I think that instead of bashing egalitarianism the term should be reclaimed. Liberalism is all about equaliy. It is all about destruction of privilege. That no man can be oliged to another. Classical liberals were the first egalitarians. Do I even need to remind you of the libertarian class analysis?
While the French Revolution was plenty bad the equality in liberty, equality, fraternity stood for destruction of feudal privileges, there was nothing socialistic about it. Instead of bashing egalitarianism we should be making it clear we are the only true egalitarians, because the only true equality is equality in freedom. We should be making it clear we can only be equal when no one is privileged at the expense of another.
“For too long, we have allowed our misguided opponents to monopolize the banner of equality. We have more right to that banner than they do. The time has come to seize it back.” - Roderick Long
I think here Rothbard is reffering to equality, but what he is actualy talking about is sameness. Thus he tricks himself into commiting the very mistake he said the Liberals did in granting Socialists the moral high ground.
“What, in fact, is “equality”? The term has been much invoked but little analyzed. A and B are “equal” if they are identical to each other with respect to a given attribute. Thus, if Smith and Jones are both exactly six feet in height, then they may be said to be “equal” in height. If two sticks are identical in length, then their lengths are “equal,” etc.”
This is not true. We say Smith and Jones are of the same heigh. We say sticks are of the same lenght. “Equal length” comes out unnaturaly, only mathemathicians talk like that. And they only do it because they aren`t really talking about the word, they are talking about their sign “=”.
Childhood is a purely legal status, not an actual one: a child is only a child as long as he consents to be one, and otherwise would (well, I assume) have the same rights as anyone else.
To the OP: I don’t see the sense of stressing the importance of equality of rights. Sans the state, the privilege of some at others’ expense would be nonexistent or unsustainable (this of course is assuming the reality of equality of rights, and it would be very close-minded of me to dogmatically deny the possibility of the alternative).
But without privilege there can be no political power at all. All political power stems from privilege.
There is no such thing as equal application of political power. There is always the one who is applying it and the one who is it being applied to. There is always the privilged and the underprivileged. You can deduce all Liberalism from equality since equality and freedom are inseperatable. It is impossible to devise a system where we are all free, but not equal as it is impossible to devise a system where we are all equal, but not free.
I don’t think I can agree with that. The word “privilege” in this context is too abstract for one thing. More than that I don’t think you are allowing for power relationships that are consensual.
Hume argues, persuasively I think, that all power ultimately rests on nothing but opinion - the opinion of the right to rule. There is for example, political power within families. Not just between parents and children but between adults as well. There are also power relationships within one’s profession. Deference is given to those who have made certain achievements for example. These relationships can be just as compelling and difficult to resist as non-consensual power relationships; but what would be the point of seeking equality in them? The real point of liberalism is the abatement of non-consensual power relationships, not the equalization of power relationships in general. Some power relationships are desirable and necessary to society.
I actually agree with the topic creator. the two types of libertarians seem to be natural rights libertarians who think that libertarianism is an ethos, and pragmatic libertarians who believe in libertarianism because it provides the most desirable outcome. I am one of the latter because I do not believe in natural rights. I believe that libertarian policies do result in an increase in the standard of living of everyone. In this, I think that libertarianism achieves the goals of socialism far better than the methodology of socialism could ever hope to.
libertarianism actually achieves the greatest good for the greatest number.
I think that’s true, but I don’t think it’s a legitimate yardstick. I would be a libertarian even if it were not the path to prosperity. Libertarianism ought to be about freedom first.