Questioning libertarianism

Post Reply New Topic

Ok, mostly I just wanted to share this writing by David Friedman:

http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertari ... er_41.html

Basically, the thrust of the chapter is the ethical difficulties within a libertarian framework. However, it is still a very interesting writing, and David himself is an arch-libertarian.

What do libertarians think about this? What do non-libertarians think? What would it take for non-libertarians to become libertarian? What would it take for libertarians to become non-libertarian?

(I am using the term "libertarian" to refer to right-libertarians, just to make things clear)

2 years of arguing with right-libertarians on Internet forums has eliminated any sympathies I could ever develop for the ideology. Its extreme propetarianism and atomism seem absurd, as do the way they moralistically and evangelistically argue from oversimplified premises. They seem to think their ideology is "natural", that it produces some sort of ideal harmony, and that no empirical results could falsify it. The absurd simplicity of their moral universe - the lack of any grey areas - really throws me off.

So, too, does the monism of their value system "[Negative] liberty is the only virtue!" seems to be their implicit assumption.

Did you read the link?

It basically admits to the same flaws that you are talking about, but is a right-libertarian perspective.

Given that these flaws aren't necessary for the ideology, (unless you're really asserting that rights libertarians are the right-libertarians, and call utilitarians neoliberals) it would seem that your own rejection would be of the same sort of saying that the radical left cannot be sympathized with because that side has never really bothered to learn economics and merely dishonestly rejects it, so not even sympathy can be granted.

I mean, I think your real objection is to oversimplified systems and morons, not just right-libertarianism(although some of the ideas really do contribute).

I read the article, and developed most of my response while I was mid-way through it. Its nice to see that the odd person in the movement will object to its methodology, but there seems to many (i.e. the overwhelming majority) who simply posist (implicitly) that good consequences must be in haromony with committment to propetarian values. Almost all do, and that leaves a real bad taste in my (intellectual) mouth when it comes to right-libertarians.

Right, I still will think that a lot of this is due more to the fact that many people are morons. Possibly even the efforts used to promote a "libertarian populism". I mean, I said this elsewhere, but my exposure to libertarian ideas is mostly from economics professors, and they almost rarely ever have an over simplified view.

As it stands, like I tried pointing out, it is not as if the radical left is better, nor is it that the public discourse is much better. (Unless you want to point out an ideology where I can be assured to run into intelligent proponents without concern for a fool or idiot)