3 ms·

It's a matter of libertarianism being very broad rather than incoherent. They are more divided on economic issues than social issues.

by Xdes 13y ago

webXL 13y ago
The classic definition is what most people think of: socially liberal, fiscally conservative. These two ideas are coherent because they both require minimal intervention on the part of the state. But libertarians are often attacked for not supporting equal individual rights, which does require forceful intervention by a state. This dichotomy is what non-libertarians have trouble understanding. And when something is poorly understood, it is often vilified. Edit: this should have been posted under the post above, but I meant to take issue with your comment on the division on economic issues. The only division I've seen is tactical, not philosophical. Can you provide an example of a deep philosophical division?
- Xdes 13y ago
  >Can you provide an example of a deep philosophical division? The deepest divide (of American libertarianism) is probably deontological (natural rights) versus consequential (pragmatic) libertarianism. Most of the branch ideologies originate from one of the two. A good read on the subject. The Ethics of Liberty by Murray Rothbard [1]. [1] http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/ethics.asp http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/ethics.asp
  - jessaustin 13y ago
    Sorry I return to this thread a bit late. Consequentialists, at least, often advocate their position in tactical terms (read Jeff Miron for example), so I'm not sure this divide qualifies as "deep" or "philosophical". Maybe it's simply the case that consequentialists see the divide as tactical while natural-rights enthusiasts see it as deep and philosophical. A disagreement the very nature of which inspires more disagreement seems... robust. Since I have long been "socially liberal, fiscally conservative" I did for a time wonder if I were libertarian. However, enough libertarians have subsequently explained how my opposition to most military action, to drug prohibition, to immigration limits, and to financial bailouts is counter to their libertarianism that I am left confused. (I occasionally call myself anarchist but that seems to annoy "true" anarchists even more than "true" libertarians!) Thus my skepticism of libertarianism's coherence. I certainly don't intend to "vilify" anything, but up above I tried to correct what I felt to be a misrepresentation of even the amorphous understanding of libertarianism I do have. That is, it's clear to me that libertarians don't "support" all business interests without question. Any particular business might be objectionable or simply uninteresting in any number of ways.

It's a matter of libertarianism being very broad rather than incoherent. They are more divided on economic issues than social issues.

by Xdes 13y ago

It's a matter of libertarianism being very broad rather than incoherent. They are more divided on economic issues than social issues.

webXL 13y ago

The classic definition is what most people think of: socially liberal, fiscally conservative. These two ideas are coherent because they both require minimal intervention on the part of the state. But libertarians are often attacked for not supporting equal individual rights, which does require forceful intervention by a state. This dichotomy is what non-libertarians have trouble understanding. And when something is poorly understood, it is often vilified. Edit: this should have been posted under the post above, but I meant to take issue with your comment on the division on economic issues. The only division I've seen is tactical, not philosophical. Can you provide an example of a deep philosophical division?

Xdes 13y ago
>Can you provide an example of a deep philosophical division? The deepest divide (of American libertarianism) is probably deontological (natural rights) versus consequential (pragmatic) libertarianism. Most of the branch ideologies originate from one of the two. A good read on the subject. The Ethics of Liberty by Murray Rothbard [1]. [1] http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/ethics.asp http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/ethics.asp
- jessaustin 13y ago
  Sorry I return to this thread a bit late. Consequentialists, at least, often advocate their position in tactical terms (read Jeff Miron for example), so I'm not sure this divide qualifies as "deep" or "philosophical". Maybe it's simply the case that consequentialists see the divide as tactical while natural-rights enthusiasts see it as deep and philosophical. A disagreement the very nature of which inspires more disagreement seems... robust. Since I have long been "socially liberal, fiscally conservative" I did for a time wonder if I were libertarian. However, enough libertarians have subsequently explained how my opposition to most military action, to drug prohibition, to immigration limits, and to financial bailouts is counter to their libertarianism that I am left confused. (I occasionally call myself anarchist but that seems to annoy "true" anarchists even more than "true" libertarians!) Thus my skepticism of libertarianism's coherence. I certainly don't intend to "vilify" anything, but up above I tried to correct what I felt to be a misrepresentation of even the amorphous understanding of libertarianism I do have. That is, it's clear to me that libertarians don't "support" all business interests without question. Any particular business might be objectionable or simply uninteresting in any number of ways.