Also,
http://archive.thenuclearsummer.com/dejacque.html
The first person to self-identify as a libertarian (a word he got from the earlier anti-determinist movements) was a anarcho-communist, a social thinker, a leftist. Rothbardians do not have the sole, nor even an early claim to the libertarian movement.
nirgraham, I already watched the video. I don’t find it conclusive. And, I find his mission statement to be a much stronger commitment.
On Walter Block’s website, he defines himself as an “anarcho-libertarians”; if libertarians are, ipso facto, anarchists, then isn’t the “anarcho” prefix totally unnecessary?
His mission statement is a more public commitment certainly but what of “(That’s) really what my goal is”…
isn’t your choice to write ‘prefix’ unnecessary since you put the word fragment explicitly in its own quote marks…
isn’t this an explosion of petty now?
liberty student has already said that people advocating anything other than outirght anarchism are statists and “squishy” libertarians (hence Milton Friedman’s pragmatic policies–e.g., school vouchers–are statist). Likewise, advocating constitutional government (even if one’s ideal is otherwise) is Statist.
You can’t get past that: he is explicitly advocating for a State in his mission statement. There’s no “between the lines” there, unless you really just want to jump through hoops to try to prove your point (or, alternatively, just accept the facts).
Rather than trying to claim Ron Paul is secretly an anarchist, how 'bout we just agree that even minarchists can be called libertarians?
nirgrahamUK, I really don’t think this is petty. Calling oneself an “anarcho-libertarian” (cf. Walter Block) or a “libertarian anarchist” (cf. Robert Higgs) means that “libertarian” itself is not sufficient to explain one’s political philosophy.
I agree and disagree with you. What I call such people depends on context.
Often I will call minarchists libertarians. When I’m in the mood to criticize the failings of minarchy in light of ancap, they can lose that tag given the more stringent criteria I may choose to apply.
That’s totally cool with me. That’s how words actually work; that’s why I keep bringing up Wittgenstein who is famous for proving so.
“libertarian” itself is not sufficient to explain one’s political philosophy.
It may or may not be given the context (i.e. who you are talking to)
of course language is contested, and so we need word contortions in an attempt to carve out a niche when our audience has expanded to outside of our philosophical peer group (that may be unfamiliar with our argot
I think that’s exactly right.
awesome
lmao.
"Guess what, guys?
You totally annhilated my arguments, so I am going to claim the debate is insignificant and continue ignoring valid criticisms of my position."
Apparently this is how “real” intellectuals handle debate.
It’s not wishing and claiming mon petit champignon. Your position has been shown to be illogical. That is without doubt.
If one grounds most of their libertarianism in ethics as a core of political beliefs, wouldn’t be valid to give utilitarian arguments as well?
There’s nothing wrong with calling oneself libertarian if they are anarchist. Isn’t the goal of anarchism liberty? Where are these anti liberty anarchists?
Libertarianism is just the broader label.
No, you missed the point when I asked you to start a new thread. We’re were discussing what is and is not libertarian, not your views (which cannot be proven one way or another) about effective strategy. Again, your lack of understanding of praxeology has lead you to believe that your personal preferences are actually something which can be proven objectively. This is a core issue for many leftists, including left libertarians. A failure to understand human action.
You can disagree with my preferences and attitudes until you are blue in the face, but making threads about it has nothing to do with discussion, and everything to do with your promoting your contrasting preferences.
That’s what I asked the REAL intellectual, and he didn’t respond. Which I expected. His argument against deontological libertarianism was a canard.
Here is my reasoning, it is very simple. If anarchists like Rothbard can be libertarians, then anti-statism is not incompatible with libertarianism. And if anti-statism is not incompatible with libertarianism, and statists want to say some statism (like minarchism) is acceptably libertarian, then to be libertarian has nothing to do with the state at all. But since Rothbardian anarchism is ONLY about anti-statism via the NAP, and it is still libertarian, then what is actually left, if libertarianism doesn’t include the very things which comprise its constituent parts?
This is what the OP and strangeloop will not touch with a 10 foot pole via a clear definition for the term. Because as the OP tried to do, when you define libertarianism as something not compatible with non-aggression, it stops being coherent, which most of us know all statism in fact is.
I’d still like someone to offer a simple and durable definition of libertarianism. I use Kinsella’s definition. I don’t agree with where it originates necessarily, but I agree (as a consequentialist) with where it ends up.
You’ve claimed elsewhere you don’t know who Gary Becker is, and now you’ve demonstrated your ignorance of Ludwig Wittgenstein, as well. At some point, yes, I will judge your intelligence (especially when you first derogate my cognitive faculties).
Additionally, trying to use “logic” to define an ideological term is an outlandish enterprise–and you’d know that if you read Wittgenstein. It’s even more foolish when I’ve proven that, in 1955, the common use of “libertarian” was already being practiced.
If someone calls Milton Friedman a libertarian, I’m not confused; are you?
The word is much older then that. Initially it was used to describe anarchists first (not just overseas, but in the United States also), not limited government. This is something which is ignored, you’ll always here some random minarchist (though not all of them at all) say something like “Libertarianism is not anarchy”. The limited government use for the word came later. So while I wouldn’t be confused, you can’t separate the word’s association with anarchism.
I don’t care about name dropping. I care even less about appeals to authority. I feel comfortable articulating my thoughts, with my own words. I don’t have to hide behind the skirts of Becker and Wiggenstein in an argument. I don’t have to appeal to David Friedman (whose work I enjoy very much) to discuss anarcho-capitalism. This is because I am a capable adult, who can express and think for himself, without the need for proxies.
As to your cognitive faculties, you’ve already made several completely ridiculous claims, and as you continue to do so, I will also point those out because it is instructive for all of us to see illogical argumentation and understand how to quickly and clearly deal with it.
So here we go with more logical fallacies. Another appeal to authority and a combination of an appeal to history and an argumentatum ad populum.
Now I can see why people struggle with Austrianism and libertarian anarchism. If you think like this (logical fallacies) then understanding positions of reason are only likely by random chance.
You’re not confused because you have already claimed that any use of a word becomes a definition of that word. I could call Milton Friedman a banana or a bicycle, and according to you, that would make him one of those two things. That’s how irrational you have become when trying to avoid providing your definition of libertarianism in this debate.
As long as you continue to avoid addressing the core issue with obfuscation, I am sure you will provide me with many more opportunities to expose fallacies in your thinking.