I've long thought that a libertarian cable channel would be a great thing, however Beck, as we all know, does not have good standing in the libertarian community (and more importantly, anywhere else) yet he's calling this a "libertarian channel." So because of Beck's demeanor that people know him by (which I don't need to tell you is quite negative) I am not quite sure this is such a good thing. Beck himself doesn't even seem to be that much of a libertarian, and his former programming that he held on Fox practically makes him look like an absolute nutcase, with every other day him claiming that there was a "new Marxist plot to take over the great United States of America." Loudly enough as this claim may seem, in his crazed manner it just comes off as being absurd and downright retarded, as well as backless.
Ordinarily, Beck just seems like a neocon, with many of his statements coming off as downright authoritarian (such as his bit on how "video games cause violence in real life" and that we need to "put a stop to this right now.")
Overall, I really don't think Beck is the right guy for this - his new channel will most likely come off as being a new version of Fox News that revolves entirely around conservative programming that will...maybe...have a libertarian leaning edge to it here and there. I could be wrong though - I'm just now learning about this whole thing, and there's only a few articles out there that talk about this whole affair.
I'd like to know what everyone here thinks about this - is it a good idea, or is Beck going to make himself look like a fool as he always does and inevitably go down nastily while he's screaming that he's a "libertarian?"
SkepticalMetal:Ordinarily, Beck just seems like a neocon
Glenn Beck Reveals His Agenda 21 Ads And Attacks Alex Jones
Published an hour ago:
I didn't watch the whole thing, but it comes as absolutely no surprise. More than half the time he is on the air, Beck looks like he belongs in a straight jacket...
So I suppose this whole "Blaze" venture of his is going to contribute even more to misconceptions about libertarianism for anyone who watches the channel, and fuel the wonderful idea that libertarianism is a "far-right fundamentalist crazy belief."
Well I have no clue what Glenn Beck would fill an entire news station with, but whatever it is I know I sure as hell wouldn't want it associated with anything I call myself. It might be time for a name change guys :P
Go on VR, Neodoxy. New article by me where one of the things I cover is that the most accurate term for us is "Rothbardian."
SM - many AnCaps are not Rothbardians, though.
I still hold it to be the most accurate title. Friedmanite anarcho-capitalism is something I simply hold as a variant of something Rothbard formulated - this is in the same way of Marx. There are Orthodox Marxists, and then there are Libertarian Marxists. Both are not the same - but they are still Marxists. In the same way, any anarcho-capitalist is still a Rothbardian, whether it be Orthodox Rothbardianism or Rothbardian-Friedmanism.
I hope David Friedman doesn't still lurk on here, I don't want him seeing this and kicking my ass.
SkepticalMetal:I still hold it to be the most accurate title.
And "anarcho-capitalist" is what, chopped liver?
Friedmanite anarcho-capitalism is something I simply hold as a variant of something Rothbard formulated - this is in the same way of Marx. There are Orthodox Marxists, and then there are Libertarian Marxists. Both are not the same - but they are still Marxists. In the same way, any anarcho-capitalist is still a Rothbardian, whether it be Orthodox Rothbardianism or Rothbardian-Friedmanism.
That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Why is it so important to you that everyone be conflated to fit under some subset umbrella label?
I hope David Friedman doesn't still lurk on here
He usually doesn't...only when people call out his name.
Ain't that right, David Friedman?
SM - many AnCaps are not Rothbardians, though.
What are the main differences between them?
Utilitarian vs. deontological, mainly.
@ John James
Your metaphorical sarcasm amuses me. To your second derailment - unfortunately, labels are how the world runs. For the individual to continue in the sedition against the top of the chain of aggressors, it is of the utmost magnitude that individuals who adhere to this idea of "private property anarchism" resort to the most specific term there is for this - "Rothbardian." It is how Lacan says - it is impossible to know the "real" through words. This is the best we can do.
Looks like the FOX crowd is really trying to ratchet up the effort to assimilate the word 'libertarian' into the aether of stupid.
I'm just gonna call myself a liberal again.
Be sure to add "classical" on the front. Just saying "liberal" is going down the road to some major confusion.
Sorry to disappoint you ... . I don't have to lurk--I have a friend named Google.
Are you sure you don't want to describe Murray's view as Molinari-Rothbardism? Molinari's version of anarcho-capitalism was published about a century before Rothbard's.
I think the relevant question is one of intellectual influence--who got what ideas from whom. Neither Rothbard nor I was influenced by Molinari (or, I would guess, Spooner or Tucker or Godwin), so it doesn't make a lot of sense to describe our views as a variant of theirs. I wasn't influenced by either Rothbard or Rand, so it doesn't make sense to describe my views as a variant of theirs. I'm not sure if Rand was a significant influence on Rothbard or not—their views seem to have a good deal in common, despite Rand's rejection of anarchy. Perhaps you should classify Rothbard as a heretical Objectivist.
Outside of conventional neo-classical economics, I think the only significant source for my ideas would be Heinlein, whose fictional sketch of a society with private property and without government struck me as evidence that such a thing was not impossible, hence a reason to think through how it might work in something more like our society.
Going back to the subject of content rather than influence, could you point out where in Rothbard he describes the legal system as coming out of a competitive market for legal rules and provides the economic analysis of why such a market would tend to produce efficient (or libertarian) law? I'm certainly not an expert in his writing, not having read a lot of it, but my impression was that that was the central difference between his view of anarchy and mine. He expected the legal system to be deduced by libertarian philosophers, I expected it to be generated by profit making firms.
I don't think "utilitarian vs deontological" is right, for two reasons.
To begin with, my arguments are consequentialist (rather than deontological) but not always utilitarian. Perhaps more important, that's a disagreement about how best to argue for libertarian (anarchist or otherwise) conclusions, not about why they are true. My view is:
1. Pace Rand and various other people, we don't actually have convincing arguments to show that our moral position is correct, so telling someone who disagrees with us that he should be against (say) the minimum wage, or taxation, because they violate individual rights doesn't work--when he asks us why someone has the right not to be taxed but doesn't have the right to (say) welfare when he can't get a job, we have no adequate response.
2. Individuals mostly want about the same outcomes--for people to be happy, healthy, well fed, etc. Certainly there is some disagreement, but not enough to make the results socialism actually produces superior, from the point of view of any large number of people, to the results capitalism actually produces, and similarly for less extreme differences in systems. So if we can convince people about our positive views--what the consequences would be of alternative institutions--we don't have to convince them of our normative views--what consequences one should want.
I conclude that the sensible way of arguing for libertarian conclusions is consequentialist.
But that isn't the central division between my views and Rothbard's, since both of us saw both normative and positive arguments in favor of libertarianism. The central division, I think, is how each of us imagines libertarian law coming out of the institutions we propose. I describe and try to analyze the economics of a market for legal rules, and conclude that it will tend to produce something close to libertarian law. He, as best I can tell, expected philosophers to demonstrate what the law ought to be, everyone else to be convinced, and thus for there to be no demand for non-libertarian law.
On a serious note, and you may have mentioned this before, I'm not sure, but - do you hold simply "anarcho-capitalism" to be the best title? The problem I have with it are the many besmirching responses by left-anarchists on how it's a "contradiction." The term capitalism is of course a very soiled term.
Now that your ignorant insistence on lumping so many people together under too narrow a field has been shown to be so, I have a few questions regarding your other comments...
SkepticalMetal:Your metaphorical sarcasm amuses me.
Good! That's usually the point of metaphors that include the phrase "chopped liver". (Everyone loves imagery)
To your second derailment
Derailment? It was a direct response to a comment you made. I literally said your whole mumbo jumbo about Friedman getting his anarcho-capitalism from Rothbard, and so therefore every anarcho-capitalist is Rothbardian, and there is such a thing as Libertarian Marxists (as if that's somehow not an oxymoron), and blah blah blah...didn't make a whole lot of sense. And it doesn't. And thanks to you, Friedman even came in and confirmed it.
- unfortunately, labels are how the world runs.
I never said anything against using labels. This is basically the same straw man argument used by socialists against anyone who opposes state-run institutions...
[E]very time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.
I ask why you insist on lumping together an entire group of people — many of whom subscribe to quite different philosophies — not only under one single label...but also why the label you insist on has to be an actual subset of already established umbrella terms (e.g. "libertarian", "anarcho-capitalist")...and you imply that I am an ignorant rube who is against labels and needs to be told "how the world runs."
It wasn't 6 months ago that you first showed up here asking about an "official national language" endorsed by the state, under a "libertarian government".
Let's try and keep a bit of humility.
For the individual to continue in the sedition against the top of the chain of aggressors, it is of the utmost magnitude that individuals who adhere to this idea of "private property anarchism" resort to the most specific term there is for this - "Rothbardian."
I'm sure there are many who would strongly disagree that everyone using the same term to label themselves is even on the first page of important things to work for...let alone "of the utmost magnitude".
And exactly why must they resort to "the most specific" term? You haven't established this. And finally, who said "Rothbardian" is the most specific term for it?
You have a lot of presentation to do if you expect to have any of this pass as an actual argument.