This article originally appeared at Libertarian Gaming here.
The first thing in any argument that must be done before any actual attempts to reason with another individual is a defining of terminology that is to be used in an argument — that’s basic debate tactics. How can anyone have a rational discussion with another person if the two or more sides are using the same terms, but are talking about completely different topics? The problem is that, especially in the weaker libertarian spheres, the types of people that are transitioning to or are marginally libertarian, defining terms seems to be forbidden.
If there is an attempt to develop a concrete definition of what a libertarian is, or what a libertarian believes, that person is often labeled a purist or exclusionary for limiting what is, or can be properly called, a libertarian. There’s the Emo Phillips joke about Christian sectarianism, just with Baptist replaced with libertarian, but it really doesn’t fit the situation. Take for example, if I, a devout Pastafarian minister, were to start calling myself a Jehovah’s Witness. In this example, I don’t change my beliefs, or the expression of them to others, who might inquire as to what they are, but I just call myself a Jehovah’s Witness, nonetheless. If someone asks me, “What do Jehovah’s Witnesses believe?” I could start going on about a beer volcano, a stripper factory, and a giant floating ball of spaghetti and meatballs, then if this person encounters another actual Jehovah’s Witness and they give a totally different account, that person will likely feel that the whole religion is inconsistent and dishonest. They might think I’m a liar, or that the second person is a liar, and denounce the whole kit and caboodle.
Can you imagine how frustrating the job of the second person must be? They’re trying to win converts to their chosen ideology with potential members coming in with an idea that is wildly different than what it really is. The same is true for libertarians that are trying to convince people to accept libertarianism. It’s easier to reach people who have no idea, but are curious, than those who have some idea, but the idea that they have is completely false.
Believe me, this is by design. Often the marginally libertarian, or transitional libertarians, are not quite sold on the whole scope of the ideology themselves, and they feel that any attempt to define it will kick them out, and make them go back to their previous ideology — usually conservatism — with their tails between their legs. The crisis this is causing is wider than a few people hanging onto the fringe of what it means to be a libertarian. News media is picking up on the growing segment of libertarians in society, and sprinkling the term in where it shouldn’t be. There will references to Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Paul Ryan, and the Tea Party — none of which are actually libertarian, but have been labeled as such in an attempt to obfuscate what a libertarian actually is. Again, this is by design. All of these groups represent a dying segment of the U.S. political sphere, and the tying in of libertarians is an attempt to stymie the amazing growth of what was once, itself, considered a dying ideology.
So I’ll leave you with my definition of what a libertarian is, and I bet it’ll surprise a few in how broad it really is:
Libertarian; an individual that consistently opposes the initiation of force to achieve social or economic goals, ranging from classical liberals, to anarchists.
Clayton Hunt is a Houston, Texas Libertarian Party activist and voluntaryist Clayton Hunt at libertariangaming.org
He’s the nazi troll that has been popping up here under various names since at least 2009.
Jill: Thanks for the warning about “Wake Up”. I don’t recall ever seen his work.
Jim, Wake Up is a troll who comes around from time to time. He always says the same dumb stuff about white supremacy. Most of us ignore him, and when a writer sees his comments, we delete them.
Does anyone want to make a bet on the question of whether or not “Wake Up” is a troll?
Wake Up: You should be very careful about using the term “Final Solution”. It’s been used before.
Paulie: You said, “It’s grown in some aspects and shrunk in others. I don’t know exactly when but I expect it to be in the single to low tens of years range. Yes, really.”
Because of the recent progress made by Ethereum and Augur, I see no reason that a well-functioning AP-type system cannot be operational in less than 5 years, and more like 2 years. If you want to know how long, just look up predictions on when Augur will begin to function.
(which is sorta a funny way to look at it, because Augur itself is going to be a PREDICTION market.) Someone has said that any sufficiently well-funded prediction-market, that is allowed to predict the dates of death of sufficiently-powerful people, will automatically become an AP system.
MHW
The fact that we don’t always live up to a standard doesn’t mean we should not try.
I have to admit I am not much of a NAPster type of person. I was big on it at one time but I have been in the LP too long to accept it anymore. People talk about it and then do just the opposite. They sometime push to have a convention at a place and time that makes it difficult for others to attend or they misuse parliamentary procedures to stop others. I have seen this nonsense too often, FAR TOO OFTEN.
When it comes to taxes it is my opinion that some are less invasive than others. The income tax and corporate tax have been used to push certain political agendas. The property tax is highly abused and easily subject to corruption. The sales tax seems to me to be the least likely to be misused but not entirely. It is also the most anonymous since you do not have to list all the details about who you are, where you work and all kinds of other person info when paying it and you can sometime avoid paying it if you are smart enough and plan accordingly. So of all of them if we moved from a personal income tax to a sales tax I would find that acceptable to a point. However the bigger deal is to cut spending. We debates taxes when we are at war all over the Middle East and looking to get into one with China at any time.
It’s grown in some aspects and shrunk in others. I don’t know exactly when but I expect it to be in the single to low tens of years range. Yes, really.
The state has nothing but grown since 1946. When do you expect that trend to stop?
Oh, I don’t know. Maybe it’s sooner than you think. But in any case I don’t let it paralyze me from dealing with more immediate situations.
pf, any good lessarchist does in fact think a FEW moves ahead. 30 moves ahead after the opening first moves? Not so much. That would be delusional!
And yet that’s I submit where the Randians, Rothbardians, Longites, and other quixotic Ls stand…pondering long-term — often quite specific — goals and abstract moral configurations that stand virtually no chance of enactment in the short to intermediate term.
At the same time, we can still have standards, even though we know we will fall short of perfection and may not even know exactly what is perfection in every detail… but we know the general direction… and trying to think a few moves ahead while actually moving at the same time … as best we can.
ch: Libertarian; an individual that consistently opposes the initiation of force to achieve social or economic goals, ranging from classical liberals, to anarchists.
pf: seeking perfection and consistency is not much of an option. C’est la vie.
me: Yes.
Yes, in both directions. Some people thought they joined an ideologically principled party dedicated to the non initiation of force principle, only to be told that actually libertarianism can’t be defined, the highest principle is winning, that really the pledge is not to use force against the regime (even if it is retaliatory or defensive force) and nothing else, etc.
But, hey, perfection is not a real world thing, at least not often. Once you get into the messy turbulent real world there are all sorts of ambiguities, inconsistencies, and trade-offs, and they happen in real time so seeking perfection and consistency is not much of an option. C’est la vie.
The ambiguity leads to an intellectually dishonest bait & switch.
I actually kind of like the ambiguity. Maybe it makes some people look up and research the underlying philosophical and historical questions.
paulie wrote:
Okay, will everyone in this thread support the following resolution if I introduce it at the 2016 Libertarian national convention in Orlando?
All movements have internal dissensions and disagreements, people who are more or less consistent in those movements, and disagreements over exactly what is perfectly consistent within them and what isn’t. Yet somehow they manage to work towards change in the various directions they want.
So, I’m not a consistent Rothbardian (and given that Rothbard’s views changed over the course of his life, even he was not a “consistent Rothbardian” if you mean some unchanging and unchangeable set of positions). It doesn’t mean that nothing he wrote had any value, or that I can’t work with people who are relatively more consistent Rothbardians than I am towards common goals. For that matter I can work with commies in the peace movement or with theocrats, xenophobes and neocons to help cut red tape and taxes. We don’t always have to agree about everything, and that’s OK.
Blood oath? Has anyone been booted for violating it? Is there even agreement as to what it means? Above, Phillies is quite adamant that it means nothing of the sort.
Paulie wrote:
Let’s define something else in an equivalent way to how “libertarian” is defined in the article.
One may notice that is actually the definition of a physicist.
Suppose you are a biologist. You consider yourself a scientist because you think the definition of scientist is as follows.
Unfortunately, when you went to college in order to be accepted into a science major, you had to sign a blood oath which said “I hereby affirm that a scientist is an expert in or student of physics.” On the wall of every classroom there was inscribed in big letters “A SCIENTIST IS AN EXPERT IN OR STUDENT OF PHYSICS” When you received your Ph.D. there was a grand ceremony where you and your advisers danced around a fire naked chanting “a scientist is an expert in or student of physics”. When you got your first job in industry working for a biotech firm, a clause of your contract stated “a scientist is an expert in or student of physics”.
You notice every time you go to a conference with colleagues, they make fun at you (a biologist) as “less scientist” than Bob, who is a physicist. You try to publish your research on evolution, epigenetics, or bioengineering — but peer reviewed journals reject it because although you say you are a scientist (as you use some physics), you are “not a consistent scientist”… “real scientists” like Bob the physicist should be listened to instead. Why are you frustrated? Just accept that you are a lesser scientist. Maybe one day if you study a lot of physics and get a second Ph.D. in physics and stop talking about biology people will respect you and you’ll be allowed to do science.
By the way, there are a lot of scientists. Science is really popular! Look how much progress we are making getting people excited in science and interested in science. People are talking about chemistry, biology, oceanography, atmospheric science, etc. We physicists should be proud of that!!
Hold on! Why are you chemists, biologists, oceanographers, etc. talking. You’re not “real scientists”. Only physicists are “consistent scientists”. Biologists are “lesser scientists”. Look at the definition! You’re only a scientist if you’re a student of or expert in physics.
Conservatives are much like Rothbardians. They skip over issues where their heroes did things they dislike. Goldwater brought Planned Parenthood to Arizona. Rothbard said compulsory prayer in the public schools was the libertarian position.
Paulie wrote:
Oh, do you get told “the heart of conservatism is libertarianism” every time you discuss a position with many conservatives? Were all members of the Republican party asked to sign a blood oath reading “the heart of conservatism is libertarianism”?
One guy — even Reagan — saying something one time many decades ago is not remotely equivalent to what many anarchists in the Libertarian Party do every day.
Perfect consistency is not always necessarily a good thing. It may be, but it may not be.
The problem with this article is not in its definition. You could take “consistently opposes” to mean “opposes without exception”, but in the same sentence he clarified that libertarians “rang[e] from classical liberals to anarchists”. So we should instead take it to mean “opposes in a self-consistent and principled way” — and that indeed is a big-tent definition.
Sin is still defined. Environmental degradation is defined. Tradition is at least somewhat defined. Peace is defined. It’s possible to be more or less consistent in any of these respects, and for people who are different levels of consistent or have slightly different views of what perfectly consistent would be to work together. Nor does it mean that the terms are undefined or that those working together have to all agree that everyone working in the direction they want to move in is equally consistent.
pf: Most Christians will tell you that they are far from perfect or consistent Christians.
me: Bingo! The only “pure” Christian was JC! The rest are sinners, working off their sin through penance.
It’s sanctimonious in the extreme to proclaim oneself “pure” and the rest “impure” or “less pure.” More importantly, it’s just not true, which is the more important point. Konkin was no more “pure” than GJ or any other L, just different.
It’s been going on since the beginning of time, if not longer.
I’m sick of arguing too, and I don’t think they are incompatible. Just like when Reagan said that the heart of conservatism is libertarianism, no matter how dishonest he was being or how little he lived up to it….he did say it…and didn’t send the non-libertarian conservatives packing; so if we say that some libertarians are more consistent than others, so what? Being consistently libertarian is not everyone’s overarching and top priority. It doesn’t mean, say or imply we can’t work together. In fact the Dallas Accord explicitly says we can and should.
To take a different example, I am antiwar, but I am not the most consistently antiwar person alive. I am not literally an actual pacifist, I am OK with defensive wars and revolutions to overthrow tyrants. But in the larger public debate I am strongly of the opinion that most wars that most people think are OK should never be undertaken, that we have way too many wars and way too much militarism and far too much military spending and way too ready to go to war under flimsy excuses, etc. So does the fact that I am not perfectly consistently antiwar mean I am any less eager to work with antiwar movements and coalitions? Not at all.
Most Christians will tell you that they are far from perfect or consistent Christians. That doesn’t mean that they are any less eager to try to uphold, live up to preach that ethic or philosophy or religion. Nor does it mean that libertarianism is a religion. Neither is being antiwar, or socialist, or environmentalist, or traditionalist, etc. All of them are goals, philosophies, views people have. Most of the people who hold these views are willing to admit that they are not perfectly consistent in upholding them, and/or willing to work with other people whose ideas on what exactly it means to be perfectly consistent in these respects, to move in the general direction they agree on.
Why make simple things complicated? We will most likely never get perfection in theory no matter how much we try. If we ever do it will be through trial and error, not endless circle jerking.
If it makes anyone feel any better, this argument has been going on for a number of years. Below, please enjoy a debate between Samuel E. Konkin and Robert Poole about the definition of libertarian…from 1985.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rzg2F_nUhAQ
gp, yes, asymptotes don’t quite get “there,” i.e., statelessness. Conceivably, were the state to wither away into a nightwatchman state, I’m open to the possibility that crossing that tiny gap MIGHT be indicated.
I’ll be pushing up daisies long before that day arrives, so I’ll leave that decision to the future.
Him: Excellent amplification on theoretical asymptotic anarchism, Counselor.
It is theory. It may or may not be asymptotic(meaning that you never get there). It in my opinion as a Hayekian Libertarian will not be anarchist.
paulie wrote:
I agree.
The original post was about the definition of “libertarian” though. It included a definition that either classifies a lot of people I consider libertarians as not libertarians OR classifies a lot of people I consider libertarians as “not consistent libertarians”, “less libertarian”, “less pure” (pick your phrase) — depending on how that definition is interpreted. I have not yet heard anyone who advocates for the definition of “libertarian” in the article disagree that it does one of those 2 things to people who, for example, want to reduce taxes by 90%.
THIS IS A PROBLEM.
It leads to constant bickering among libertarians. When people like me point out the problem, others try to semantically argue that it’s not a problem, then when they fail to muster any defense they claim we shouldn’t talk about it, hand waving “can’t we all just get along?” But 1 day, 1 week, 1 month later (etc.) I hear those same people say someone isn’t a libertarian or is less libertarian for having a position that I fully consider to be libertarian, and/or we both hear someone else say those things and they stand idly by… because it is the inevitable conclusion of their failed definition.
These two things are completely incompatible:
1) supporting the definition of “libertarian” in the article
2) supporting a “big tent” Libertarian Party and libertarian movement where all sorts of libertarians work together to move the world in a libertarian direction without arguing all the time about the destination and being total assholes to each other
You get to pick only one of those two things.
This is not a false dichotomy. This is the reality of the definition and human nature.
There are problems in both directions. I’m just as sympathetic to a) Marc Montoni’s frustration being told to leave the party as an anarchist, as b) Brian Holtz’s frustration being told to leave the party as a supporter of a land value tax.
The latter is a direct result of the definition. The former is an indirect result of the definition: I’ve seen moderates constantly nitpicked about their libertarianism, and they have a tendency to lash out at what they see as the embodiment of that venom, which is whoever they perceive as the most definitionally “pure”. They figure maybe if no one “pure” is around, maybe others will stop bothering them about their “imperfections”.
It’s human nature to form clans with others similar to you. When moderates are nitpicked (called “un-libertarian” or “less libertarian”) they join together with others similarly maligned to commiserate. Then people in those clans protect one another by lashing out at those not in the clan. Somehow the radicals who join the LP seem to become allies with other radicals very quickly and they look to their friends for cues on party governance minutia completely orthogonal to ideology. Similarly, the moderates who join the LP seem to become allies with other moderates very quickly and they look to their friends for cues on party governance minutia completely orthogonal to ideology. There are exceptions of course, but that’s the trend. I see it every state in which I become involved. Here in Virginia I see the people out to get Marc. They’re all moderates and all new moderates seem to join that clique expeditiously.
I’m sick of all the arguing. The arguing is built into the foundation of the party and the movement through the definition of “libertarian”.
I don’t think we really need to be able to answer now. Let freedom grow, let freedom flow and see where it leads us. What’s wrong with that?
ns: What the practical maximum for individual freedom is is a question that we are not far enough along in the libertarian project to answer with any authority.
me: Excellent amplification on theoretical asymptotic anarchism, Counselor.
L: I’m curious whether we need a moderate amount of rape, or a moderate amount of slavery, and so forth?
me: No, neither are moderate, both are extreme, in my judgment. Surely you agree!
bh: Chuck, I’m sympathetic to your big-tent goal here, but when you explicitly define “libertarian” as a direction, you invite ordinal (and even cardinal) comparisons of how far a person or policy would move us in that direction.
me: On one level I see this. If there’s a 25% chance that government at all levels could be reduced by 5%, and a 1 trillion:1 chance of reducing it 100% overnight, the calculation looks quite a bit different, at least to me in my judgment. When one adds in the consideration of which outcome — if achievable — enhances domestic tranquility, again in my judgment abolition appears highly unattractive.
Moderate/possible/peaceful vs. extreme/all but impossible/profoundly disruptive risking civilization itself seems like a no-brainer to me.
Trying to curb my responditis here.
As I said, refer to past discussions, much better examples abound.
There are both deontological and utilitarian paths to libertarianism.
People on both paths are libertarian, but they will disagree when we get to edge conditions, e.g. evictionism, the step from minimal to no taxation, privatization of powers traditionally held by government like law enforcement, courts, and national defense, etc.
When we get to that edge, the deontological libertarian is going to value non-aggression over all other values and support eliminating all government courts. The utilitarian libertarian is going to weigh the non-aggression maximizing solution (eliminating all taxes that support government courts and the government courts themselves) against the status quo and may decide that the non-aggression maximizing solution will increase human suffering and thus it would be better to keep the status quo.
Let justice be done, though the heavens fall, is a beautiful rallying cry as long as one is not going to be struck and killed by falling pieces of heaven.
I personally define libertarianism as maximizing individual freedom. What the practical maximum for individual freedom is is a question that we are not far enough along in the libertarian project to answer with any authority.
Paulie & langa have echoed my sentiments about this whole thread very well.
However, spending hours attempting to reason with some of the above individuals who would simply dismiss any such effort with little more than arrogant hand-waving is not my idea of a good use of time.
Twice this weekend, I was told that anarchists have no place in the LP. One of the two individuals said it was time for me to leave.
Another person said something very similar, albeit obliquely, during an LP meeting this past weekend. I was sending that person a weekly donation for his campaign — a weekly donation that was just discontinued as of today.
As for Mr Phillies, given his track record of manipulation and outright fictional stories over the past twenty years, I have little sympathy for him leaving a Facebook group over the juvenile behavior of anyone else.
Ironically, I was actually in 100% support of Mr Phillies’ position regarding the behavior of Mr Arquiste, and I said so.
Yes, fair. The Unabomber’s shed could be viewed as a Nonarchic state:
https://www.google.com/search?q=unabomber+shed+pics&rlz=1CAACAG_enUS593US593&espv=2&biw=1242&bih=575&tbm=isch&imgil=tVb0Vb_sWaCmTM%253A%253Byg_2OkPiLplQTM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fkk.org%25252Fthetechnium%25252Fthe-unabomber-w%25252F&source=iu&pf=m&fir=tVb0Vb_sWaCmTM%253A%252Cyg_2OkPiLplQTM%252C_&usg=__lw5Db9SIWthosmgpkEFR9AjamCs%3D&ved=0CDAQyjdqFQoTCLHk6bqgm8gCFYWODQodYY8HzA&ei=Af8JVvHfNYWdNuGenuAM#imgrc=tVb0Vb_sWaCmTM%3A&usg=__lw5Db9SIWthosmgpkEFR9AjamCs%3D
I disagree about either being untried. See past discussions for lots of details on that, as this one is eating up more time than it deserves, from my personal standpoint.
Sorry, PF. 32 would be minarchy or perhaps the nightwatchman state. 33 would be anarchy/statelessness. (I just LOVE the sound of AndyLand!)
Luckily, #32 wasn’t on the menu anywhere in this thread, and #33 was never mentioned by anyone except you in this thread (and maybe someone responding to you but I’d have to scroll and I don’t feel like it).
Baskin Robbins has 31 flavors, but no one has tasted #32 and 33. We can’t tell which one we prefer.
cah: I start with negative rights and the supremacy of the individual and the idea that libertarianism is a political philosophy that defends the rights of the individual over the collective and has liberty as its highest political goal.
me: That may well be working for you, but it’s not radical enough for me! Why are individuals supreme? Why do you want to defend individual rights over the collective? Just because?
Liberty is easily obtained. There are many areas on the Earth where anyone could go and be un-hassled by a state. 100%.
If pressed, I’d suggest that a goal that many — if not most — want is a peaceful existence within a civil society. My sense is that maximizing individual liberty stands the best chance of approaching that ideal.
Baskin Robbins has 31 flavors, so it’s important that we compare the merits of chocolate and vanilla, since those are our only two choices.
pf: False dichotomy, if you meant to relate it to my point that you were supposedly responding to within your comment.
me: I did and do. Can you have a “true dichotomy” when dealing with 2 highly speculative concepts? One the optimized tax-level civil society where there are only baseline peacekeeping institutions, the other the non-existent stateless society, such as AndyLand?
Somehow I don’t see the LP or the libertarian movement as chasing non-anarchists away. Seems that if anything we have the opposite problem.
Incidentally, or not, Ronald Reagan said that the heart of conservatism is libertarianism. Maybe if we were not chasing all those non-anarchists out of the party and movement we could have more Reagan conservatives calling themselves (L)ibertarians. Wouldn’t that be awesome? Especially if they could help us redefine libertarianism. That would be so cool.
I have to wonder though, when Reagan said that (he did say it… mean it, or practice it, well, maybe not), was he chasing away all the conservatives who are not libertarians, by saying they are not as conservative as the libertarians, or some kind of second class citizens? I think we can all see the results by looking at the Republican Party and conservative movement today; nothing but libertarians left, all the conservatives chased off to eat their guns or go pray quietly in their closets. I guess though with the libertarians having so thoroughly taken over the GOP and the conservative movement, it has created a vacuum in the LP and the libertarian movement, allowing a bunch of anarchists to push out the few remaining libertarians.
Wouldn’t it be great if we could take the LP and the libertarian movement back from these anarchists and give it back to the kind of libertarians who form the heart of Reagan conservatism and run the GOP? Then we could unify both parties and beat those evil Democrats!
I know that’s not what Chuck meant, but hey, if saying that anarchists are the most consistent libertarians means that all other kinds of libertarians can’t work with us, then Reagan saying that libertarianism is the heart of conservatism must have made all the other non-libertarian conservatives run away in tears and anger that they are not at the heart of conservatism.
Langa, we disagree on definitions.
I think your definition is ridiculous and I’ve already outlined why: namely you are taking the definition of something (anarchism) and applying it to a completely different word (libertarian), then you are using your definition to beat the head of any libertarian who isn’t an anarchist saying they are “less libertarian”. That leads to a fractured, bickering movement that spends all its time whipping them out comparing sizes while it chases lots of people away who should be with us.
Your argument against my definition is that you don’t agree with me. You’ve provided no evidence that your definition better encompasses the universe of libertarians (on the contrary, your definition excludes huge numbers of people most consider to be libertarians). You do nothing but repeatedly say you don’t understand the logic even though I am being perfectly clear. The one coherent criticism you seem to have is that under my definition libertarians can’t whip them out and compare sizes and libertarians won’t be able to bicker about who is purest… I consider that a feature, not a bug.
A triangle is a 3 sided polygon. An equilateral triangle is not “more triangle” than an isosceles triangle — they are both just triangles. The definition of libertarian should be the same way.
If libertarians are going to argue about policies, I want them to argue about which of several competing policies will make the world a better place. I don’t want libertarians to argue about which policy conforms most with the 1st NAP commandment handed down to the founder of our religion David Nolan who heard it directly from our lord Rothbard’s lips next to the burning bush.
Anarchism happens to give the best policy outcomes. When libertarians use the crutch of God’s word rather than explaining the actual benefits of liberty, we lose in the public debate. When libertarians use the crutch of God’s word, we also chase away many people who agree with the policies we advocate but (understandably) think we’re a crazy cult.
The whole point is that the non-aggression principle does not define libertarianism, it defines anarchy.
Increasing government is not libertarian. Decreasing government is libertarian.
No. Libertarians (even minarchists) oppose aggression, regardless of whether it is committed by the state, or by someone else. Heck, the whole reason minarchists insist that we need a state is to protect us from aggression by non-state actors!
Simply put, the defining characteristic of libertarianism is opposing aggression. The more you oppose aggression, the more libertarian you are. The more you support aggression, the less libertarian you are.
A 100% cut in taxes is not “more libertarian” than a 50% cut in taxes. Both are libertarian because both shrink government and increase freedom.
This binary, either/or, pregnant-or-not approach is absolutely baffling. Does this hold true for other things, too? For example, in your mind, if Person A has only told one lie in his entire life, while Person B tells hundreds of lies every day, are those two people equally truthful?
The notion that the anarchist position is “more libertarian” than other libertarian positions is ridiculous and condescending.
It doesn’t matter whether it’s “condescending” or not. What matters is whether it’s true or not. If hearing the truth hurts someone’s feelings, that’s their problem. The truth does not cease to be the truth simply because it is unpleasant for some people to hear it.
If a little vitamin … is good for you, think how much better a lot would be. Several of them are poisonous in high doses.
I’m not sure what the point of this analogy is, unless you are advancing the old “moderation in all things” cliche, in which case I’m curious whether we need a moderate amount of rape, or a moderate amount of slavery, and so forth?
Taxes do not happen in isolation. If the overall tax burden were to be (somehow!) cut 50 or 100%, but spending were to be increased by 50 or 100%, I’m not sure that liberty has been increased. In some ways, without the visibility of taxation tied to spending, the cost of government is simply shifted, not cut.
That’s an excellent point, RC. (Miracles never cease! ;))
Throughout this discussion, when I have talked about tax cuts, I have been assuming that they would be accompanied by commensurate cuts in spending. I agree with you that cutting taxes without cutting spending is, at best, a waste of time.
Is wanting to cut the income tax by 90% more libertarian than wanting to cut it by 80%?
False dichotomy, if you meant to relate it to my point that you were supposedly responding to within your comment.
Chuck, I’m sympathetic to your big-tent goal here, but when you explicitly define “libertarian” as a direction, you invite ordinal (and even cardinal) comparisons of how far a person or policy would move us in that direction.
The big-tent cause doesn’t require denying (or discouraging) comparisons of progress northward through Nolan space. It just requires recognition that there isn’t a single path north, and that we can push north together without agreeing on the location/importance/immutability of the various north poles: geographic, magnetic, celestial, etc.
langa wrote:
The whole point is that the non-aggression principle does not define libertarianism, it defines anarchy.
Increasing government is not libertarian. Decreasing government is libertarian.
langa wrote:
No, that’s ridiculous. Both are libertarian. Neither is more libertarian than the other. One policy may be more radical than the other or a better policy than the other, but that doesn’t make it more libertarian.
An equilateral triangle is not “more triangle” than an isosceles triangle. Both are simply triangles because both are 3 sided polygons. A 100% cut in taxes is not “more libertarian” than a 50% cut in taxes. Both are libertarian because both shrink government and increase freedom.
langa wrote:
No. It’s not more libertarian. It’s anarchist. The notion that the anarchist position is “more libertarian” than other libertarian positions is ridiculous and condescending. It defines libertarianism in terms of anarchy and makes non-anarchists second class libertarians.
langa wrote:
There is no threshold. A 1 cent tax cut is a libertarian position, as is complete elimination of the tax. You and I can favor one position over the other, but thinking one policy is better than another doesn’t make it “more libertarian”.
” Otherwise, surely you would agree that cutting taxes by 50% would be a more libertarian position than cutting taxes by 5%. And if so, then it logically follows that cutting taxes by 100% would be the most libertarian position on taxes.”
If a little vitamin … is good for you, think how much better a lot would be. Several of them are poisonous in high doses.
There are more than one kind of “tax”, and some of them are arguably not aggression.
L: Otherwise, surely you would agree that cutting taxes by 50% would be a more libertarian position than cutting taxes by 5%. And if so, then it logically follows that cutting taxes by 100% would be the most libertarian position on taxes.
me: Consider how this oversimplifies. Taxes do not happen in isolation. If the overall tax burden were to be (somehow!) cut 50 or 100%, but spending were to be increased by 50 or 100%, I’m not sure that liberty has been increased. In some ways, without the visibility of taxation tied to spending, the cost of government is simply shifted, not cut.
Surely you see this!
Brian Holtz wrote:
No, I’m not suggesting that.
What I’ve said is on individual issues (e.g., taxation) a position is libertarian or not with no degrees.
This position seems highly illogical, unless you are somehow claiming there is no libertarian position on taxation, period (i.e. that even a massive tax increase would be perfectly consistent with the NAP). Otherwise, surely you would agree that cutting taxes by 50% would be a more libertarian position than cutting taxes by 5%. And if so, then it logically follows that cutting taxes by 100% would be the most libertarian position on taxes. If not, there must be some “magic” threshold at which further tax cuts no longer matter. Where is that threshold, and what makes it so special?
As for having an inclusive, “big tent” LP, I’m all for that — but not if it means pandering, by just telling people the things they want to hear, no matter how false or illogical those things might be. That’s what the two major parties do. As the Party of Principle, the LP is supposed to be better than that.
Chuck, I hope you’re not suggesting there is only one way to be a “consistent” libertarian, as that would be just as condescending as reserving the “libertarian” label for those who meet some litmus test of consistency.
There are more schools of libertarianism than just anarchism and minarchism. I describe several of them here, and I can imagine how each school could be considered self-consistent. (One of those schools even offers a way to finance government without aggression.)
In addition to the differences among these schools, there are a couple dozen free variables in libertarian theory that no simplistic bumper-sticker-sized theory (I’m looking at you, “NAP”) can pin down.
The Advocates for Self-Government have a lot of great (and a few not-so-great) definitions of libertarianism here.
L: So, if someone proposes to reduce taxes by a penny a year, that makes them a libertarian in your mind?
me: Possibly. It depends on the totality of the package being suggested. I might view someone as L who proposed *increased* taxes coupled with a systematic plan to cut spending, for ex. If the plan thoughtfully put the country on an asymptotic path toward zero, I’d think that person was a great strategist, deserving praise and support.
I don’t think the penny-less plan is an especially good idea, though, just as I don’t think the FAIR tax is a good idea, on balance, though I do think it has its pluses, in concept. I look at the totality of what someone offers, and make an assessment as to whether it’s lessarchistic or not. If it’s not, then I would not support the overall plan.
A wisely put together lessarchistic package is likely to get my enthusiastic support. An abolitionist package (the button push) would not, as I’d consider it unwise. A mixed package, like GJ offered in ’12, got my lukewarm support and vote.
I have never said someone is a libertarian or he isn’t with no degrees.
What I’ve said is on individual issues (e.g., taxation) a position is libertarian or not with no degrees. When you aggregate views on many issues — some of which may be libertarian views and some not — there are different degrees of adherence to libertarianism.
I reject the notion that wanting to eliminate the income tax is more libertarian than wanting to cut the income tax by 90%. When you take that view, you turn the definition of libertarian into a religious cult that exalts anarchists and condescendingly mocks minarchists as inconsistent, impure, or un-libertarian. That’s terrible marketing, intellectually dishonest (to the extent that anarchists claim libertarianism has broad public support, then turn around and claim 99% of those libertarians aren’t “consistent libertarians” — by which they mean anarchists), and not a good way to build a political movement.
I am an anarchist myself. I just want the Libertarian Party and the libertarian movement to be bigger than only anarchists, so I hope we stop treating non-anarchist libertarians like poor, confused, ignorant children in our definitions and messaging.
Words have MANY meanings. Sometimes those multiple meanings change. Sometimes the meaning shifts, depending on the context.
Just because the meanings of words aren’t carved in stone, that doesn’t mean you can simply ignore them, and define words in any bizarre way you choose, at least not if you want people to take you seriously. Most people (myself included) have no time for semantic games.
No, there is no threshold, at least for me. I’d say someone is L if they GENERALLY desire to see the government rolled back. What strategy they advocate in the short term is generally OK with me. If they advocate some things that might increase, say, the tax burden of some as part of strategy to roll back the state overall, I am not going to kick him or her out of the L tent.
So, if someone proposes to reduce taxes by a penny a year, that makes them a libertarian in your mind? This just demonstrates what I’ve often said, that your “definition” of libertarianism makes the concept absolutely meaningless.
More importantly, why do you feel the need to have a codified threshold? What the advantage that you perceive that it gives you?
I don’t. I’ve said repeatedly (including on this thread) that I view libertarianism as a continuum. My question about thresholds was addressed to those, like Moulton and Phillies, who claim that someone either is a libertarian, or they are not, and there are no degrees. That’s not my view.
pf: Interesting theory. I think taxes have done far more of the opposite, but YMMV.
me: I’m talking about taxes to pay for baseline peacekeeping mechanisms. It’s hard to say whether an optimized level of taxes would keep the peace better than an AndyLand regime might, since we don’t have good observations of the first, and the second has yet to be tested at all.
Myself, I’m rooting for Andy. I hope he pulls it off! It might be Shangri La!
Caryn – exactly!
Paulie some excellent questions and points.
To all, there always comes a point for me in these discussions where I just view them as ongoing, surely to be picked up in another discussion. When unsupported things like “religious cult” and the like can thrown out, I go, “Okay have a good time with that” and generally disengage. Debating it in person is far more fruitful after I have put my thoughts down. Oddly George seems to be thinking I was quoting the Pledge, but I wasn’t. I am aware of his …. dogmatic assertion against some sound logic and context that it only means we won’t violently overthrow the government (as if the words themselves mean nothing—Starchild unpacked this quite neatly)… I was quoting from the Platform. I could quote from the SoP. The NAP is woven throughout the entire thing. Arguments can be historically made of various “flavours” of libertarianism in the past (yes, I think they were inconsistent), but since George appealed to the LP, that is one strand that is pretty clear has as its foundation the NAP as the standard for libertarian consistency. I don’t appeal to the LP, though it pretty firmly declares what I hold. I don’t get worked up in a lather over the monopoly of force issue. I agree with Paulie… when the dam break lose, it will likely take care of itself. If we could get to actual minarchy, I would be pretty happy.
As far as it “working”- that is a different question from what it “is.” And if due to present circumstances we must pragmatically accept compromises, I am fine with that… but that is what they are.
I don’t derive it from “so and so” said so. I start with negative rights and the supremacy of the individual and the idea that libertarianism is a political philosophy that defends the rights of the individual over the collective and has liberty as its highest political goal. The highest individual liberty is the absence of the violation of negative rights. Thus, on an individual level, an opposition to the initiation of force against their negative rights with the concurrent denial of positive rights is the most consistent form of libertarianism. When we pull out our focus from the individual to larger groups (or as George says…. other constraints) we are adding something in addition to our libertarianism that may weaken it or may simply add other elements as libertarianism isn’t and doesn’t pretend to be a complete ethical system merely one that deals with the justified use of force, and it is never initiatory. Now I personally have come to the conclusion that the non-initiation of force is the ultimate side-constraint (ala Nozick) and that the others are constrained by THAT… but that is not the only way to be a libertarian.
The obsession and worrying over “consistency” being some kind of badge of honour is alien to me, and I can’t help how people are internalizing that. When one brings other values to the table other than libertarianism, one may morally determine that absolute libertarian consistency isn’t the most completely moral… and that is for each person to come to— that has nothing to do with definitions. But “consistency” in isolation isn’t the only factor in life and views. I happen to believe that consistent libertarianism IS the most moral, but at one time I did not, and added other values. I was still a libertarian, but happily identified as a “moderate” one. That designation didn’t last long, but I felt no degradation.
Nowhere in here did I say “so and so” said anything which is why I believe it. I never had. And as langa picked up on this isn’t about the state or taxation ultimately. It is about the same underpinnings in which nearly all here would agree that the consistent libertarian position si the complete legalization of drugs and completely allowance of any voluntary sexual arrangement between consenting adults. The same philosophy flows through. The absolute right of self-ownership which is the corollary to the non-initiation of force against that ownership.
Over the past few weeks though I have had some moments of motivation and clarity on for the foreseeable future how to allocate my time that isn’t spent posting articles and the other items I have volunteered for …. and my commitment to the LP has grown. These discussions are fruitful up to a point, but I will not let them dominate my time and attention to the exclusion of others. My husband and I right now are pursuing the idea of helping to get a County Affiliate started in our area, and that is going to be my primary focus unless that proves to be an insurmountable task, and then I will find something else… perhaps helping a local candidate. Putting an hour or more a day into debating is not going to be– at least I hope not. The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.
Peace. (…. just to be a noodge…. peace, love and anarchy)
Wow, imagine how nice it would be if we had those things?
Interesting theory. I think taxes have done far more of the opposite, but YMMV.
Some alcoholics and addicts could not just experience extreme discomfort but actually die from going cold turkey. They can also die from not quitting. It’s a serious situation and requires careful defusing. So it is with our society and its addiction to force based solutions as well.
Au contraire. Adherence to principle is neither appeal to authority nor religious cultism, and it is not about who said what.
It appears that not everyone agrees what liberty is, much less how to get it, or even that it (or, for some people, anything at all) can be defined at all.
The sentence doesn’t prove it, it just says that we believe in this principle. It doesn’t tell us how we get there.
Me too. Unfortunately, once we as a society accept initiation of force as acceptable, any and all of them can be taken away in the service of social and political goals, or just because “might makes right.” Our goal should be to make the initiation of force unacceptable, so that it becomes impossible to ever take away our natural rights and liberties as self-sovereign human beings or “moral agents.”
Thanks for clearing that up. Still curious as to the other questions.
” Our party is not a religious cult.
Who said that it is or should be? ”
Most of the NAPsters. Libertarianism is supposed to be about liberty and how to get as much of it as possible, given other constraints. The NAPsters are claiming that a particular sentence does this, so I am inviting them to prove it. Mind you, claiming “that’s how I define liberty” is not interesting, as I am more interested in things like freedom of the press, assembly, speech, religion etc.
” I noticed you left the LP Radicals discussion on FB; my first guess was it was due to juvenile behavior and personal insults by “Anne Arquiste”,” You got that one right.
pf: Taxes are an initiation of force in the advancement of social and political goals,
me: On one level, yes. On another, not so much. Without baseline peacekeeping mechanisms and a semblance of domestic tranquility, what we have is — in effect — a jungle, where there is no property and no rights. Property and rights arise along with these peacekeeping institutions, which need to be funded SOMEHOW.
Thus far, the only means that’s been employed to fund these institutions are taxes.
ATC, taxes above funding the baseline could be considered, in theory, IOF.
Even then, though, there is the context of the times. Currently, tens of millions receive SS benefits, which at this point is a function of domestic tranquility, as so many have paid so much for so long and whose very survival depend on those benefits. If we accept that characterization, then removal of those taxes and benefits unacceptably disturbs domestic tranquility. Therefore, characterizing FICA as IOF is at best a useless, simplistic construct.
Was SS a good idea when enacted? I’d say no. Should create ways be instituted to wind it down? I’d say yes. Should it be abolished tomorrow? I’d say no, nor could it be.
Who said that it is or should be?
Who are you asking? And the same question could be asked of you or anyone else.
A) It takes a lot more than that to be a religious cult.
B) Please quote who in this discussion (besides, possibly, you, regarding the sole authority of David Nolan regarding the meaning of the pledge) has made an argument based on “so-and-so said so.”
C) Despite your rather bizarre apparent claim in the face of thousands of years of history that there is no libertarian movement outside the LP and that the two are one and the same, the article we are commenting on itself is not really about the LP at all, although the ovelap between the LP and the movement/philosophy is why it is relevant to IPR at all.
Taxes are an initiation of force in the advancement of social and political goals, unless you come up with some logical twists as to why the threat of force which makes taxes mandatory is responsive, self-defensive or preventing an imminent threat of force. I realize minarchists do come up with such logical twists, so they at least try to conform their thought with basic libertarian principle, unlike those who reject it outright but still for some odd reason want to claim the word. But then so do a lot of other people, from anarcho-syndicalists to David Duke to Bill Clinton to Jeb Bush to tea party conservatives. How do we determine which of them are libertarian and which are not, or which ones are more libertarian or less libertarian than the others, or do any of them get to be “libertarian” by plunking down 25 bucks and/or signing that they will not start a violent revolution or engage in terrorism?
I am guessing that probably needs more unpacking for most readers. I’ll leave it up to you as to whether you wish to provide it.
I’m wondering, though, whether this all (the various things you said in this thread) represents a new evolution in your thought or long standing views? If the latter, were you keeping them under wraps to some extent until now? If the former, what has caused or is causing the change? I noticed you left the LP Radicals discussion on FB; my first guess was it was due to juvenile behavior and personal insults by “Anne Arquiste”, or was it due to this more serious philosophical evolution, or are the two related? Straw that broke the camel’s back? Just curious.
Our party is not a religious cult. What is your basis for claiming that your definition of libertarianism works? “So-and-so said so” means that you are supporting our party becoming a religious cult. This is a less serious question if you stand with David Nolan and believe that the oath is a promise not to blow tings up. It is more serious if you think it says something about taxes, and even more serious than that if you believe you should advance by “deriving” consequences from a short statement. Of course, definitions also have the regress problem, given words like initiate force and political.
langa: the obvious question seems to be whether there is any threshold at which taxation is not compatible with libertarianism.
me: No, there is no threshold, at least for me. I’d say someone is L if they GENERALLY desire to see the government rolled back. What strategy they advocate in the short term is generally OK with me. If they advocate some things that might increase, say, the tax burden of some as part of strategy to roll back the state overall, I am not going to kick him or her out of the L tent.
I may well disagree with parts of the strategy, e.g., GJ’s advocacy of the FAIR tax.
I do reserve the right to view some aspects of a person’s individual positions so offensive to my sense of equity and good judgment that I would not view the person to be a L. David Duke, for ex., once proclaimed himself L. He’s not in my tent, as he’s a racist.
Then there are Ls whom I would (grudgingly) say are Ls, but I would not support. I would not give a dime to the Mises Institute, for ex., given their revisionism, which I believe hurts the cause of liberty.
More importantly, why do you feel the need to have a codified threshold? What the advantage that you perceive that it gives you?
Langa: a transparent attempt to divorce libertarianism from the NAP (although Capozzi is the only one willing to admit to that).
me: Not quite correct. Some may have THOUGHT they were married. It turns out, though, that they never were. Who was the authority that married L-ism and the NAP?
L: Words have meanings. If minarchists want to be more libertarian, they should stop advocating aggression.
me: Last I checked, false. Words have MANY meanings. Sometimes those multiple meanings change. Sometimes the meaning shifts, depending on the context.
As for being “more L,” I can’t recall: Would you press the anarchy button, abolishing the state? If not, you are a minarchist.
For those who are claiming that supporting taxation is perfectly compatible with libertarianism, and that such support does not make one any less libertarian, the obvious question seems to be whether there is any threshold at which taxation is not compatible with libertarianism. For example, if someone advocated cutting each person’s tax burden by only $0.01 per year, would that be enough to make them less of a libertarian? What about $1 a year? Or $1,000 a year?
What if they wanted to significantly reduce the overall amount of taxation, while significantly increasing the tax burden on a small group of people? What if they wanted to impose taxes arbitrarily, say by race, or sexual orientation, or perhaps by drawing Social Security numbers out of a hat? As long as they still claimed “minarchy” as their goal, would these things make them any less libertarian, or not?
And why limit it to taxation? What if they wanted to reduce, but not eliminate, murder? What if they wanted to reduce, but not eliminate, rape? Or, as someone (Caryn, I believe) asked earlier (and never received an answer), what if they wanted to legalize marijuana, but not any other drugs? Would any of those positions make them less libertarian? And, if so, would it be “condescending” to point that out?
The accord just says that we will co-exist in the party, work together for a common goal, and not try to make the party explicitly minarchist or explicitly anarchist or try to purge one side or the other. It doesn’t say I have to believe your philosophy is as libertarian as mine, nor does it say that you have to think my views are as libertarian as yours.
Correct.
Anarchist libertarians don’t necessarily all follow Rothbard, much less slavishly follow all of his many esoteric twists and turns geared towards making alliances with the left or right at various points in his life; even if someone wanted to, and I have no idea why anyone would, it would be impossible to hold all the ideas he had at different stages of his life, some of which contradicted those he held at other stages, all at the same time.
Also correct.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#History
EXACTLY Paulie on all counts.
One thing I am is this. Dallas Accord affirmer no matter who believe it was broken. It is our best hope for future productive political success.
The fact that the pledge is repeated in the platform and SoP is further obvious proof.
“First” is superfluous.
Relevance? Anarchist libertarians don’t necessarily all follow Rothbard, much less slavishly follow all of his many esoteric twists and turns geared towards making alliances with the left or right at various points in his life; even if someone wanted to, and I have no idea why anyone would, it would be impossible to hold all the ideas he had at different stages of his life, some of which contradicted those he held at other stages, all at the same time.
Why not? The accord just says that we will co-exist in the party, work together for a common goal, and not try to make the party explicitly minarchist or explicitly anarchist or try to purge one side or the other. It doesn’t say I have to believe your philosophy is as libertarian as mine, nor does it say that you have to think my views are as libertarian as yours.
As pointed out on past threads, it’s extremely unlikely that the LP pledge was worded the way it was for no reason other than to reassure the regime that we are not terrorists, regardless of what Nolan may have said in his later years. The early LP emerged from a milieu of Randian and Rothbardian thought in which similar formulations of the non-aggression principle already existed. It seems hard to believe that the wording being what it is would be a pure coincidence.
The position being espoused here by Moulton, Phillies and Capozzi is a transparent attempt to divorce libertarianism from the NAP (although Capozzi is the only one willing to admit to that).
Their argument essentially boils down to the nihilistic claim that words have no meanings. “Oh, can’t you see how condescending it is to say that advocating aggression makes someone less of a libertarian?” Give me a break. What’s next? “Oh, can’t you see how condescending it is to say that having sex makes someone less of a virgin?”
Words have meanings. If minarchists want to be more libertarian, they should stop advocating aggression. If you’re a minarchist and that simple truth hurts your feelings, well, too bad. As I mentioned on another thread recently, there’s no shame in speaking obvious truths.
Libertarianism and the non-aggression principle were around hundreds (probably thousands) of years before the LP. It’s beyond silly to claim that the two are one and the same. The overwhelming vast majority of libertarians have nothing to do with the LP whatsoever.
I don’t conflate morality with justified use of force in every case.. but okay. My position on this is consistent with the Platform… and you are the one who conflate libertarian with “Libertarian Party.”
Simply hurling out “theology” is a nice invalid rhetorical device but little else. It is my philosophical position yes. But my theological positions are conservative Christian. What I would find “moral” in my theology is much more restrictive than what I would find acceptable to use force against.
But it makes a nice fallacious rhetorical flourish I grant you that.
“most consistent” In my opinion, your theological position that ” most consistent” indicates moral virtue is lacking in merit.
Chuck,
==It exalts anarchists as the purest libertarians===
Exalt is a wrong word unless one’s goal is to be pure as possible. But anarchists are the most consistent. It simply is.
== and is condescending to libertarians who are not anarchists.==
Only if they are concerned about “purity” in which case they should become anarchists.
I am sure we shall argue/discuss this more in the future. But I am pretty satisfied with both my and Clayton’s defenses here.
I would note this (if we are going to use the LP as the definition of Libertarianism… which of course it is of big “L” but not little “l”):
“No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government.”
One can argue that taxation is not the initiation of force, in which case we would be arguing about taxation and not the essentials of libertarianism.
Absolute opposition to initiation of force is the standard. We may quibble on the definitions and boundaries of force, but the definition remains.
Jf it is impossible, I can accept that for pragmatic reasons. But I don’t justify it on philosophical grounds. And with the mindset of people today it likely is impossible. In the future as we progress, maybe not.
Since you are indeed a fellow libertarian and Libertarian (anarchist even) it perturbs me not if we don’t agree. I find it at this point pretty trivial in light of our shared political goals and the state of the world today.
Robert Capozzi wrote:
Exactly.
Robert Capozzi wrote:
Exactly. On individual issues, they seem to be saying either the “only” libertarian position or the “most” libertarian position is the anarchist position. I completely disagree.
That’s like looking at a bunch of triangles and saying an equilateral triangle is the “most consistent triangle” of them all. A triangle is a 3 sided polygon. An isosceles triangle is not “more triangle” than triangles with 3 different sized sides. An equilateral triangle is not “more triangle” than isosceles triangles.
When your definition of “libertarian” makes it so anarchists are “more libertarian” than minarchists, it’s a flawed definition. All the hand-waving in the world doesn’t change that.
Wanting to substantially lower taxes is a libertarian position. Eliminating taxes is not “more libertarian”. The given definition of “libertarian” in the article and defended by Caryn is not a good definition. It exalts anarchists as the purest libertarians and is condescending to libertarians who are not anarchists.
No responses. Just hand waves. Disappointing.
more…
Even if CH, CAH, and Langa are willing to apply the L label to minor deviationists, they all seem more than willing to implicitly establish a hierarchy of Ls…s/he who violates the NAP the least is the most “pure” L.
The more radical questions are: Why is the NAP the standard? Who says it is, and by what authority do they have to say so? For starters.
ch: If you understand what I meant, yet continue to argue a point I did not mean and have made the effort to reinforce there really isn’t anything I can do.
me: Actually, you could. Chuck, who is among the most learned Ls any of us will encounter, has broken down your language and explained why it doesn’t work.
If you want us to buy your sincerity, have the intellectual honesty to address Chuck’s critique. Your “there really isn’t anything I can do” or CH’s “I can’t help that” ring hollow and insincere to me. Ultimately, these ploys have a very defensive feel.
By being dismissive of an obviously well-thought-out critique without actually engaging the critique’s substance, you further expose the one-dimensional aspect of simplistic NAPsterism. All due respect, of course. As a Randian/Rothbardian in recovery, I’ve been there.
Now is your opportunity to truly engage rather than just hand wave and walk away.
Exactly Clayton. I have bent over backwards to say what I mean and my actions within the Party and coalition building I do speaks to my meanings and purposes. Anarchist and minarchists and the various shades within the spectrum are libertarians. (and last I checked I wasn’t Rothbard so I really don’t care what rhetoric he employed, I often find his rhetoric over the top and certainly his rhetoric against the LP when he left so).
So I trust someone looking for my meaning can find it in what I said if they wish. And if they don’t wish… I can’t help that.
And Paulie your second to last statement was spot on. It is why I don’t sweat the conflict over whether or not there should be a monopoly on force. If we get the state that small, I think it could wither away to make this argument meaningless. It is a nice philosophical argument but ultimately politically trivial.. and we are a political party.
Well all I can do is clarify seeing as this whole conversation seems to stem from a misinterpretation of what I said. If you understand what I meant, yet continue to argue a point I did not mean and have made the effort to reinforce there really isn’t anything I can do.
I don’t think it will be that far in the future or necessarily after all or must of us die. We shall see.
ch, we get that was not your INTENT. We’re speaking about the EFFECT of your words.
pf, absolutely! Success breeds success. Change provides visibility into more possibilities.
As an asymptotic anarchist (in theory), it could go the other way, too, to be fair. It could be that at some point — likely WAY after I am dead, where a nightwatchman state has gone so far that those observing that future state of affairs might realize that just a bit more state might optimize the human condition, on balance, in ways that are unanticipated by us today. 1% of GDP might be a bit too small, maybe 2% worked better.
Perhaps in a more enlightened future, Andyland will’ve been established, and conscientious objectors to any and all force initiation will be given the option to opt out of civil society with the adoption of Nonarchy Pods.
Who knows what is possible? We can’t and don’t.
In the train analogy that point would be far away from where we are now. And who knows, by then a lot of people who are dismissive or skeptical of anarchism or even minarchism now may be far less so. Like I said, I think above, or certainly in past threads, once you crack the sidewalk or the dam freedom will grow exponentially like water or weeds coming through. All we need is an opening.
Ok maybe a little clarification is in order, my definition wasn’t meant to exclude minarchists or small government libertarians. My concern is with those who would call themselves libertarians but support a conservative or liberal agenda. If you look at some of my previous articles you’ll see that is my concern. I am an anarchist, but I don’t exclude up to classical liberals from the term.
L: I have always disliked the “train” analogy, for a couple of reasons. First, it assumes that the transition from the status quo to a free society will be perfectly linear, with government decreasing in size by X% per year, until we reach a free society (however one defines that).
me: Actually, many of those who’ve thought about “train” analogy would not assume linear progress at all. I certainly don’t.
L: I think it is much more likely that there will come a time when minarchists will have to choose between having a government that is much bigger than they would like, or much smaller than they would like.
me: Interesting. Why so? Please expand on this.
L: I can attest that it is a position that is very difficult to defend, especially if one is talking to an intelligent person, who will quickly realize that your arguments against government doing X or Y are really arguments against government in general. Trying to respond to these sorts of arguments while maintaining the fictional possibility/desirability of “limited government” amounts to quite an intellectual albatross.
me: I have no problem at all. Would you like some coaching?!
L: Rather, it seems to be an attempt to divorce libertarianism from the NAP.
me: That’s my intent, or more properly to view the NAP as a sentiment, or perhaps a vague guiding light.
I have already stated my position pretty clearly, and Paulie and Caryn have said much of the rest of what I was thinking. I will only add a couple of things:
While I have no problem with the idea of anarchists and minarchists working together (indeed, it’s pretty much imperative if the LP is to get anything done), I have always disliked the “train” analogy, for a couple of reasons. First, it assumes that the transition from the status quo to a free society will be perfectly linear, with government decreasing in size by X% per year, until we reach a free society (however one defines that). That seems to me to be a highly unrealistic scenario. I think it is much more likely that there will come a time when minarchists will have to choose between having a government that is much bigger than they would like, or much smaller than they would like. Which one they would choose does not strike me as a trivial matter. Also, it is unreasonable to expect anarchists to confine themselves to only making arguments that are compatible with minarchism. As a former minarchist myself (for many years), I can attest that it is a position that is very difficult to defend, especially if one is talking to an intelligent person, who will quickly realize that your arguments against government doing X or Y are really arguments against government in general. Trying to respond to these sorts of arguments while maintaining the fictional possibility/desirability of “limited government” amounts to quite an intellectual albatross.
Having said all that, I have no desire to “purge” minarchists from the LP, nor am I aware of any such purges having been attempted. In fact, if anything, it has been the more “moderate” libertarians trying to purge the “radicals” (including, but not limited to, the anarchists) from the LP. So, I don’t think this has anything to do with anarchists attempting to purge minarchists from the LP. Rather, it seems to be an attempt to divorce libertarianism from the NAP. How else to explain the claims made by Chuck Moulton and George Phillies that taxation is perfectly compatible with libertarianism? Surely, we can all agree that coercive taxation is a violation of the NAP. This is why most minarchists spend large amounts of time and energy dreaming up ways to fund their minimal state through other means (as I did back when I was a minarchist). Thus, if advocating actions that clearly violate the NAP does not make one any less libertarian, and indeed, if such NAP-violating actions themselves are deemed perfectly libertarian, the only logical conclusion is that libertarianism has nothing to do with the NAP. If that is, in fact, the argument being advanced by Moulton and Phillies, then I vehemently disagree.
HIGHLY selective, yes, GP.
If someone wishes to claim that the small-government folks broke the agreement first, I will not argue with them.
Rothbard, of course, is the fellow who said that libertarians should be happy with prayer in the public schools and police summary execution of miscreants. His followers prefer to have selective amnesia about these and some other of his positions.
cah: So yes, zero taxation IS the most consistent libertarian position. It may be impossible.
me: So, if “the most” L position is impossible, what does that tell us? It tells me there’s something wrong with L-ism!
Of course, as the most radical L on earth ;), I would not say that anything is “impossible.” Andy can establish AndyLand with his lottery winnings, and the AndyLand contract may well ban taxation for some voluntary polycentric arrangement or lottery or something else.
Depending on where AndyLand is established, maybe it might be a sustainable arrangement. Who knows?
gp: in which you start with a short statement, use their religion (‘logically derive’) to obtain from it bizarre conclusions,
me: Nicely sums things up!
cah: If someone wants to reduce taxes by 90 % – absolutely that is a libertarian position. To the extent they want to keep the remaining ten, it is not.
me: Clever, except CH’s def. doesn’t talk merely about direction. Which is why I suggested “minimize.”
cah: Who is saying anyone should be kicked out?
me: Rothbard used to talk about deviationists being “leaky.” The leaky were to be tolerated, second-class citizens, not in the inner cadre. Useful idiots.
Caryn writes:
” If someone wants to reduce taxes by 90 % – absolutely that is a libertarian position. To the extent they want to keep the remaining ten, it is not. ”
“if the accord was broken it was by minarchists – I deny it is broken and I fully embrace it”
Please make up your mind. The above two statements are not true at the same time.
Yep!
As an IPR editor you can fix them from dashboard, but that’s probably too much of a pain on your phone.
“If both sides of this “controversy” would focus more on bringing people in, rather than on who should be kicked out, there could still be the battle of ideas, but in a way that actually grows the Libertarian Party.” – Nicholas Sarwark
The major problem with the LP for at least 40 years! How many angels can dance on the head of a tax collector? Who cares!
Who is saying anyone should be kicked out? I sure am not. I am usually part of the group on the receiving end of purge fantasies – shrug. We are stuck with each other.
If both sides of this “controversy” would focus more on bringing people in, rather than on who should be kicked out, there could still be the battle of ideas, but in a way that actually grows the Libertarian Party.
George, the NAP issue was discussed with you me and Starchild – I am satisfied with that discussion and the opposition he and I presented there
On my phone – some odd spellcheck insertions above that I can’t fix
I see another misunderstanding here – say on taxes. If someone wants to reduce taxes by 90 % – absolutely that is a libertarian position. To the extent they want to keep the remaining ten, it is not. That doesn’t negate the solid libertarian reduction position. Some inconsistencies (some of which have great reasons behind them) do not make someone not a real libertarian.
I can’t stop people from putting the worst spin on what I say- people who co-labour with me see my words out into deeds and I am a peacemaker and a unifier where it counts. I don’t appreciate psychology ablysts that I am “uncomfortable” or something – I know my mind. But shrug I am not looking for offense. I don’t avoid things that are uncomfortable. Anarchy is not comfortable.
I can’t help how people choose to characterize above my denial of same.
You are all libertarians and u am happy to be working with you towards our common goals – the differences are trivial at the point.
Agreed again with Caryn, other than that the accord has not already been broken by the minarchist (and mediumarchist) side, but still not where I want to put the bulk of my efforts. IE I can overlook it, fighting fires on several other fronts, etc.
I recall abuses of the NAP interpretation as far back as 1998, when I discussed it with David Nolan at the 1998 National Convention.
But the Accord? Yes I will work for that.
And I repeat – libertarianism is a spectrum – the spectrum includes people who support some taxes. I think they are inconstistent to the extent they do so but that does not make them not libertarians. And taxes is all people are focusing on here and it is one part.
Wash rinse repeat.
And what Sarwark said was spot on.
If we got to true minarchy I would be happy – and be inconsistent with my ideals… Because pragmatically, if it works that is good for me.
And no I wouldn’t push the button.
Chuck I am not saying what you ascribe. I am satisfied my words speak for themselves. You can continue to describe in such a distorted way – I can’t help that.
I think we should return to it, but like Nick pointed out we have more pressing matters to attend to so I won’t put a lot of my energy into that.
Caryn Ann Harlos
No, you have already said the exact opposite.
I agree with the statement that if our goals are going in the same general direction (less government, more freedom) then we are both libertarians. In contrast, you have defined libertarianism in such a way that not advocating for an end to all taxes is an unlibertarian position (you agreed with langa, who said “supporting taxation is clearly not the libertarian position” and followed up “yes, zero taxation IS the most consistent libertarian position.”).
Like many anarchists, you continue to say that for each individual issue, anarchy is the only libertarian position, giving examples of marriage, drugs, etc. You say you are willing to work with people who are “not consistent in their libertarian view”. YOU AGAIN ARE SAYING THAT ANARCHY IS THE ONLY POSSIBLE LIBERTARIAN SOLUTION.
I emphatically disagree.
If you look at a venn diagram, I believe the set of anarcho-capitalists is a proper subset of the set of libertarians. There are libertarians who are not anarcho-capitalists. Your definition of the libertarian position on any individual issue has the venn diagram of the set of anarcho-capitalists being equivalent to the set of libertarians. If you look at all issues aggregated, you seem to be saying anyone who takes the anarchist position on many (but not all) issues is a libertarian.
I can’t fathom how someone who claims to be logical and empathetic doesn’t see how insulting it is to tell the huge population of people who want less government and more freedom that they are not real libertarians because they don’t take anarchist positions.
You seem to think I’m not understanding what you’re saying. The fact is I understand exactly what you’re saying. I keep pointing out the inevitable implications of what you’re saying, and you keep dancing around the issue because you are uncomfortable with the truth.
if the accord was broken it was by minarchists – I deny it is broken and I fully embrace it
It may be helpful to distinguish between what one wants and what one is willing to spend time and energy working for.
One could want an entirely voluntarist society, but not be willing to work on the project of eliminating the 5% flat income tax that funds the significantly reduced government that is left after the libertarian project moves forward.
That’s why Rothbard’s “button pushing” question is only useful to identify intensity of libertarian attitude or thought, but it takes the revealed preference of what people put their energy into to determine how far toward anarchism a person will actually go.
See, e.g., Jeffrey Tucker for how someone’s professed beliefs/rhetoric may be much more strident than one’s actual life choices. Contrast some of the more dedicated militia movement people, who may believe strongly in a Constitutional government, but make many more life choices like living off the grid, refusing social security numbers, etc. that are more consistent with voluntarism.
Paulie I don’t agree that is- I have something I wrote on this – will grab the link when I get home
Sarwark says it isn’t voolated either
If you want an actual example of violating the Dallas accord, see the current LP platform, section 1.6:
“Government exists to protect the rights of every individual including life, liberty and property….”
And that is not the only violation either.
The Dallas accord doesn’t mean acceptance of a final state of affairs with taxes. That would be total surrender, not an accord. It says we can have both minarchists and anarchists working together in the LP without either one making the LP explicitly minarchist or explicitly anarchist. The LP is now explicitly minarchist, given some statements in the current platform, so it seems odd to say the least to claim it’s the anarchists who have broken the accord.
However, ‘
opposing allsupporting taxation’ means your are under the heel of whichever mafia don has the biggest group of thugs (and calls itself the government).Clayton Hunt supplies an example of the antirational objectivist approach, in which you start with a short statement, use their religion (‘logically derive’) to obtain from it bizarre conclusions, and then claim you have agreed with the bizarre conclusions, as oppose to the rational approach of noting that the definition does not work as well as might have been hoped and therefore needs some improvement, and by the way the path of getting from definition to conclusion way also be brokan.
There was a Dallas accord. Manifestly, the anarchists have junked it. If you would disagree, produce evidence of anarchist acceptance of a final state of affairs with taxes.
However, ‘opposing all taxation’ means your are under the heel of whichever mafia don has the biggest group of thugs.
^
Wow, talk about turning things on their head….
Opposing taxation is opposing liberty.
Chuck,
Let us turn this around. There was once upon a time an agreement between restrained-government libertarians and no-government libertarians that we would not argue about where we were going, because it was so far away. That was sensible. We are so far away and moving farther away that we would not know the bad features of either position until we got closer.
There was, however, an agreement that we were getting there by political means, not by violent revolution. That was David Nolan’s affirmation on non-aggression.
The anarchists have now, manifestly, broken this agreement on a large scale.
There is no longer any reason for small-government libertarians to be suckers and agree that anarchism is consistent with freedom.
We should reject the anarchist big-lie technique about the non-aggression principle of David Nolan, whose meaning I determined from David Nolan himself.
George
Good morning everyone, I see langa actually answered the way I was attempting to and thus no need to retrod that same ground.
I see in the prior discussions that a fundamental misunderstanding kept occurring in the article with the word consistently with an insistence that is always without any deviation. But that is impossible within the context of the sentence itself:
==Libertarian; an individual that consistently opposes the initiation of force to achieve social or economic goals, ranging from classical liberals, to anarchists.===
The very fact that he went on to state that this included such a wide range meant that to Clayton *consistently* means *always.* It doesn’t.
Langa said what I said
==I don’t see libertarianism as a simple threshold, where you either are or aren’t a libertarian, but rather as a continuum, where many people are libertarians, but some are more libertarian than others, depending on how often they deviate from the NAP.===
Precisely.
I can consistently be a great golfer. That doesn’t mean every shot is a hole in one. One that goes into the woods does not negate the fact that I am a good golfer.
As far as Chuck’s objections that this is some kind of belittling attitude… I would have to say that I am only responsible for how I treat people and not how they are determine to receive it. If our goals are going in the same general direction we are both libertarians, and I can’t help it if some can’t handle the fact that I believe they are inconsistent in how far they wish to go. I can handle the fact that they some think my position so extreme that it would lead to warlords and Thunder Dome which is why they don’t hold it since it would increase, rather than decrease aggression, and that it is impossible to reach zero taxes. I am not insulted by that… I don’t feel like they are saying to me, “Go sit in that corner you little Impossible Utopian” while the adult realists work. Because that is not how mature adults thinks and act. I recognize that such a person would LOVE to have zero,but don’t think it is possible.
So yes, zero taxation IS the most consistent libertarian position. It may be impossible. But taxation is not the only issue, and if we import into here…. say personal relationships, and someone has been fine with gay marriage, but balks at poly marriage… yes they are not consistent in their libertarian view. If someone is okay with weed legalization but wants to keep all other recreational drugs illegal, yes they are inconsistent int heir libertarian view. I would work with that guy in a state to get weed legalized and wouldn’t go “Go sit in the conner until those of us who understand REAL legalization finish the work.”
I was going to spend some time demonstrating how the No True Scotsman Fallacy was misused early but now that the conversation has defined what Clayton was saying properly I think it is quite apparent (though I will do it if someone wishes).
Consistency does not equal *always* in his argument. The context will have it no other way.
langa wrote:
I completely disagree.
Saying that any taxes are unlibertarian is tantamount to claiming anarchists are the only consistently libertarians and any non-anarchist libertarian is inconsistent — not libertarian on some things. That is ridiculous and condescending.
Why do anarchists expect anyone to work with them when they treat anyone who wants to substantially reduce but not eliminate the state as a problem child?
I’m mystified that many anarchists are unable to see how isolating and destructive that attitude is.
It’s like they’re saying “Oh, you support any taxes? That’s adorable! Go get a snack while the adults (us REAL libertarians) make the decisions.”
…start the process…
L: I don’t see libertarianism as a simple threshold, where you either are or aren’t a libertarian, but rather as a continuum, where many people are libertarians, but some are more libertarian than others, depending on how often they deviate from the NAP.
me: That does add to inclusiveness. I’m guessing that your checklist is an intuitive one. Or do you keep score on specific issues that a person holds to determine just how L a person is?
Of course, inclusiveness isn’t necessarily something to value. Truth I would say is more important. But I would also say there are things that we might call absolute truths and relative truths.
There is also the time element to consider. For ex., funding baseline peacekeeping mechanisms — monopoly or polycentric — entirely voluntarily sounds attractive to me, but at the moment I oppose the idea. Way too risky.
This is why I call my political philosophy theoretical asymptotic anarchism/applied lessarchism. In theory, I like to see the monopoly state shrunk to near-zero-to-zero, but on a practical level, based on current trajectories, I’d like to first state the process by simply stopping the State’s growth. In context, that would be a MASSIVE accomplishment.
OP, thanks for the article. It needs some basic research IMHO. The LIO or Libertarian International Organization and its predecessors have determined who is a L/libertarian for centuries. They make it pretty clear on their website. See: http://www.Libertarian-International.org I doubt they give a damn how other people or dictionaries are defining them, Liberalism, or Libertarianism. Your definition has a fatal flaw in defining Libertarianism as opposing something, not emphasizing what it is for. Why re-invent the wheel?
What follows are my opinions:
>As an old fogey who joined the LIO in the 40’s, I attended the Salamanca meeting in the 60’s when all past definitions were revoked to be re-determined by LIO according to some guidelines they gave. I then subscribed to the modern LIO community project Gilson (MG) founded with the blessing of the Lemos community–last surviving Libertarian commune–in 1969.
>Most people talking about Libertarianism are basically doing telephone with no idea of the details. In this I include all scholars and journalists and most LP ‘heavies’ now alive.
>This is well and good for now. Why? Since 1969 LIO emphasis and MG’s whole invention has been giving people the general idea so they learn-by-doing. Now we have 20% of the US population across all parties interested and favorable to Libertarianism. They’re understanding arithmetic, then we provide manuals on more advanced math.
>FYI No one speaks for LIO and his work but MG, and as far as LIO is concerned no one speaks for libertarian-directionism (less-is-more federalism, as the http://www.lp.org says at it’s website–it is libertarian-direction, not Libertarian) except the national LP Chair of the country on its current libertarian-direction projects.
>Bottom line: MG’s said many times that he’s happy for now if everyone gets the idea that ‘with voluntary alternatives, things improve’ and use the SMILE program as a guide or start for debate.
>The idea is they learn by doing and sell themselves. When I read that 20% of the voters are informal libertarian-interested, I have to think this is doing what was intended. As more people get involved you have a base where issuing more detail makes sense.
>But since MG has not released his full work except to auditors plus a few guideline directional programs and highlighting examples of good deeds at LIO, debating what Libertarianism ‘really’ is much beyond that is idiotic IMHO.
>Personally, as someone who was reviving the idea of an LP in the 50’s with Nolan, Paul Gilson, et. al. back in the D.C. days we’ve far exceeded what we (except MG) expected. People are debating what Libertarianism is and how it should be applied, not if it is.
>All good and what we old fogey types planned.
Agreed.
I don’t see libertarianism as a simple threshold, where you either are or aren’t a libertarian, but rather as a continuum, where many people are libertarians, but some are more libertarian than others, depending on how often they deviate from the NAP. In other words, it’s not like pregnancy, where you either are pregnant or you’re not pregnant, and there’s no middle ground. It’s more like sexuality, where there’s not only pure heterosexuality on one end and pure homosexuality on the other, but also many degrees of bisexuality in between.
On any particular issue, you either take the libertarian position (that is to say, the one that’s compatible with the NAP), or you don’t. For example, supporting taxation is clearly not the libertarian position, and just because someone holds libertarian positions on many other issues, does not make their support of taxation any more libertarian. The same goes for someone who supports gun control, drug prohibition, etc.
Of course, I, like everyone else, often refer to certain people as being libertarians, or not being libertarians. But when I say someone is a libertarian, that’s really just shorthand for saying that they take the libertarian position on the majority of the issues. Even though I believe that anarchists are the most consistent libertarians (although still not necessarily perfectly consistent), I have frequently applied the “libertarian” label to people that are not anarchists, and even to people that are not hardcore minarchists. So long as a person is a reasonably consistent and principled opponent of the welfare state, the warfare state, and the police state, I am willing to call that person a libertarian, even if they have some significant deviations. Having said that, such deviations are no more libertarian, just because they are held by a libertarian, than they would be if they were held by the most authoritarian statist.
alr: Language is important…. It’s the decentralized resistance to Bloomberg’s decentralized (and well-funded) political activists that will either defend gun rights in November of 2016, or lose them.
me: It’s seems sensible to go from the general to the specific. Language is important seems about right generally, but we’ve been talking about CH’s specific proposition, which works for him and CAH, but some of us have suggested that the language leads to unintended, specific places.
Your conclusion here has me scratching my head. You’re suggesting that 2016 is a kind of make or break year on gun rights, which I’m just not seeing. Seems like the RTKBA has generally been getting stronger the last decade or two. So much so that one rarely hears about restricting guns, except around these tragic mass killings.
Separately, since you seem most interested in toting firearms, I’m curious: Do we have the right to tote a machine gun on commercial jets and public subways?
This was a good, concise article, and I appreciate Clayton Hunt for writing it. We need more messengers like Clayton Hunt, who recognize that outreach must profile the mind being reached out to. 🙂
Language is important. Especially when I’m around self-proclaimed conservatives, I correct self-proclaimed liberals who use the term “gun control,” and I say “Do you mean ‘gun chaos’? …or ‘slave control’?” More guns in the hands of benevolent people means less gun chaos. People who wear uniforms can be malevolent, too. Think about the Nazis: they created chaos, and it was only the uniformed police who had the guns. The people who were prohibited the guns were controlled.
The term “gun control” is inherently intellectually dishonest. Altering one half of the term reveals that dishonesty. The follow-up statement is then, “What are the policy prescriptions of those who self-proclaim to favor gun control?” All of them are restrictive of the rights of lawful gun owners, none of them punishes or restricts after a jury trial, or the finding of a valid corpus. The goal is to prohibit some aspect of gun ownership without a trial by jury, as is the goal of all “regulation.”
A lot of terminology includes similar inherent dishonesties. If the dishonesty is at a high-hierarchical-level or “system level,” then low-hierarchical-level thinkers will not “catch it.” Instead, they will unwittingly accept the terminology as “intellectually honest” and be at a loss to offer a counter-argument.
The gun prohibitionist tends to fight back, when his terminology is corrected, but he/she is now on the wrong side of the relevant facts, and the longer the argument goes into supporting details, the more they lose.(1)(2) They usually keep digging themselves a deeper hole, until they are laughed out of the room, or thoroughly embarrassed. The gun owning “conservatives” are all shaking their heads and muttering their agreement, having rarely heard the socialist position on guns so thoroughly destroyed. They are now “on your side.” When your side is revealed to be the classical liberal position, and you identify as “what is now called a small-L libertarian,” they are now one step closer to calling themselves “libertarians.”
Now, it’s true that this doesn’t theoretically mean you won the argument, but you did win one tiny political battle. Your “side” of the argument grew stronger, and better able to replicate your argument to win additional tiny battles. Battles add up to eventually win the war. It’s the winning of political battles that ultimately decides between freedom and enslavement.
In Nevada, Bloomberg has successfully placed an initiative on the 2016 ballot to restrict private gun transfers, in an attempt to interfere with the Nevada gun culture. When a child can’t automatically inherit his grandfather’s weapons, or there’s a potential arbitrary punishment for doing so, more guns are collected by the state, destroyed, and melted down. The proposed initiative would also allow the state to declare people mentally incompetent, and confiscate their firearms (think “One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest”).
It’s the decentralized resistance to Bloomberg’s decentralized (and well-funded) political activists that will either defend gun rights in November of 2016, or lose them.
cah: We all call to greater consistency.
me: I don’t. I call for greater understanding and truth, but I am sure I don’t have a monopoly on truth.
Emerson statement about “foolish consistency” works for me. So does Voltaire’s idea that the perfect is the enemy of the good. First, it assumes that perfection is attainable, which I’d say is impossible, based on results. And second the zealous perfectionist is an alienating bummer for most.
ch: Libertarian; an individual that consistently opposes the initiation of force to achieve social or economic goals, ranging from classical liberals, to anarchists.
cah: we would identify that person as having an unlibertarian position while still acknowledging they were libertarian.
me: Nice….except….CH uses the word “consistently.” To me and I expect most, that means “always.” If one deviates, one earns an asterisk.
The deeper question is Why the need to label an unL position? Why not just say that s/he is L, but I disagree with him/her on X and Y? Why, in short, do a few disagreements have to rise to the level of being “unL”?
It’s a complex, multi-variable world. Before you joined this conversation at the corner bar, I asked the abolitionist anarchists the wheat/chaff question…if there were a button that would abolish the State right now, would you push it?
Only TK said he would, iirc.
To me, though, that would be a VERY risky proposition, one that illustrates why a single, general principle should not always be applied in all cases, in my judgment. Heck, even MNR talked about the need for “transitions,” iirc.
Some might say that his acknowledging the need for transitions was unL!!! Which, according to CH’s def., made MNR a deviationist!!!
Making it real, I voted for GJ in 12. He’s a big and a small L. I disagree with him on the FAIR tax on economic policy grounds and I believe his advocacy of the FAIR tax is poor political strategy. On balance, though, I like what the dude stands for, and as a symbolic act I feel good about voting for him.
Psychologically, I don’t understand why others have to go further and label him “unL” on his points of deviation.
Stopped by to read the comments as I am getting ready to be gone over the weekend, and while I do not have time to post a substantive response (I will), I could not let this lay dormant in my absence without saying I do not even recognize my position in the way it was described. Like Clayton did in the article, and as I did, I acknowledge the libertarian spectrum and consider all people within it to be —– libertarian. It does not make anyone a “lesser club member” or person with an asterisk to note deviations from a core defining principle particularly when I am highly pessimistic in reality it could ever be effected in reality. If that is the way people wish to characterize such a position as viewing people as lesser or asterisked, I guess I can’t help that, but protest in reality no one thinks like that, I certainly don’t. The people here on the list who ask about the “fraud tax” are doing the exact same thing I am doing.. seeing a libertarian and criticizing a certain position as unlibertarian. Anyone who thinks that makes someone somehow inferior in some substantial way… or some different class of librarian, I just don’t think like that and protest that characterization. I certainly wasn’t asterisked or lesser when I was a minarchist, and I certainly don’t think of anyone that way. We all call to greater consistency. If someone was all about nearly every point we push but still thought the state should regulate marriage and then only hetersexual couples, we would identify that person as having an unliberatarion position while still acknowledging they were libertarian. The only difference here is perhaps a difference in the loci point (which is fine… but no one here can pretend that they do not consider people more or less consistent to whatever principle they are using). It isn’t all about “taxes”– there are other positions of coercion.
I repeat. I haven’t excluded anyone that nearly everyone would agree is on the libertarian spectrum. I will not be turning away people this weekend who do not get “top dot” on the quiz, but will be interacting more fully and inviting to join us those who fall within the libertarian spectrum.
Until later have a wonderful weekend all.
cah: consider it a victory if you wish.
me: I don’t, for I don’t see political — or any — dialog as being about “winning” or “losing.” Sharing ideas is a win/win as far as I’m concerned.
CM and PF have made my point as or more effectively as I could have. A very narrow definition of L seems to necessarily exclude a lot of lessarchists who, like me, use the word “L” to describe our political philosophies. Labels are only as helpful as the ideas they convey to the receiver, and they COULD be helpful in building a critical-mass movement in a certain direction. Excluding probably the majority, probably the vast majority, of lessarchists from the L label might somehow be an optimal strategy for rolling back the State, but I share here that I don’t see it.
Politics is a numbers game, and excluding supporters strikes me as a bad idea. But I am open minded.
Consistent NIOFers are Ls who are consistent NIOFers, a subset of the greater lessarchist L community, is my assertions. I find it to be the more serviceable, inclusive model.
You may see it differently.
Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
Well, the definition the article and you advocate requires consistency.
The article does.
Funding a defensive military or a court system is a social or economic goal. If someone does not oppose all taxation, then they don’t consistently oppose the initiation of force. Under the definition, they are not libertarians.
In contrast to your “no one is requiring absolute consistency as the minimum” statement (which diverges from the definition from the article you earlier advocated), what would someone be who wants a small defensive military, a court system, and taxes to support both? Is that a libertarian? Or is it an almost libertarian with some inconsistent positions? Or a libertarian with a few deviations?
You seem to be saying we’ll let those people who favor some taxes into the club, but their support of any taxes is un-libertarian — they can hang out with libertarians and call themselves libertarians, but we’ll keep reminding them that they’re not quite real, perfect libertarians and they should defer to the real libertarians to make the important decisions. I see this as a no true Scotsman fallacy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
“No libertarian would support any taxes.”
“Bob is a libertarian and he supports a 1% flat income tax.”
“No TRUE libertarian would support any taxes.”
I think someone who wants to lower but not eliminate taxes as the end goal (not just a transitional step) is a libertarian (assuming libertarian positions on other issues: e.g., drugs, guns, marriage, etc.). He is not a libertarian* with an asterix. He is not a libertarian with an inconsistency on taxes. He is not a libertarian with a deviation on taxes. He’s a libertarian.
Paulie,
I actually agree with you as well. If I was some kind of hardcore unbending anarchist, I would not be the with LP. I probably wouldn’t be politically involved at all.
As I said on the other thread… going off to do Outreach (and hopefully reach a lot of libertarians…. most certainly not anarchists) and bring them to the party.
Chuck,
Let me start with the last point first because it is the most important:
==I oppose those purists who want to hang a sign on the door effectively telling minarchists and other libertarians who aren’t anarchists to go away.===
Me too…. I have said that so many times I have no idea how to be any clearer. Clayton also said that in the article. Of course the converse is true…. but absolutely I agree with you. I couldn’t agree with you more actually. A few friends and I started a local LP caucus for radicals…. and specifically refused to limit it to anarchists…. because minarchists can be libertarian radicals too. I was. I have only been an anarchist for about two months, maybe three. (well self-acknowledged one.. I actually think I was one without realizing it fairly soon after embracing libertarianism, but that is still only a year ago)
==Those who believe in some government (i.e., the non-anarchists) — such as a defensive military or a court system — need to fund that in some way. Voluntary contributions are unlikely to cut it — and even if they did you could call the government a polycentric legal order which makes it anarchist.===
We don’t know what would cut it, but accepting some kind of taxation as inevitable due to impossibility of another means is just reality whether we like it or not, and doesn’t make someone a non-libertarian. They still oppose the coercion on a philosophical level but it is unavoidable. (or perhaps they don’t… so they deviate from some absolute standard of purity… they are still a libertarian)
The rest of your points follow suit though I think most of them are answerable, that isn’t really the point. The point is that both myself (who is the only person I can speak for) and Clayton didn’t exclude those people. It would be a small sorry band of anarchists indeed if the circle was drawn so tight that only three of us could stand in it. On one foot. With the other two ready to push us out if we blinked funny.
==Put simply: minarchy and other forms of libertarianism except anarchy are wildly unrealistic if not impossible without taxation. When an anarchist says you can’t be a libertarian if you would tolerate any type of tax, that libertarian is saying only anarchists can be libertarian PERIOD.==
And… again…. no one said that. I am saying that no taxation is the most absolutely consistent position but no one is requiring absolute consistency as the minimum. I am not absolutely consistent I am sure.
==I’m an anarchist and I favor eliminating all taxes. In the short and medium term I support dramatically lowering taxes. I consider those who want to dramatically lower but not eliminate taxes even as the end goal (who share other libertarian positions on other issues) to still be libertarians.==
Ummm… so do I. I call them to consistency but they are still obviously libertarians. And I favour your short and medium term goals as well.
NewFederalist,
ALL of them.
“Burn the witch!”
Which witch?
Agreed, Paulie.
Agreed with Chuck. I guess we could suppose the possibility of a minimum state doing voluntary fundraising rather than fees or coerced taxes, but I can see why most minarchists don’t expect it to be able to raise enough money even for the functions of the state they want to preserve that way. However, I see it more in terms of cracking the dam, or weeds growing through cracks in the sidewalk; give us an opening and freedom will grow. So if someone wants to get the ball rolling in the correct direction I’m all for it, even if they think they don’t want to go “all the way.” We can deal with that question if and when we ever get to that fork in the road. Not that we can’t or shouldn’t discuss it now, I just don’t want to put most of my time and energy there.
Those who believe in some government (i.e., the non-anarchists) — such as a defensive military or a court system — need to fund that in some way. Voluntary contributions are unlikely to cut it — and even if they did you could call the government a polycentric legal order which makes it anarchist.
How do you fund a government? Anarchists can insist that minarchists and other “true” libertarians can fund it without coercive taxes. User fees for a court system might help, but that’s a lot of overhead to absorb which may price some people out of justice. Licensing fees would be a use of force because stopping people without licenses from doing things is a monopoly use of force. Lotteries, postal service, etc. use force to prohibit competition — it is unlikely these services would be profitable without that force (the postal service isn’t even profitable with laws restricting rivals). Seigniorage — the profit from printing money — is unlikely to survive currency competition; it requires legal tender and forced tender laws, as well as anti-money laundering laws. Tolls on roads presupposes government ownership of roads… if those fees become onerous in a world with no government force we’d see alternative roads, flying cars, carpooling, etc. Selling land presupposes government owns a lot of land. That is a one time fee, not a sustainable permanent revenue source. Even transitioning a government that owns a lot of land to minarchy wouldn’t work: in the United States the accumulated government debt far eclipses the value of federal land. Revenues from oil or another such natural resource presupposes that government owns the land and sea and would use force to keep others out.
Put simply: minarchy and other forms of libertarianism except anarchy are wildly unrealistic if not impossible without taxation. When an anarchist says you can’t be a libertarian if you would tolerate any type of tax, that libertarian is saying only anarchists can be libertarian PERIOD.
It is intellectually dishonest, and I disagree with hijacking the word “libertarian” for only anarchists.
I’m an anarchist and I favor eliminating all taxes. In the short and medium term I support dramatically lowering taxes. I consider those who want to dramatically lower but not eliminate taxes even as the end goal (who share other libertarian positions on other issues) to still be libertarians.
I oppose those purists who want to hang a sign on the door effectively telling minarchists and other libertarians who aren’t anarchists to go away.
Chuck,
Yet, the author of the article specifically said he wasn’t limiting the definition to anarchists. To the extent one advocates coercion, that portion is an unlibertarian idea, but it doesn’t make the person unlibertarian since I bet we all harbour some deviations. Why just dramatically lower if zero isn’t the ideal point? Why isn’t being happy with say just a ten percent reduction okay?
I certainly and absolutely do not believe that anarchists are the only libertarians (yes I too am an anarchist, but a fairly recent one, and I didn’t change from non-libertarian to libertarian in that moment of clarity). I do think they are the most absolutely consistent ones but absolutism isn’t the standard.
Robert Capozzi wrote:
I agree that “minimize” is a better phrasing for the definition of “libertarian”. I happen to be both libertarian and anarchist, but I disagree with the notion that only anarchists may be libertarians. Wanting to dramatically lower but not eliminate taxes does not make a person unlibertarian in my opinion.
Burn the witch!
The original article referenced an Emo Phillips joke, but did not quote the joke itself. That joke is worth seeing and pondering, as I agree it is directly applicable to purist libertarianism.
Paulie I think consistent opposition is still the better definition as consistently minimizing is subsumed within that. It seems to be a shift in emphasis of focal point of the core of what libertarians *believe* to what they can realistically *do* – though admittedly with great overlap.
I believe Clayton’s point was to put the most consistent ideological position as the zero point with the spectrum going out as to how consistently one adheres to that.
Consistently minimizes is slightly different. Someone could consistently minimize in every area from a huge state to a smaller state but still not be libertarian. Just favor a smaller aggressive govt… Minimize in relation to what? From where we are now to zero aggression. To consistently oppose aggression is to have the goal be the absolute minimum to the furtherest extent possible – zero if possible (which it may not be– I am an openly pessimistic anarchist) If someone isn’t aiming for zero – even if we don’t think it can be done – minimization is meaningless – it is standing firmly with ones feet in mid-air- and the definition of libertarian loses its focus.
I favour Walter Block’s definition: “Libertarianism is a political philosophy. It [is] concerned solely with the proper use of force. Its core premise is that it should be illegal to threaten or initiate violence against a person or his property without his permission; force is justified only in defense or retaliation. That is it, in a nut- shell. The rest is mere explanation, elaboration, and qualification-and answering misconceived objections.”
None of this requires absolute purity or any of the sarcastic flourishes provided by Robert. There is a wide libertarian spectrum embraced by that definition (and by myself – allegedly one of those NAP fanatics that is being described in such lurid scary detail). It also is flexible to include some areas of inconsistency.
Robert we converse well on several things but on this subject I just don’t wish to engage with your exaggerations and rhetoric that doesn’t correspond with the reality of the people you are allegedly critiquing. I certainly don’t recognize myself or Clayton in that narrative.
Have the last word with me on this thread (will dialog with others) and consider it a victory if you wish. Or not. I won’t force you. Cause that’s how I roll.
Blessings in the name of The Most Holy Principle. And may the odds be ever in your favour.
Paulie that is definitely worth a thousand words.
I’m OK with that, PF. But I wonder whether the Congress of Cardinals for the High Church of Challengers to the Cult of the Omnipotent State will conclude that you are unworthy of entry into the Holy Hall of Inner Sanctuary, reserved only to True Believers of the Most-Esteemed High Faith in the Universal, Intransigent, Unyielding NAP. 😉
Without Witnessing to the Unalterable Creed of Unqualified, Consistent Opposition to any and all force initiation, this relegates you — in their eyes — to Peripheral, Fellow Traveler status.
My goal is peaceful anarchy, preferably with a soft landing to minimize transitional pain if possible. I welcome partial movement in the direction I want. Call it what you want to.
pf: I’m OK with minimize.
me: Does this make you, using CH’s incisive analogy, “a devout Pastafarian minister, were to start calling myself a Jehovah’s Witness….”?
I’m OK with minimize. Zero is my goal, but it probably would not be good in the short term if it happens anything like overnight, and I’d be happy with incremental steps too.
gb: Someone who advocates more freedom but reject the principle of the non-initiation of force is a fellow traveler – part of the periphery of the Libertarian Movement.
me: Technically, I don’t “reject” NIOF. I advocate Nonarchy Pods and even Andyland for those who want to opt out entirely of civil society. And even for the rest of us, NIOF would be an interesting resting place for social evolution, if achievable.
Think of it as being positioned on the periphery of reality!
All stunts were performed by a professional druggie on a closed course of self-medication and self-destruction. Kids, don’t try this at home!
WOW.
Ouch!
I’ve mixed all four. It can be done.
“Can one mix hash with crack?” – Robert Capozzi
I don’t know. I don’t even like to mix beer with vodka!
GB, really? Classical liberals think that, say, Social Security benefits can be paid for by the lottery? SAC can be paid for with user fees?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRQswKjgF0E
Can one mix hash with crack?
Actually, I would say “Libertarian; an individual that consistently opposes the initiation of force…” it does not matter what the goal of the initiation of force is.
It is true that some of the classical thinkers who developed liberalism were ok with taxes to fund a limited government, but today almost anyone who would describe his or her view as “classical liberalism” would be a limited government libertarian who opposes funding the limited government by coercive means, so therefore a libertarian by commonly accepted definition.
Someone who advocates more freedom but reject the principle of the non-initiation of force is a fellow traveler – part of the periphery of the Libertarian Movement.
Which is what? How can we tell? A purely partisan definition again?
Which are what? The definition you used above is that the party is the only principle, by definition.
You support our party by being a candidate, volunteering, donating money, blogging… on the right side. There are a lot of ways to support our principles. Agreeing that we are not bombthrowing hippies (old circustance) or weathermen out to blow up the government is appropriate and in general encouraged, but is not a definition.
Having listened to people discuss what “libertarian principles” are, I am driven toward the conclusion that philosophy is a social disease.
more….
I might even support polycentric baseline peacekeeping functions, but I admit I have a very hard time getting my head around how such a setup might work, even in my most science-fiction-oriented mindset!
cah: But that does not comprise all classical liberals who hold to such public services as many would believe in a user-fee, lottery, or some other non-coercive funding. And such would fall squarely in that definition. And I believe that is what Clayton meant.
me: I’m not sure there are many who describe themselves as CLs to begin with, but most of them would then be excluded by CH and you from the Inner Sanctums of the High Holy Church of Libertarian.
As a TAAAList, I support some level of taxation for the foreseeable future, as the alternative would likely lead to a potentially catastrophic social order. As a political construct, the idea of fully voluntary funding of baseline peacekeeping functions has some appeal, and I would support that if practicable.
Paulie,
==I think that was Capozzi, not Phillies.==
No it was George I was responding to who said they (Root and Barr) were once libertarians and now they are not libertarians merely based on party affiliation.
==It also removes the ideological restriction, as in my examples above.==
I am not so sure of that depending upon how he defines support for the LP
I think that was Capozzi, not Phillies.
It also removes the ideological restriction, as in my examples above.
Fuck ’em.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3qU821mlqM
To avoid confusion you are CAH. RC likes acronyms.
Jed, I liked Clayton’s definition as well. It was pretty fair.
“Libertarian; an individual that consistently opposes the initiation of force to achieve social or economic goals”
I like this definition.
“A libertarian with a small “l” is a person who believes in and advocates for the libertarian philosophy.
A Libertarian with a capitol “L” is a person who believes in and advocates for the libertarian philosophy, and who is also a member of the Libertarian Party.”
The problem there is sometimes libertarian is at the beginning of a sentence.
George,
Oh… so like a libertarian perseverance of the saints doctrine?
“They went out from us so that we could know they were not of us.” The Book of 1 Nolan?
If someone leaves the LP are they no longer libertarian? Even if they believe the exact same things they believed before? If say… Wes, renounces his LP membership, is he no longer libertarian? Someone who doesn’t believe in parties and has renounced voting… they can’t be libertarian? What about non-Americans?
Also just to point out the obvious…. you argued against the idea of a definition by…. giving a definition. And of course that doesn’t really change Clayton’s definition except the addition of party affiliation because if by supporting the candidates and the party, you mean supporting the party’s positions then those positions… as defined by the party… meet Clayton’s definition. You just made the definition narrower by adding a non-ideological requirement. A club if you will.
Robert,
At first I was confused since you used “CH,” and I was like, “Hey I didn’t write the article,” and then realized I had the same initials.
I differ from Clayton in the definition vis a vis classical liberalism for the reason you put down, though I think you were overly broad. I would exclude from the definition, at least on the narrow issue of alleged public services, any classical liberal that wishes to force-fund such enterprises. But that does not comprise all classical liberals who hold to such public services as many would believe in a user-fee, lottery, or some other non-coercive funding. And such would fall squarely in that definition. And I believe that is what Clayton meant.
So in 2008 they and those who supported them were all libertarians, regardless of philosophy or ideology, but that changed as soom as they switched parties – even if their ideas stayed the same?
How about the nazis who are allegedly joining the LP in Florida on behalf of their buddy Augustus Invictus, are they libertarians too?
Yes, in 2008 they were libertarians. They changed. We should support change, especially in our direction. I forget. Did either of them support the fraud tax?
In 2008.
10:38 AM I didn’t actually say that. You are subject to the definition misapprehension.
At last report, Root supported Rmoney, who is a Republican. Ditto, Barr is a Republican. Therefore, they are not libertarians.
I didn’t expect Capozzi to agree with Phillies’ apparent point that there is no such thing as a libertarian philosophy or movement other than or outside of the party.
gp: This ‘define your terms’ thing is one of the disorders of the Ayn Rand philosophy.
me: Bingo!
So Barr, Root…
A libertarian with a small “l” is a person who believes in and advocates for the libertarian philosophy.
A Libertarian with a capitol “L” is a person who believes in and advocates for the libertarian philosophy, and who is also a member of the Libertarian Party.
A libertarian is a supporter of the libertarian party and its candidates.
This ‘define your terms’ thing is one of the disorders of the Ayn Rand philosophy.
ch: Libertarian; an individual that consistently opposes the initiation of force to achieve social or economic goals, ranging from classical liberals, to anarchists.
me: This reveals much for me that CH compares a political ideology with various religions. It’s a false analogy IMO, since political ideologies are generally far less precise and dogmatic as religions.
But, if one MUST have a one-sentence definition of an L is, I don’t think this one quite works. As I understand the concept of “classical liberalism,” for ex., most of them don’t CONSISTENTLY OPPOSE the “initiation of force.” CLs I know of believe in a state providing courts, cops, and a national defense, funded with taxes, which some believe to be the initiation of force.
Instead of “consistently opposes,” CH might consider “believes in minimizing” or some such. I believe it’d be more accurate then. It even captures abolition anarchists, as they want to minimize the initiation of force to zero.
If there’s one thing libertarians care about most, it has to be terminology.
Commenting to subscribe