Political labels are all garbage. The only honest political label is 'communist'. The point is philosophy and coherent use of words. And, as I pointed out above, their use of the word 'libertarian' doesn't even make sense as they use it. And I hardly think it is pointless; it is quite important for words to mean things. If you don't care about this Orwellian stuff then fine, but that doesn't make it cease to exist. Furthermore it is a perfectly legitimate academic topic on the use of words, so don't be so smug just because you're not interested in the subject. The aforementioned Wittgenstein's philosophy dealt heavily with just what words mean related to how we use them. If you let people start using words this way they will define you out of existence, which is the quickest way to strip you of any consideration. Once 'capitalist' means 'criminal' it's a real quick trip to the gulag.
I have not seen one philosophical reason provided why these people aren't "true" libertarians. I'm pretty sure Mr. Moore you have said yourself you don't adhere to the NAP (correct me if I'm wrong,) what is your criterion for being a philosophical libertarian? And just saying "more radical than (insert name here)" is totally arbitrary and defies using the word philosophical. I'm not trying to propose a duel, I'm just really interested because from what I've read from you this thread strangely seems like an emotional rant.
I think the NAP is legally tautological. But my legal views are perfectly in line with Rothbard on all substantial issues. The difference is one of deriving philosophies, legally and politically I am very comfortably AnCap.
If it seems emotional maybe it's because I take language seriously. The abuse of terms is a bigger weapon than any army.
I am not this way just about the term 'libertarian'. You will see I take the same stand on the overuse of the word 'fascist', a habit which derives from Communists and has no place in serious discourse. Likewise with Communist - Obama may be a bit of a Marxist, but it is absurd to call him a Communist.
Ricky James Moore II: Several substantive points, such as centralism, warfarism, some kinds of welfarism and regulations on businesses (civil rights) Boaz has openly advocated.
Proof it, please. Especially the 'warfarism' claim.
The state is not the enemy. The idea of the state is.
"If it seems emotional maybe it's because I take language seriously. "
I'm sorry, but you have misunderstood the point of Orwell completely, if you are referring to his essay to proof that your crusade is relevant in any way.
Hint: his idea was not that we should play 'true scottishmen' with words.
By the way; we have a word that describes your view 'Anarcho-Capitalist'. So there is no confusion, no eradication of words. Just because Rothbard defined libertarianism as the NAP, doesn't mean that is the only view or even the dominant view. The word libertarian is, from the very start, a very rich word that incorporated a lot of different views. I've asked you several times to give a historical narrative to back up the claim that your definition is the tr00 definition. You have failed to do so. The reason why is, because it wouldn't be possible. There is no historical narrative possible that the word 'libertarian' would be restricted to the position you implicitly ascribe it. The word libertarian has never ever meant solely the adherence to a completely or quasi anarchist individualist Nozick-Rothbardian definition.
You claimed that you had history on your side. Proof it.
Jesus H. Mohammed Buddha...So what's more important to you, Rick? To live in a free society, or that everyone agrees with you? Because if you think that a libertarian world automatically means that there won't be people who have other ideas, or that everyone in such a world would know by instinct all libertarian ideas, I cannot possible laud your optimism enough. Do you really care if people at the CATO institute are absolute libertarians or not? Because those people are, whether you agree with them or not, interested in limiting the forces acting against your freedom. Here's an idea: get the government to shut down all those institutes and deport all those people who falsely claim libertarianism, purposefully or through misunderstanding, and then you can fight the battle for freedom yourself. Good luck. I've only met two men capable of shattering even fractions of the worldwide slavery behemoth, and they have to tolerate people who blatantly disagree with them, as well as well as plenty of people who hate libertarians with a passion. Again, good luck. The romantic notion of not choosing one's battles and pouring headlong into the fray certainly has its place in a free society. I will not deny you that.
One of the things that annoys me about libertarians is that they are unwilling to be pragmatic. If you hate everyone for being imperfect, then you dou't have any allies. The left has no such restrictions, they ally with whoever they need and water down their ideology as much as necessary to get a bit more of their agenda implemented. And that's how we got how we are. Libertarians insist on being pure and get nothing. That's why it's such a fringe movement. Hating on Reagan or the Cato institute is just ridiculous, if they would obviously be a step in the right direction. I don't mean to be too hard on you, since you are obviously the good guys, but in a way it's just intellectual self-satisfaction. 'To hell with the masses' is a position that kills people every day.
"Where do these people get off calling themselves libertarians?"
What's funny about this sort of attitude is that it runs contrary to the general notions that arise in liberalism and libertarianism, namely, to mind your own business. I mean, when you hold the individual sovereignty in such high esteem (and I'm assuming you would) its silly to be so concerned about the language usage of others. In fact, why not celebrate the fact that anyone can choose to call himself whatever he wants no matter how nonsensical it may be?
they said we would have an unfair fun advantage
mikachusetts: In fact, why not celebrate the fact that anyone can choose to call himself whatever he wants no matter how nonsensical it may be?
We can also celebrate the fact that anyone can redefine 'slavery' as 'freedom' and 'coercion' as 'voluntary', but what shall we do when this anyone supports action that enslaves and coerces us in the name of his redefined 'freedom' and 'voluntarism'?
The attitude in the OP is very very healthy! You just wish this was an argument over semantic freedom. Wishful thinking.
Btw, I believe David Boaz is an anarcho-capitalist. I know for certain that Tom Palmer is an anarcho-capitalist. In fact, a large percentage of the Cato Institute's upper executives are anarcho-capitalists.
DD5:We can also celebrate the fact that anyone can redefine 'slavery' as 'freedom' and 'coercion' as 'voluntary', but what shall we do when this anyone supports action that enslaves and coerces us in the name of his redefined 'freedom' and 'voluntarism'? The attitude in the OP is very very healthy! You just wish this was an argument over semantic freedom. Wishful thinking.
Look, I essentially agree with the OP that beltway libertarians are not libertarians so far as I apply the term and understand its meaning. My issue was with the attitude (that you call healthy) which says "Where do these people get off calling themselves libertarians" and can be translated into "where do these people get off acting in a voluntary manner which I disagree with." I'm not so sure where I even stand on this issue, I was mostly throwing out ideas that I thought were interesting.
"Btw, I believe David Boaz is an anarcho-capitalist. I know for certain that Tom Palmer is an anarcho-capitalist. In fact, a large percentage of the Cato Institute's upper executives are anarcho-capitalists."
He's either an anarcho-capitalist, or in the same school of thought as Ayn Rand and her followers who believe that government should be run on voluntary donations. Boaz does oppose all forms of taxation.
As you stated Tom Palmer is an anarchist, and Jason Kuznicki is probably one as well. He believes that anarcho-capitalism can work, but rather focus on short term goals than worry about the end game.
One of the things that annoys me about libertarians is that they are unwilling to be pragmatic.
Will you people stop arguing with a straw man? This is not about strategy, this is about using words in a meaningful way.
Also, 'pragmatism' accomplishes nothing. Nothing will give us a libertarian society because people are genetically socialists.
I only have one thing to add to this discussion, I think Tyler Cowen is totally awesome and that he's extremely intelligent and very often insightful. SometimesI wish Tyler Cowen were my next door neighbour, so I could go over pretending to borrow his lawnmower only to get into a deep discussion about whatever interested me.
I think if people were more like Tyler Cowen the world would be a far better place. That is all.
You are absolutely correct about that of course.
Five centuries ago people were generally slaveholders. I think there is such a thing as an "evolution in the consciousness of freedom".
And its devolution. I believe that free societies depend more on general habits than on ideology. Europe was free because no Empire arose in its place, Iceland was freer because there Germanic tribal law was the only recognized authority. In neither case did individuals read the works of Rothbard or even Epicurus; and if they had they probably would have been apalled, even if their actions confirmed the theory.
Ricky James Moore II: Five centuries ago people were generally slaveholders. I think there is such a thing as an "evolution in the consciousness of freedom". And its devolution. I believe that free societies depend more on general habits than on ideology. Europe was free because no Empire arose in its place, Iceland was freer because there Germanic tribal law was the only recognized authority. In neither case did individuals read the works of Rothbard or even Epicurus; and if they had they probably would have been apalled, even if their actions confirmed the theory.
Kind of ironic that you make a Hayekian point contra the Misesian/Rothbardian view.
Well, I am a social rationalist, as Mises was, I just believe that most people have no coherent ideas; thus they tend to go with whatever they see other people doing.
Ricky James Moore II: Kind of ironic that you make a Hayekian point contra the Misesian/Rothbardian view. Well, I am a social rationalist, as Mises was, I just believe that most people have no coherent ideas; thus they tend to go with whatever they see other people doing.
How are these two ideas compatible?
'Spontaneous order' is uselessly vague. Government is a spontaneous order.
Still, I am not saying Hayek was wrong on everything. I just don't find anything in him that isn't found elsewhere, better articulated and followed through.
Not to step on Esuric's turf (this is usually something he says... and he's absolutely right), but read Prices & Production.
I have. Easily the best work by Hayek I have read. His work on the pricing process has nothing significantly objectionable, and I will certainly give him that. As an economist he has merit, it is as a philosopher and social thinker that he goes awry.
Naturally, this weakest points are what Hayek concentrated on for the entire latter part of his career. Chalk one up for the law of Rothbard.
Ricky James Moore II:Well, I am a social rationalist, as Mises was, I just believe that most people have no coherent ideas; thus they tend to go with whatever they see other people doing.
Good to have you back, Edmund Carlyle.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
I don't know anyone with a worse reputation than the Koch brothers. Most people seem to have an aversion to them. So Cato Institute is pretty much promoting the idea that libertarianism is a form of class warfare. It's a double standard that George Soros doesn't have this reputation, except with conservatives, but there you go. It's a whole other type of bad PR than what you get from hacks like Bob Barr and Wayne Allen Root.