A left libertarian reading list

A reader asks me to provide a reading list on left-libertarianism. Here goes.
Two great but shamefully expensive overviews are the collections Left Libertarianism and its Critics and The Origins of Left Libertarianism, edited by Hillel Steiner and Peter Vallentyne. Many of Vallentyne's papers are here. Steiner's Essay on Rights is also a classic, but it's out of print. Kai Nielsen's Equality and Liberty is also good but pricy. (Hey, I can see a conspiracy!)
Michael Otsuka's Libertarianism without Inequality is more physically accessible, as is Philippe van Parijs's Real Freedom for All. Ackerman and Alstott's Stakeholder Society is also within the left libertarian tradition.
You can also approach left libertarianism from a critical reading of Nozick's Anarchy State and Utopia and the Austrians (say, Hayek's Law, Legislation and Liberty, Individualism and Economic Order and Constitution of Liberty and Von Mises' Socialism). Just ask: is their account of property rights even half-way adequate? For a better account of property, which yields more egalitarian results, try John Christman's Myth of Property. And having read Nozick, read Cohen's critique of his self-ownership thesis. More of Cohen's thinking are his Tanner lectures here (pdf) .
One strand of thinking compatible with left libertarianism is market socialism. Here. two great collections are Market Socialism edited by Roemer and Bardhan and Equal Shares, by Roemer and Wright.
Whilst we're on Roemer, everything he's written is great, Theories of Distributive Justice and Egalitarian Perspectives being most relevant in this context.
Other writers who have influenced me here are Marc Fleurbaey, Herb Gintis, Samuel Bowles, Richard Arneson, Kevin Carson and Joshua Cohen. They wouldn't all call themselves left-libertarians, but they all show in various ways that egalitarianism isn't synonymous with statism or stupidity.
There's no doubt tons of things I've omitted. Feel free to add more.

Comments

[dearieme]

"egalitarianism isn't synonymous with statism or stupidity": perhaps not "isn't", but "needn't be"?

[stuart]

How about Samuel Brittan? Capitalism with a Human Face (and many others). Many of his columns for the Financial Times can be found on his web page www.samuelbrittan.co.uk

[Lars Smith]

Great, thanks!

[Phil]

'perhaps not "isn't", but "needn't be"?'

Philosophically, no. If E were synonymous with either S1 or S2, this would be true of all cases of E. If some cases of E can be found which aren't characterised by S1 or S2, the worst we could say would be that E is often found in conjunction with S1, S2 or both - which is a significantly weaker claim than that S[1|2] characterises E itself.

[Shuggy]

If that's the same Bowles and Gintis that wrote a book about education in the United States, they can in no sense be described as liberal, never mind libertarian. It was easily the worst book I've ever read about education.

[Lars Smith]

Sam Bowles and Herb Gintis have changed over time, and they are doing very good work, e.g. in the Norms and Preferences Network,
http://www.umass.edu/preferen/

[dearieme]

Phil, I think you've persuaded me. Does that mean I'm tired? Or just that you're right?

[emmanuelgoldstein]

[If E were synonymous with either S1 or S2, this would be true of all cases of E.]

Surely not?
{today} is synonymous with {October 3rd} or {the day after October 2nd} . But, clearly, not every instance of {today} is synonymous with either {October 3rd} or {the day after October 2nd}.