Pages: [1] 2 3 
|
 |
|
 Author
|
Topic: 5 types of libertarians? (Read 2037 times)
|
|
JasonPSorens
|
Here's a blog post by Tyler Cowen about five types of libertarians. Here's a critique of that post by Timothy Virkkala. I think I would prefer to characterize libertarians along various dimensions: 1. Consequentialism vs. Natural Rights/Deontology - what is the ultimate justification for liberty: its benefits for humanity in the aggregate or its logical deduction from basic principles of ethics? 2. Polycentric law (competing governments) vs. monopolistic law - with a little violence to terminology, this dimension broadly defines the "anarcho-capitalist" vs. "minarchist" debate insofar as it addresses efficiency concerns 3. Individualist anarchism vs. minarchism - this dimension defines the moral questions about how states come to be legitimized - may nonconsenters be forcibly incorporated into the polity? 4. Absolutist property rights vs. complex property rights (in the limit, ecolibertarianism, geolibertarianism, & similar variants) - a dimension that defines how the theory of property rights applies to real-world situations, from emergencies to environmental problems in which the commons cannot be privatized (air, water, wildlife) 5. Competitive capitalism vs. libertarian socialism - what are your views about for-profit markets vs. voluntary socialism or mutualism? 6. Foreign interventionism vs. noninterventionism - some libertarians believe that states may legitimately (& often should) defend people's rights outside their borders, others argue in favor of a modest foreign policy 7. Libertinism vs. virtue libertarianism (fusionism) - how important are (traditional) moral virtues in a free society? Does respect for liberty follow from relativism, or contrariwise, must a society of free individuals also be a society of responsible individuals? 8. Children-as-adults vs. "children are different" - do children have the same rights as adults, or should children be (allowed to be) treated somewhat paternalistically in light of their potential yet deficient rationality? Any others? I would define my own philosophy as being far-right on deontology, center-right on monopolistic government, far-left on individualist anarchism, far-right on complexity of property rights, far-slightly-center-left on competitive capitalism, far-right on noninterventionism, center-right on virtue libertarianism, and far-right on "children are different."
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 09, 2009, 07:59:11 am by JasonPSorens »
|
Logged
|
Audio signature (MP3) "Experience has shown that it is difficult, if not impossible, for a populous state to be run by good laws." --Aristotle, The Politics
|
|
|
|
AGregory
|
I'm far right on natural rights, far left on polycentrism, far left on anarchism, far left on property rights absolutism, center left on capitalism, far right on noninterventionism, center right on virtue libertarianism, and center left on children as adults.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
J’raxis 270145
|
Center on #1. Freedom derives from a basic principle, the Non-Aggression Principle, but the fact that everything “just works out” when people follow this principle (in the sense of the “invisible hand” or “emergent phenomena”) is just as important. Polycentric on #2. “Anarcho-capitalist,” although I don’t particularly like the word. Individualist anarchism on #3. The State can’t be legitimized. Absolutist property rights on #4. A sapient being owns oneself, absolutely, and all that one can acquire which isn’t either already owned by another sapient, or unownable because it is a sapient being. Center on #5. Libertarian socialism can exist as enclaves within a greater competitive “capitalist” (free market) society. I’m personally involved in projects—competitive business ventures, planned communities, food co-ops, &c.—that could be placed at opposite ends of this spectrum. #6… So when did you stop beating your wife? It can’t be answered because it presupposes the legitimacy of these things called “States.” Mu. Although, while States continue to exist, I’m strongly on the noninterventionist side. Libertinism on #7. (You knew that.) Do as thou wilt, but commit no acts of aggression. “Traditional moral values” are part of the problem with society today. I don’t believe in so-called “moral relativism,” I believe there’s simply one absolute moral value, the NAP, and that all other values are relative to the individual. Personal responsibility is of course a requirement, but that derives from the NAP (most irresponsible acts are negligence or fraud). “Children are different” on #8. (Probably thought I was going to say children as adults, didn’t you?  ) My belief is that a person is a “child” until they’re mature enough to begin asserting their rights as sovereign individuals, henceforth, they’re adults. So on the one hand, I believe in treating “children” as “children,” but on the other hand, I believe that it’s possible that a given 15-year-old, or 5-year-old, could be treated as an adult. /What is this, the Nolan hypercube? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
JasonPSorens
|
Wirkman Virkkala's response to this post is here. He mentions strategy - radicalism versus gradualism - as another important dimension on which libertarians differ (of course!). I'd be pretty much in the center on that dimension. Finally, yet another dimension might be social science methodology, praxeology/deduction vs. induction. This dimension would distinguish Austrians from neoclassicals in economics (most of the other senses in which Austrians were once distinctive have been incorporated into neoclassical economics, IME). On that dimension I'd be pretty far toward induction. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Audio signature (MP3) "Experience has shown that it is difficult, if not impossible, for a populous state to be run by good laws." --Aristotle, The Politics
|
|
|
|
JasonPSorens
|
Center on #5. Libertarian socialism can exist as enclaves within a greater competitive “capitalist” (free market) society. I’m personally involved in projects—competitive business ventures, planned communities, food co-ops, &c.—that could be placed at opposite ends of this spectrum. Right - I put myself "far left" there, but on reflection I think I'm really just slightly left of center. There are a few areas where the co-op and nonprofit models work better than the for-profit model. I was thinking about Benjamin Tucker and contemporary mutualism when I gave my response there. I think it's definitively proven that a truly free market would also be largely capitalistic in the sense that there would be large, profitable businesses competing with each other. #6… So when did you stop beating your wife? It can’t be answered because it presupposes the legitimacy of these things called “States.” Mu. Although, while States continue to exist, I’m strongly on the noninterventionist side. Yeah, I think that's the way to interpret this one - what should the foreign policies of existing states be, in the world of the 2nd best? Libertinism on #7. (You knew that.) Do as thou wilt, but commit no acts of aggression. “Traditional moral values” are part of the problem with society today. I don’t believe in so-called “moral relativism,” I believe there’s simply one absolute moral value, the NAP, and that all other values are relative to the individual. Personal responsibility is of course a requirement, but that derives from the NAP (most irresponsible acts are negligence or fraud). IMV, most of those traditional values do have evolutionary significance. They wouldn't exist if they weren't functional in some sense. For instance, monogamy tends to be a pretty dominant cultural norm even today, although often in "serial" form, implying that it serves human needs rather well. OTOH, some of those values are clearly no longer functional & indeed perhaps never were as dominant as they seemed to be (e.g., prejudice against homosexuals). /What is this, the Nolan hypercube?
Indeed. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Audio signature (MP3) "Experience has shown that it is difficult, if not impossible, for a populous state to be run by good laws." --Aristotle, The Politics
|
|
|
|
John Edward Mercier
|
But a truly free market would limit the profit potential on capitalistic ventures. You have opposing forces in economy of scale and market reaction.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
JasonPSorens
|
But a truly free market would limit the profit potential on capitalistic ventures. You have opposing forces in economy of scale and market reaction.
Yes, profit potential wouldn't be truly unlimited (even a monopoly system would yield finite profits) - but it wouldn't be zero either, as Tucker thought. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Audio signature (MP3) "Experience has shown that it is difficult, if not impossible, for a populous state to be run by good laws." --Aristotle, The Politics
|
|
|
|
John Edward Mercier
|
Tucker may have been over stating mutualism. Explaining capital and its 'value of efficiency' to many modern mutualist is nearly impossible. The correct equation would be 'limiting to zero'...
The capital will always have 'value of efficiency' or it wouldn't come into play within the equation.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 09, 2009, 10:00:59 am by John Edward Mercier »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Dreepa
|
There are only 2 types of libertarians in my mind.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
JasonPSorens
|
There are only 2 types of libertarians in my mind.
haha |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Audio signature (MP3) "Experience has shown that it is difficult, if not impossible, for a populous state to be run by good laws." --Aristotle, The Politics
|
|
|
|
WendellBerry
|
Tucker may have been over stating mutualism. Explaining capital and its 'value of efficiency' to many modern mutualist is nearly impossible. The correct equation would be 'limiting to zero'...
The capital will always have 'value of efficiency' or it wouldn't come into play within the equation.
Tucker is based on Josiah Warren's "cost the limit of price" principle set for in his book "Equitable Commerce" From Smith's principle that labor is the true measure of price – or, as Warren phrased it, that cost is the proper limit of price – these three men [i.e., Josiah Warren, Pierre Proudhon, and Karl Marx] made the following deductions: that the natural wage of labor is its product; that this wage, or product, is the only just source of income (leaving out, of course, gift, inheritance, etc.); that all who derive income from any other source abstract it directly or indirectly from the natural and just wage of labor; that this abstracting process generally takes one of three forms, – interest, rent, and profit; that these three constitute the trinity of usury, and are simply different methods of levying tribute for the use of capital; that, capital being simply stored-up labor which has already received its pay in full, its use ought to be gratuitous, on the principle that labor is the only basis of price; that the lender of capital is entitled to its return intact, and nothing more; that the only reason why the banker, the stockholder, the landlord, the manufacturer, and the merchant are able to exact usury from labor lies in the fact that they are backed by legal privilege... —Benjamin Tucker , "State Socialism and Anarchism," from Individual Liberty, Vanguard Press, New York, 1926 |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
J’raxis 270145
|
Libertinism on #7. (You knew that.) Do as thou wilt, but commit no acts of aggression. “Traditional moral values” are part of the problem with society today. I don’t believe in so-called “moral relativism,” I believe there’s simply one absolute moral value, the NAP, and that all other values are relative to the individual. Personal responsibility is of course a requirement, but that derives from the NAP (most irresponsible acts are negligence or fraud). IMV, most of those traditional values do have evolutionary significance. They wouldn't exist if they weren't functional in some sense. For instance, monogamy tends to be a pretty dominant cultural norm even today, although often in "serial" form, implying that it serves human needs rather well. If you look at the sheer number of relationships that end due to infidelity, one sees that’s not the case. What seems to be the actual norm is people making promises they can’t keep. I agree that a lot of traditional social values seem to have evolutionary benefit: Religions that promote self-denial inculcate zealotry and aggressiveness in people, which makes such cultures much more likely to expand and conquer less aggressive societies. (And I say seem because a completely peaceful society is probably much more efficient than a society completely based upon aggression, but we haven’t had such a thing in so long that it’s difficult to make actual comparisons.) But evolutionary significance, functionality, or the fact that something is a dominant cultural norm says nothing about whether or not it’s problematic. The aggressive State fits all three of these criteria—does that make it a good thing for society? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
JasonPSorens
|
Libertinism on #7. (You knew that.) Do as thou wilt, but commit no acts of aggression. “Traditional moral values” are part of the problem with society today. I don’t believe in so-called “moral relativism,” I believe there’s simply one absolute moral value, the NAP, and that all other values are relative to the individual. Personal responsibility is of course a requirement, but that derives from the NAP (most irresponsible acts are negligence or fraud). IMV, most of those traditional values do have evolutionary significance. They wouldn't exist if they weren't functional in some sense. For instance, monogamy tends to be a pretty dominant cultural norm even today, although often in "serial" form, implying that it serves human needs rather well. If you look at the sheer number of relationships that end due to infidelity, one sees that’s not the case. What seems to be the actual norm is people making promises they can’t keep. I agree that a lot of traditional social values seem to have evolutionary benefit: Religions that promote self-denial inculcate zealotry and aggressiveness in people, which makes such cultures much more likely to expand and conquer less aggressive societies. (And I say seem because a completely peaceful society is probably much more efficient than a society completely based upon aggression, but we haven’t had such a thing in so long that it’s difficult to make actual comparisons.) But evolutionary significance, functionality, or the fact that something is a dominant cultural norm says nothing about whether or not it’s problematic. The aggressive State fits all three of these criteria—does that make it a good thing for society? Well, if "ought" implies "can," then evolutionary fitness isn't irrelevant to the question. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Audio signature (MP3) "Experience has shown that it is difficult, if not impossible, for a populous state to be run by good laws." --Aristotle, The Politics
|
|
|
|
Greg Bee
|
Stephen Pinker writes in his book, "The Blank Slate, The Modern Denial of Human Nature" that occasional infidelity is observed in most, (or was it all?) species that are usually described as mating for life. And he paints it in a way that makes it seem as though the alternative courses of action are the true grounding of our strongly held values. There exists the possibility that your mate's future can be entirely bound up in you and the progeny that you have made together, but it isn't entirely certain. If it were, it would be taken for granted, if our offspring didn't benefit more from the nurturing of both parents then we probably wouldn't care about monogamy either.
Such are the alternatives that make life meaningful to human beings.
Such are the benefits, imperfect as they may be to monogamy for any species.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
JasonPSorens
|
Stephen Pinker writes in his book, "The Blank Slate, The Modern Denial of Human Nature" that occasional infidelity is observed in most, (or was it all?) species that are usually described as mating for life. And he paints it in a way that makes it seem as though the alternative courses of action are the true grounding of our strongly held values. There exists the possibility that your mate's future can be entirely bound up in you and the progeny that you have made together, but it isn't entirely certain. If it were, it would be taken for granted, if our offspring didn't benefit more from the nurturing of both parents then we probably wouldn't care about monogamy either.
Yes, that's very true. Most "values" that humans teach their young and dispute among themselves are so tightly held precisely because they aren't always observed. If the desired behavior were as natural and inevitable as breathing, there would be no need to have a "value." |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Audio signature (MP3) "Experience has shown that it is difficult, if not impossible, for a populous state to be run by good laws." --Aristotle, The Politics
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 
|
|
|
 |
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
