What Can Make Social Democracy "Libertarian"?

in #libertarianism7 years ago (edited)

Kropotkin, Proudhon, Bakunin.PNG

I refer to my political philosophy as libertarian social democracy because I originally envisioned it as a sort of synthesis of libertarian socialism and social democracy. Those two movements, historically, were closely related. Social democracy, as espoused by Eduard Bernstein, Annie Besant, and George Bernard Shaw, was a form of democratic socialism. Libertarian socialism (aka anarchism), as espoused by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Mikhail Bakunin, and Peter Kropotkin was also a form of democratic socialism. (Cf. Bookchin Was An Anarchist) The early anarchists advocated a mixture of direct democracy and delegative democracy. Libertarian socialism would be more participatory and decisions would be made from the bottom up, as each "commune" (or municipality) would be autonomous and all social organization would be done on the principle of free association. The various communes would make pacts for mutual aid and defense and organize into vast confederations of autonomous municipalities. Libertarian socialism would be decentralized and confederalist. The democratic socialism of the social democrats, however, followed a more conventional republican approach, seeking to achieve its goals through representative democracy, without necessarily emphasizing decentralization or municipal autonomy, at least not as being absolute goods. The section on the organization of society in Fabian Essays in Socialism, an early treatise on social democratic philosophy, very much resembled the proposals of the anarchist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. I thought that something like liquid democracy, a sort of compromise between direct democracy and representative democracy, could be used to make social democracy more libertarian. I also thought that digital direct democracy and ranked-choice voting might be viable mechanisms for making democratic institutions more libertarian.

There were several schools of libertarian socialism that really influenced me. The first was mutualism, the philosophy of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. Proudhon held that society ought to be reorganized on a more thoroughly democratic basis, using something more like direct democracy and greatly limiting arbitrary power. He held that all land ought to be communally owned and managed by the local commune or municipality. Rent would be paid to the municipality and the municipality would be in charge of building and maintaining homes. Additionally, Proudhon thought that ownership of industry ought to be handed over to the workers. Other libertarian socialists, like Peter Kropotkin and Joseph Déjacque, pushed for communist anarchism and advocated communal-ownership of land too, but they had held that money and markets ought to be abolished. In their vision of utopia, everyone would continue to work and produce things but all the products would be placed into common stores, where people could freely take what they need. This would be a society based on the communist principle "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need." Then there were the Ricardian socialists, like Thomas Hodgskin, and individualist anarchists, like Benjamin Tucker and Lysander Spooner, who made the case for free trade. The existence of such libertarian socialists, who advocated free trade, is the primary reason that the term "libertarian" has come to be associated with free-market philosophies. My idea of libertarian social democracy does borrow heavily from all three of these schools of libertarian socialist thought: mutualism, communist anarchism, and Ricardian/individualist anarchism.

enter image description here

Over time, I came to drift away from socialism proper. I came to be more sympathetic to geo-libertarianism as an analogue to socialism. (Most social democrats, by the way, no longer advocate outright socialism, but advocate taxation, welfare, and redistribution as analogues to socialism.) Georgism, or geo-libertarianism, is a school of thought based on the ideas of Henry George. Henry George held that land ought to be communally-owned and that people who want to monopolize that land for private use ought to be required to pay rent to the community for such a privilege. However, George did not advocate outright socialism, where government or the community would confiscate land from private individuals. Instead, he thought that a sufficient analogue to communal ownership could be created through taxation. Government could start taxing people on the value of their land. Since a person is entitled to the entire product of their own labor, buildings and improvements would not be taxed; the value of the land alone would be subject to taxation. This land value tax would function as an analogue to rent. It would be just as if all land was communally-owned and the community were charging rent for private use of it. Thus, land value tax could be looked at either as a scheme for communal-ownership of land or as a scheme to simplify taxes and lead to less interference by government. Henry George was also an advocate of free trade and advocated land value tax because it would minimize government interference in the marketplace.

Geo-libertarianism overlaps with the libertarian socialism (mutualism) of Proudhon, as well as with the democratic socialism of classical social democrats like Annie Besant and George Bernard Shaw. In fact, Proudhon himself did advocate communal-ownership of land and collection of ground-rent by the municipality. Some of his proposals were remarkably similar to Henry George's. There is even a school of anarchism known as geo-mutualism, which attempts to synthesize Proudhon's anarchism with Henry George's philosophy. (Cf. On Anarchist Social Democracy: Taxation, Welfare, and Anarchy) But geo-libertarianism also overlaps with classical social democratic theory. Where classical social democrats or democratic socialists differed from Henry George was in the contention that all revenue collected from land value taxes ought to go to paying workers in government-owned industries. While the classical social democrats agreed with Henry George in asserting that land and natural resources ought to be publicly owned and rented out, they only saw Georgism "as a transition stage to Social Democracy," holding that communal-ownership of both land and industry was necessary. (Cf. Graham Wallas, Property Under Socialism in Fabian Essays in Socialism) This is what distinguishes Georgism from socialism. Socialism holds that industry too must be owned and operated socially or communally. Most modern social democrats have dropped socialism proper and no longer hold that industry should be publicly owned.

My social democracy is libertarian in the sense that it is rooted in libertarian socialism and geo-libertarianism. While I no longer advocate libertarian socialism, the model that I currently propose is rooted in a dialogue internal to libertarian socialism. On the one hand, I agree with Proudhon's critique of private property and, on the other, I agree with Joseph Déjacque's critique of Proudhon. If you really want to understand how my current position is rooted in libertarian socialist theory, you can check out my article Libertarian Social Democracy: Delegative Democracy, Land Value Tax, & Universal Basic Income. While I have ultimately rejected the conclusions drawn from libertarian socialist analysis by the libertarian socialists themselves, I have embraced alternative solutions that I believe are analogous to, and functionally isomorphic to, the solutions that they recommended. I advocate a Georgist land value tax as an analogue to communal-ownership of land and universal basic income, funded by that land value tax, as an analogue to communism. Thus, my model does meet the classical criteria of "to each according to their need," insofar as basic income would guarantee access to necessities. Libertarian social democracy essentially swaps the socialism of the libertarian socialists for Georgism, then adds the universal healthcare and welfare proposals of the social democrats on top of it. Additionally, I emphasize maximizing individual liberty: marijuana, prostitution, "sodomy," and public nudity would all be totally legal. Consequently, my variation on social democracy is libertarian in the classical sense, as that term was used by the libertarian socialists who coined the term—it seeks to maximize individual liberty through communal-ownership of land as a mechanism of providing "to each according to their need," while also minimizing the number of rules within society so that people are free to do as they like to the extent that their liberty does not reduce the liberty of others.

enter image description here

It can also be said that my vision of social democracy is libertarian in the sense that it has a geo-libertarian basis. I follow geo-libertarianism in holding that income tax is extremely problematic and holding that all taxes ought to be replaced by land value taxes or similar taxes (e.g. Pigouvian taxes, cap and trade, etc.) that can be justified along Georgist lines. Furthermore, it is libertarian in a limited free-market sense. The framework for markets is a system of private property, a monetary system, contract law, courts or tribunals for adjudication and dispute resolution, and police for the enforcement of rules and court decisions. Following F. A. Hayek, I believe that the role of government is to create the rules to establish social order and that the spontaneous order of the market will emerge from that. The government generally shouldn't arbitrarily intervene. Government ought to create rules that form a framework that allows the market to function without any arbitrary intervention. Any intervention that does take place ought to be standard and uniform, following the principle of isonomy or "equal law," simply laying out the rules of the game rather than acting on a whim. The government intervenes to protect property rights, and the rules governing property are uniform. The government can likewise intervene to collect land value tax, and that intervention will follow standard rules rather than arbitrary whims. Additionally, rules and regulations may be imposed on corporations so that they are prohibited from polluting or are fined for polluting, and those rules shall be uniform and standard, not subject to the arbitrary whim of functionaries. In this regard, I have been influenced by libertarians like F. A. Hayek and Hernando de Soto Polar, but also by ordoliberalism and the realization that markets aren't perfect. I believe that markets do sometimes fail. Consequently, government ought to intervene in the market in order to correct market failures. I recognize "the need for the state to ensure that the free market produces results close to its theoretical potential."(Wikipedia) (Cf. Markets Are Not Perfect)

Additionally, I have been influenced by the notion of dialectical libertarianism, which holds that a formally statist intervention may be libertarian if the overall effect happens to bring about results that more closely approximate the theoretical ideal of laissez-faire than the same system would without that intervention. For instance, if a government has already granted an artificial monopoly to a private company, setting a limit on prices that that company can charge would actually be more functionally libertarian than if the government were to do nothing. Under pure competition, that company would not be able to charge as much. (Cf. Chris Sciabarra, Total Freedom: Toward A Dialectical Libertarianism)

Furthermore, my model of libertarian social democracy is aimed at maximizing liberty in the civic republican sense. (Cf. Philip Pettit, Quentin Skinner, et al.) That, however, is a topic for a future post, so I won't elaborate on it here.

To summarize, my model of libertarian social democracy is libertarian insofar as it draws on a broad libertarian tradition, which includes libertarian socialism, geo-libertarianism, Hayekian libertarianism, and dialectical libertarianism.

Sort:  

Very interesting post. It has given me some food for thought.

After some brief thinking about only taxing property I'm not sure that would actually fly for everybody.

Playing the devils advocate how would you deal with a retired home owner? Since there are no other taxes property would have to increase a whole lot. Not sure if retired home owners could afford the increased taxes with limited & fixed income.

The retired home-owners would be receiving basic income, probably a higher rate than the average person. In Agrarian Justice, Thomas Paine proposed a basic income for all but with a higher rate for people over a certain age. A person who just owns a house to live in would have the rent offset by the basic income. It's absentee landlords and the people that own factories and oil fields that will end up paying the bulk of the taxes.

Ok I see. Your proposal sounds similar to what Canada does now when people retire. they receive Canada Pension Plan (CPP is similar to Social Security) plus Old Age Security and depending on your income at retirement you get Guaranteed Income Supplement(GIS). GIS is based on your retirement income not wealth when retired.

And that won't even be including personal savings, etc.

I'm beginning to understand how you are balancing the extremes and nuances between libertarianism, socialism, communism, and anarchy. Indeed freedom is a very complex thing when dealing with large societies. The ecosystem of man is a very complex interconnected mechanism. One entity's freedom can easily become another's enslavement.

Liquid democracy seems to me the best possible solution, in our current political climate, to resolve, very rapidly, many of the injustices and pro corporate policies that are eroding our societies. It's effectively decentralizing politics by doing away with the zero sum results of representative democracy. I can participate in policy making representing only myself or "campaign" for direct delegations from individuals at all levels. Our modern technology, specifically blockchain, makes this very possible and promising.

Land value tax makes great sense. But I would modify the rules a bit to incentivize occupancy and self sufficiency by setting a base level of land that an individual can occupy without taxation. Perhaps 1/2 acre per occupant would be sensible. The land value tax percentage could then increase with the total land held by an individual. This would put strong pressures for decentralization and give small businesses, small farms, and communal/eco villages a large advantage.

You should look into Estonia's system of digital democracy. It's quite interesting.

As for "setting a base level of land that an individual can occupy without taxation", my proposed system already does that, just in a different way. My proposal is based on the proposal of the American founding father, Thomas Paine. In Agrarian Justice, he proposed linking ground-rent/land value tax to a citizen's dividend. I do the same thing. The revenue generated from the land value tax is divided up and goes back to the citizens as dividends. If you just have a humble house and a small plot of land, you would effectively have no taxes, because your land value tax would be more than covered by your dividend/basic income. The people that would end up paying taxes would be folks who monopolize large plots of land. The beauty of the citizen's dividend (or universal basic income) approach is that it also subsidizes people who have no land (so they basically have a negative tax rate), and it serves as a from of welfare for the poorest people in society, thereby eliminating poverty. You can then simplify the welfare state by eliminating most of the "means-tested" welfare programs. So, this approach is a much simpler way of doing taxation and a much simpler way of doing welfare, which is far more libertarian and requires much less government bureaucracy.

My only worry would be that the land tax could be passed down from the landlords onto the tenants. Rents would rise and there would be no net difference for those who don’t own land. Theoretically this would put a higher demand for home ownership, but that would, in turn, increase the value of homes. My thought was that having a sliding scale of taxation based on total land owned by a single entity would essentially subsidize smaller and decentralized land ownership.

If the owner tried to push the costs of the taxes on to the tenants, then he'd do it by raising the price of his land. The rent would go up, higher price. The consequence would be higher taxes, so the increase would just be re-confiscated via land value tax. You wouldn't be able to push the costs on to tenants very easily. If prices and rent rise, the taxes increase too.

Ah, I see. Then the only way rents would naturally rise would be through the demand. With less people working full time jobs and incentive to own some land with net 0 taxation, the demand for rentals would be leveled out. Especially if populations begin to disperse more through the freedom provided by basic income.

A great artical a great information you shared
keep it up
I wish you all the best thanks for sharing

That is wonderful post sir. it is very interesting and great writing experience.
@ekklesiagora
100% like and resteem

you lost me when you mentioned land being owned by all or something, freedom is not this complicated. Freedom just means you live and provide for yourself and your not responsible for others. your social libertarianism sounds like you want to control how others live. Could someone clarify?

Freedom is actually quite complicated, and that's the topic of my upcoming post on the "genealogy of liberty."

very informative post.

interesting things you shared in this topic got to learn a lot from this one thanks for sharing once again

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.19
TRX 0.15
JST 0.029
BTC 63398.53
ETH 2660.51
USDT 1.00
SBD 2.77