[SueDeNîmes]

Hence Libertarianism just sounds like selishness and wingnuttery to most folks.

No, my initial reservations were the common ones and (more than) confirmed by the Libertarian literature.

Look no further than the clear and concise précis of the lit' with which you address non-Libertarian objections on this very forum.

I am flattered that you consider my random ramblings to be "Libertarian literature". But even accepting that, where in what I wrote, do you find any evidence for "selfishness"?

Libertarianism sounds, at first blush, like license for the worst excesses of greed and exploitation. The ressaurances (in the lit' you succinctly summarise) involving the free market fairy, impossible lawsuits and it's-all-govt's-fault are the wingnuttery.

How reassured are non-Libertarians ? They typically end up saying you must be talking about a different world.

No, they also extend these meanings to countless interactions with non-government bodies such as employers, landlords, money lenders etc where disparities of property and bargaining power would circumscribe the weaker parties' liberty (ie most folks' liberty) compared to interactions with democratic rules.

So when I consistently refer to voluntary cooperation as "voluntary", I am considered to have redefined the term "voluntary" when I also apply it to the contract you signed with a landlord or an employer?

Certainly if you preclude options which would afford the weaker parties (ie most folks) more liberty. Voluntarism would then just mean whatever people end up doing, from joining a bridge club to having to sell their organs. The semantic trickery is in pretending voluntarism is a black and white binary, when the reality is always a messy spectrum.

Conversely, when we can all agree that breaking down my neighbour's door and grabbing his stuff is an act of aggression, I redefine "aggression" by applying the same standard when government agents do exactly the same thing?

Certainly if it's in response to transgression or good reason to anticipate it.

I can accept that libertarians use some terms in some contexts in an unconventional way. But that is because the conventional usage is inconsistent, while the libertarian usage is strictly consistent.

No, it's because conventional usage reflects the reality that freedom always comes in degrees and with conflicting interests.

[Eran]

Libertarianism sounds, at first blush, like license for the worst excesses of greed and exploitation.

Perhaps.

We should use this forum as an opportunity to explore beyond "first blush", though.

This is an excellent opportunity to ask you to define "greed" and "exploitation", both terms so plastic and vague that they tend to stand merely for "activities the speaker disapproves of".

The ressaurances (in the lit' you succinctly summarise) involving the free market fairy, impossible lawsuits and it's-all-govt's-fault are the wingnuttery.

From my perspective, constitutional democracy (which I take to be the most popular alternative to libertarian anarchy) constitutes much more of a license for the worst excesses of greed and exploitation. While under a libertarian anarchy, all forms of aggression are prohibited, and thus people's "greed" can only be satisfied by offering products that others are interested in purchasing.

Conversely, under a constitutional democracy (and even more so under other forms of government), aggression is legitimised if it follows constitutional process. Thus those with political power are tempted, and only weakly deterred from using their power to further their own greedy ends (whether their greed is for money or raw power).

The assurances involving the democratic election fairy are the true wingnuttery.

[SueDeNîmes]

The ressaurances (in the lit' you succinctly summarise) involving the free market fairy, impossible lawsuits and it's-all-govt's-fault are the wingnuttery.

From my perspective, constitutional democracy (which I take to be the most popular alternative to libertarian anarchy) constitutes much more of a license for the worst excesses of greed and exploitation. While under a libertarian anarchy, all forms of aggression are prohibited, and thus people's "greed" can only be satisfied by offering products that others are interested in purchasing.

Conversely, under a constitutional democracy (and even more so under other forms of government), aggression is legitimised if it follows constitutional process. Thus those with political power are tempted, and only weakly deterred from using their power to further their own greedy ends (whether their greed is for money or raw power).

The assurances involving the democratic election fairy are the true wingnuttery.

Yep, see above. You are, of course, entitled to that opinion but you're not entitled to claim you have a political philosophy of liberty in contradistinction to its opposite. What you have is one among many conflicting claims, and a tiny minority one at that.

[Eran]

you're not entitled to claim you have a political philosophy of liberty in contradistinction to its opposite.

I (unlike many libertarians) don't place "liberty" in the centre.

Rather, I place peaceful cooperation.

I do claim (and invite you to explain if you think I am wrong) that my political philosophy is unique in only allowing as legitimate acts of peaceful cooperation with other people, prohibiting acts of aggression (i.e. initiation of force against another person or their peaceful projects).


As for "fairies", by their nature, they are mythical creatures, the existence of which might be believed by some, but cannot be observed or rationalised.

Is it your assertion that the operation of free markets is similarly mythical, and cannot be observed or rationalised?

[SueDeNîmes]

I (unlike many libertarians) don't place "liberty" in the centre.

Rather, I place peaceful cooperation.

I do claim (and invite you to explain if you think I am wrong) that my political philosophy is unique in only allowing as legitimate acts of peaceful cooperation with other people, prohibiting acts of aggression (i.e. initiation of force against another person or their peaceful projects).

It fails by its own definition. Hardly anyone would peacefully cooperate with it.

As for "fairies", by their nature, they are mythical creatures, the existence of which might be believed by some, but cannot be observed or rationalised.

Is it your assertion that the operation of free markets is similarly mythical, and cannot be observed or rationalised?

I'm not sure I asserted anything. I pointed out that non-Libetarians are --to say the least-- typically unconvinced by reassurances that unfettered markets would prevent the horrible outcomes they anticipate.

[Eran]

It fails by its own definition. Hardly anyone would peacefully cooperate with it.

Of course libertarianism isn't here yet.

But that hardly means it isn't a goal worth pursuing.

I pointed out that non-Libertarians are --to say the least-- typically unconvinced by reassurances that unfettered markets would prevent the horrible outcomes they anticipate.

As long as you present your point this way - I cannot argue.

Except to point out that non-abolitionists were --to say the least-- typically unconvinced by reassurances regarding prevention of the horrible outcomes they anticipated.

There was a time in which they were the unquestioned majority. That didn't make them right then, and being a majority doesn't make non-libertarians right today.

[SueDeNîmes]

True, but it does mean Libertarianism is not now or for the forseeable future a political philosophy of either liberty or peaceful cooperation.

[Eran]

Libertarianism is always the political philosophy or both liberty and peaceful cooperation.

However, libertarianism isn't, in the near future, a dominant political philosophy.

[Rothbardian]

Libertarianism is always the political philosophy or both liberty and peaceful cooperation.

However, libertarianism isn't, in the near future, a dominant political philosophy.

I read somewhere that it takes 2-3 generations for a new idea to fully develop, mostly because all the old fogies that grew up in the old paradigm have to die off first. But the process has already begun. We just won't likely live to see it.

[Rich]

To explain the point most easily, let us, as a mental exercise, imagine a Friedmanite (after Milton Friedman) government. This is a minarchist government (engaged in the protection of property rights from both domestic and foreign threats) which also engages in redistribution of property through a negative income tax or similar mechanism.

Beyond those two functions, however, the Friedmanite government does nothing. No regulations. No public provision of any services (other than property right protection).

I would argue that such government, very far, obviously, from the liberal ideal, is clearly and obviously more conducive to positive (not to mention negative) liberties than any larger government.

Less obvious (but also true) is that even the property right protection and property redistribution functions are, in practice, more harmful than helpful to positive property rights.

I would, however, like to take this discussion one step at a time. Let's first all agree that no function beyond those of the Friedmanite government described above is conducive to positive liberty.

Sorry are we talking about patent supporting corporate whore Milton Friedman? Let me put a counter proposal, that we agree to abolish patents. That's very simple. You will get the support of the left. This would be quite a simple issue to get traction on, ask House Senate and Presidential candidates to pledge to abolish patents at the first opportunity. If the United States abolished patents it would make them pretty unviable in the rest of the world.

Libertarianism is always the political philosophy or both liberty and peaceful cooperation.

However, libertarianism isn't, in the near future, a dominant political philosophy.

Libertarians is an idealistic cover for Corporate and American government corruption and bullying.

You see the suspicion is that Libertarian love government its just democracy they want to abolish. America operates more and more as a world government. Patents is one of the things that the American government is forcing down the worlds throat.

[Rothbardian]

I don't think Eran is a proponent of Friedman and neither am I. However if corporations really wanted the brand of minarchism Eran is describing, they wouldn't be constantly bank rolling government expansion. There has never been a contraction in government regulation and control, despite the expanding and all encompassing control wallstreet has over it.

[Eran]

I support neither Friedman nor patents. In fact, I am categorically opposed to all forms of Intellectual Property.

My point was to show that there is a form of government (minarchy plus transfer payments, no patents) which is obviously more conducive towards both positive and negative liberties than what we have now.

Any liberal who claims to be motivated by increasing liberties (either negative or positive) and who still supports government that goes beyond the model above, is clearly wrong.