Are you unable to outline the differences?
I am not prepared to put that much work in for someone who is clearly hostile
You seem to have set great store by them as being real and importnat to your own personal philosophy and have on number of occassions been at pains to point out that you are not a 'right-libertarian' GO on- pick out a few centrally important differences for us.
you mean for you -or do you speak for everyone
As for Murray Bookchin, he'd have nothing whatsoever to do with all this nonsense about markets, or 'corporatism', or suchlike.you think bookchin supports corporatism then .
Who defines it? Well basic common current general usage would be a good starting point and we can dicuss any problems from thereon. I think using the original defintion is a little esoteric frankly and not very useful. And it deosn't really work for 'right-libertarians' either - you've got two different usages of left and right going on there really.
perhaps
Your list of left things - so you appear to be a socially liberal individual. Ok, most of that stuff is all pretty compatible with both modern caring conservatism or right-libertarianism as well. It doesn't really say much or offer any explicitly left content - which is what i was after. As for this
Im certainly socially liberal and I am certainly no socialist
.
I'd also quite like to know how how you've gathered that i 'don't object to coercion' whilst you do. See, that's a rather bland meaningless statement to make and postion to take, at least without any other context or some more substance to it. In all circumsatnces? On all issues? Coercion by whom? And so on You might as well say that i love evil and you don't
I belive that cooperation is more appropriate than coercion .
I see not a single answer to any of my points in there. Here's a brief reply anyway.
You're not prepared to even outline the key elements of your position to someone 'hostile'? OK, fair enough. I wonder what the point of repeatdly stating that you're a left-libertarian is though, if you're not prepared to defend that self-description. Maybe it's because you, like me and others, can see that it's wildly inaccurate.
'us' doesn't have to mean everyone, it can mean more than one person, and so 'us' is acceptable usage here given there are more than me asking you these questions.
You've already already admitted you got Bookchin muddled up with Rothbard so i'll leave this one alone except to say another classic libertarian trick at play here - make a false distinction between capitalism (which you hide behind the term 'free market') and 'corporatism' - the first open, free flowing and geared to the consumer and small producers needs, the second parasitic and monopoly based.
It's a fairly obvious sleight of hand because capitalism/the free market
produces what you call corporatism - in the same way that it produces other forms of capitalism in different historical conditions. It evolves and adapts. To dismiss this simply by changing the terminology is pure deceit and self-deception. It doesn't deal with the issues, it pretends that they don't exist.
There's a second trick here which is to put forward a 'thinker' as agreeing with you, then when you point out that in reality they don't agree with you, you say 'oh so you think they agree with **insert BAD THING**' rather than deal with the objections.
'Perhaps' - well, ok.
Being 'socially liberal' and 'not a socialist' makes my point for me - there's no distinctive left element to your self-description as left-libertarian. As i pointed out, any one from the tories to the right-libertarians (and we may have to discuss if this left-lib, right-lib split even exists or is a useful description at some later point) could agree with most of your identifying characteristics.
You believe that co-operation is better than coercion. So do i, so do most people. This is pretty meaningless on its own. Again, it's like sdaying you prefer good to bad, peace to violence. It doesn't really say anything.
).
