See my post above re:Rothbardianism. If you accept Rothbardianism as libertarianism, then you have to accept non-aggression as libertarianism. If you reject Rothbardianism as libertarianism, well then let’s have that debate.
I’ll start;
The term libertarian in a metaphysical or philosophical sense was first used by late-Enlightenment free-thinkers to refer to those who believed in free will, as opposed to determinism.[13] The first recorded use was in 1789 by William Belsham in a discussion of free will and in opposition to “necessitarian” (or determinist) views.[14][15]
The use of the word ‘libertarian’ to describe a set of political positions can be tracked to the French cognate, “Libertaire”, which was coined in 1857 by French anarchist communist Joseph Déjacque who used the term to distinguish his libertarian communist approach from the mutualism advocated by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon.[16][16][17][18] Hence the term “libertaire” has been used as a synonym for left wing anarchism or libertarian socialism since the 1890s.[19]
In the 1950s in the United States many with classical liberal beliefs began to describe themselves as “libertarian.”[20] Academics as well as proponents of the free market perspectives note that free market libertarianism has been successfully propagated beyond the US since the 1970s via think tanks and political parties[21][22] and that libertarianism is increasingly viewed worldwide as a free market position.[23][24] However, Libertarian socialists Noam Chomsky, Colin Ward and others say the term is still considered a synonym of anarchism in countries other than the US.[25][26][27]
The term libertarianism is sometimes used as a synonym for anarchism, with that use being especially common outside the United States,[28] which some explain this to be the original meaning of the term. Hence, under that definition, “libertarian socialism” is equivalent to “socialist anarchism”.[29][30] The American use of term includes non-anarchist free-market political philosophy
No one is saying that we should suspend logic. If people who hold certain statist views contradict their mainly pro-market views, then that just shows the weakness of their statist views, not their pro-market views. Yes, people can be libertarian on some issues and statist on others. I agree with you that the difference between statists and anti-statists IS one of principle and not degree. However, this does not change the fact that one may be libertarian on most issues and statist on others. If I was to engage in debate with someone of this kind about anarchism vs. minarchism, they would rightly be called a statist. If they were then to debate a socialist on whether we should have socialized medicine, they would be CORRECT to call that socialist a statist, since in that instance, said minarchist held pro-market and anti-statist views. It is all about context.
One is a statist if they hold the view that there should be a state monopoly. But there are different kinds of statists. They may indeed be libertarian on other issues. That was my point.
I don’t know everything about Rothbardianism, but from what I do know, I reject Rothbardianism in its pure form. I am an anti-statist, not an anarcho-capitalist. Rothbardianism is, of course, libertarian, but I wouldn’t say that it is libertarianism, per se.
Haha. I was just throwing that out there that Rothbard is not the final arbiter on libertarianism. Many libertaire’s, even ones before Rothbard did not view NAP as necessary for libertarian, some are not even pro market.
Wait, so according to the standard you seem to be holding StrangeLoop to, Mises would be Statist scum? It’s really just that black and white eh? Personally I think Mises deserves to be called a “Free-Marketer” even though he believed in some State and thought Anarchists were Utopian fools.
(Months upon months now, and still no quote fix? Very disappointing–and annoying–from an otherwise fine board)
Wow, you should run for parliament. That’s triple A grade doubletalk.
Can you be a libertarian and hold pro-state views, yes or no? If yes, then what is the definition of a libertarian? Do you not agree that aggression is the divining line? Or is it just strangeloopian “sometimes I gotta aggress” sort of laissez-faire ethics?
What does anything you wrote mean. It just reads like a wall of qualification.
Rothbardianism summed simply is that aggression is wrong. Do you or do you not agree with that. If you are an anti-statist and you are for some aggression, then you can’t be against the state, which is defined by being an institution run on aggression.
It saddens me that you could muster no better than Wikipedia, and now reveal you don’t even understand the argument, although after I had to repeat to you twice about voluntary relations being market relations …
What you seem to be saying is, libertarianism is pro-aggression or that aggression is moral. Because Rothbard’s position on libertarianism was defined by aggression and non-aggression. Not his opinion on the weather, or what makes a nice dinner wine. A very simple A/B choice.
You cannot be libertarian and be anti-market. You cannot be pro-market and support aggression.
Why am I repeating myself to you guys over and over again?
I addressed Mises earlier, and I never declared him scum. If you want to debate me, do it honestly. Don’t put words into my mouth.
You’re welcome to have whatever personal opinion you like, I also addressed that up thread.
It’s not my board. It is LvMI’s. And they are migrating away from this platform. And your refund is in the mail. And I’m not staff nor do I exercise any executive authority. So whatever.
You have a very simplistic view of this. I already answered you. One cannot be an anti-statist fully and be statist in some areas. They CAN however, be generally defined as supporting market-based solutions. Of course, I would argue that supporting the socialization of defense and law isn’t very market-based, but clearly someone who is a minarchist is different than a socialist. I’m not even saying that anarchists should allign themselves with minarchists. I’m simply saying that it’s foolish to say that everyone who isn’t 100% anti-statist is 100% statist.
It doesn’t matter whether I agree with Rothbardianism. I am against the state, anti-aggression need not be the cornerstone of anti-statism anyways.
Sure it matters. Because Rothbardianism is about aggression. Do you or do you not support the use of aggression (initiation of force)? Don’t be timid. If you do (or do not), own it. Be it.
What do my views on Rothbardianism have to do with this again? No, I don’t support the state. I wish to abolish it. This aggression nonsense misses the point. There will always be aggression. The point is to eliminate institutionalized aggression. If you had added that qualifier, I would agree (although, of course, I am against aggression generally as well). AFAIK I’m not a pure Rothbardian, no. I am an anti-statist, however.
I would just like to chime in that I believe the problem with governments, individual who lean statist, et al, isn’t with their arguments, or their solutions and approaches. It is the actual process by which those solutions are implemented. Everyone wishes the world to exist in peace, abundance, equality, etc. These ideals are central tennants in man’s quest for betterment. However, different schools attack the same problem and with entirely opposite results. Think of equality to a propertarian versus equality to an egalitarian. People who make morally-obfuscating nuanced arguments I believe are the kind you’re referring to negatively. Rightfully so. However, I don’t believe you’re as radical as you say you are. But if that were the case, you’re falling prey to fanaticism over an imperfect science (logical theories in thought, no more infallible than quantum mechanics).
Every argument, even one’s own, must be taken with a grain of salt!
The quote complaint was not directed at yourself but rather just a general observation as I have not posted in awhile and discovered it still not fixed. Sorry I didn’t make that clear.
You’re very combative and dismissive towards other posters here it seems. Certainly it’s your right it’s just a turn off to me but I probably shouldn’t have jumped to anyones defense not knowing what has gone before. And with that said, my “Statist scum” comment was also maybe not fair. That was truly my honest interpretation of your position towards anyone who you deemed to not be 100% Anarchist, however. My apologies for putting words in your mouth. If I left off the “scum” part would it otherwise be accurate?
I myself am a full blown AnCap and favor no institutionalized coercion whatsoever. I’m just trying to understand how someone who maybe favors the “night watchman State,” like Mises and a few others that post here could be considered Anti-Free Market simply because of those very reasonable apprehensions about full blown Anarchism. You seem to be defining “free market” in a way that (from my readings) not even Rothbard would agree with. I’m not trying to attack you or debate you. I have no interest in doing either I’m simply curious and was asking a question is all. I appear to have phrased the question poorly the first time.
Thanks,
Curtis
In defense of LS, I will say that I think that once a person perceives the ultimate reasons that the State is evil, it is difficult to see how anyone can want to salvage any portion of the State unless they either a) support the State’s evil actions or b) do not really perceive the State as it is, rather than as they wish to think of it. So, if you insist that you really, really, really do perceive the State as it is, and yet you still support some of it’s actions, then you must support evil actions.
As for Mises and other Austrian minarchists, I do not think they perceive the State entirely as it is. I think they have got the gist of it but haven’t pierced through to the ultimate reality underlying the State… the legitimized double-standard. The State is the actualization of a legitimized, ethical double-standard. The foundational principle of human ethics in every culture is known as the Golden Rule and a case can be made that the Golden Rule is a precondition for the possibility of ethical behavior in humans. In any case, arguing against the Golden Rule is always a losing ethical argument.
But ethics isn’t fashionable these days, so a lot of people just don’t give a shit. Oh, well.
Appreciated but unnecessary. I haven’t ran into anyone who can make a logically consistent counter-argument thus far.
I don’t think we need to wonder if Mises was naive. He thought the state was necessary. He also thought that if it was possible to have individual political sovereignty, it should be done. His main error in my opinion was that he was unable to envision political individualism. And that was a relatively small one, but hey, Mises was human just like us. He laid down a framework, he didn’t solve all problems past and present, nor should anyone expect him to.
Mises might not have considered that idea as he wasn’t particularly concerned with ethical standards. However, I think I could demonstrate to him in less than 2 minutes how the state qua state cannot fulfill the role of rights protection which justifies its existence, without first violating those rights. Thus a utilitarian must acknowledge that the state is not a rational means to their end if their end is freedom and liberty for all (free markets).
Now good luck getting our minarchist comrades to acknowledge that the state is the wrong tool for their ends…
You’ve done this before (the thread on minimum wage laws). You played the “you’re just too ideological” card and then (a) retreated from your initial position and (b) agreed that minimum wage laws are inherently self-defeating and that the government lacks the required information in order to effectively intervene in the labor market. The vast majority of individuals on these forums agree that markets are incomplete and that market failures exist, but from this they do not conclude that government intervention is either appropriate or effective. You have failed to prove otherwise and give us only sarcasm.
Either way, the problem here is that “libertarianism” has no precise/meaningful definition. I talk to libertarians who demand the nationalization of banks and the health care industry, and, at the same time, I talk to libertarians who truly believe that Hayek was a socialist (some claim that he was a Fabian). The only thing that’s clear is this: there are statists, on the one hand, and there are anarchists on the other. The latter entirely rejects the institutionalization of aggression/coercion while the former does not. Amongst the statists there are many different positions, ranging from communism (though some communists wrongly call themselves anarchists) to liberalism (which also has a very imprecise definition).