2 ms·

>Can you provide an example of a deep philosophical division? The deepest divide (of American libertarianism) is probably deontological (natural rights) versus

by 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.

2 ms·

>Can you provide an example of a deep philosophical division? The deepest divide (of American libertarianism) is probably deontological (natural rights) versus

by Xdes 13y ago

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.