continue transferring property from some to select others?
I was in the mood to wrestle when I wrote this and, in terms of tone, I was harsh. Matt Zwolinski is a lovely person and a gentleman. While I still don't disagree with all of his piece, I treated him as an avatar for so much of contemporary libertarianism, especially libertarians working in higher education and the Beltway. That's not to say I don't have my issues with the hate-the-state, apply the NAP types, but I needed to vent about some of the more pedantic and pusillanimous responses to DOGE. Matt was a convenient object of my frustration. He and I go back a ways, and he's good people. I'm hoping to do a podcast with him soon, because he's an absolutely brilliant guy. He deserves a chance to respond to this piece. I don't want to have made an enemy in him because I threw zingers. But I would absolutely say you should explore more of his work if you have time. He's a patient, careful, and mostly dispassionate sort of thinker. I have been impatient and passionate lately.
BTW, I would not say he is a left-libertarian, only that he is probably more sympathetic to Ds as opposed to Rs. Moderate seems right. // Otherwise, I generally share your mistrust of so-called "left-libertarians," but I reserve some distrust for "right-libertarians" too. If one is willing to renounce threatening violence against innocent people who want to self-organize in leftish or rightish communities, then one is a panarchist of some stripe. Panarchy is the metadoctrine. Leftish or rightish is the intra-community doctrine. I'm okay with that as long as people aren't manipulating or harming kids, or preventing members from exiting to claim more fundamental rights. From all I've read of yours, I suspect you mostly agree.
If consent is respected, then it leads to panarchy as the…hmm, what to call it. I am not sure I like the word "doctrine," exactly. Metapolitical ecology? Agorascape? Well, anyway, yes—consent leads to panarchy.
And yes, panarchy allows people to live in Amish farms or Maoist communes if they want.
Figuring out how to ensure that everyone has a right to EXIT is still an open question, but if that is the only real open question we have, then we're living in a world that is 1,000 times more just than the one we're in now.
I must confess a bias: I do not entirely trust that “left” and “libertarian” are in any way compatible.
Something makes me think that anarchosyndicalists would not be content just to have their own worker-run factory on their own property, but would come for mine.
Something makes me think that when the state withers away and Marx’s pure communist paradise arrives, the New Socialist Man isn’t going to just let me do what I want.
And something makes me think that some left libertarians are not simply libertarians who want to place an extra focus on helping people through private, voluntary means, but are instead…something else. I am not entirely sure what yet.
That said, I must further confess that I have not studied left libertarianism much. My instincts have made me skeptical, but I would need to know more in order to justify my instincts.
As such, then, I have not paid much attention to Zwolinski. I recently read an old article by him about Herbert Spencer, and I liked that. But I begin with a bias, however irrational (or Scrooge-like) it may be, against people who self-describe as “bleeding hearts.” Maybe I am just being reactionary against the left’s unbroken history of failure, oppression, and mass murder, and thus reacting unfairly to the term. I admit that is possible.
So all of that is just preamble to my question for you, Max. I do not know Zwolinski’s work well enough—is he willing to allow for government redistribution of any kind? Like, he describes himself as a moderate libertarian. Does that mean he would allow for government to continue transferring property from some to select others?
I was in the mood to wrestle when I wrote this and, in terms of tone, I was harsh. Matt Zwolinski is a lovely person and a gentleman. While I still don't disagree with all of his piece, I treated him as an avatar for so much of contemporary libertarianism, especially libertarians working in higher education and the Beltway. That's not to say I don't have my issues with the hate-the-state, apply the NAP types, but I needed to vent about some of the more pedantic and pusillanimous responses to DOGE. Matt was a convenient object of my frustration. He and I go back a ways, and he's good people. I'm hoping to do a podcast with him soon, because he's an absolutely brilliant guy. He deserves a chance to respond to this piece. I don't want to have made an enemy in him because I threw zingers. But I would absolutely say you should explore more of his work if you have time. He's a patient, careful, and mostly dispassionate sort of thinker. I have been impatient and passionate lately.
BTW, I would not say he is a left-libertarian, only that he is probably more sympathetic to Ds as opposed to Rs. Moderate seems right. // Otherwise, I generally share your mistrust of so-called "left-libertarians," but I reserve some distrust for "right-libertarians" too. If one is willing to renounce threatening violence against innocent people who want to self-organize in leftish or rightish communities, then one is a panarchist of some stripe. Panarchy is the metadoctrine. Leftish or rightish is the intra-community doctrine. I'm okay with that as long as people aren't manipulating or harming kids, or preventing members from exiting to claim more fundamental rights. From all I've read of yours, I suspect you mostly agree.
Yep, I do agree.
Consent is at the top of the pyramid.
If consent is respected, then it leads to panarchy as the…hmm, what to call it. I am not sure I like the word "doctrine," exactly. Metapolitical ecology? Agorascape? Well, anyway, yes—consent leads to panarchy.
And yes, panarchy allows people to live in Amish farms or Maoist communes if they want.
Figuring out how to ensure that everyone has a right to EXIT is still an open question, but if that is the only real open question we have, then we're living in a world that is 1,000 times more just than the one we're in now.
I appreciate your take as someone who knows him and is familiar with his beliefs. I will indeed look more deeply at his work.
And I understand re: passion, for sure. It takes work for me to keep my hothead Italian half under control :-)
My hothead is NC redneck ;)
Same thing, but with BBQ instead of braciole!
I'm from the Piedmont but prefer Eastern Q, which makes me a defector of sorts. (Searches braciole... Yes, please!)
As long as the brisket has some nice fat on it, I'm happy.