What Libertarianism Isn't

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

[MadameAxe]

The libertarianism, say, of The Cato Institute and of a site like LewRockwell.com appear different outside of the non-initiation of force idea.

The non-initiation of force idea is the single core, ideal and principle of libertarianism. It is in the details of its practical application that you notice the disagreements between the Catos and Rockwells.

Is there a single uniting principle of conservatism, other than to "conserve" something? Does it matter what is being "conserved"? If not, then I would say it is not libertarians who are over-diversified.

Over-diversification, therefore, makes libertarianism weak in its ability to gain any headway in its success of seating its members in seats of Congress, which is the point of any political party and its philosophy.

"Libertarianism" is not the same thing as "the Libertarian Party". The article was not discussing the goals of a political party.

[rdb3]

I'm not seeking contentiousness.

If "libertarianism" is not the "Libertarian Party," then you have just added gasoline to the fire of its non-definition.

Again, what is it?

[MadameAxe]

I'm not seeking contentiousness.
Neither am I.

If "libertarianism" is not the "Libertarian Party," then you have just added gasoline to the fire of its non-definition.

Again, what is it?
Hmm. I think this must be somehow key to understanding why many people don't see why l/Libertarians are happy that Ron Paul achieved office, even though it wasn't with an "L" label. To me it doesn't matter what letter you have on your "team" jacket, it's what's inside that counts -- whether you agree with and follow the principle of non-initiation of force.

On that somewhat off-topic note, there are two ideas that seem to me to be worth considering, in the interest of electing superior candidates. The first would be dispensing with parties and their labels altogether, which seems unlikely to happen given the entrenched nature of the "two-party" system. The second, possibly more palatable to the Party rank and file but less so to the "leaders", would be instant runoff voting. (There's another site I had found on this topic, www.fairvote.org, but it seems to be down at the moment).

/ramble...

[rdb3]

This is just plain vanilla silly.

First off, nothing I do in this life nor the next is never and will never be "silly."

This is why I have such a hard time talking with self-professed libertarians: respect or the lack thereof.

Conservatism is well defined. Libertarianism does not appear to be as readily defined. So, if non-initation of force is the core principle, then, a democratic socialist who believes in this principle could be a libertarian, right?

If not, why not? You said this is the core belief. Is that all there is?

[rdb3]

Let me tell you now that I truly appreciate your tone in this discussion. I cannot say enough how much I respect those who show respect.

Outstanding.

I happen to like Ron Paul a lot. I take it that that you believe he is actually a libertarian within the Republican Party. I can see that as being fair. But this begs the question as to why many other libertarian politicians do not follow suit.

Care to take on that one?

[A.J.Armitage]

Tolerating Darwinian poverty,

Government intervention in the economy always makes it worse.

an uneducated populace that in too many instances can't afford or chooses not be seek knowledge,

Sounds like inner city public schools to me.

untrammeled substance abuse,

Which we have now. The historical experience of Prohibition shows that it only gets worse when the government bans objects. (BTW, if the prohibition of alcohol needed an amendment to be Constitutional, why doesn't the prohibition of other drugs?)

irresponsible procreation,

Made possible by using the government as a solution for the first problem you listed.

environmental pollution,

You have a point, but I maintain that a way can be found to address it in a property rights framework.

[MadameAxe]

So, if non-initation of force is the core principle, then, a democratic socialist who believes in this principle could be a libertarian, right?

Nope. Socialism involves the initiation of force in taking away people's property, and giving it to others who didn't earn it. Defining oneself as a libertarian socialist is an oxymoron.

[Mark Bahner]

"Truth be told, I'm not quite sure if my position on "open borders" is entirely consistent with the Libertarian Party's position. I would like to see quotaless immigration, but not without specific criteria."

Close enough.

Mark (Libertarian)

[Torie]

Government intervention in the economy always makes it worse.

Actually, not always, but often. The federal reserve does a pretty good job these days in dampening business cycles. The larger point of course is that some subsidies for the poor may benefit society as a whole, ie to the old poor, and to the physically handicaped, and perhaps to some others on a selective basis. The devil is in the details.

Sounds like inner city public schools to me.

Yes, but the issue is the subsidy. I am a big fan of school vouchers, but that involves a subsidy.

Which we have now. The historical experience of Prohibition shows that it only gets worse when the government bans objects. (BTW, if the prohibition of alcohol needed an amendment to be Constitutional, why doesn't the prohibition of other drugs?)

Yes, but maybe the legalization of all drugs is a bad idea. That is an empirical issue. I won't get into the constitutional issues. It is a states rights matter, and back when, the commerce clause had a more circumscribed interpretation.

Made possible by using the government as a solution for the first problem you listed.

As to procreation, maybe the government should be engaged in agitprop here. Cutting checks to welfare mothers was indeed a bad idea in practice as it turned out. Again, it is an empirical issue.

You have a point, but I maintain that a way can be found to address it in a property rights framework.

Much enviromental polution can be addressed with pollution credits etc, but again that involves governmental intervention. It is not practical to round up the hundreds or thousands or millions that are affected by a polluter, to contract it out. And sometimes even pollution credits, for reasons I won't get into, are simply not practicable, and proscription is the only alternative.

[rdb3]

I owe you nothing due to your lack of respect.

Good day.

[rdb3]

What you described here is taxation in general.

[A.J.Armitage]

First off, nothing I do in this life nor the next is never and will never be "silly." This is why I have such a hard time talking with self-professed libertarians: respect or the lack thereof.

I'm sorry, but it manifestly is silly. Demanding respect for silliness is itself silly. Deal with it.

Conservatism is well defined. Libertarianism does not appear to be as readily defined. So, if non-initation of force is the core principle, then, a democratic socialist who believes in this principle could be a libertarian, right? If not, why not? You said this is the core belief. Is that all there is?

Now really, if you insist on a punctilious demand for respect for your comments, you shouldn't say things like that. It's like asking if an athiest who accepts Jesus Christ as his personal Lord and Savior can both be a Christian and remain an athiest. The answer in both cases is, not if he cares about the principle of non-contradiction.

It's conservatism that lacks definition, by definition. It's reluctance to accept radical change. It must, then, radically depend on what already exists.

[rdb3]

You, too.

Thanx.

Any others while we are at it? May as well go ahead and get it out of the way with now.

[Yardstick]

BTW, if the prohibition of alcohol needed an amendment to be Constitutional, why doesn't the prohibition of other drugs?

Great question! I don't see how there can be a logical answer other than there must be a Constitutional amendment for federal prohibition of these things. It's these gaping unconstitutional pot holes that never get looked at or talked about -- much less filled -- that make me doubt this nation's collective sanity sometimes.

And Social Security, Medicare, federal welfare, and federal involvement in education -- do they have even a fig lead of Consitutional legitimacy? I don't see how they can, but the fact that their legitimacy is never questioned (except by the occasional libertarian here at FR) makes me think that maybe I'm overlooking something. I'm not, am I?

[Torie]

There really isn't much in common between paleo cons and neo cons. Conservatism is indeed a rather muddled concept. In practice in the public square of practical politics, it is about a bit less government, and bit more reliance on market forces, a bit more tolerance for religion in the public square, a bit more of a daddy rather than a mommy state preference, a bit more of an interest in a robust military, and a bit less redistribution, than modern liberalism. It is about rather marginal differences around an essential centrism. Moving out beyond that, and it is bit chaotic out there, just like Free Republic.