It’s a very interesting post, I suggest you read the whole thing.
I don’t even know what ‘thin’ or ‘thick’ libertarianism is and I’ve been active in the movement for 5 years.
What you quote doesn’t give me anything either.
Not interesting so far.
I have jet to figure out if “thick libertarianism” is even an actual self-referential term. So far just seems like an insult that would be thrown around by the other camp.
I’m struggling to know what to make of this
I’m really not sure where to start. I’ll limit myself to one thought to avoid a tl:dr situation.
The article in question appears to be a very extended version of this basic argument:
Libertarians claim to be for liberty. Yet in fact, they are for property enforcement because they ideologically confine themselves to the notion that maximal property enforcement = maximal liberty. This is not true because [x].
And sure enough, I uncovered this statement on Will Wilkinson’s blog:
If people do better in a system that defines rights to property a bit less strictly, and coercively guarantees an economic minimum, then that is justified coercion.
Now we’re stuck with two claims. Libertarians claim that zero redistributive interference creates the most proper social atmosphere. Wilkinson would like to have “an economic minimum” which sounds very mathematic but which can in fact not even be narrowly defined. How do we find out who’s right?
In my opinion, a consistent libertarian has one clear advantage over the redistributor: no competition. There are literally thousands of redistributive schemes out there, all of which rest on a false assumption of knowledge of the economic and social effects of said redistribution. Which one’s the right pick?
Libertarians are defeatists in this regard - they don’t like social engineering. But sometimes it is better not to tinker with the engine, especially if the long-term effects of such tinkering are entirely unclear, unless there’s something seriously wrong with the engine in the first place. And even though the author of the above blog tries to indirectly (and falsely) blame anti-women legislation and Jim Crow laws on libertarians, the fact remains that pretty much all permanent social ills in market-based societies can be traced back to redistributive governmental interference. And as long as I don’t get to see evidence of an avoidable, prolonged negative development caused by market forces, I’m going to stick with zero interference.
The cynical version: It’s basically code for libertarian hipsters, of certain varieties, claiming (intentionally or unintentionally) that they have the “true” vision of libertarianism, which ironically ignores (in the greater context) the overall respect required for parallel market processes in said libertarian activism (i.e. if the concept of thick libertarianism doesn’t seem to catch on after x amount of time, then the lack of a market response, or what the proportional response actually is, will be ignored in favor of rationalization. To their credit, they seem to be making some progress online in spreading their meme, but it’s much easier to do this online anyway.)
Interesting to note: there seem to be far more people running around claiming the title of “thick” versus “thin”, because the earlier often invokes the later as an “inferior” libertarianism, morally, superficially, philosophically, ethically, etc.
Many who would be considered “thin” typically do not see the point in the prefixes, since many “thicks” end up being in the market-anarchist camp which has, overall, been following the ALL’s neo old rothabrdian strategy of advertising rhetortic to the overall left (which he also attempted in his later life, neither of which can said to have been major successes).
Many of the so-called “thicks” also like to invoke the perception of massive infiltration or “too much of influence” of certain writers that do not fit into their views (such as Hoppe or Block).
Neutral version, tl;dr version: it’s a dichotomy that has emerged between factions within libertarianism & anarchism based on which faction is more consistently libertarian than the other, & what constitutes consistent libertarianism, as well.
Ah, so it is the other way around. They got me here.
I’m cynical & skeptic of the term, but it’d be a generalization to say that all that claim the title of “thick” use it this way. However, it’s hard not to perceive an attitude of arrogance whenever the question of which of the prefixes is more “correct” than the other.
To be honest, I do not expect a good response to creations of over-specialized prefixes & further factionalism, not in the long-term at least.
I’m going to give this thread a bump. It neither deserves to be ignored nor to be one-starred.
The article linked in the OP addresses a number of crucial points and ignoring this solid type of criticism is not going to make it go away. I’d like to hear more opinions on it, especially from proponents of objective property ethics.
You haven’t actually explained what thick or thin is supposed to mean. 
(haven’t read Sphairon’s post yet; doing that now)
Definitions are kind of vague, but essentially, thin libertarianism is about upholding a private property lawcode without presupposing a necessary cultural background while thick libertarians argue that the establishment of certain preferential values within a given society is necessary for liberty to prosper.
For example, a thin libertarian may grant racists the prerogative to engage in racist activities with their property and as long as the NAP is not violated. A thick libertarian would most likely actively condemn such behavior and while he may not go so far as to ban it, he would certainly contend that widespread rejection of such activities is necessary to ensure the survival of liberty.
Here is the thing. The reason some libertarians are run over by critics constantly is that they made up this freedom=absolute lockean property rights stuff, which no one else buys as it runs contrary to basic common sense. Thin libertarians are those who wrapped their minds around this idea so much they cannot accept any other criteria in politics. The thicks are those who bought into this framework and try to stay in it despite having the common sense to see the obvious problems with it, so they have to import those other ideas to make it sensible.
interventionism is ‘common sense’
http://www.stephankinsella.com/2009/12/01/wombatrons-why-i-am-a-left-libertarian/
That sums it up real well. It’s a joke.
Intervention into what?
i refer to the economic philosophy/policy of interventionism.
you’ve never come across it?
So libertarianism is about the lack of interventionism or about miximizing freedom?
its not about ‘common sense’
OK, first things first, let me explain why I found this quotation and the piece in general to be of interest. First, I think it does a good job of attacking what I consider to be a fallacious premise of certain varieties of libertarianism, namely that it has anything to do with liberty or freedom in the commonly understood sense of the term. Two, even if it may not be an original observation it does point out that the dichotomy between thin and thick libertarianism goes a long way to explaining some of the sociological and philosophical differences within libertarianism. And finally, I think it does a good job of explaining the differences between the two positions, whilst making a case in favour of a thicker libertarianism.
You see,I could just as easily say that thin libertarianism is "basically code for libertarian purists, of certain varieties, claiming (intentionally or unintentionally) that they have the “uncontaminated” vision of libertarianism. Of course, I’m not sure what the utility of such an attack on thin libertarians would be, not matter how valid it is. Likewise, I’ve seen very little substantive discussion of and potential problems with thick libertarianism, it usually comes down to asserting that we must distinguish between personal and political values. Well, yes, this is true, but it doesn’t go anywhere in answering what sort of political values we should hold, and what is necessary for these political values to be effective. As for factionalism, I’m not sure what the problem is. If the word libertarian is being used to lump together very disparate intellectual positions, for the purpose of intellectual clarity, factionalism can only be a good thing.
I sort of agree, but it really depends. The two camps have a lot of diversity amongst themselves and the terms are still very vague. Ultimately, I’d like to say that there’s only a distinction between reasonable libertarianism and unreasonable libertarianism, but I think that’d be needlessly inflammatory. For the record, I wouldn’t consider myself to be a libertarian anyway.
I’ll address your whole post here, but I’ll use this quotation as a foil. I think it’s a little strong to say that libertarians are defeatists, in reality many are but I don’t think that libertarians must necessarily commit themselves to such a position. In fact, I’m not even sure that is true. Rothbard certainly thought we could design a legal framework that was “rational” and efficient, indeed, he seems to have very little humility when it comes to elaborating the effects of various interventions in the market, he just so happened to argue, wrongly, that all state intervention is bad. It isn’t a matter of not knowing which state policy is worse for the Rothbardian, it’s a matter of not caring. Now, I agree that there must be a certain degree of humility when it comes to analysing economic and social policy. Our reason is fallible, no matter how much we put into looking at policy, we’ll always miss something, chances are we’ll miss a great deal. So in this sense we should have a presumption against further economic intervention. That said, economic and social science in general has taught us a lot about how humans work and interact with one another, and I don’t see any reason why we shouldn’t use the tools of science in analysis public policy.
The Law ( Bastiat, 1850 http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html ):
Z.