[ExI] Usages of the term libertarianism

[Dan]

I think it would be more useful to ask why people believe what they believe -- why they believe X and Y go together (are either compatible or implied/inferred/corollaries) or don't go together (are incompatible). This usually works better when people start discussing what it means for them to be X and why they believe Y follows from, does not follow from, or is inconsistent with X.

In this vein, looking to, say, Robert Nozick's famous book -- and leaving aside that he doesn't much ground his views as simply present them and give criticism to opposing views, such as egalitarianism, socialism, welfare statism, and market anarchism -- one can see something many libertarians in America share: a natural rights basis for their libertarianism. (Usually, talk about self-ownership or non-initiation of forces leads to the same position. For example, the non-initiation of force principle has to be combined with some framework in which force and its initiation can be defined.

While this doesn't solve all problems, without this -- and usually, the framework is some sort of rights framework -- you have immediate issues like you stopping me from fleeing with your car might be considered you initiating force. The typical libertarian approach that problem Nozick (minarchist) and Rothbard (anarchist) would both agree on is that rights do define things you might defend with force, though this doesn't mean, say, deadly force can be used (contra Walter Block) for someone stepping across your lawn. But without rights, it's hard to define just where force is being used justly.) If one accepts this -- and one realizes people can still use the label "libertarian" in other ways, some of which would go against natural rights -- one might clear up many issues. Or, at least, it'll make the differences more clear even it the issues aren't resolved.

(One has to be especially careful these days, too, because "libertarian" has taken on a certain chic and the word is being much more widely used than ever before, especially in America. I recall a time, and I'm not that old, when "libertarian" either got a blank stare or was confused with "liberal" -- as in _welfare state_ liberal and not classical liberal -- by people I would talk to in the States. Now, it's much more likely one has to explain why one is not a[n American] conservative or a Republican.)


And this is only going to resolve or clearly define those issues presuming "libertarian" etc. are defined that way. To merely toss around the words without being clear about their meaning -- or presuming one meaning when others mean something else -- is going to result in people talking passed each other rather than communicating. But you already know this, I'm sure.


Regards,

Dan

"Anarchy is the radical notion that other people are not your property." -- Roderick T. Long



________________________________
From: F. C. Moulton <moulton at moulton.com>
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 3:42 AM
Subject: [ExI] Usages of the term libertarianism

On 05/09/2011 11:16 PM, Kelly Anderson wrote:
> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 11:27 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki
>> ### Hey, I *don't* want a government, and I *am* a libertarian!
>>
>> Let's have an anarchocapitalist slugfest here, like in the good old
>> times! :)
> Rafal, you can call yourself whatever you would like. But the common
> definition of libertarian doesn't do away with government for the
> common defense and all that.
>
> How to anarchists keep a more cohesive government next door from
> running all over the top of them to strip their resources?
>
Let us pause for just a moment before we have yet another session of
people talking past each other and failing to seriously consider what is
being posted:

1. I assume that everyone here is intelligent enough to realize that the
term anarchist as used here does not refer to the strawman caricature of
some person all dressed in black haphazardly throwing bombs.
2. Historically and currently the term "libertarian" has been and is
still used by different people to mean either "limited government" or
"anarchist" positions even though the usages have an innate
incompatibility.
3. There is literature on this issue going back many years.  While I do
not agree with all of the conclusions I find the book Anarchy, State and
Utopia by Nozick to be an useful read when confronting these questions.
4. Since the term "anarchocapitalist" was mentioned we should note that
there are those who hold that one can only be an anarchist if they
oppose what is generally considered as market based economic activity.
On the other had there are those that claim that the anarchist position
does not preclude any voluntary activity which is not based on something
such as theft or fraud.  This latter position is often referred to as
"Anarchism without Adjectives".  Recently this disagreement occurred on
Facebook and a new FB community was formed
https://www.facebook.com/anarchismwithoutadjectives
5. So would it be a good idea to have a handful of people doing a back
and forth on the question of "Does libertarianism explicitly exclude
anarchist position  or does libertarianism explicitly exclude even the
smallest minimal state position or are both included?"   I doubt if it
would be useful to have a long back and forth about the issue here for
several reasons; one of which is that few people on this list have read
much if any of the serious literature on the topic.

Fred
_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20110510/54e84222/attachment.html>