Can we consider consequential libertarians, actual libertarians? What makes them any different from neocons and other statists from the left and the right? Their foreign policy seems no different from Republicans.
I don’t know if that’s true of all consequential libertarians.
But it seems like this is a movement by statists who don’t like the hard line view that most of the libertarians here and the classical liberals here take. In reality they’re worse than liberals and conservatives because they combine both of the evils from both political parties and mesh it into one philosophy… and it’s the exact opposite of what freedom is.
I was wondering what you think about these so-called consequential libertarians. Should we trust them?
I believe you have just conflated consequentialism, which is a methodological or a meta-ethical philosophy, with the compromising the principles in and of itself. That’s a misunderstanding. A consequentialist could come to the same or similar conclusions as any other libertarian, but on different grounds - the grounds of good consequences. The idea that consequentialism inherently equates to minarchism or something more watered down than that is a misunderstanding.
Could you elaborate on what you mean by that? I have no doubt that a consequential libertarian could come to many of the same conclusions that any other libertarian could.
But, it just seems to me that this new movement of consequential libertarians is made up people who dislike the Misean/Rothbard/minarchist philosophy. Why do you think this is?
I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear with what I meant. It just seems that consequential libertarians seem to be fairly open to using the coercive power of the state to achieve their ends, and, they reject much of Rothbard’s philosophy. That’s all I meant by that.
They’re individuals who support the limiting of the state due to their individual preferences, in this case the greatest good for the greatest number, this is no different than any human being who calls themselves a libertarian.
That’s probably not why he posted that question mark. Most likely he meant to object to your calling Rothbard minarchist; so far, I’ve only read two books by him, and it seemed clear to me that he was anarcho-capitalist.
How is that not different from deontological libertarianism?
Right, that’s the ultimate cause, but the proximate cause, in the case of consequentialist libertarians, is that they consider liberty to be conducive towards making most people happy, right? I don’t think such utilitarianism is even relevant from a deontological standpoint.
And in terms of other discussions going on here… I believe it is possible to come to a natural rights perspective, from a consequences perspective - but once you do, and thus support the Non Aggression PRINCIPLE (NAP), consequences should no longer play a factor. Otherwise you don’t support the NA Principle at all.
Those ‘consequentialists’ are not libertarians, it seems. They’ve adopted some aspects of the libertarian creed but discarded or rejected the others which leads me to believe that it is an attempt to discredit, or at least demonise, the more Rothbardian wing. And as for Hilary Clinton’s view on the middle east, that’s political opportunism pure and simple.
I don’t think these consequentialists are a particular threat. Those inclined to Rothbardian views will stick to them and those consequentialists will probably drift back into their Republican/Democrat spheres.
The word “libertarian” has been in the process of being hijacked/co-opted for some time. Just as the word “liberalism” has been destroyed. Like most similar terms “socialist/communist/capitalist/etc”, it’s almost useless by itself talking to many people now.
A more apt word for the people described in the quotes would be collectivist, not consequentialist. They’re still making the collectivist error of thinking in terms of countries, so it doesn’t matter whether they are consequentialist or deontological.
A pure deontological libertarian would be against coercion no matter the effect on society. They would be against taxation even if 1% of the population owned 99% of the wealth. They would be against public ambulances even if payment comfirmation complications killed hundreds and hundreds each day. In other words, no matter how miserable society became, deontological libertarianisms would never accept any form of coercion. Sorry guys, I can’t say I agree with that. There is a certain point where coercion can be justified for me, as long as the benefits are great enough. You may call me a statist for that, but supporting a political philosophy based on emotion seems silly to me.
Can you foresee all consequences of some action? Surely not, for much of our world is build on unintended consequences (the road to hell, you know). So, a “libertarian consequentialist” is one who trusts the consequences he can foresee to guide him, while a ‘standard’ libertarian, he who holds the NAP as an absolute, knows that such consequences are but a tiny bit of the ultimate end result that actions will give. He knows no way of foreseeing all consequences, but he trust that abiding by the NAP will make things turn out for the best, given the circumstances, most of the time. If he is wrong, any society that builds on his ideas will disappear. If he is right, it’ll prosper. Take your pick and enter the fray of history, its as simple as this.
I find this bizarre. I would consider myself a ‘consequentialist libertarian’. I hold to the NAP, and think that no good can come from the state (except for a very few and in the short-term). The consequentialist libertarians described above seem like those who have little understanding of economic theory.
EDIT: Though by Merlin’s definitions, I am probably a ‘standard libertarian’. I am consequantialist in terms of the ultimate foundation of ethics.