Thick and Thin Libertarianism Part X

[liberty_student]

@marquise

What do you mean by a thick libertarian?

There are some libertarians who believe that adherence to the non-aggression principle is not enough to constitute a proper conception of libertarianism. If you only come out strongly for the Non-Aggression Principle, this is considered “thin libertarianism”. Thin, because it rests on only one principle or axiom.

Thick libertarians have ideas built on the NAP that they say provides a more sincere libertarian experience. Favouring diversity, polycentric order, multi-culturalism etc.

Thick and thin libertarians will regularly debate who has the proper conception of libertarianism. I would identify as thin, and it is not because I don’t have my own subjective cultural preferences, but that I recognize that my preferences aren’t objective, nor do I believe they can be. Thick libertarians meanwhile are very much interested in ideas like eudaimon which as far as I can understand it (and it is very poorly explained here, no offense AC) claim there is some objectivity to what constitutes flourishing.

[Angurse]

To be fair, many self-described “thick libertarians” do understand libertarianism to be a part of a broader social concept and don’t conflate the two as being the propert conception of libertarianism.

[liberty_student]

@Angurse

To be fair, many self-described “thick libertarians” do understand libertarianism to be a part of a broader social concept and don’t conflate the two as being the propert conception of libertarianism.

Fair enough. But thick and thin are lousy dividing lines anyway. Whenever I ask for clarification on thick libertarianism, I will get 5 different answers, and yet none of the respondents will dispute the answer of another, which leads to even more confusion.

I’d be happy to read your interpretation of what thick libertarianism is.

[Angurse]

As I’ve pointed out before, I really don’t think there is such a thing as a “thin libertarian” (obviously, with that there couldn’t be a “thick” either). All libertarians have broader social goals. Those who you’d identify as “thick” (paleos, left…) just seem to boast their views of flourishing, social justice and anything outside the scope of the NAP “louder” than other libertarians (i.e. the “thins”).

[Nitroadict]

@liberty student

@Angurse

To be fair, many self-described “thick libertarians” do understand libertarianism to be a part of a broader social concept and don’t conflate the two as being the propert conception of libertarianism.

Fair enough. But thick and thin are lousy dividing lines anyway. Whenever I ask for clarification on thick libertarianism, I will get 5 different answers, and yet none of the respondents will dispute the answer of another, which leads to even more confusion.

I’d be happy to read your interpretation of what thick libertarianism is.

I have to agree, you have largely summed up why I am also “thin” (which is whatever “thick” isn’t, I suppose).

Sometimes I think that this over-classification (the invention of newer labels, such as ‘thick’ & ‘thin’) seems to almost dwell into the realm of over-specialization, which is just as bad as overt generalization(s).

It almost seems distracting, at times, from larger issues (coercion being one of the bigger ones).

I still don’t understand how pro-eudaimoniaists (if this is a word…lol) can reconcile people who think they are best flourishing under the state, especially when people may often think in collectivist terms.

As such, anyone that suffers due to another collective’s flourishing is rationalized, vis-a-vis majoritarianism.

Eventually, it seems to revert to the same ye olde argument of markets vs. states (or other arguments, such as voluntary vs. involuntary, coercion vs. non-coercion, etc), only with added layer of (so far, imo) un-needed philosophy that may over-complicate arguments.

Trying to make happiness into an objective concept seems as absurd as aesthetics being turned into an objective concept (a’la Ayn Rand’s The Romantic Manifesto).

[adam_knott]

@Angurse

As I’ve pointed out before, I really don’t think there is such a thing as a “thin libertarian” (obviously, with that there couldn’t be a “thick” either). All libertarians have broader social goals. Those who you’d identify as “thick” (paleos, left…) just seem to boast their views of flourishing, social justice and anything outside the scope of the NAP “louder” than other libertarians (i.e. the “thins”).

Angurse:

Libertarianism is currently evolving such that values which were once considered part of libertarianism are gradually being “shedded” or “stripped” from the essential program of libertarianism, while the core value of political liberty remains. We can see this in the gradual abandonment of the mercantilist institutions of incorporation laws and intellectual property as part of the libertarian program. We can see this in the gradual abandonment of a monopolistic or universalistic conception of libertarianism. And we can see this in the gradual recognition of a non-geographical conception of government. All of these very real changes involve a shedding of values which were once largely considered to be necessary parts of the libertarian program or ideal.

The proposal of thick libertarianism seems to amount to a proposal to begin adding values back in to the libertarian program, as essential elements of the libertarian program.

To the extent that the proponents of such a conception are members of a recognizable cultural group, one assumes that the values they propose attaching to the libertarian program are their own cultural values. It doesn’t make sense for them to argue for the attachment of values they oppose to the libertarian program they claim to support.

Thus, the proposal for thick libertarianism seems not only to require a reversal of the evolution of libertarianism, but a reversal such that when values are added back on to libertarianism, they will be the values of a particular cultural group.

By contrast, some may prefer a vision of libertarianism wherein political liberty is the core value shared by all libertarians, while each individual’s particular cultural preferences constitute the associational bond bringing various groups voluntarily together under conditions of political liberty.

[liberty_student]

Another great post Adam. Thick libertarianism, and left-libertarianism, is anachronistic, while ironically, claiming to be against tradition and conservatism.

[Brainpolice]

@Angurse

To be fair, many self-described “thick libertarians” do understand libertarianism to be a part of a broader social concept and don’t conflate the two as being the propert conception of libertarianism.

Thanks for making this clarification. The notion of thick libertarianism means that libertarianism is a part of one’s broader social philosophy, not that other part’s of one’s social philosophy are libertarianism.

[Brainpolice]

@Angurse

As I’ve pointed out before, I really don’t think there is such a thing as a “thin libertarian” (obviously, with that there couldn’t be a “thick” either). All libertarians have broader social goals. Those who you’d identify as “thick” (paleos, left…) just seem to boast their views of flourishing, social justice and anything outside the scope of the NAP “louder” than other libertarians (i.e. the “thins”).

Thin libertarianism a very real attitude in which one concieves of libertarianism as being a stand-alone philosophy, while acting as if broader social questions are irrelevant so long as the NAP is respected. For example, those who take a neutral attitude towards racial separatism because it does not formally contradict libertarianism are, to that extent, taking a “thin” attitude in terms of their overall social philosophy. Whereas, in contrast, a libertarian that maintains that there are reasons independant of libertarianism for considering racial separatism a negative thing that is worth opposing, is expressing a “thick” attitude to that extent. This is not a non-distinction, there is a real distinction in terms of one’s broader social philosophy here.

As I’ve explained before, “thin libertarianism” does not mean that people don’t have social goals and preferances other than non-aggression (everyone does), it means that people take up an attitude in which those other social goals and preferances are considered to be effectively irrelevant or negligible concerns so long as the NAP is respected. As a tactical matter, a “thin” libertarian might be willing to work with groups such as the “national anarchists” because of a nominally shared anti-statism, whereas a “thick” libertarian with an anti-nationalist bent would likely maintain that the ultimate social goals of the “national anarchists” are harmful and consequentially they should not be allied with. That would be an example of “strategic thickness”.

The problem is that a lack of aggression, in and of itself, is necessary but not sufficient to produce a positive outcomes and the type of society that one would like to live in. “Thin” libertarianism is a reductionist tendency in which all that fundamentally matters is whether or not there is aggression, while the actual social and economic conditions and form of a given society is viewed in terms of “whatever emerges”. The problem is that the elimination of a given state, by itself, does not mean that a more desirable society will inherently “emerges” - that a social context is necessary to ensure that what “emerges” post-state (1) won’t be another state anyways and (2) will be desirable and better on its own merits. The negation of a particular state does not inherently lead to a free society, let alone one with better conditions in general.

[Juan]

@LS

Another great post Adam. Thick libertarianism, and left-libertarianism, is anachronistic, while ironically, claiming to be against tradition and conservatism.

Yes, and one of most anachronistic ideas that’s floating around is moral nihilism/moral subjectivism and so called ‘value-free’ libertarianism. It’s fully doomed to failure by the way.

[Brainpolice]

@Juan

@LS

Another great post Adam. Thick libertarianism, and left-libertarianism, is anachronistic, while ironically, claiming to be against tradition and conservatism.

Yes, and one of most anachronistic ideas that’s floating around is moral nihilism/moral subjectivism and so called ‘value-free’ libertarianism. It’s fully doomed to failure by the way.

1. LS’s claim is full of shit. Left-libertarianism is not “anachronistic” - it is taking libertarianism in new directions and opening it up to new ideas, while the libertarian right are dogmatically clinging to old norms. That’s why people associated with this website such as Stephan Kinsella tend to go apeshit about left-libertarianism: because left-libertarians don’t tow the LVMI party line, which is more or less to maintain an anarcho-capitalist and non-proviso lockean monopoly on libertarianism, and a fairly anti-leftist temperment. In America, libertarian “tradition” is to be an anti-leftist and America-centric, mostly due to the left-over baggage of the cold war era and the associated traditional alliance between libertarians and the conservative movement.

2. The moral nihilism is not prevailaint among left-libertarians - it’s prevailent among youtube market anarchists and people that see no problem with things like “national anarchism” and other such things that the libertarian left has overwhelmingly positioned itself in opposition to. It isn’t the libertarian left that’s taking a neutral attitude towards values.

[nirgrahamUK]

plumbline libertarians say

whatever

[liberty_student]

Oh man, how much time do I want to spend on this…

[liberty_student]

@Juan

Yes, and one of most anachronistic ideas that’s floating around is moral nihilism/moral subjectivism and so called ‘value-free’ libertarianism. It’s fully doomed to failure by the way.

Thanks for going offtopic. Would you like me to split your post off to a new thread?

[Brainpolice]

@nirgrahamUK

plumbline libertarians say

whatever

Except there is no libertarian consensus about where “the plumbline” is and the concept of “the plumbline” originally comes from Benjamin Tucker (who’s concept of “the plumbline” is not identical to Block’s)

[nirgrahamUK]

[adam_knott]

@Brainpolice

Thanks for making this clarification. The notion of thick libertarianism means that libertarianism is a part of one’s broader social philosophy, not that other part’s of one’s social philosophy are libertarianism.

Brainpolice:

I disagree with your take on what others mean by thick libertarianism, though you may have an understanding of it that differs from theirs.

Charles Johnson’s 2008 essay: “Libertarianism through Thick and Thin” begins with these words:

“To what extent should libertarians concern themselves with social commitments, practices, projects or movements that seek social outcomes beyond, or other than, the standard libertarian commitment to expanding the scope of freedom from government coercion?” (my underline)

Here is how Johnson describes the essence of the issue:

“…the question of general principle has to do with whether libertarianism should be seen as a thin commitment, which can be happily joined to absolutely any non-coercive set of values and projects, or whether it should instead be seen as one strand among others in a thick bundle of intertwined social commitments.” (my underline)

So Johnson is clearly talking about what position libertarians, as libertarians, should adopt with respect to additional social concerns or projects being part of libertarianism besides voluntary consent, or the non-aggression principle, or the private property principle (i.e., whatever is considered by the individual to be the primary principle of libertarianism)

The fact that people already do add other concerns to their libertarianism, as part of their libertarianism, is separate from the question of whether we want the explicit goal of libertarianism to include such additional values, or whether we want the explicit goal of libertarianism to be “shedding” such values towards an ideal of libertarianism which over time (as these additional values are uncovered in discussion and analysis) approaches an ideal of political liberty.

Perhaps the ideal of political liberty cannot be precisely defined so that it means exactly the same thing to all libertarians. In fact, it seems that this is the case. But Johnson is clearly defining the issue as whether we want the concept of libertarianism itself to hold a number of empty parentheses “(…)” into which, as part of libertarianism, we will insert other cultural values besides political liberty.

[Brainpolice]

@Adam Knott

@Brainpolice

Thanks for making this clarification. The notion of thick libertarianism means that libertarianism is a part of one’s broader social philosophy, not that other part’s of one’s social philosophy are libertarianism.

Brainpolice:

I disagree with your take on what others mean by thick libertarianism, though you may have an understanding of it that differs from theirs.

Charles Johnson’s 2008 essay: “Libertarianism through Thick and Thin” begins with these words:

“To what extent should libertarians concern themselves with social commitments, practices, projects or movements that seek social outcomes beyond, or other than, the standard libertarian commitment to expanding the scope of freedom from government coercion?” (my underline)

Here is how Johnson describes the essence of the issue:

“…the question of general principle has to do with whether libertarianism should be seen as a thin commitment, which can be happily joined to absolutely any non-coercive set of values and projects, or whether it should instead be seen as one strand among others in a thick bundle of intertwined social commitments.” (my underline)

So Johnson is clearly talking about what position libertarians, as libertarians, should adopt with respect to additional social concerns or projects being part of libertarianism besides voluntary consent, or the non-aggression principle, or the private property principle (i.e., whatever is considered by the individual to be the primary principle of libertarianism)

The fact that people already do add other concerns to their libertarianism, as part of their libertarianism, is separate from the question of whether we want the explicit goal of libertarianism to include such additional values, or whether we want the explicit goal of libertarianism to be “shedding” such values towards an ideal of libertarianism which over time (as these additional values are uncovered in discussion and analysis) approaches an ideal of political liberty.

Perhaps the ideal of political liberty cannot be precisely defined so that it means exactly the same thing to all libertarians. In fact, it seems that this is the case. But Johnson is clearly defining the issue as whether we want the concept of libertarianism itself to hold a number of empty parentheses “(…)” into which, as part of libertarianism, we will insert other cultural values besides political liberty.

Actually those quotes from Johnson merely reiterate exactly what I was saying. I believe you’re missing the point, which is not about how the concept of libertarianism itself is defined, but how it is conceptualized in relation to other things. Johnson is not saying that the very definition of libertarianism has to incorporate those other things, but that libertarianism should be concieved of as constituted a part of a broader conceptual framework that is interconnected with those other things. The fundamental notion of “thickness” is not about libertarianism’s stand-alone definition, it is about libertarianism’s conceptual relationality in a conceptual heirarchy (or, perhaps rather than a conceptual heirarchy, a conceptual network).

[nirgrahamUK]

@Brainpolice

Johnson is not saying that the very definition of libertarianism has to incorporate those other things, but that libertarianism should be concieved of as constituted a part of a broader conceptual framework that is interconnected with those other things.

or else what? or else Brainpolice wont be your friend?

[liberty_student]

@Brainpolice

1. LS’s claim is full of shit. Left-libertarianism is not “anachronistic” - it is taking libertarianism in new directions and opening it up to new ideas, while the libertarian right are dogmatically clinging to old norms.

Left and right are a false paradigm. That is another example of how anachronistic the LLs are. A year later, and there is still no alliance of the libertarian right. There is still an absence of people declaring themselves RLs. It’'s a divisive myth cooked up by quasi-collectivists, and is a typical tactic. Divide and demonize. Intelligent individuals are not fooled.

@Brainpolice

That’s why people associated with this website such as Stephan Kinsella tend to go apeshit about left-libertarianism: because left-libertarians don’t tow the LVMI party line, which is more or less to maintain an anarcho-capitalist and non-proviso lockean monopoly on libertarianism, and a fairly anti-leftist temperment.

Stephan Kinsella doesn’t go apeshit about left-libertarianism. He was pumping Chartier’s book today. He does more to cross promote Long and Carson, than they give him back in return.

@Brainpolice

In America, libertarian “tradition” is to be an anti-leftist and America-centric, mostly due to the left-over baggage of the cold war era and the associated traditional alliance between libertarians and the conservative movement.

And the fact that libertarian promotion has been funded by capitalists. And capitalists generally aren’t into left-culturalism. There is no profit in hating yourself for engaging in exchange.