What Libertarianism Isn't

Lew Rockwell.com ^ | December 22nd 2001 | Edward Feser

[Lchris]

<< "Proof: Consider the size of the Libertarian Party. QED." -- gulliver Yup ... we are pretty damned small as a contemporary political party. But keep in mind, way back in America's beginning, whicj created the Revolution: there were few patriots, as well.>>

And we all know that the majority is always right.

[Roscoe]

The more consumers know about the product, the less they like it

[rdb3]

School prayer is the biggest example, since tax dollars forced to pay for education, everyone wants their agenda in the curriculum. In privitization, Christians can support their schools, without the support of non-christians. And those few who are offended by religion in education- can support their own school- or school themselves at home.

You'd think that your point would be self-evident, with no need for further explanation, wouldn't you?

Yet I have read where libertarians would be against this, and I cannot understand why.

Your scenario provides fairness for all points of view.

[Christian_Egalitarian]

But libertarianism offers Liberty and personal sovereignty only where Libertarians say, with gaping logical holes/exceptions justified by pragmatism.

[OWK]

Like their cousin Libertarianism, Communism and Socialism are failures. Libertarianism is the Edsel of the free marketplace of ideas.

Whoooaaaa.... Now hold on a minute there.

Now I know nobody's ever accused you of being rational, but you suggested that Libertarian philosophy has "failed in the marketplace of ideas", because of the relatively few people who support it.

But when confronted with the relatively large number of supporters for communist and socialist systems around the world, you say that they too are "failures in the marketplace of ideas".

You can't have it both ways Roscoe.

[Christian_Egalitarian]

Egalitarianism = dehumanizing slavery

Under what possible interpretation of egalitarianism?

[Christian_Egalitarian]

I respect their right to decide what is right for them, so long as it doesn't interfere with my right (or the right of anyone else) to do the same.

There are always conflicting rights, and any judgement of which should predominate in a given conflict is the critical factor in applying this principle.

The judgement of "which should predominate" by Libertarians often comes out with a result which echoes social liberalism.

Case in point: abortion.

[OWK]

Pro-life libertarian here.

[rob777]

"Now, go ahead and show your fear and ignorance and claim that Libertarians are just anarchists."



I think that you are missing my point, as I was making the claim that most Libertarians are NOT anarchists. (BTW, in principle I have no problem with those who follow Rothbard and advocate a stateless society) The point which I was making is that minarchist libertarians, the majority, do want the state to uphold morality in a VERY limited sphere. I consider the non-initiation of force principle to be a moral principle that libertarians wish to see the state enforce.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

What do you think of the idea that an intact family with one man, one woman and kids is absolutely the best means for raising kids to be productive contributing members of society; therefore the State has a legitimate incentive to promote traditional marriage as being of great benefit to all members of society and to the future of society?

[Christian_Egalitarian]

Pro-life libertarian here.

And I respect that 100%.

Yet, surely you've heard Libertarianism used to justify abortion? As a pro-life Libertarian, what do you say to that argument?

[OWK]

Under what possible interpretation of egalitarianism?

Any, and all.

Egalitarianism affirms equality of economic status.

Which is of course the most horrfic of collectivistic evils.

[Roscoe]

In our free marketplace of ideas, Libertarianism, Communism and Socialism have all come up losers.

[Lchris]

This article very persuasively shows that libertarianism does not imply "cultural libertarianism," which is objectionable to many conservatives. Yet it fails to examine the other side of the issue --namely, that many conservatives, especially those grounded in religious principles, believe they are justified in forcing others to conform to their definition of morality. Of course, libertarianism can encompass everything from cultural hedonism to ultra-traditional conservatism to everything in between. The problem is, cultural conservatives, almost by definition, are not so "liberal" in allowing others the same freedom. This doesn't mean that libertarians cannot cooperate with conservatives on certain issues (as they can with liberals); but it does limit the possibilities for fusion.

[Christian_Egalitarian]

What do you think of the idea that an intact family with one man, one woman and kids is absolutely the best means for raising kids to be productive contributing members of society; therefore the State has a legitimate incentive to promote traditional marriage as being of great benefit to all members of society and to the future of society?

I agree with that premise,and would add this: nothing the government does lacks a social-engineering focus, one way or the other.

[OWK]

In our free marketplace of ideas, Libertarianism, Communism and Socialism have all come up losers.

You mean here?

In the United States?

Maybe you haven't been paying attention, but socialism has been the big winner over the last half-decade, and gets more popular with each passing year. It is the stock-in-trade of republicans and democrats alike.

[Buckeroo]

The political party, "Libertarian" is about the foundation of our nation. There is no change.

[OWK]

Yet, surely you've heard Libertarianism used to justify abortion? As a pro-life Libertarian, what do you say to that argument?

A life is a life.

[Roscoe]

The "abolish all public schools" whackos might think so.