A Dialectical Left-Libertarian Political Platform

For many in my political circles, running for political office is not looked on very fondly. Given that many of my friends and acquaintances are specifically “anarchists”, they are more likely to oppose the idea of running for political office or putting much focus on reforming the system. Though I get where they are coming from and don’t reject all their criticisms and concerns, I ultimately do disagree, and am in favor of running for political positions, voting, and trying to reform the system to improve things. I, however, won’t castigate those who don’t do those things.

I think there isn’t a negligible difference between someone like Joe Biden getting in as president or Donald Trump getting in as president. Or someone like Raphael Warnock getting in the U.S. Senate instead of Herschel Walker. I think most people feel that way, even if they feel that way in the reverse. I also know that positive reforms have been achieved in the past and can be achieved in the present and future. So, alas, I am not willing to close off such avenues.

All that said, what would a specifically “Dialectical Left-Libertarian” platform look like? If you’re not familiar with what I mean by this, do check out my article “Market, State, and Anarchy: A Dialectical Left-Libertarian Perspective”. In it, I describe where I am coming from and even sketch out some potential ways to move us in a more Left-Libertarian direction. I’ll briefly summarize the approach as promoting individual liberty and social equality through the art of context keeping. This approach is not rigid and will consider how to promote such things from where we currently are. I believe that following this approach will unshackle society and lead to a much freer and flourishing society for all.

As I said in my previously mentioned article:

This framework seeks to make the best of what we have where we are presently at and always push to do better. It will not however paralyze itself with rigid dogmas and face destruction. So, for example, if the best way to avoid climate catastrophe presently is using some regulations, the Dialectical Left-Libertarian will not hesitate to embrace such regulations given the current context.

A dialectical left-libertarian approach isn’t seeking to let the market reign supreme and decide everything. It also isn’t seeking to let the government reign supreme and decide everything. Where free-market libertarian and conservative approaches tend to reduce everything down to market competition and ignore “positive liberty” (freedom TO the conditions that allow you to flourish and be free), liberal progressive and state socialist approaches tend to reduce everything down to community or government control and ignore “negative liberty” (freedom FROM external constraints and barriers). Both positive and negative liberty concerns are important and need to be taken seriously. And though there can be a tension between the two, this dialectical left-libertarian approach seeks to shrink that tension as much as possible and live with an open-ended balancing of the two.

Taken from my article again:

Any use of regulations or social insurance measures are grounded in a commitment to expanding individual freedom and flourishing rather than some sort of top-down collectivism or elitist technocracy.

A dialectical left-libertarian platform won’t seek a bloated hyper welfare-regulatory state that wastes money and constantly micromanages everyone. It seeks to simplify our systems, streamline them, and only regulate where absolutely necessary. Programs that give away money more easily require significantly less paperwork and bureaucracy, for example. We also would save a lot of money if we eliminated the need to file a tax return for the vast majority of us. These two things alone would greatly expand freedom and equality, not detract from it.

As Justin Schweitzer notes:

Administrative burdens exacerbate poverty and inequity by disadvantaging those with less financial means, physical ability, time, and systemic knowledge to navigate the system — or just avoid it altogether — and by discouraging or outright denying those who need the help most.

A dialectical left-libertarian platform would make reforming those structures a top priority. And, like the distributists, this dialectical left-libertarian platform wants property ownership widely dispersed throughout society, as well as that decisions should be made as locally as possible, rather than concentrated in the hands of capitalists and landowners/landlords or the government.

Here’s a list (not exhaustive) of other key reforms or stances that would/could/should be a part of a Dialectical Left-Libertarian Platform:

• Freeing up markets as much as possible, increasing competition and eliminating barriers to entry, leading to more affordable goods.
• Shrinking the intellectual property regime in this country that massively exacerbates costs, increases the power of businesses, and actually gets in the way of creativity and innovation. This would also help make healthcare more affordable (an area discussed further down).
• A nationwide initiative to tackle restrictive zoning that hinders housing development and exacerbates the cost of housing and the homelessness crisis. A president or governor can help mobilize a large-scale initiative to direct local areas to undo overly restrictive zoning and help with facilitating better policies to improve housing development.
• Land value taxation as a method to solve the housing crisis and improve the well-being of communities. As Victoria Masterson writes: “Land value tax incentivizes landowners with empty or run-down buildings to get them back into use. They won’t be taxed on these improvements. And the money they might make through rents will help cover their land tax bill. As a result, communities might see the supply of housing in their area increase. Neighbourhoods which previously had lots of empty properties could be revitalized.”
• Creating a national public option in healthcare that allows anyone to sign up regardless of age or income/work situation that provides affordable healthcare coverage. This would ensure that everyone gets access to decent comprehensive healthcare and puts pressure on private options to do better as well (both in affordability and quality). It’s easier than creating a single payer system in the U.S. and it simply expands options rather than taking them away (in alignment with libertarian concerns around choice & exit).
• Establishing some form of universal basic income (UBI) or negative income tax (NIT) that gives people money with no strings attached. Admittedly, an NIT is much more easily funded. We’d cut back on other welfare programs that are wasteful and have too many barriers, and instead rely on cash transfers that put the power in the hands of the receiver. This would help people escape bad workplaces and abusive family, partner, and roommate situations. It’s helpful while trying to pursue school without family support or the military covering you. It’s also important in an age of increasing precarity. To learn more about the benefits of basic income and the positive effects for individual freedom and flourishing, check out the works of Karl Widerquist, political theorist and economist who works as a professor of political philosophy at Georgetown University-Qatar.
• Promoting understanding and implementation of market-friendly Libertarian Municipalist ideas on the local level. This is something that local communities are going to have to implement from the bottom-up, rather than from the top-down by the federal government. However, a libertarian municipalist-friendly governor or president could aid in promoting understanding and implementation of the ideas to communities, creating a road map for how to do so if they should desire to. Libertarian Municipalist ideas attempt to bring local communities together to build local resilience and autonomy (not allowing control to be ceded to major corporations and businesses as is the norm now). This would make communities all around the country more agile and healthy in the face of economic downturns and catastrophes of varying sorts, making the overall country stronger in the process.
• Promoting a worker cooperative movement (here’s a list of some ideas) and larger workers unionist movement (preferably one that isn’t like the top-down statist and elitist one we’ve had dominate for decades). Such movements will increase people’s agency in the workplace and cease treating workers as expendable objects for mere profit maximization. The pursuit of profit wouldn’t trump all values and workers would have a greater stake in taking care of their workplaces. Worker co-ops handle crises better too.
• On social issues (such as LGBT+ rights, religious freedom, and reproductive rights), the platform would err on the side of individual autonomy. Broadly, a “laissez-faire” attitude should be the default in all areas (not just social) and then people have to make the case for restrictions. LGBT+ people should generally be able to live as they please, as long as they are not harming anyone (John Stewart Mill’s harm principle). More specifically, we should strongly oppose the right-wing’s more recent nonstop dehumanization of Trans & Non-Binary people. On religious freedom, everyone should be able to practice their religion freely as long as they aren’t harming others. At the same time, no one should be able to force their religion on others either. Freedom TO religion and freedom FROM religion both matter. And on reproductive rights, despite there being much disagreement within the public and in philosophical circles, I would still err on the side of letting the pregnant individual decide in the vast majority of cases. When it comes to “late-term abortion”, there is more room for reasonable restrictions (such as prevailed under the Roe v. Wade order). Read here to learn about the actual reality of late-term abortion, rather than rely on right-wing propaganda. One brief detour on abortion: I never understood why it was “let the states decide”. In my view, if we aren’t going to have a national standard, it should be “let the cities decide”. From an individual autonomy perspective, that makes it easier to access the care you need if you happen to be in a city that is extreme. It’s *typically* much easier to travel (exit potential) to a different city within a state than it is to travel out of state.
• On education, there wouldn’t be an opposition to school choice. I don’t think a libertarian platform of any kind would seek to lock children into a single model of education. There are so many unique and beautiful models out there. Therefore, any left-wing perspective that said there could only be a single, uniform top-down public education system would be opposed by a dialectical left-libertarian platform. Instead, let a hundred flowers bloom (to take from Mao)! I also think there needs to be a massive overhaul in terms of educational costs and student loans (any presidential administration needs to go on full assault mode getting these costs in check, including curbing absurdly high interest rates and ridiculously bloated administrations in universities), as well as an overhaul in how we handle education more broadly and prepare people for working. For one, there needs to be less of an expectation of most people dedicating 4 years or more to getting degrees to do most things. We need to create more flexible and affordable ways for people to gain knowledge and skills so that they can work and live and improve their financial circumstances. It is ABSURD for someone to get a bachelor’s degree in something, racking up tens of thousands in debt in the process, only to work in an unrelated job or even a related job making $40,000–50,000 per year (or less). I want to see more initiatives that attempt to help kids gain good skills in high school so that they graduate feeling confident about going out into the world and starting on a path. And we also need to make it easier for people to change paths well beyond their 20s (with the help of more job retraining programs and more flexible college schedules and requirements). Our system is too built around the idea of someone being in school in their teens and twenties where they may have parental supports and other things. It’s a bad assumption and a very limited focus that hurts our society as a whole. Overall, we need more good quality options, not less.
• On guns, the standard libertarian position is to be opposed to any form of government or community-imposed gun control. On a personal level, I too am hesitant to embrace much gun control, despite not being much of a gun guy these days (save for the occasional gun range day). Nonetheless, there’s a strong movement pushing for it and there already exists a large amount of it in some form or another. Of course, this could be said for many other issues on here, such as immigration (a strong movement opposed exists and there is a convoluted mess of restrictions in place). So why go any softer on gun control than on immigration? Well, not all issues are equal. I don’t think there’s an inherent right to own just any deadly weapon in the same way that there is a right to free movement. Practically, I don’t want all of the guns owned by the government and criminals, and I want decent people to be able to defend themselves (including armed community defense). Then it just becomes a question of how much and what kind of gun control we are talking about. Banning all guns isn’t going to happen in the United States. So, any progressive who has that as a goal needs to just put that out of their minds. And if attention moves toward what progressives call “assault rifles”, it’s important to point out that handguns make up the largest amount of gun deaths (over 60% of all murders by guns), not semi-automatic rifles or fully automatic weapons (not to downplay the awful psychological effects that the mass shootings that have often utilized those weapons have on society). There’s probably a reasonable case to be made for having to be trained and having a license to own a gun just like you do for operating a car. Practically, I don’t think it will make much of a difference due to the black market and how flooded this country is with guns (and now we have 3D printed guns). Accessing guns is easy, ID or not, gun control legislation or not. Nonetheless, it’s important to try to be pragmatic and flexible when discussing gun control because a sizable amount of the country desires some form of it AND because having so many guns easily accessible is NOT making us safer. I don’t think it is going to address the roots of the problem though (whether gun crime broadly or mass shootings in particular). Building better communities (tackling the socioeconomic concerns discussed in this platform that fuel violence and crime) and building healthier schools will go leaps and bounds beyond what any feasible gun control legislation could achieve. Trying to prevent guns from getting into the hands of a seriously disturbed or awful person doesn’t eliminate the existence of that seriously disturbed or awful person and their desire to cause destruction. Unless you seriously address why our society is creating so many of these individuals, you won’t get very far. And if it’s not guns, it will be driving into crowds or setting off explosives or what-have-you. Lastly, pouring money into the police hasn’t prevented awful mass shootings either, and they (with all their authoritarianism, racial profiling, and violent/problematic tendencies) are the ones who will be enforcing any gun control.
• On the war on drugs, in short, it needs to be ended. As Christopher Coyne and Abigail Hall conclude in their 2017 policy analysis, “prohibition is not only ineffective, but counterproductive, at achieving the goals of policymakers both domestically and abroad. Given the insights from economics and the available data, we find that the domestic War on Drugs has contributed to an increase in drug overdoses and fostered and sustained the creation of powerful drug cartels.” The war on drugs has been a destructive farce. If anything, it should be called the war FOR drugs. If you wanted to empower criminal enterprises to sell even more drugs, while throwing people into prison for nonviolent crimes in order to make them even worse, the so-called “war on drugs” was the way to do it. Curtailing this should do a lot to curb people being unjustly put behind bars, allow more resources to be put towards rehabilitation and other empowering programs, free up the police to pursue more serious crimes, and reduce the power of the cartels. It’s far from a panacea, which is why we have all the other policies mentioned in this platform, but it’s necessary. And as we’ve seen recently with Portugal’s decriminalization strategy, cutting back state spending on social support systems can undermine the project.
• On police and community protection, this dialectical left-libertarian platform seeks to significantly increase police accountability (end qualified immunity, toughen screening and requirements for who can enter [should be educated], require body cams, have citizen police review for deciding firing and the like, etc.) while making sure that police are treated well (providing good pay, benefits, better schedules, and mental health support). As long as the modern nation state exists (and this article assumes it will for a long time to come), there is going to be a professional police force in existence (much like with the military). So we should do our best to make it as accountable as possible while promoting the best of practices. There is a case for hiring more officers and having them go to areas of increased crime. Nonetheless, we can also limit our reliance on them by building up alternatives to them. A dialectical left-libertarian platform would encourage such alternatives and experimentation. And let’s remember, there’s no shortcut to drastically reducing crime. You have to make our overall society better. We know that poverty and crime are linked. Areas that are dilapidated with food deserts and poor infrastructure are much more likely to have higher crime. The more we do the rest of what has been suggested in this platform, the lower crime will likely be and the less police will have to do.
• On prisons and jails, this dialectical left-libertarian framework is more keen on rehabilitation and restorative justice wherever possible. Much like with the police, there’s no denying that prisons and jails aren’t going anywhere as long as we retain the modern nation state. And it seems there’s likely a role for some form of containment in any society for at least some violent/abusive offenders (especially repeat offenders and those assessed as highly likely to repeat). But there’s no doubt that we live in a highly carceral society (and a messy one at that), as well as that our incarceration practices largely aren’t bettering the people a part of them, or making our society better and safer as a whole. Thankfully, there are better more cost effective alternatives that we can turn to instead, including utilizing workforce training, education, mentoring and life-skills workshops that have shown actual positive effects, among many others. Just as was discussed in the guns section, we would reduce crime if we improved our overall socioeconomic conditions. Throwing people in prison isn’t doing it folks.
• On U.S. foreign policy, this dialectical left-libertarian platform will seek to reduce U.S. militarism and meddling in others’ affairs as much as possible. As President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned, the military-industrial complex is a powerful force that we should be concerned about. Any dialectical left-libertarian leadership would need to be very alert to its activities and restrain it where necessary. The United States has had a long history of toppling governments and seeking to increase its reach for its own benefit, producing disastrous results in the process. None of this means that we must embrace 100% isolationism or non-interventionism. But we should be VERY wary of getting involved in any conflicts abroad, especially without being asked for help. Furthermore, the U.S. military is far too bloated and defense spending needs to be restrained. More of the money we do spend on the military should go to supporting the flourishing of the actual service members (like mentioned with supporting police). And to whatever extent possible, we should seek to undo a lot of the intense expansion and restructuring of the U.S. government that occurred under the Bush administration following the tragic events of September 11, 2001.
• On U.S. diplomacy, improving relations around the world and attempting to work together to tackle global and national issues is absolutely pivotal. A hypothetical dialectical left-libertarian president would seek to stabilize relations with countries we have been historically hostile towards, while continuing to push accountability for wrongdoing and encouraging their better angels. There needs to be a strong personality that can go out and help inspire and unite the world, rather than increasing divisiveness and having everyone closing off into their national silos. Having open, consistent, clear, and direct communication is a must. This wouldn’t be easy though. It would require a president with the chutzpah to go against the demands of the national security apparatus. But it’s nonetheless important and not impossible. We need less jingoism, less aggressive posturing, and more mature and responsible stewardship and governing.
• On free trade, I believe people should be able to trade with anyone they want to with no extra barriers. In other words, we should have zero tariffs around the world. However, that is clearly not currently the case. Unlike Donald Trump, I don’t think we get there by creating punishing tariffs of our own. I think we get there by eliminating our own and making our country more attractive. Others will follow suit as they look less appealing to trade with. You don’t win by becoming worse, you win by doing better. Not to mention, tariffs punish our own citizens. Lastly, the relationships built through diplomacy (as mentioned above) would go a long way in getting more hostile trade partners to reconsider their tariffs. As far as fears for various industries are concerned, a strong workers co-op movement and larger workers movements (as detailed earlier) would help stave off any problematic offshoring of jobs, and the government could invest in industries of our own here if preferred (such as building up our capabilities around computer chips).
• On immigration and the border, first and foremost, we need to create a streamlined path to citizenship for those wanting to come to the United States. We should also make it easier for migrants/refugees to work when they come here. As David J. Bier put it in his 2020 immigration reform study, reform would provide us with: “An easier‐​to‐​navigate system that adapts to changing conditions [that] will encourage and enable compliance with the laws, while benefiting both immigrants and Americans.” So much could be solved by doing that alone. And, from the perspective of this dialectical left-libertarian platform, only restrictions where absolutely necessary should occur (such as, potentially, entry restrictions during a pandemic or restrictions on the total number that can enter at a given time as not to overwhelm things). And despite the U.S. media (especially right-wing media) constantly elevating news attention to every crime committed by an “illegal” immigrant, undocumented immigrants commit far fewer crimes than citizens. Furthermore, from the diplomacy perspective, we should focus on helping countries where so many are fleeing and trying to come here (and where we’ve often been a cause of the crisis). You could reduce the incidence of large caravans and the like by helping make the conditions better in the countries people are fleeing. So, at the same time that we need to make the process easier, fairer, and more straightforward, we also need to help reduce the demand for coming here out of dire straits. Ideally, people should be able to go wherever they want without the permission of governments. Since that’s not the world we live in and there are myriad practical considerations to be concerned about, we should at least maximally make immigration easier and free movement occur as much as possible. This dialectical left-libertarian perspective opposes any form of cultural nationalism that seeks to keep people out simply because they are different (and “great replacement theory” is a dangerous load of garbage).
• Lastly, on energy, from the perspective of the federal government, I find a lot to agree with in this Brookings Institution article:

I propose that the United States enact policies that reduce the use of fossil fuels without carbon capture and storage, ensure that oil and gas produced in the United States have the lowest GHG emissions possible, and prepare for the eventual decline of domestic oil and gas production through policies that will help affected communities through the transition. I’m not advocating for less ambitious climate policy, but for policy that focuses its efforts on the demand and emissions side of the ledger. Our government should let economics determine how much oil and gas is produced in the United States. When demand-focused policies, like a carbon tax or efficiency standards, make U.S. fuels uncompetitive, their production will naturally decline. Falling costs for renewable energy are helping to push fossil fuels out of electricity generation, but oil and gas are harder to replace in other uses. Policy and research will be needed to encourage the transition in the most challenging sectors.

An important point that they highlight:

[C]utting back domestic oil and gas production without an equally ambitious focus on demand will just increase U.S. imports, rather than reduce consumption.

And lastly from that article:

Any “solution” that reduces U.S. emissions, but increases global emissions, is no solution at all.

This has been one of my biggest issues with the Democratic Party and the political Left more generally when it comes to energy issues. Yes, of course we need to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels (everyone should take seriously the reality of human-caused climate change). However, they too often want to tie our own hands in being able to engage in oil and gas production while not being able to adequately reduce our demand. If implemented, this would only lead to the need to rely on foreign countries that are less likely to use the kind of safety and environmental standards that we hold ourselves to, and overall global emissions won’t decline.

In contrast, I promote (get ready for a barrage of 8 links) a diversified approach that seeks to lower our demand for fossil fuels, increases cleaner options (everything from solar/wind/hydroelectric to nuclear energy and beyond), and that promotes greener and more efficient uses of space and transportation on the local level. Just as much as we need to reduce fossil fuel usage and use cleaner energy sources, we also need to structure ourselves in less wasteful ways (here are some key waste considerations). Just as I am not dogmatic and rigid in other areas, I am also not so when it comes to fighting climate change and reducing our fossil fuel dependence.

Conclusion

Undoubtedly, plenty of people will look at all of this and go “yikes, that’s too radical!” And others will go “sheesh, that’s not radical enough!” Some will feel that way on some things and not others. Sure, these policies are significantly detracting from the way the status quo is, but they also fall significantly short of “total open borders” (which, btw, Biden has never implemented either), “abolish all fossil fuels tomorrow”, “abolish the police”, “smash the state”, and “end Capitalism”. But if you recall from what I said at the beginning, I am assuming we are beginning with where we currently are. So, it’s important to push for as many decent, effective policies given the overall conditions, while being pragmatic and not expecting to get everything.

As I said, none of what I put forth is set in stone. This platform represents a mixture of policies and perspectives that seek to increase freedom, equality, justice, and flourishing within the context of the overall socioeconomic and political systems that we currently have. A hypothetical dialectical left-libertarian president would seek to promote policies like the ones mentioned and any others that were demonstrated to be in the same spirit and would produce positive results. Tied to this platform would be a great respect for local communities to be able to experiment and not be under the thumb of either the federal or state governments, or under the thumb of major corporations and business interests. So, let’s get to work and do our best to promote a Dialectical Left-Libertarian platform for improving our world.