What is it with the surge of fake-libertarians these days? People like David Boaz are not libertarian by any meaningful definition, at best they are efficiency experts for Statism. Now I am constantly confronted with militaristic, drug-nanny, police-state technocrats who call themselves libertarians and have the nerve to chide me for 'misrepresenting' libertarianism when I portray it as anti-statist.
I hate Americans, and how easily they are fooled by this nonsense. We have losertarian liberventionists like Tyler Cowen telling Freedom is Slavery. Lots of people get all uppity when the LvMI or LRC people criticize Cato, Reason Magazine, etc. for being statists. Well, guess what? They are! It is obvious they are! It's not our fault these people are fakes and poseurs. These people aren't even classical liberals or Taft Republicans, their sole purpose seems to be injecting creeping statolatry into the libertarian movement. I would rather deal wit the Tea Party than the Cato Institute and if it makes us 'less appealing', well, to Hell with the masses: I'm selling libertarianism, if they don't want to buy it then I don't want their business. Being correct is more important than being popular any day. How can people be stupid enough to buy into their blatant BS?
I hate Americans, and how easily they are fooled by this nonsense.
Collectivism.
Lots of people get all uppity when the LvMI or LRC people criticize Cato, Reason Magazine, etc. for being statists.
You can criticize them all you want, but Cato and Reason are mechanisms that can help pull people to libertarianism who haven't been introduced to the concepts before.
It was obviously rhetorical. I understand that Jeffrey Tucker is also an American.
But Cato and Reason are mechanisms that can help pull people to libertarianism who haven't been introduced to the concepts before.
Presuming this is true that doesn't change the fact that they are not libertarians and are, quite frequently, opposed to actual libertarianism. Look at Virginia Postrel, she's a war-mongering lunatic.
Also, re: my point that many of these people are statists even by historical standards, such as Taft. Bill Buckley is better on drugs than a lot of these crypto-Nazis calling themselves 'conservative libertarians'. Bill Buckley. I don't want to be associated with anyone who is worse than William F. Buckley, Jr.
Ricky James Moore II:People like David Boaz are not libertarian by any meaningful definition, at best they are efficiency experts for Statism.
You cannot conceive of *any* meaningful definition of libertarianism where Boaz is a libertarian? Seriously?
You remind me of the discussions between the Trotskists and the Maoists. They also have a lot 'I'm the better radical than thou' discussions, which are completely irrelevant, because it doesn't boil down to what you try to achieve, but about ways you want to achieve it. Since David Boaz wants a libertarian world, he's a libertarian. Just because his methods are different and not completely inconsistent, doesn't mean he's 'not' a libertarian.
"Now I am constantly confronted with militaristic, drug-nanny, police-state technocrats who call themselves libertarians and have the nerve to chide me for 'misrepresenting' liberke that, yes. If you want a better example: think the guy from Cato who supports arresting Assange. Cato has a lot of constitutional 'we want less government' types, which aren't necessarily libertarian. Boaz, however, is not such a person. Talk to him for 5 minutes on his ideal society. That really is all the proof you need.
"I hate Americans, and how easily they are fooled by this nonsense. We have losertarian liberventionists like Tyler Cowen telling Freedom is Slavery. Lots of people get all uppity when the LvMI or LRC people criticize Cato, Reason Magazine, etc. for being statists. Well, guess what? They are! It is obvious they are! It's not our fault these people are fakes and poseurs. These people aren't even classical liberals or Taft Republicans, their sole purpose seems to be injecting creeping statolatry into the libertarian movement. I would rather deal wit the Tea Party than the Cato Institute and if it makes us 'less appealing', well, to Hell with the masses: I'm selling libertarianism, if they don't want to buy it then I don't want their business. Being correct is more important than being popular any day. How can people be stupid enough to buy into their blatant BS?"
Tyler Cowen makes a bad argument in that essay - where does he says that freedom is slavery? :?
Could you conceive people from having a different perspective on how to be a libertarian in an unlibertarian world? Because you are basically attacking for not sharing your idea of how to do so. I fail to see any relevance or improvement in that.
You could criticize them - 'your kind of being a libertarian in an unlibertarian world isn't good for the overall purpose' - but you are just defining them out of the movement, because you disagree with them. Feel free to be holier than thou, but I'm not sure if this helps anyone.
The state is not the enemy. The idea of the state is.
My rule is simple. If you are not at least as radical as Nozick in Anarchy, State and Utopia - you are not a libertarian. Even that is a downgrade from classical libertarianism. There is no excuse anymore, none, not to be that radical. These people can only be possessed of ignorance or a religious reverence for States to not be that radical, and neither one qualifies them to speak for libertarianism.
That may seem 'harsh', but as far as I am concerned that is just using words properly. There is no logical or historical reason these fools should be considered libertarians; and there is no philosophical basis for their deviationism. Both Maoists and Trotskyites supported total state ownership of the economy; thus they were Communists. The question of who is correctly 'Marxist' is beside the point. I am not debating whether Boaz is a Rothbardian or a Tuckerite; he is not a libertarian at all.
Ricky James Moore II:Presuming this is true that doesn't change the fact that they are not libertarians and are, quite frequently, opposed to actual libertarianism. Look at Virginia Postrel, she's a war-mongering lunatic..
I did some google and she seems to have some pretty mad opinions, yes.
Any 'movement' that accepts these - let's put it frankly, scumbags - is not any 'movement' I want to be a part of. It is not 'sectarian' to reject these people, it is basic consistency. They are in no way, shape or form libertarian: not economically, not socially, not philosophically, not legally, not even by historical standards of classical libertarians like Tucker or Spooner. I can not see how we can seriously be debating it; they might at best be marginally 'more' libertarian than the typical statist lunatics in office today, but so what? Mussolini was probably less statist than Hillary Clinton, that doesn't make him a frickin' libertarian.
Frankly, some of the stuff these people endorse makes regular republicans look moderate in their statism. These people are technocrats and social democrats. They have no place in libertarianism. Sometimes they are right - so what? Even Hitler was right about democratic governments. Even Lenin was against WW1. Hell, both Hitler and Stalin are closer to the libertarian position on those subjects than most of these fake-liberventionists.
Tyler Cowen:The bottom line is this: human beings have deeply rooted impulses to take newly acquired wealth and spend some of it on more government and especially on transfer payments.
Wow. I've never been an avid reader of Cowen's, but that's a horrible statement.
And I agree with Brian. As frustrating as some individuals from Reason, Cato or others may be, don't let that frustration take over and launch into emotional tirades, which make it so easy to lose focus and start denouncing entire groups of people for things some have said. I have read many things under the Cato banner that I did not like, but I have also read a whole lot that I do like and find very valuable, and which may not exist were it not for the well-funded Cato Institute.* And I will appreciate every minor impediment to the growth of the state, every person drawn to libertarianism, and every young libertarian scholar who is able to advance his research and study. I wish they did (or perhaps more accurately, were able to) go further in their policy initiatives, but considering the extraordinary challenge before us, it's a lesser concern. It's not as if we would be so much closer to a libertarian paradise if only David Boaz wrote more radical op-eds.
*Cato Unbound, which you link to, is one great example. It has provided a lot of fantastic debate from a host of great scholars.
Ricky James Moore II: My rule is simple. If you are not at least as radical as Nozick in Anarchy, State and Utopia - you are not a libertarian. Even that is a downgrade from classical libertarianism. There is no excuse anymore, none, not to be that radical. These people can only be possessed of ignorance or a religious reverence for States to not be that radical, and neither one qualifies them to speak for libertarianism. That may seem 'harsh', but as far as I am concerned that is just using words properly. There is no logical or historical reason these fools should be considered libertarians; and there is no philosophical basis for their deviationism. Both Maoists and Trotskyites supported total state ownership of the economy; thus they were Communists. The question of who is correctly 'Marxist' is beside the point. I am not debating whether Boaz is a Rothbardian or a Tuckerite; he is not a libertarian at all.
Oke, good; than Boaz is a libertarian. Cool. I shall repeat myself: 5 minute conversation with him. Do it.
Also interesting: 'classical libertarianism'. Since you have said that libertarianism is different from 'classical liberalism' - that it's a whole new movement - could you explain to me what you mean by the term 'classical libertarianism'? Who/which group of people defined it, if not someone like Nozick, since he didn't contribute to 'classical libertarianism', but is also a 'downgrade from classical libertarianism'. So, tell me, who was?
Just for the record; you do realize that Ludwig von Mises, according to this classification, is not a libertarian, right?
Also interesting that you say 'that there is no excuses anymore, not to be radical'. Even if that's true, it doesn't follow that one has to be radical in advocating improvements in the world we live in.
"Both Maoists and Trotskyites supported total state ownership of the economy; thus they were Communists. The question of who is correctly 'Marxist' is beside the point." <= No, actually, you missed the point. Again: 2 people can agree with what ought to be the final state, but can differ widely on what ought to happen in a non-libertarian world. You are basically attacking Reason, Cato and others for not acting upon your ideas of what ought to happen.
Sure; some at reason/Cato are warmongering people who learned to love the leviathan in one way or another. Starting a 'holier than thou'-war, however, doesn't make much sense. One could argue that because they support certain policies as an end in themselves, they aren't libertarian. That is an argument one could make. But since the word 'libertarian' isn't confined to 'Nozick/Rothbardian ideas', it doesn't. If you want to redefine the word; sure. But don't be agree because people don't agree with the way you want to use the word.
It's not 'harsh'; it just doesn't make much sense. But if you have need to ventilate your frustrations with some people; feel free to do so.
Ricky James Moore II: Any 'movement' that accepts these - let's put it frankly, scumbags - is not any 'movement' I want to be a part of. It is not 'sectarian' to reject these people, it is basic consistency. They are in no way, shape or form libertarian: not economically, not socially, not philosophically, not legally, not even by historical standards of classical libertarians like Tucker or Spooner. I can not see how we can seriously be debating it; they might at best be marginally 'more' libertarian than the typical statist lunatics in office today, but so what? Mussolini was probably less statist than Hillary Clinton, that doesn't make him a frickin' libertarian.
What people are you referring too? De-aggreggate man. Apply some of your insights in social ideas for a change. :/
And lose the angry young man attitude, please.
Something I added to an above post before seeing this:
Oke, good; than Boaz is a libertarian.
Boaz supported the civil rights act and defended King Lincoln. Those are horrifically anti-libertarian positions. He's defended warfarism. And that is a deal-breaker: anyone who defends the warfare state is not a libertarian. Full stop, end of story. That is at least 50% of libertarianism.
Also interesting: 'classical libertarianism'. Since you have said that libertarianism is different from 'classical liberalism' - that it's a whole new movement - could you explain to me what you mean by the term 'classical libertarianism'?
Proudhon, Tucker, Spooner, the early Burke, William Godwin. You know, the people that make Rand Paul look like a National Socialist. Likewise, on the economic front, Bastiat and de Molinari were far more radical than 90% of these liberventionist types. These fake-libertarians are inferior to people in history who weren't even libertarian, Bastiat was close to libertarianism and quite good for his time; compared to Bastiat Tyler Cowen is nothing but another big-government welfare whore. Acton was better on the Civil War and the Federal Government than Boaz or Tom G. Palmer. I know Palmer calls himself an anarchist, but it seems that he de facto endorses any sort of government intervention that supports his Yankee Cosmo 'lifestyle'.
Right, though lots of elements in his work re: secession, etc. would make him one if he followed it consistently. He was also better on economics, sociology, state power, etc. than any of these people. Again, these people are inferior to people are not libertarian - they do not deserve to be called 'libertarians' by any stretch of the imagination.
No, actually, you missed the point. Again: 2 people can agree with what ought to be the final state, but can differ widely on what ought to happen in a non-libertarian world. You are basically attacking Reason, Cato and others for not acting upon your ideas of what ought to happen.
No, I'm attacking them for being statists. Brian Doherty aside, they're technocrats, again, inferior to people who are not libertarian. They are not as radical as Mises, Bastiat or even Thomas Paine for that matter. It is conceptually retarded to call them 'libertarians'.
Sure; some at reason/Cato are warmongering people who learned to love the leviathan in one way or another. Starting a 'holier than thou'-war, however, doesn't make much sense.
What do you fail to understand about them not being libertarians at all. They might be better than National Review, but so is the Wall Street Journal. Doesn't mean the WSJ is libertarian.
It makes perfect sense if you have any consistent,. non-retarded definition of what libertarianism is in terms of economics, social order, state power, legal structure, history, etc. Again I will repeat these people are not libertarians, they are inferior to many admitted non-libertarians alive and they are pathetic by historical comparison to people who also were not libertarian. This should not be hard to understand. There is no logical basis by which you can call them libertarians. It's inane; the only thing they have going for them is sometimes being moderately better than the mainstream - and sometimes worse. So what? How does this make them libertarian? These people aren't libertarians any more than Leonard Peikoff; they don't deserve the name, and at least Peikoff has the honesty to reject the label.
This is not about reading Reason magazine. I read lots of non-libertarians. This is about them not being libertarians. I can not understand how it is not obvious. Cowen, Cato and almost the entire Reason staff are inferior on almost every imaginable question to Frederic Bastiat. Bastiat was NOT a libertarian. Ergo, they are not libertarians. And let's not even bother comparing them to Herbert Spencer.
Lose the smarmy big-tenter attitude, please.
I understand that you are a radical anarcho-capitalist libertarian. I am as well. Do you wish for this system to come about, or are you more worried about being more right than everyone else? While you're patting yourself on the back for your purity, millions of those disenfranchised Americans you "hate" are looking for something that addresses their concerns. One does not jump from basic truths to the logical conclusion in any subject without hitting the steps along the way. Did you, after becoming accustomed to the fact that 2+2=4, immediately jump to differential equations, or even long division?
The folks at Reason and Cato are wrong about a lot of things. They are not perfectly logical, and neglect to carry correct premises to their right conclusions. They are, however, useful. They are very good at explaining why 2+2=4. Many an-caps forget how to do that, or insist on jumping to complex functions when asked for details. Stossel, Boaz and others are libertarians, and they are gifted at spreading libertarianism. An honest search will lead those learning about libertarianism further into the thought behind it, which will lead many to the Mises Institute and to extreme minarchism or anarcho-capitalism. Many of us here (including myself) made that same journey. Your purist angst, while understandable, does nothing to bring about your desired goals. The imperfect logic of Boaz and company, however, DOES help to bring about YOUR desired goal. Logically, that suggests that you are "doin' it wrong."
Do you wish for this system to come about, or are you more worried about being more right than everyone else?
It's not going to come about, and especially not with the help of technocratic welfare statists like Cowen. So that's not even on the table or relevant.
The point is not about being 'more right' the point is that THEY ARE NOT LIBERTARIANS. This is freakin' obvious. Jesus H. Christ, that was the whole POINT of this thread, that non-libertarians are called and call themselves libertarians. They do not qualify in any way whatsoever for the moniker. I can not believe this is 'controversial'; I can only assume you have no sense of intellectual history.
And as this has gotten tangental, I will reiterate that my assertion was that "these people are not libertarians."
The point was not to 'attack' Cato or Reason Magazine. The point was not to accuse them of being crypto-communists; or to prove that the Koch brothers are behind an evil conspiracy to undermine libertarianism. The point was simply to say that these people are further from libertarianism than people who are not libertarians.
Making due exception for individuals such as Doherty or Gerald Gaus I think the answer is obviously 'no, they are not libertarians." We should stop calling them that, and they should stop calling themselves 'libertarians'. Doing so is either dishonest or confused.
I mean, just compare them to Glenn Beck. Yes, Beck is a doofus. But on history and many issues Glenn Beck is better. And I can't think of any sane libertarian who would consider Beck to be 'libertarian'.
I can't deal with so many 'well, he's just another warmongering statist' with any proof.
I hope it's nice living in your world with the ancient old battle of the good guys versus the bad/sell out guys.
This is about the fourth time you've responded to an argument I did not make. The point is that they are not libertarians. You want proof? Browse the Anti-War.com and LewRockwell.com archives, complete with citations and links. I am not calling these people fascists, and I am not even talking about strategy. I am saying that you have to meet a certain criteria to be a libertarian and, by their own writings, these people do not. This is about using words correctly and properly identifying ones views.
If you're not against the warfare state, you're not libertarian. If you favor the civil rights act, you're not libertarian. If you defend Abraham Lincoln, you're not libertarian. If you don't advocate the immediate and radical decriminalization of drugs, you're not a libertarian. If you defend wealth transfer programs like welfare and medicade, you're not a libertarian - even if you want to monkey around with the numbers of how it works.
These people may be many things but one thing they are not is libertarian. Not from any sane historical or philosophical definition. And that was all I was saying: they are not libertarians and should not call themselves libertarians.
Ricky James Moore II: Do you wish for this system to come about, or are you more worried about being more right than everyone else? It's not going to come about, and especially not with the help of technocratic welfare statists like Cowen. So that's not even on the table or relevant. The point is not about being 'more right' the point is that THEY ARE NOT LIBERTARIANS. This is freakin' obvious. Jesus H. Christ, that was the whole POINT of this thread, that non-libertarians are called and call themselves libertarians. They do not qualify in any way whatsoever for the moniker. I can not believe this is 'controversial'; I can only assume you have no sense of intellectual history.
Lol. Yes, denounce other people as 'have no sense of intellectual history' because they disagree with you.
Basitat was a statist according to your definition. So was Spooner - using the constitution as an argument in arguing for the abolition of slavery. And let's not forget he argued for the enforcement of trial by jury. Or what should we make of Paine, who argued for a guaranteed income and the quasi abolition of private property in land. Or Mises, who allowed for government control of education.
In short: everybody who doesn't agree (1) with your end state of a ideal society ànd (2) the correct way of being a libertarian in this un libertarian world, is not a libertarian.
How do you feel about someone who thinks that voting is a legitimate strategy?
Ricky James Moore II: I hope it's nice living in your world with the ancient old battle of the good guys versus the bad/sell out guys. This is about the fourth time you've responded to an argument I did not make. The point is that they are not libertarians. You want proof? Browse the Anti-War.com and LewRockwell.com archives, complete with citations and links. I am not calling these people fascists, and I am not even talking about strategy. I am saying that you have to meet a certain criteria to be a libertarian and, by their own writings, these people do not. This is about using words correctly and properly identifying ones views. If you're not against the warfare state, you're not libertarian. If you favor the civil rights act, you're not libertarian. If you defend Abraham Lincoln, you're not libertarian. If you don't advocate the immediate and radical decriminalization of drugs, you're not a libertarian. If you defend wealth transfer programs like welfare and medicade, you're not a libertarian - even if you want to monkey around with the numbers of how it works. These people may be many things but one thing they are not is libertarian. Not from any sane historical or philosophical definition. And that was all I was saying: they are not libertarians and should not call themselves libertarians.
So you don't see the implicit assumption, here?
Let me clarify the elephant in the room: according to your (limited) view of libertarianism, they aren't libertarians. Yes, I agree that that's probably true.
However; nobody cares about your beatle in the box, really. And this kind of 'let's define the world like x and let's see who doesn't adhere to this definition!!!!' is really pointless, imo. That's why I said: I hope it's nice living in your world where it is apparently necessary to fight a war against the bad guys who misuse your label. I'm sure you'll be able to apply your definition consistent.
But please, if you say someone supports government intervention x, please back it up.
Spooner's argument was solely rhetorical in appeal, as you obviously know, he rejected the Constitution. Likewise he favored jury-trial procedurally, that does not mean he wanted a state juridical system.
Bastiat was a statist, though a very limited one. Nonetheless he was far more libertarian on almost any subject under the sun than Boaz. Boaz is not a Nazi, but he is also not a libertarian and should not be called one.
You continue to argue with someone else. This is not about strategy or 'who's more radical'. It is about what it means to be a libertarian. These people are not libertarians.
Ricky James Moore II: Not from any sane historical or philosophical definition.
Lolz.
I'm glad you have 'the truth' on 'the' correct meaning of the word. Could you also help us with the rest of the English dictionary?
Do you have any familiarity with Wittgenstein's work on the meaning of words and the concept of language games, more specifically 'family resemblance'-theory? (I'm translating, because I have no idea what the correct terminology is in English.)
Wittgenstein's point is exactly mind. These people are using the word 'libertarian' in a nonsensical way.
Considering anyone who is not, for whatever reason, at least as radical as Nozick's ASU is not a libertarian. Even by historical standards this is less libertarian. The word libertarian essentially means 'anarchist', but we can make some exception for the gray area of quasi-voluntarist states of the type Nozick and Machan discuss. We can not, however, make exceptions for welfare programs or warfare states. Those are anti-libertarian, and anyone claiming otherwise is just being obstinate.
And if you insist on arbitrarily redefining libertarian to include Republicrats and liberventionist then it becomes useless. What distinguishes a libertarian from a classical liberal and other meddlers is that he is not a statist.
These people can get their own damn word, or use one of the many that already applies: classical liberal, liberal, constitutionalist, conservative. They can even call themselves 'libertarian-leaning republicans'. Whatever - what they are not is libertarian.
Ricky James Moore II: Wittgenstein's point is exactly mind. These people are using the word 'libertarian' in a nonsensical way. Considering anyone who is not, for whatever reason, at least as radical as Nozick's ASU is not a libertarian. Even by historical standards this is less libertarian. The word libertarian essentially means 'anarchist', but we can make some exception for the gray area of quasi-voluntarist states of the type Nozick and Machan discuss. We can not, however, make exceptions for welfare programs or warfare states. Those are anti-libertarian, and anyone claiming otherwise is just being obstinate.
I'm really interested in your 'historical standards'. Who are these 'historical standards'? Who created this 'historical standard'? Can't you write down a historical narrative that actually supports it?
I'm glad you've acknowledged that you are using the word 'libertarian' as a synonym for 'anarchist' and playing a 'whoever is not an anarchist _and_ agrees with me on how to get there' is not a libertarian. I hope you enjoy it.
Oh, and again; what do you think of someone who advocates voting as a way to gain more liberty?
Now; realize that one could write an op ed arguing for a certain governmental policy x and still be an anarchist. If you hàd some knowledge of history, you would have realized why I made the comparison to the Trotskist/Maoist debate. They have the exact same 'oh, no, they aren't tr00 because they advocate x' even though they both want the same goal.
Notice the similarity:
"These people can get their own damn word, or use one of the many that already applies: anarchist, voluntarist, market-anarchist. They can even call themselves 'anarchist leaning libertarians'. Whatever - what they cannot claim, is that only they are libertarians."
See what I did there?
what do you think of someone who advocates voting as a way to gain more liberty?
I'm indifferent. I don't much care about strategery, but there is nothing inherently unlibertarian about using the Death Star against the Empire.
Now; realize that one could write an op ed arguing for a certain governmental policy x and still be an anarchist.
You can always try to sit around and hash out a less-evil plan. That isn't the point. The point is that many of these people positively advocate more restrictive measures - like carbon taxes - and support warfare statism. Anyone who supports the warfare state is not a libertarian, at all, no way, no how.
Until the Libertarian Party gained a large number of statists after the rejection of Rothbard, 'libertarian' was synonymous with anarchist or quasi-anarchist. Everyone who was called a libertarian from Godwin to Rothbard was an anarchist or damn close. Some exception for the leftist European libertarians, but that is a different tradition and still often anarchists. These people are not a different tradition; they're hijacking the word and muddying the waters.
Ricky James Moore II:You can always try to sit around and hash out a less-evil plan. That isn't the point. The point is that many of these people positively advocate more restrictive measures - like carbon taxes - and support warfare statism. Anyone who supports the warfare state is not a libertarian, at all, no way, no how.
I'm glad you have your own beatle in the box.
You're obviously more interested in being snarky and making apologetics than actually adressing the fact that calling them 'libertarian' is just as much a distortion of language as calling corporatism 'capitalism' is. This conversation is over, at least until someone else wants to actually discuss it.
Either ways, as my views are shared by the founder and several staff members of this website don't be to offended if I take your ultra-big-tent strategy with a couple handfulls of salt.
Ricky James Moore II: You're obviously more interested in being snarky and making apologetics than actually adressing the fact that calling them 'libertarian' is just as much a distortion of language as calling corporatism 'capitalism' is. This conversation is over, at least until someone else wants to actually discuss it.
Let's not forget who doesn't substantiate his claims:
"I'm really interested in your 'historical standards'. Who are these 'historical standards'? Who created this 'historical standard'? Can't you write down a historical narrative that actually supports it? "
What 'distortion of language'? Nearly nobody uses the word 'libertarian' as you use it. So who's 'distorting' language? Who's trying to redefine a word because he wants to use it for 'his' philosophy and wants to separate it from 'the' others?
What's there to discuss, really? You have a definition x and because of this definition, a lot of people aren't libertarians whilst the would be libertarians, given another definition. You know; the one generally accepted and all.
So what's there to discuss? There is no discussion absent the 'correct' interpretation of the word 'libertarian'. Since you say that your definition is somehow 'more correct', feel free to substantiate it. That's why I asked the question above. You didn't respond. So...
And Nozick - in ASU - didn't write about quasi voluntary states.
Nearly nobody uses the word 'libertarian' as you use it.
Except, you know, the entire Mises and LRC staff, Murray Rothbard, Benjamin Tucker. But I guess they're irrelevant. After all, they don't have big beltway offices!
Like I said, this is over.
Ricky James Moore II:Either ways, as my views are shared by the founder and several staff members of this website don't be to offended if I take your ultra-big-tent strategy with a couple handfulls of salt.
'Ultra big tent'; cool. What's the difference between my (supposedly) 'ultra big tent' views and the normal 'big tent' views?
Ricky James Moore II: Nearly nobody uses the word 'libertarian' as you use it. Except, you know, the entire Mises and LRC staff, Murray Rothbard, Benjamin Tucker. But I guess they're irrelevant. After all, they don't have big beltway offices! Like I said, this is over.
Nobody said these people were 'irrelevant'. I said 'nearly nobody' - which is just a quantitative statement. Do you understand the difference? And yes, 'the entire Mises - which is, btw not true. Not the entire Mises staff uses the word libertarian as you do - 'and the entire LRC staff' ain't that many people. How many people is that?Maybe a hundred? Let's say that's a thousand people. That's not that many people, really.
All the ones that matter - the libertarians.
You do realize the circular nature of this argument, right?
Not to mention the implicit denounciation of language in general.
Words be a harsh mistress.
If their is a surge, it is probably from the less than stellar economic activitey coupled with things like the Tea Party, Ron Paul, and things like that. It is an inevitable by-product of libertarianism's rather quick rise in popularity. Either way it is just a political label, I don't understand how one could picture it to be a non-hyjackable term. This is the way things are and the way things many things get labeled.
"No true Scotsman" can be a very quixotic game to play.
f their is a surge, it is probably from the less than stellar economic activitey coupled with things like the Tea Party, Ron Paul, and things like that. It is an inevitable by-product of libertarianism's rather quick rise in popularity. Either way it is just a political label, I don't understand how one could picture it to be a non-hyjackable term.
That's no reason we should call them libertarians, because we are obviously different from them. We also have historic and consistency claims to the word. Likewise, if we start accepting that they can be called 'libertarians', well, I'm sure as Hell not a libertarian then. Just because some people call tails legs doesn't mean that tails are legs.
Words of human custom and tradition are probably a little harder to keep a tight definition over than common superficial anatomical terms, this would probably be especially true when such a word leaves a more esoteric origin into a more populist world. It also becomes a bit more difficult to tell people they are using the word wrong. Creeds simply don't cut the mustard when trying to relate to the world of human action and history is just history it is not the world that is lived today, and the relations one has with the world are different than the ones people had 150 years ago .
It is not a matter of accepting who is or is not a libertarian, it is a matter of employing a useful word at a useful moment. You can't really control how people catagorize such words. What you can do though, is employ a word for yourself other than "libertarian" to seperate yourself from Cowen or whoever when the need arises.
Perhaps this is exactly the problem. When I use the word 'libertarian' I mean 'a philosophical libertarian'. Political terms, like 'republican' or 'liberal' mean pretty much nothing; the same thing is happening to 'libertarian'. But I think the answer would be to stop using meaningless political pseudo-terms - which do not reveal, but instead obscure - and simply stick to talking about substantive philosophy. However, this would preclude arbitrarily changing the meanings of words. An Aristotilian is not a Kantian, wherever they may agree or not they are definitely different; and something which is neither is - neither. The word libertarian should be used in the same way, as a term for a coherent philosophy or set of socio-legal positions; not as some sort of arbitrary blanket term for anyone who thinks the government is wasteful or too big. Deng Xiaoping thought the Chinese government was too big; and I don't see any evidence that Barr or Cowen are any more libertarian than Deng.
well, OP, you have all the rights to be "offended", but you still do not own words. Just remember, that to some people doublespeak is first language.
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
Well, I have no ideas about stopping these people from calling themselves libertarians, martians or coal miners. My objection is that their use of the term is disingenuous and confused; the stupid media I expect to do this because they are the stupid media. However, Tyler Cowen is neither an idiot nor ignorant of the core of libertarianism as an philosophy. He is not a NYT dimwit page-filler, he should know better than to call himself a libertarian. Even people who could by rights claim the libertarian philosophical tradition - Gerald Gaus - are circumspect about using the term.
Or take Boaz. I am sure that Boaz would consider Rothbard a libertarian. What does Boaz believe that Rothbard did? How can they both be libertarians? Boaz wants a smaller - perhaps substantially smaller - government. Well, so did Taft. Was Taft a libertarian? I doubt anyone would claim that. Several substantive points, such as centralism, warfarism, some kinds of welfarism and regulations on businesses (civil rights) Boaz has openly advocated. So, on both a philosophical and strategy level, Boaz has abandoned many of the principles core to libertarianism. Being for a less-powerful state or less socially oppressive state does not make you a libertarian. It can make you anything from a Jeffersonian to a technocrat, but libertarianism is much more than some general preference that the state of Arizona not control marijuana consumption.
It is hard to argue that they have any claim on the term 'libertarian' when their own use of it is incoherent like that. They categorize as 'libertarian' things which are not related. That's an incorrect way to use words - ANY words.
You know what discussions are *really* productive? discussions over trying to precisely define political labels.
I know I can sleep a lot better at night after I've written 3,600 words on why so and so is not a *real* libertarian.
PS* William summed it up well:
Ambition is a dream with a V8 engine - Elvis Presley