I found this definition on Wikipedia. It outlines a wide range of thought, often contradictory, about what, exactly a libertarian is, so it's not really a definition--more a discussion. To distinguish "libertarian" from "Libertarian," a Libertarian is anyone who has registered Libertarian with the State, or who has contributed to the Libertarian Party. People who hold at least one belief fundamentally at odds with one or more of the really defining beliefs of a libertarian have run for office as Libertarians. Every political group is forced by state laws to accept lunatics as their nominees for just about any political office.
The base-line defining characteristic of a libertarian is that (s)he believes that it is immoral to initiate force to achieve personal or political goals. A "pure" follower of the philosophy of the Democratic Party thinks it's okay to hire folks to shoot you if you don't give over a bunch of your paycheck to support their charities. A similarly-minded Republican will gladly shoot you and your doctor for "killing babies" or "doing dope."
I found it odd, for example that this appears below: "Libertarian historian George Woodcock defines libertarianism as the philosophy that fundamentally doubts authority and advocates transforming society by reform or revolution." About half of everyone falls through that gravel screen. If he's a "Libertarian historian," he's gotta know there's more to it than that.
This statement probably is the truest of all below: "Libertarian schools of thought differ over the degree to which the state should be reduced." I'll venture that libertarians agree that the pursuit of happiness is more often successful under the least coercive of societies.
In the passage from Wikipedia (there are many hyperlinks below; most words that might need further definition are links, and all the footnote numbers are links):
Libertarianism is generally considered to be the group of political philosophies which emphasize freedom, liberty, and voluntary association. There is no general consensus among scholars on the precise definition. Libertarians generally advocate a society with a government of small scope relative to most present day societies or no government whatsoever.
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines libertarianism as the moral view that agents initially fully own themselves and have certain moral powers to acquire property rights in external things.[1] Libertarian historian George Woodcock defines libertarianism as the philosophy that fundamentally doubts authority and advocates transforming society by reform or revolution.[2] Libertarian philosopher Roderick Long defines libertarianism as "any political position that advocates a radical redistribution of power from the coercive state to voluntary associations of free individuals", whether "voluntary association" takes the form of the free market or of communal co-operatives.[3] According to the U.S. Libertarian Party, libertarianism is the advocacy of a government that is funded voluntarily and limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence.[4]
Libertarian schools of thought differ over the degree to which the state should be reduced. Anarchistic schools advocate complete elimination of the state. Minarchist schools advocate a state which is limited to protecting its citizens from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud. Some schools accept public assistance for the poor.[5] Additionally, some schools are supportive of private property rights in the ownership of unappropriated land and natural resources while others reject such private ownership and often support common ownership instead.[6][7][8] Another distinction can be made among libertarians who support private ownership and those that support common ownership of the means of production; the former generally supporting a capitalist economy, the latter a socialist economic system. Contractarian libertarianism holds that any legitimate authority of government derives not from the consent of the governed, but from contract or mutual agreement, though this can be seen as reducible to consequentialism or deontologism depending on what grounds contracts are justified.[9][10][11] Some Libertarian socialists reject deontological and consequential approaches and use historical materialism to justify their political beliefs.[12]
Political scholars such as Noam Chomsky assert that in most countries the terms "libertarian" and "libertarianism" are synonymous with left anarchism.[13] It is only in the United States that the term libertarian is commonly associated with those who have conservative positions on economic issues and liberal positions on social issues, going by the common meanings of "conservative" and "liberal" in the United States.[14]
5 comments:
I am deeply honored to be your "Foruminant of the Week", (Whatever that means.) and appreciate that you have been willing to post information on libertarianism so I didn't have to "buy a damn book."
The branch of libertarianism that advocates no government is the same as anarchists then, right?
Some libertarians are communalists? Hm. New info for me there.
Okay, I clicked on the links and used a dictionary, but I'm still not sure what this sentence means:
"Contractarian libertarianism holds that any legitimate authority of government derives not from the consent of the governed, but from contract or mutual agreement, though this can be seen as reducible to consequentialism or deontologism depending on what grounds contracts are justified."
Help!
My concern is always for the people who have, and are capable of, little. People who are truly disabled, mentally or physically, are cared for how? What if their families can't/won't do it?
Care to write a post about your particular place on the libertarian spectrum?
BTW, I know a great deal more about libertarianism than before you wrote these posts. Maybe that's a statement of the high level of my ignorance.
Yeah, that's what it is.
"Whatever that means," indeed.
I appreciate your questions. An weak defender means an indefensible position. I will write a post on where I see myself on the Libertarian spectrum.
The way I read that sentence on "Contractual Libertarianism" (a definition of which which either of us could link to from the post, but I'm gonna make you look up "deontologism"), ContLibs are next to anarchists, except they, theoretically, could devise a large-scale system of government based on interpersonal contracts.
In actuality, I think we largely have a contractual system of government, with all parties continually arguing the terms of the contract.
Do you have an allegiance to the philosophy of a political party, D. E.? Why or why not?
Thanks Bob. I get the ContLib thing better now. It really sounds unwieldy though.
I describe myself as an FDR/McGovern liberal. There are Dems I can connect with, but many that are too conservative.
My political beliefs have been, and continue to be, strongly shaped by my experiences, the extreme radicality of Jesus Christ, and an innate something in me that seems to always say, "But what about those poor people, disabled people, sick people, frightened people, scared people, etc?"
I can't seem to shake that outlook. It's just part of me. It's not that I want to change my outlook, but sometimes it's pretty hard seeing U.S. and world politics that way.
I am definitely a bleeding heart, and I'm not at all ashamed of that. To me, being a "bleeding heart" is a reflection of that outlook. It doesn't mean I don't discriminate among those who could do better, but refuse to.
For example, while I want to purge public assistance rolls of the freeloaders, I know that it is the truly deserving and needing people who will be hurt the most. I am not willing to do them harm to get some freeloaders.
Whatever government subsidizes, there will be more of it. When government pays farmers to leave land idle, that's a good deal for farmers (at least in the short term). When government pays poor people, you get more poor people. When government subsidizes ethanol production, you get the entire state of Iowa growing corn for ethanol.
"When government pays poor people, you get more poor people."
Then what do you do about disabled people? They are poor, and not able to work. People with Down's Syndrome, brain injuries, cerebral palsey, etc.
No, churches and other private charities are not able to cover all their needs. No, many of them don't have family help.
This is what is, not what you or I might like. I'd rather that private charities take care of it all.
Post a Comment