I still don’t understand what this “thick” and “thin” libertarianism means.
I still don’t understand what this “thick” and “thin” libertarianism means.
Like any fashion show, an insistent dedication to style over substance, but this time it is an actual political philosophy. You can actually get away with the phrase “breaking all barriers of libertarian and left-right paradigms because I am a thick anti capitalist free market left libertarian, I’m also apolitical GO [INSERT LEFT WING POLITICAL TERM HERE e.g feminism]!!!”.
Because it is a canard. Brainpolice knows this.
As BP says thin libertarianism often seems to be a cover for subtle endorsement of immorality and I’ve yet to meet a libertarian who is 100% a thin libertarian.
Most people would say libertarianism is a cover for endorsing immorality. Doesn’t mean a thing. Its nice to see that you and LS agree on something though:
Guess what Scott. There is no such thing as “thin libertarianism’”.
It’s either voluntary or it’s not. It’s either free or it’s not.
I don’t see what all this additional junk is usefull for. Free market anarchists are too small of a group to have so many useless labels.
^ lol, welcome to the club. Libertarians often speak of ignoring left-right paradigms, self proclaimed thick and left-libertarians ignore it better than other libertarians though. And “some animals are more equal than others.”
Nielsio, as long you don’t waste your money with snake-oil ultra expensive cables like the ones from Nordost, I support you.
So when a Left-Lib says something nonesensical like the following
There’s not much I’m going to agree with leftist market fundamentalists on. I think you are creating a false dichotomy, and therefore a straw man when you use me to argue them
Personally, I’m of the opinion that the majority of left-libertarians/Rothbardians are people who first and foremost don’t want their ideology in any way connected to the braindead faction the mainstream commonly refers to as the “right” (at the moment), so they stick “left” in front of their libertarianism and then make little quibbles after the fact just to separate themselves from “normal” libertarianism/Rothbarianism and thusly make themselves distinct from the “right” (seeing as the mainstream often identifies libertarianism partially with what’s presently referred to as the conservatives, even though it’s not even close to accurate).
Mind that this is both conjecture and my completely baseless opinion, but that if this is the case (even if a left-libertarian/Rothbardian won’t acknowledge it), I can’t really say I blame them. “Left” sounds so much more “progressive” at the moment (that’s progressive with a little “p”, not capital). I also don’t hold this opinion to all left-libertarians/Rothbardians (example: Brainpolice), but do think it’s possible some of those are swayed by people that started off from this hypothetical viewpoint.
I wouldn’t even be surprised if some left-libertarians/Rothbardians agreed with me on this opinion in regards to some other of their “ilk”, but I wouldn’t expect it, either.
Thin libertarian= libertarianism is just about aggression and /or the NAP.
Thick libertarian= libertarianism is about aggression and/or the NAP but also cultural concerns.
That’s funny because many here have argued for it in this and other recent threads as well as at other times -not to mention well known libertarians like Walter Block have argued for it.The point is that while it is impossible to live out in reality ,it has indeed been argued for.
This isn’t wrong, but I’d broaden that to:
Thin libertarianism = the claim that libertarianism is a stand-alone political philosophy that can be separated from everything else and completely reducible to some single, common principle or concept or goal (I.E. “we just believe in the NAP”).
Thick libertarianism = the claim that libertarianism is necessarily within the broader web of beliefs and values of libertarians, and hence inseperable from people’s metaphysical views, epistemologies, ethical values, and so on.
The sense in which I say that thin libertarianism is inherently intellectually dishonest is because any given individual libertarian does, as a matter of fact, understand libertarianism within the context of their overall view of the world. There simply is no such thing as a libertarian who’s libertarianism isn’t framed within some conceptual heirarchy. By its very nature, it can’t be neutral. Noone is. Someone’s “thin” claims can often be undercut by unraveling all of the implicit beliefs related to their understanding of libertarianism that cannot be reduced to some overarching thing like the non-aggression principle.
“Thin” and “thick” are just convenient categorizations refering to the degree to which people aknowledge their political philosophy to be related to the larger whole of beliefs. To the extent that they can be considered substantive positions, “thin-ness” is associated with reductionism to political economy while “thick-ness” is associated with a sense of holism. The only real broad “thick” vs. “thin” debate is between degrees of this kind in how one concieves of political economy relating to other domains.
I’m honest and humble enough to admit your definition and explanation is better.Thanks for this, BP.
To the extent An-cap, minarchism and Austrian economics aim to be thin then often they do.The mentioned groups dismissal of social issues often leads to endorsement of immorality too.
Did you just not read what I wrote? Left-Lib, paleo-libs, all libertarians endorse immorality by most standards. Saying “its wrong, but I won’t stop you” looks like moral cowardice to many.
(And science has no place with morality… keep "aim[ing] to be thin please.)
I think you’re missing the point, although it may be the case that “endorse immorality” was the wrong way to frame it. The contention is more like this: there are reductionistic viewpoints which try to stick to an amoral analysis, and in the process they end up effectively dismissing people’s moral considerations out of hand - including those of libertarians - on the grounds of everything being about something like economics. It’s not that they are endorsing immorality per se, but that their commitment to economic reductionism causes them to at least appear to be (and sometimes substantive be) apathetic or dismissive towards moral considerations.
The contention is more like this: there are reductionistic viewpoints which try to stick to an amoral analysis, and in the process they end up effectively dismissing people’s moral considerations out of hand - including those of libertarians - on the grounds of everything being about something like economics. It’s not that they are endorsing immorality per se, but that their commitment to economic reductionism causes them to at least appear to be (and sometimes substantive be) apathetic or dismissive towards moral considerations.
Sounds like a fair contention, I just don’t see the problem. Should all subjective considerations be given the same weight?
Sounds like a fair contention, I just don’t see the problem. Should all subjective considerations be given the same weight?
It doesn’t matter, when you ask about the consequences of their “moral” choices, the question gets ducked, the morality doesn’t get clearly stated. It’s funny it seems like nothing more than a (to put it very loosely and somewhat inaccurate) a skepticism of moral skepticism with left wing political slogans. That is if you bring up Hoppe, that is “the wrong morality/aesthetic/crystal ball” or whatever.
If they are just talking about practical advice on how to communicate libertarianism, or whatever other gibberish you want (that is by saying the obvious statement “people have moral sentiments”) that’s fine, but there is no way you can communicate any form of universal “practical advise” via moralizing as every situation and individual is, you know unique.