Yet another way to divide libertarians so statists can conquer us . . .
Reason
Stranger, just so you know anyone can post comments on a Hit & Run article. No registration is required. Not everyone who posts there is libertarian by any definition.
I agree with the distinction. arguing for this or that change in the current system is pointlessly reactionary. it’s like arguing for better conditions for people in death camps. the solution is to not have death camps in the first place.
my personal take on the division is an ethical one. deontological libertarianism vs teleological libertarianism. the natural rights crew all fall under the deontological while preference-utilitarians fall under the teleological.
I myself am the latter.
He forgot about the third. Modals, IE the people who staff the Reason Foundation.
Many people, such as myself, would argue that we did not get the horrendously oppressive state we have now overnight; and that it is not likely to end overnight either. I do not view these strategies as mutually exclusive. We need BOTH people who argue that the state is in-and-of-itself immoral and we also need people such as the folks at Downsize DC who agitate for specific reforms. The more pro-liberty reforms we are able to achieve in the short term, the more possible true freedom is in the long term. The reason I say this is that with small windows of liberty it is easier to see how one could possibly live without a state at all. It is easier for a child who has ridden a bicycle to understand how a motorcycle might work than a child who has seen neither a bicycle nor a motorcycle. We need BOTH kinds of activism. If you are using either strategy to advance liberty I consider you an ally. We are two households, both alike in dignity. When we fight amongst ourselves we are killing our chances of achieving a future of liberty.
When was the last time a pro-liberty reform was achieved through agitation? I am fully in agreement over taking a marginalist approach to revolution, but pleading to the political class to please, please, please give us some freedom, pretty please? is not a strategy for anything else but a lobbying career.
The only thing the ruling class will ever understand is competition. That’s what has to be given to them. If that means dividing the Libertarian ideological pool into a small fraction of truly effective activists, then all the better. Divide and liberate.
We should not ask nicely. We should demand.
I agree that we should create competitors to state products and services. I am all for that. That should be a tool in our arsenal.
Why need this cause division? That is where you and I disagree. Why create enemies among your allies? We all want liberty - we just disagree on strategy.
As an Aristotelian libertarian, I can fully support natural rights while still supporting teleology.
I’m both PL and SL. PL as a strategy, but SL as an ultimate goal.
Think about it. “Opposing the State” is an overwhelming task, but “opposing the personal income tax” or “opposing the Patriot Act” or “opposing the bailout” are much more doable. By fighting everything the State has to offer, we are in effect fighting the State itself. The State is pushed into a tiny, increasingly insignificant circle, and meanwhile free institutions are growing and prospering. Eventually, we will have anarcho-capitalism by gradually liberalizing the State into oblivion.
It seems to have been working wonders for the past 200 years.
Don’t be so cynical. There’s no telling where we would be at this point in history if a significant fraction of the populace consistently opposed government expansion at every turn.
There would be slightly less government and we wouldn’t be free at all.
We will never have no government; there will always be somebody, somewhere calling himself a government. The best we can have is a weak, impotent state that is largely ignored.
Slightly less government would be slightly better than what we have now. Also, I think if enough people were active in working against oppressive government laws we would have MUCH less government than we have now. Unfortunately, we do not. Libertarians in general are a minority and [insert preferred term for people who want no government but respect private property] are a minority within that minority.
And your approach is a complete failure at that as well.
How much is enough? It takes millions of people to turn an election. To fight off government, it takes only a handful of leaders.
What do you choose?
Who said anything about elections? Elections are not the only way to impact society. Political activism has been mistaken in the past by focusing on candidates. I do not think we should put our faith in candidates but move opinion on issues and ideas. Make the congresscriters come to us rather than the reverse.
Precisely my point.
ditto.
We can fix that.
I am glad we agree. We can fix this but it will take a great deal of hard work and a variety of different strategies. Not everyone who is convincible can be convinced in the same way.