I've come to realize that libertarianism is a pretty huge tent and that there are several profound disagreements among philosophical, ethical and economic lines.
To comfortably define some hypothetical 'vanilla' libertarianism creates an abstraction that I think is pretty unrepresentative and misleading.
In terms of ethics, I see deontological (Rothbard, Hoppe, de Jasay) and consequentialist (Mises, David Friedman) types.
Minarchy vs anarchy is another divide.
Then we have issues like abortion and immigration.
Economics presents us with debates on IP and what could properly be called free banking (fractional reserve vs full reserve vs hybrid).
There is clearly no general consensus on what could be considered 'plumb line' libertarianism.
How would you classify the various lines of thought?
libertarianism is defined i think in one word as individualism with individualism vs collectivism being one of the primary ideological dichotomies. Libertarianism can also be classified as a respect or like for liberty and and a respect or like for property rights. Someone who claims to be a libertarian but has strange views about property, would most likely fall in to another classification.
Recently I heard a great definition of libertarianism in a video but I do not remember who it was.
Cortes:I've come to realize that libertarianism is a pretty huge tent and that there are several profound disagreements among philosophical, ethical and economic lines.
There is a book called Libertarianism Today which tries to cover just this topic:
Here is Walter Block's review of the book:
Which reminds me of this debate (hosted by Mises Canada) between Walter Block and Paul Geddes over "Was Milton Friedman A Libertarian?"
Edit: Also, here is Stephan Kinsella's take on the subject in his article "What Libertarianism Is":
Here are the various categories and subcategories which I would say fall under the term "libertarianism". I might go into more detail later.
I think that pretty much sums up the major camps. I'll add more if I can think of them
"Emgerentists" (my phrase)/voluntarists
Clarify meaning? (Should I assume it's a typo for "Emergentists"?) Depending on the definition of that word, I might just be left out of your classification.
Also, what are "utilitarian voluntarists"? David Friedman ancaps?
Also, what are "utilitarian voluntarist"? David Friedman ancaps?
Also, what are "utilitarian voluntarist"? David Friedman ancaps?
Friedman for sure, but I'm sure you are familiar with Nielsio - he's a utilitarian voluntaryist.
You forgot about the Agorists.
1. Yes. That's what it would be in a world where I could spel gud
2. By "Emergentist" I mean the school of thought that feels that society and law is emergent and the state interferes with the system of emergent (not necessarily natural) law of what is demanded in society. They usually believe this would lead to a libertarian/anarcho-capitalist system, although there are usually some exceptions, but these exceptions usually depend upon the needs of the population itself.
3. Yea, utilitarian anarchism is pretty straightforward. Anarchists who are anarchists because they believe that this will bring about general happiness and prosperity. Friedman would be classified under this category for sure. I would actually classify myself under a combination of this and a form I of anarchism I didn't even bother putting down because it's pretty nonexistent.
I mean isn't that what all of us capitalists are? I a mean really when you get right down to it, don't we all just want the poor to starve and die while we nibble on caviar?
Agorism is a way of achieving anarcho-capitalism, not a method in and of itself. I find people often making this mistake and classifying it as its own ideology.
Really? I think you'll find that Agorism has some qualities on it's own...
The relationship between anarcho-capitalism and agorism has always reminded me of the relationship between socialism (anarcho-capitalism in this case) and communism (agorism)
Could you point to me where in the article he talks about anything other than the differences in the method of creation of the anarchist society?
Through his arguments, you can see that what he describes also determines how an Agorist society would be a little different than an anarcho-capitalist one. Agorism is much more in favor of non-violent revolution if something in the society goes wrong.
There is only 1 kind of libertarianism.
That is, anarchists.
Minarchists are statists in libertarian clothing.
“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence.""The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”
Anarchism is a branch of libertarianism. Libertarianism comprises many beliefs that are all related due to their anti-state stance.
"There is only 1 kind of libertarianism."
I consider myself, technically, an individualist. The state, or whatever system, is the servant, not the master. Of course, the state has become a dangerous servant that can shoot you and/or throw you in jail. Heh. I'm still mostly new to libertarianism, and it's interesting to see the many subdivisions and degrees.
I would put myself in the 'Emergent' camp rather than under the Rothbardian ancap banner (btw, fringeelements has already been using 'Emergent' the way you are). This is both for utilitarian and 'empirical natural rights' reasons.
I guess I'd be classed as an "Emergentist."
I've boiled down my anti-statist argument to the simple suggestion that maybe humans are not evolutionarily adapted to large tribe sizes. This maladaptation leads to us revering "tribal elders" and other paternal figures even if they wish to govern hundred of millions of people. If we simply had a limit on how large of a group of people we could see as "our tribe," states could never grow beyond a few tens - maybe a few hundreds - of people. If this maladaptation were fixed, we'd suddenly have pervasive micro-secession and millions of tiny, nearly powerless governments would bloom, probably complete with trans-territorial private defense and court systems.
Hence in the absence of this maladaptation that makes us revere tribes of unlimited size, a natural order would likely emerge that would be much like the AnCap conceptions envisioned by Rothbard, Murphy, David Friedman, and others, without holding fetishistically to them.
Why anarchy fails
As an extra component with ethics I'd include the Virtue theorists, those in the Aristotilean tradition such as Long. Along with this I'd include where the deontological, virtue and consequentialists base their morality- in the structure of the external world, the indvidual, society or in a deity.
The atoms tell the atoms so, for I never was or will but atoms forevermore be.