02 May 2014

Libertarian Battles

Lew Rockwell, Libertarianism, Tom Woods 128 Comments

OK kids let’s remain civilized in the comments. But here’s some red meat for you:

==> Lew Rockwell once again affirms that libertarianism as a political philosophy is about the non-aggression principle, period.

==> Tom Woods and Gary Chartier discuss “thick” vs “thin” libertarianism.

128 Responses to “Libertarian Battles”

  1. Matt M (Dude Where's My Freedom) says:

    I was somewhat disappointed in the Woods/Chartier discussion. Woods had hyped it as if it was going to be confrontational, as the two of them attempted to “settle” the issue. But I felt most of it consisted of Chartier basically dismissing Tom’s concerns about “thick” libertarians as “well maybe some people believe that but most of us aren’t really that way,” and basically being entirely TOO nice to Tom. It seemed like his goal was to be friendly and congenial above all, and while that’s an excellent way to live your life, it doesn’t necessarily make for the most entertaining (or enlightening) radio.

    I’d love for him to have someone on who is willing to say “Here’s why being a libertarian REQUIRES you to oppose racism” and Chartier fell a little short of that.

    • Bob Murphy says:

      Matt M I know what you mean, but I think most of the people who have even written something that seems to say, “No you’re not really a libertarian if you don’t also believe XYZ” would, under interrogation, say that’s not really what they mean.

      Just like I’ve seen other people write things that, analyzed under a microscope, say, “As libertarians we are not allowed to criticize someone unless he initiates aggression.” When asked to clarify, they would say, “No, that’s not what I was trying to say.”

      • Dan says:

        It’s clearly not what most of them mean because most of them deny the existence of thin libertarians. They just see everything in terms of differing degrees of thickism.

      • Matt M (Dude Where's My Freedom) says:

        Right. I think Robert Wenzel deals with this really well over at EPJ. His coverage of the Donald Sterling thing is the best I’ve read anywhere.

        Although I guess the unsettling thing is, if all that Tucker and other “thick-ists” really mean is “hey I think racism is bad and my libertarianism is part of the reason why and maybe you should consider thinking its bad too” then they should just come out and say that. But generally speaking they don’t. They couch it in very confrontational and absolutist-sounding magazine articles in order to get a lot of attention, and then slowly back down when other libertarians start to call them out on it.

        • Bob Murphy says:

          Oh what the heck I’ll be the troublemaker then. OK Matt it’s ironic you say that, because it’s precisely Wenzel’s coverage of Sterling that I think is liable to be misinterpreted the other way. In this post titled “Why Racism Is No Big Deal” he writes:

          “If someone spends most of their living breathing hours hating, blacks, Czechs or Jews, I am not going to spend much time with them, if any, because I would be bored to death, but why should I care about their views?

          Because of some service or product they provide, I may interact with them, but I really don’t care what their views are on other subjects, as long as they are not advocating some kind of coercion against others, that is, advocating a violation of the non-aggression principle.

          The world is about exchange, with a very few people I will have interaction on many levels. With many others, I will only have limited interaction. With most people on the planet, I will have no interaction. If these people are not violating the non-aggression principle, why should I have any obligation to change their views on anything?

          Further, I seriously doubt that there are many Americans that are advocating the return of blacks to slavery (an advocacy that alone, without actual coercion, is not a violation of NAP) and I am not aware of any groups actually putting blacks, or any other group, into slave camps. It is a bogus issue.

          The one group that I am aware of that does regularly violate the non-aggression principle is the government. There are compulsory school attendance laws, there are minimum wage laws, tax laws and there are anti-drug laws, to name a few. This is a serious problem. Further, the U.S. government is involved with empire building and wars around the planet. This is coercion on steroids, it is a real problem.

          And yet, there is a brouhaha over Sterling’s alleged-racist remarks,when he pays millions to black players. The NBA is absurdly looking into the matter–while at the same time before NBA games they play the national anthem, which is nothing but a propagandist song for a government that violates the non-aggression principle on an daily basis, across the country and around the world.

          The focus on racism is a scam. I do not see any good reason to shun, boycott or otherwise stop exchanging with people who hate, blacks, Jews or anyone else. It’s goofy prejudice to me, but I see no reason that I should go out of my way to change their views. They don’t come close to the coercion conducted by the state. In fact, they don’t coerce at all, while the very being of the state is coercion.

          It’s time that, at least libertarians, get their focus straight. The state is the problem, you are being suckered off the track to think the problem is thoughts of others about different groups, whatever those thoughts might be about other groups.” [Bold added.]

          That sure sounds like he’s saying that unless someone is actually violating somebody else’s rights, then libertarians shouldn’t think it’s a big deal. Even if someone else is merely advocating slavery–but not literally throwing chains on a guy and making him pick cotton in the back yard–then that too isn’t coercive, and so shouldn’t detract libertarians from the real problems in our society, namely those who initiate aggression.

          Doesn’t it sound like he’s saying that? That libertarians should use the NAP as a way of determining whether we should be really bothered by someone else’s behavior?

          Now it’s true, when someone else accused him of inconsistency on this point (because Wenzel is obviously outraged by the NBA officials doing what apparently is within their property rights and so doesn’t constitute aggression), Wenzel clarified and said no, that’s not his position; if you’re a libertarian of course you’re allowed to criticize people for things besides violating the NAP. But his clarification seems to contradict what he said originally in the quotes I’ve provided above; up there it sounded like he was telling libertarians they shouldn’t get mad at racists and even those advocating slavery (if such people existed) because those actions per se weren’t violations of the NAP. That’s why some of his readers accused him of inconsistency.

          Look, my point here is NOT to do a “ha ha gotcha Wenzel!” but to say people sometimes fire off something that, upon reflection, doesn’t accurately convey what their overall position is. It wouldn’t stun me that if someone asked Tucker for clarification, he would say his offhand remark about the young libertarians wasn’t an attempt to redefine the actual term “libertarianism.”

          So it’s not surprising that when you get two civil people in a conversation with each other (like Tom and Gary), that it’s hard to find clash.

          • Matt M (Dude Where's My Freedom) says:

            Well when I praised Wenzel, I was thinking specifically of his later column clarifying his thoughts that says (paraphrasing), “libertarianism is the NAP. the NAP is not being violated here, but I still find this troubling for my own personal reasons, and we can agree or disagree on that, but it has nothing to do with libertarianism.”

            “So it’s not surprising that when you get two civil people in a conversation with each other (like Tom and Gary), that it’s hard to find clash.”

            Right, which is probably why I was bored by the segment. I’d much prefer a debate between Wenzel and Tucker, although I can’t imagine either agreeing to such a thing. Also they’d probably spend 95% of the time on IP, another subject that bores me to tears.

            • Transformer says:

              assume the following two things were true:

              1. Racism is easy to stir up. Keep advocating racist things and eventually you stand a good chance of provoking a violent result.

              2. Racism is easy to suppress. Make it Illegal to stir up racism and the violent result will be much less likely to occur occur.

              Given these facts would you say that racism should be allowed as long as it complies with the NAP, or banned because it has a very high probability of eventually leading to the NAP being violated?

              • guest says:

                Racism is also easy to misdiagnose, thereby strengthening racist tensions.

                So, yes: Permit racism because thoughts are not crimes.

                And consider that it was actually government intervention that stole economic mobility from blacks, in opposition to that which a freer market desired:

                Jim Crow: Government Against Market Forces
                http://archive.mises.org/13502/jim-crow-government-against-market-forces/

                Railroads Attack Validity
                Separate Car Laws.
                The Supreme Court of Tennessee in a decision rendered in March, 1918, relative to white and Negroes being served in dining cars upheld the validity of the separate car laws of the United States, providing separate cars for white and Negroes.

                These companies had been convicted in the lower courts for failing to provide separate coaches or compartments for Negroes.

            • Flashman says:

              Matt,

              While I do not share your boredom with the IP topic, I take your point about the need for confrontation to hold interest and inform. But Wenzel, whom I usually enjoy, wasted everyone’s time when he had Kinsella on for IP discussion and then spent almost the entire time nitpicking over K calling him dismissive names, which some academic types seem prone to, as we have seen here. (And thank you Murphy for trying to control that proclivity!) The result: lots of confrontation and almost no substantive discussion. I would love to hear an informative exchange (even if it was civil!) on IP with someone Wenzel bears no personal animus.

        • Joseph Fetz says:

          Matt, just to clarify something, Tucker is not a thick libertarian as far as I know, and his article on “brutalism” actually wasn’t about thick vs. thin at all, it was libertarians themselves.

          I will be honest in saying that I haven’t talked to Jeffrey about it personally, he’s pretty busy these days. However, I have talked to Stephan Kinsella about it (he’s a very close friend of Jeffrey’s, and he reviewed the article before publishing), and Stephan would agree with my above statement.

          • Joseph Fetz says:

            Just to followup on my last comment here, I finally did talk to Jeffrey Tucker about his “Brutalism” article and he explained that it had absolutely nothing to do with the thick/thin debate, that it was about libertarians themselves. He also agreed with my very simplified summary that, “libertarianism is very important, but it should not be used as a justification for one to be an a-hole”.

            His explanation of the article can also be found in the AMA interview by Mike Shanklin on his show Voluntary Virtues. Jeffrey again reiterated that his article had nothing to do with the thick/thin debate.

  2. Bob Roddis says:

    Previously published elsewhere:

    1. Some people will live in Christian communities. Some people will live in atheist cooperative neighborhoods where guns are banned. Some people will live in Kosher neighborhoods. Other than explaining that “If you like your lifestyle, you can keep your lifestyle”, why should libertarians be concerned about which lifestyle is chosen? That has nothing to do with libertarianism. When we have a substantial plurality of folks ready to abide by the NAP, the Thickists can then worry about setting up a Thickist community to their liking. Let’s start with the easy stuff first.

    2. Wouldn’t the world be a better place if all of the Nazis and Ku Kluxers followed the NAP? And if they don’t, that’s what guns are for.

    3. There is an endless list of non-violent sanctions that might be applied against people with bad attitudes. Like everyone refusing the sell them any water or food. Or encircling them. Libertarianism does not concern those possible sanctions which is another subject altogether.

    4. Does anyone else agree with me that these debates about the morality of abandoning babies are irrelevant to libertarianism? Those types of problems will be addressed via community bylaws contractually. Since the issue does not involve the NAP, it is not a subject regarding libertarianism no matter how abhorrent the alleged behavior. Also, see No. 3 above.

    • Major_Freedom says:

      One of the things about ancapistan that often gets overlooked is that it is not an imperialist program. We don’t want to force anyone into it. It should be repeated ad nauseum (we’re good at this) that ancapistan is nothing more and nothing less than a removal of violence and coercion “protection rackets”. It is a call for those not wanting to live in ancapistan, to simply refrain from using violence, coercion and intimidation against those who do want to live in it. Allow each and every individual the choice to live in it if they want.

      Ancapistan is really just a modern day secessionist movement. Modern day because unlike all historical secessions, such as politicians of smaller states seceding from a larger state, this one is grounded entirely on the individual being free to secede from all states, meaning all territorial monopolists demanding to be everyone’e “protector” at the threat of violence.

      What baffles my mind is the gigantic waste of time and effort from anti-ancapistanists who spend hours and days and weeks criticizing ancapistan, saying how much they are against it, how much they don’t want to live in it, and on and on, as if it even mattered to whether or not ancapistan is justified or useful. Is it really so hard to accept the idea that if they don’t want to live in it, they don’t have to? That all the ancapistanists are arguing for is to be free to choose to live in it if they want?

      It is amazing how difficult it is for even normal regular Joes to even entertain the notion of allowing others to determine their own lives in such things as who protects them from violence.

      • Bob Roddis says:

        I hope this observation does not violate the “Be kind to the Keynesians” rule, but there is an obvious emotional problem displayed in response to our relatively simple and mechanical explanations. That is why I insist upon starting off explanations and debates with the NAP (basic property and contract law) and economic calculation. Those explanations are not rocket science but always elicit hysterical responses from our opponents who refuse to think them through probably because they can sense where the argument must lead.

        Trying to explain how black atheist socialist lesbians could live a peaceful life and lifestyle on land they own invariably results in mockery and reminders from the “progressives” that Rothbardians believe in abandoning babies on a hillside. I guess that means that any group of black atheist socialist lesbians would invariably abandon babies on hillsides too.

        I don’t want to be “mean-spirited”, but I’ve endured this for 41 years now.

      • Keshav Srinivasan says:

        “s it really so hard to accept the idea that if they don’t want to live in it, they don’t have to? That all the ancapistanists are arguing for is to be free to choose to live in it if they want?” But the anarcho-capitalist isn’t just asking to be left alone to do what he wants. He’s also asking the rest of us to respect his property claims derived from a Rothbardian theory of homesteading that the rest of us don’t subscribe to.

        • Joseph Fetz says:

          “… the rest of us don’t subscribe to”

          But you do subscribe to libertarian property rights, to say otherwise is to fall into a performative contradiction (see Hoppe’s argumentation ethics).

        • Anonymous says:

          Keshav, asking to be left alone IS asking to have their body and their property left alone.

          To want to be left alone from trespassers and thieves is not in any way forcing others to live in ancapistan. It is leaving alone those who do want to live in it.

          No, I am not forcing you INTO ancapistan, by preventing you from being able to trespass or steal from me. You “not subscribing” to ancapistan ethics is just you refusing to leave ancapistanists alone, which is the very problem I said people like you have. You just don’t grasp what it means to leave other people alone. No, it does not encompass merely not touching their bodies, but stealing and destroying the material means they produced or traded for to sustain their lives.

          What you are saying is that you “don’t subscribe” to leaving other people alone.

          • Tel says:

            It would require agreement over property rights though.

          • Keshav Srinivssan says:

            “What you are saying is that you “don’t subscribe” to leaving other people alone.” But what if I don’t believe that it IS their property? What if I’m happy to leave their rightful property alone, but I don’t believe that just because they mixed their labor with a piece of land fifty years ago means that they should have absolute control over it in perpetuity?

            • Major_Freedom says:

              Keshav:

              “But what if I don’t believe that it IS their property? What if I’m happy to leave their rightful property alone, but I don’t believe that just because they mixed their labor with a piece of land fifty years ago means that they should have absolute control over it in perpetuity?”

              You don’t have to believe or not believe it is their property or not. It is your actions which show you refuse to leave ancaps alone. You refuse to leave your hands off. You want to get up in their business and pretend that their property, belongs to you.

          • Keshav Srinivasan says:

            “What you are saying is that you “don’t subscribe” to leaving other people alone.” But what if I don’t believe that it IS their property? What if I’m happy to leave their rightful property alone, but I don’t believe that just because they mixed their labor with a piece of land fifty years ago means that they should have absolute control over it in perpetuity?

            • Major-Freedom says:

              Keshav:

              That is just another way of saying that you don’t want individuals to be be free to choose to secede from your way of life. Your way of life includes claming ownership over land that you did absolutely nothing with, and thus comes into conflict with property claims of those who did affect the land.

              Your ethics has no rational basis for why we should respect the property claims of those who did nothing to change the land, over and above the property claims of those who did change it.

              Not only that, but your ethics has no rational basis that would enable us to establish exactly who among the population of those who did nothing, should have final exclusive rights to the land, such that every other non-homesteader’s claim is unjust.

              • Keshav Srinivasan says:

                Major_Freedom, I’m not advancing a theory of property myself, I ust don’t see what the reason is to privilege the homesteader’s claim over everyone else’s. How does the act of mixing labor with a piece of land create a moral obligation for everybody else to never go on that land?

              • Joseph Fetz says:

                Keshav, answer this one question. Why does a first user of a scarce and rivalrous good not have a better claim to it than a latecomer?

              • Keshav Srinivasan says:

                Joseph, the burden would be on you to show me that first use does confer some superior claim on natural resources, not on my to demonstrate that it doesn’t. I just don’t see what the justification is for the homesteading principle. I’m not making some affirmative claim that the principle is unjustifiable.

                But leaving my own views aside for the moment, one possible reason that one might reject the homesteading principle is that they’re a left-libertarian/anarcho-communist, and they believe that “property is theft”. Someone like that would say that no one has the right to use violence to stop someone else from going onto any piece of land.

                We recently had a subthread about left-libertarianism here:
                http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2014/06/is-the-state-more-like-a-gym-or-an-army.html#comment-619350

                That might be a better place to have this discussion, because this is a month-old comment thread.

              • guest says:

                How does the act of mixing labor with a piece of land create a moral obligation for everybody else to never go on that land?

                Because for another person to claim any kind of authority over that for which you have worked, is to make a claim on your labor.

                In other words, he would be claiming that you are his slave. You have worked for him against your will, is what happens.

                No one has a right to your labor, and therefore that which you transform becomes yours (assuming nobody owned it at the time).

                Aside: The concept of “better claim” seems confusing to me, as there aren’t degrees of ownership.

              • Major-Freedom says:

                Keshav:

                “I’m not advancing a theory of property myself, I ust don’t see what the reason is to privilege the homesteader’s claim over everyone else’s.”

                THAT presupposes a particular ethic IF you were to act in accordance with what you believe to be is just an absence of affirming the homesteading principle.

                With action and ideas, if you say you are against a particular idea, then your actions consistent with that idea of rejection will have its own ethical norm that is prssupposed by it.

                You do ascribe to a positive ethical theory, that is to say, you believe that another, different ethical theory is in some way better than the homesteading principle.

                I reject any notion that you can act in an ethical state of limbo, as it were.

                “How does the act of mixing labor with a piece of land create a moral obligation for everybody else to never go on that land?”

                That isn’t what the homesteading theory calls for. It is not that nobody else can go on the land, it is that IF there are more than one individual who wants to use the land, then the homesteading principle states that instead of fight to the death to decide, in which case the use of the land will be a function of merely the biggest brute or thug, but rather the rightful and just use of the land should be the use desired by the person who homesteaded it.

                Your ethic of rejecting the homesteading principle is founded on the belief that “left” ethical principles are superior. Your desired ethic will have the use of the land correspn

              • Major-Freedom says:

                Bah, hit sumbit too early. Ipad…

                …corresponding to the desired use of the person who just so happens to be “using” that land at the time. Quite arbitrary, and it doesn’t even address HOW that “user” came to be the user.

                Yu

              • Major-Freedom says:

                Keshav:

                You said that one possible foundation for rejecting the homesteading principle is “left anarchist” ethics.

                You say that in this ethic, violence is not justified to keep people from using the land.

                But what if two different people want to use the land, but only one plan can be implemented? Given that neither can use violence to enforce their claim, who then has the rightful claim if not the homesteader / original appropriator?

              • Major-Freedom says:

                Keshav:

                Wouldn’t left anarchists who reject the homesteading principle, and advance another ethic instead, also have a burden of proof? Are you claiming that they have satisfied that burden of proof, whereas homesteading ethics proponents have not? If so, how have the left anarchists “proved” themselves?

              • Keshav Srinivasan says:

                “In other words, he would be claiming that you are his slave. You have worked for him against your will, is what happens.” guest, suppose you and I both see an unused piece of land, and you announce to me that you intend to use that land a week from now, regardless of whether anyone mixes their labor with it in the mean time. If I then decide to mix my labor with the piece of land, and a week later you follow through on your plan to use the resource, in what sense have you forced me to work for you against my will? Knowing that you were planning to use the land a week from now, I could have avoided mixing my labor with that piece of land. So if you want to characterize the situation as “me working for you”, then I worked for you voluntarily. You didn’t force me to do any work on that land.

                So to sum up, if we lived in a society where the expectation was that if you homesteaded a piece of land then no one else would be allowed to use it, then you might make the case that anyone who takes land you’ve homesteaded is in some sense “enslaving” you, because you’re doing work which someone else is reaping the benefits of, even thought you had done the work with the expectation that you would reap all the benefits of it. But if we lived in a different kind of society, say a left-libertarian society where the expectation was that anyone can go onto any piece of land regardless of what work was done on that land in the past, then I don’t see how you can make any argument that someone else using land you’ve homesteaded is slavery. Knowing that other people would likely use the land later, you could simply avoid working on it.

              • Keshav Srinivasan says:

                “THAT presupposes a particular ethic IF you were to act in accordance with what you believe to be is just an absence of affirming the homesteading principle.” Yes, I agree, if I were to act in a way that ran contrary to the homesteading principle, then my action would presumably presuppose some ethical justification that contradicted the homesteading principle (assuming I believed myself to be acting justly).

                “You do ascribe to a positive ethical theory, that is to say, you believe that another, different ethical theory is in some way better than the homesteading principle.” I certainly do subscribe to some theory of ethics (the Hindu theory of ethics). And if you want to know what my personal opinion of the homesteading principle is, I think it’s probably wrong. (I say probably only because most people who subscribe to it believe that it implies certain ethical conclusions, and I’m quite certain for independent reasons that those conclusions are wrong, but it could be that people are just engaging in faulty reasoning.) But for the purposes of this discussion I’m not trying to defend either my theory of ethics or my view of the homesteading principle. I’m just expressing skepticism about the homesteading principle, and trying to get some justification for it from libertarians.

                “That isn’t what the homesteading theory calls for. It is not that nobody else can go on the land, it is that IF there are more than one individual who wants to use the land, then the homesteading principle states that instead of fight to the death to decide, in which case the use of the land will be a function of merely the biggest brute or thug, but rather the rightful and just use of the land should be the use desired by the person who homesteaded it.” Yes, but what I was trying to say is that if the person who homesteaded the land doesn’t want anyone else going on the land, then you believe that everyone else has a moral obligation to stay off of it. So I was trying to find out what the justification for this is. How does the act of mixing your labor with a piece of land create a moral obligation for everyone else to never go on the land, assuming that the person who homesteaded it doesn’t want them to?

              • Keshav Srinivasan says:

                “Your ethic of rejecting the homesteading principle is founded on the belief that “left” ethical principles are superior. Your desired ethic will have the use of the land corresponding to the desired use of the person who just so happens to be “using” that land at the time.” Well, that is what a left-libertarian would believe, but I should make clear that I’m not in fact a left-libertarian.

                “Quite arbitrary, and it doesn’t even address HOW that “user” came to be the user.” Well, the left-libertarian would say that whoever starts using it can continue to use it, and if a piece of land is not being used then anyone can come and start using it.

                “But what if two different people want to use the land, but only one plan can be implemented? Given that neither can use violence to enforce their claim, who then has the rightful claim if not the homesteader / original appropriator?” If two people want to both use something, and it’s not being used at the moment, then whoever starts using it first would be allowed to continue to use it.

              • Keshav Srinivasan says:

                “Wouldn’t left anarchists who reject the homesteading principle, and advance another ethic instead, also have a burden of proof? Are you claiming that they have satisfied that burden of proof, whereas homesteading ethics proponents have not? If so, how have the left anarchists “proved” themselves?” Yes, certainly left-libertarians have just much of a burden of proof for their theory of property as right-libertarians. All I was saying to Joseph is that he is the one who has a burden of proof, not me, because he’s advancing a theory of property, and I’m just expressing skepticism. As far as whether right-libertarians or left-libertarians have “satisfied” the burden of proof, I can’t really answer that, not having read much of the works of either one. The reason I’m having this discussion is to try to find out what justification there is for the homesteading principle. It may be that some libertarian thinkers have made good arguments for it and I’m simply unaware of them. But Rothbard’s argument for it in the Ethics of Liberty, for instance, seems unsatisfactory, as does Hoppe’s argumentation ethics.

              • guest says:

                If I then decide to mix my labor with the piece of land, and a week later you follow through on your plan to use the resource, in what sense have you forced me to work for you against my will? Knowing that you were planning to use the land a week from now, I could have avoided mixing my labor with that piece of land.

                In this scenario, you’re the rightful owner for having been the first to mix your labor with it.

                It’s not the mere mention of wanting to use an unowned thing that makes someone the owner.

                But if we lived in a different kind of society, say a left-libertarian society where the expectation was that anyone can go onto any piece of land regardless of what work was done …

                Without ownership, one lacks the authority to delegate power over something. So it would be impossible to have a contractual agreement with someone over that thing (qua, “the thing”).

                If one doesn’t homestead something, he *must* allow other people to do what they want with it – no society required.

                And if two or more people just happen to decide not to homestead a piece of land, let’s say – and they did work on it (again, without deciding to homestead it) – then at any time someone else may rightfully come and claim the land in whatever state it’s in.

                If you think that’s wrong, then you *are* in fact claiming ownership of the land.

              • Major-Freedom says:

                Keshav:

                “If two people want to both use something, and it’s not being used at the moment, then whoever starts using it first would be allowed to continue to use it.”

                So if that person the next day or week then leaves the land and goes to the store to buy more supplies, the second person who was waiting on the sidelines can then waltz right onto the land, and use it it in his own way, (since nobody is using it at that time), including destroying everything the first person built? And then when the second person leaves to go to the store, the first person can then step onto the land once more, and use it the way he wants, including destroying what the second person built?

                And so on?

                Does that make sense to you?

              • Major-Freedom says:

                Keshav:

                What exactly do you find wrong with Rothbard’s ethics?

                What exactly do you find wrong with Hoppe’s ethics?

              • Major-Freedom says:

                Keshav:

                “I certainly do subscribe to some theory of ethics (the Hindu theory of ethics). And if you want to know what my personal opinion of the homesteading principle is, I think it’s probably wrong. (I say probably only because most people who subscribe to it believe that it implies certain ethical conclusions, and I’m quite certain for independent reasons that those conclusions are wrong, but it could be that people are just engaging in faulty reasoning.)”

                And what “independent” premises are you referring to that are leading you to conclude that those certain ethical conclusions of homesteading ethics are wrong?

                What is the fault in reasoning that you are referring to?

              • guest says:

                The reason I’m having this discussion is to try to find out what justification there is for the homesteading principle.

                Maybe this will help:

                I’m assuming that in your Hindu worldview, your gods own everything.

                Assuming for the sake of argument that Hinduism is true, then based on their ownership they get to say how ownership among mankind is administered.

                But this is still consistent with the homesteading principle.

                In the Christian worldview, apart from Israel rightly belonging to the Jews, no other stipulation applies to land, itself.

                (Aside: Ron Paul does *not* believe that Israel belongs to the Jews; But I would have gladly voted for him, anyway.

                (And I at least get his economic arguments against the Israeli blockade of Gaza; Though I’m not quite sure he understands the danger of Taqiyya – “civilization Jihad”.

                (Be this as it is, I have come to be convinced that a strict adherence to individual property rights would prevent the Islamists’ desired outcome of such projects as the Cordoba House mosque [They see such mosques as a symbol of conquest].)

              • Major-Freedom says:

                Keshav:

                Given that you desire to practise Hindu ethics, do you believe you have satisfied the burden of proof for those ethics to me?

              • Keshav Srinivasan says:

                “In this scenario, you’re the rightful owner for having been the first to mix your labor with it.” But guest, that’s the whole matter under dispute: what is the justification for the assertion that no one is allowed to use a piece of land which someone has worked on? Your answer to me was that to use a piece of land that someone has worked on is slavery, because they’re being forced to work for you against their will. And my response to that is to consider an example where I know for a fact that a piece of land is going to be used by someone else. In that case, if knowing that fact I decide to work on that land anyway, in what sense is there slavery involved? I’m not working on the land thinking no one will use it, and then being surprised to find out that someone has used it. I’m working on the land voluntarily, with full knowledge of what the result is going to be. So in what sense am I working against my will for someone else?

                “It’s not the mere mention of wanting to use an unowned thing that makes someone the owner.” I wasn’t claiming that at all. I was just using the example of someone mentioning that they’re going to use it to refute your point that using land that’s been homesteaded amounts to forcing someone to work for you against their will.

                “And if two or more people just happen to decide not to homestead a piece of land, let’s say – and they did work on it (again, without deciding to homestead it) – then at any time someone else may rightfully come and claim the land in whatever state it’s in.” That’s not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about a left-libertarian society where the expectation is that anyone can go onto any piece of land, regardless of whether it’s been “homesteaded” or not. In such a society, I don’t see how going onto homesteaded land would amount to slavery, since whoever mixes their labor with it knows in advance that the land will be used by others, so he can choose to simply not mix his labor with it. So how is he being forced to work against his will for anyone?

              • guest says:

                I was just using the example of someone mentioning that they’re going to use it to refute your point that using land that’s been homesteaded amounts to forcing someone to work for you against their will.

                But your example doesn’t refute my position.

                You can’t homestead something by merely stating that you want to do something with it.

                So, in your example, when you decide to work the land before I get a chance to follow through on my plans with it, it is currently unowned because I haven’t done anything with it, yet.

                You are the homesteader, in your scenario.

              • guest says:

                I’m talking about a left-libertarian society where the expectation is that anyone can go onto any piece of land …

                Quoting myself (cut and paste):

                Without ownership, one lacks the authority to delegate power over something. So it would be impossible to have a contractual agreement with someone over that thing (qua, “the thing”).

              • Keshav Srinivasan says:

                “So if that person the next day or week then leaves the land and goes to the store to buy more supplies, the second person who was waiting on the sidelines can then waltz right onto the land, and use it it in his own way, (since nobody is using it at that time), including destroying everything the first person built? And then when the second person leaves to go to the store, the first person can then step onto the land once more, and use it the way he wants, including destroying what the second person built? And so on?” That’s the idea, yes. In the theory I’m describing, anyone is allowed to do anything, as long as it doesn’t involve violence against other people’s bodies. And by the way, there would presumably be no buying things at stores.

                “Does that make sense to you?” No, I don’t remotely agree with it. It’s just a possible view that someone might have.

              • guest says:

                “Does that make sense to you?” No, I don’t remotely agree with it. It’s just a possible view that someone might have.

                *Facepalm*
                😀

              • guest says:

                Offering an alternative explanation is not the same thing as making an argument against one.

              • Keshav Srinivasan says:

                “What exactly do you find wrong with Rothbard’s ethics?” I haven’t actually read Rothbard’s “Ethics of Liberty”, but from the tiny bits and pieces I’ve seen, it seems that it makes an unwarranted jump from an “is” to an “ought”. Part 3 of this series of post by Matt Zwolinski makes similar criticisms:
                http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/category/rothbards-ethics-of-liberty/
                Basically, Rothbard spends time making a detailed argument about what we own, where “own” is used in a value-neutral way to signify a matter of “natural fact” – a matter of what we do and do not in fact have control over. But then having concluded that we own ourselves and the things we homestead, he jumps to a moral claim that we have a right to these things – a claim that we *ought* to have control over the things that he previously said we just *do* have control over. But it’s possible that I just haven’t read the part of the book where he justifies going from “property” to “property rights”.
                “What exactly do you find wrong with Hoppe’s ethics?” A lot. Some of what I object to has already been noted by Bob and Gene (back when Gene was a libertarian):
                https://mises.org/journals/jls/20_2/20_2_3.pdf
                I find argumentation ethics thoroughly unpersuasive. I’m already skeptical of the notion of performative contradictions as it’s used praxeology, but their use in argumentation ethics seems ridiculous to me. Hoppe argues, for instance, that by engaging in an argument with someone, you are implicitly acknowledging that the other person has a right to his body, since if the person couldn’t use their body they couldn’t argue with you. Even if we accept that that’s true, so what? How does that imply that the thing that they’re implicitly acknowledging is in fact true? It could be that argumentation rests upon certain norms that are in fact morally wrong norms. So the conclusion to draw may just be that the person needs to stop arguing, not that he needs to start believing in whatever ethical standards he happened to give sanction to when he decided to start arguing.
                And that’s just if we grant that Hoppe’s argument is right, but that’s suspect as well. Why does accepting that the other person has a right to argue imply that they have a right to the hairs on their head? You can argue even if someone plucks all your hair out and runs off with it.
                And Hoppe’s justification of homesteading is similarly unpersuasive to me. First of all he says that if people didn’t have the right to physical objects then the human race would die out and there’d be no argument, to which I again ask “so what?” But even if his argument goes through that would presumably just mean that we can have the right to what we need to live in order to argue, not that we can have the right to other things unnecessary to argument.
                Second of all, he says that “if a person did not acquire the right of exclusive control over such goods by homesteading … but instead latecomers were assumed to have
                ownership claims to things, then literally no one would be allowed to do anything
                with anything unless he had the prior consent of all late-comers”. But that does not follow at all. There are theories of property rights other than homesteading and “unanimous consent of latecomers”, so rejecting homesteading doesn’t imply accepting that other theory. Zwolinsky makes similar points about Rothbard in part 4 of that series of posts I linked to earlier.

              • Keshav Srinivasan says:

                “What exactly do you find wrong with Rothbard’s ethics?” I haven’t actually read Rothbard’s “Ethics of Liberty”, but from the tiny bits and pieces I’ve seen, it seems that it makes an unwarranted jump from an “is” to an “ought”. This post by Matt Zwolinski makes similar criticisms: tinyurl.com/zwolinsky3

                Basically, Rothbard spends time making a detailed argument about what we own, where “own” is used in a value-neutral way to signify a matter of “natural fact” – a matter of what we do and do not in fact have control over. But then having concluded that we own ourselves and the things we homestead, he jumps to a moral claim that we have a right to these things – a claim that we *ought* to have control over the things that he previously said we just *do* have control over. But it’s possible that I just haven’t read the part of the book where he justifies going from “property” to “property rights”.
                “What exactly do you find wrong with Hoppe’s ethics?” A lot. Some of what I object to has already been noted by Bob and Gene (back when Gene was a libertarian):
                tinyurl.com/murphycallahan

                I find argumentation ethics thoroughly unpersuasive. I’m already skeptical of the notion of performative contradictions as it’s used praxeology, but their use in argumentation ethics seems ridiculous to me. Hoppe argues, for instance, that by engaging in an argument with someone, you are implicitly acknowledging that the other person has a right to his body, since if the person couldn’t use their body they couldn’t argue with you. Even if we accept that that’s true, so what? How does that imply that the thing that they’re implicitly acknowledging is in fact true? It could be that argumentation rests upon certain norms that are in fact morally wrong norms. So the conclusion to draw may just be that the person needs to stop arguing, not that he needs to start believing in whatever ethical standards he happened to give sanction to when he decided to start arguing.
                And that’s just if we grant that Hoppe’s argument is right, but that’s suspect as well. Why does accepting that the other person has a right to argue imply that they have a right to the hairs on their head? You can argue even if someone plucks all your hair out and runs off with it.
                And Hoppe’s justification of homesteading is similarly unpersuasive to me. First of all he says that if people didn’t have the right to physical objects then the human race would die out and there’d be no argument, to which I again ask “so what?” But even if his argument goes through that would presumably just mean that we can have the right to what we need to live in order to argue, not that we can have the right to other things unnecessary to argument.
                Second of all, he says that “if a person did not acquire the right of exclusive control over such goods by homesteading … but instead latecomers were assumed to have
                ownership claims to things, then literally no one would be allowed to do anything
                with anything unless he had the prior consent of all late-comers”. But that does not follow at all. There are theories of property rights other than homesteading and “unanimous consent of latecomers”, so rejecting homesteading doesn’t imply accepting that other theory. Zwolinsky makes similar points about a similar argument of Rothbard’s (this is a different post than the one I linked to above):
                tinyurl.com/zwolinsky4

              • Keshav Srinivasan says:

                “And what “independent” premises are you referring to that are leading you to conclude that those certain ethical conclusions of homesteading ethics are wrong?” Well, lots of people believe that the homesteading principle implies anarchism, and I have numerous reasons for believing that anarchism is wrong, but I don’t want to get into that in this discussion. We’re discussing enough weighty issues as it is. In any case, since I’m convinced that anarchism is wrong, I conclude that either the homesteading principle is false or that people are wrong when they say that it implies anarchism. I should note that I’m somewhat more open to a non-anarchist modification of the homesteading principle, according to which at least private individuals aren’t allowed to violate homesteaded land. But I’m skeptical of that principle as well.

              • Major-Freedom says:

                Keshav:

                So why is anarchism “wrong” then?

              • Major-Freedom says:

                Keshav:

                I know you said you don’t want to get into why you think anarchism is wrong, but you have said that your anti-anarchist belief is a premise for your statements here that you do wish to discuss. But I can’t know how to debate or respond to what you are saying if I don’t know your premises.

              • guest says:

                There are theories of property rights other than homesteading and “unanimous consent of latecomers” …

                Can you name one?

                If a supposed alternative is a theologically based one, then God is the owner, and the homesteading theory applies.

                If one is a collective-based, or societal, one, the theory is self-defeating since ownership of a thing is a prerequisite for delegation of authority over it.

              • Keshav Srinivasan says:

                “I know you said you don’t want to get into why you think anarchism is wrong, but you have said that your anti-anarchist belief is a premise for your statements here that you do wish to discuss. But I can’t know how to debate or respond to what you are saying if I don’t know your premises.” I just mentioned my personal reasons for believing that the homesteading principle is (probably) false in passing because you asked. I’m not really trying to make an argument here for the homesteading principle being false. I’m just trying to find out whether there are any good arguments for the homesteading principle being true.

              • Keshav Srinivasan says:

                “Can you name one?”
                Well, Zwolinsky argues in the post I linked to that there are infinitely many:
                http://tinyurl.com/zwolinsky4
                But one example is the Lockean theory of property, where you have homesteading but also the Lockean proviso. Another example is the left-libertarian theory I’ve been describing to Major_Freedom, where no one has the right to use violence to stop anyone else from using any natural resources. Yet another example is what Steve Landsburg has dubbed “the Economists’ Golden Rule”, that any action is justified as long as it leads to a Kaldor-Hicks improvement.

                “If a supposed alternative is a theologically based one, then God is the owner, and the homesteading theory applies.” Well, what if God wants humans to follow some different property scheme? I think Augustine said that the whole world actually belonged to the righteous, and the only reason why we allow the unrighteous to own anything is that private property is a “remedial institution” designed to make society function better.

                “If one is a collective-based, or societal, one, the theory is self-defeating since ownership of a thing is a prerequisite for delegation of authority over it.” Why is that? What if you took it as an a priori axiom that if all the people in society take a vote, then a majority is allowed to arbitrarily reassign who own what, because society as a whole has a right to everything? Why would that axiom be self-defeating?

              • guest says:

                Well, what if God wants humans to follow some different property scheme?

                Assuming God created something, he is the homesteader.

                … where you have homesteading but also the Lockean proviso.

                The Lockean proviso is in the category of “collective-based” theories and is self-defeating for the reasons mentioned.

                It presumes that others have a claim to something by virtue of existing.

                But: On whose authority is this claim based?

                If the claim is “God’s authority”, then God, having created the thing, is the homesteader.

                If not God, then the view is collective-based.

                Yet another example is … that any action is justified as long as it leads to a Kaldor-Hicks improvement.

                (Having never heard of “Kaldor-Hicks”, I’m applying what I know of Austrian school analysis to the *very* cursory glance I gave to it.)

                Since values are subjective, the concept of Kaldor-Hicks efficiency is incoherent. Only the individual can determine what would be considered “better off”.

                It also presumes that someone other than the one who transforms a resource has the authority to decide how it’s allocated.

                So, either the would-be allocator is claiming to be the owner and is therefore relying on the homesteading principle to justify his authority; or he is claiming that he owns the resource together with others, which view is collective-based.

                All alternative cases, so far, have reduced to either the homesteading or collective-based theory.

        • Major_Freedom says:

          Keshav:

          “But the anarcho-capitalist isn’t just asking to be left alone to do what he wants. He’s also asking the rest of us to respect his property claims derived from a Rothbardian theory of homesteading that the rest of us don’t subscribe to.”

          You just admitted that you refuse to accept that should anarcho-capitalists want to be left alone, then they deserve to be left alone.

          Asking to be left alone IS asking for others to respect their property rights.

          “He’s also asking the rest of us to respect his property claims derived from a Rothbardian theory of homesteading that the rest of us don’t subscribe to.”

          You could only manifest your disagreement in your activity by not leaving them alone when they want to be left alone.

          You are proving the ancap’s point that you refuse to leave people alone.

      • Tel says:

        It is a call for those not wanting to live in ancapistan, to simply refrain from using violence, coercion and intimidation against those who do want to live in it. Allow each and every individual the choice to live in it if they want.

        Sure, I call for the same thing. Strangely you expect that the people who impose violence on others are likely to listen so such a call.

    • Major_Freedom says:

      It’s like there is a mental defect, from I don’t know where, that turns “I don’t want to live in ancapistan” to “I will use force to prevent you from living in it.”

      Hello!

      • Bob Roddis says:

        That is why I always bring up the total aversion of the statist economists, historians etc… to even thinking about analyzing reality with an eye for violent intervention vs. non intervention, voluntary transactions vs transactions subject to intervention etc…. It is the basis of everything we say and do and devote our lives to, and the oopponents cannot be bothered to even think about it. There is an aversion thing going on. And then there is the venemous hatred of us by “the left”. I’m not sure how to address it but we must admit that it exists and that it is a problem.

      • Gene Callahan says:

        You may go live in it. Just not in our country.

        • Joseph Fetz says:

          Because everybody knows that Gene’s conception of “ours” excludes anybody that Gene has not first deemed acceptable. Come on, Gene …

        • Major_Freedom says:

          It is not your country to grant such permission.

          Country is private property plus organized crime which violates property rights according to arbitrary borders established by arbitrary wars and conflicts.

          You do not own land you did not homestead or trade for. You support initiating force to keep people from living in ancapistan.

    • Matt M (Dude Where's My Freedom) says:

      Regarding point 1, I think the very general point of the thick-ists that may have some merit is that because libertarianism is strongly associated with respecting the rights of individuals (as opposed to “collective” rights that statists always promote), that makes it incompatible with racism, sexism, etc. because those things automatically classify people into groups rather than dealing with them individually.

      While it comes across as “everyone should be tolerant of all other choices at all times” I think all they really mean is “judge the individual and not the group.”

    • Gene Callahan says:

      “There is an endless list of non-violent sanctions that might be applied against people with bad attitudes. Like everyone refusing the sell them any water or food. Or encircling them. Libertarianism does not concern those possible sanctions which is another subject altogether.”

      How kind of you, Bob! You won’t point a gun at them, but you will slowly kill them of thirst. That IS sweet.

      • Bob Roddis says:

        That is so out of context, Mr. Callahan. It is stated in the context of a decades-long attack claiming that libertarians are oblvious to the alleged evils of drug addiction and/or racism. It is stated in the context of what to do about people who are behaving horribly but non- violently in lieu of shooting them, their grandma and their dogs. It is stated in the context of knowing that these non-violent sanctions can be appropriately calibrated to the circumstances. It is stated in the context of knowing that a reliance upon non-violent sanctions is not a recipre of social anomie.

        But you know that, right? Or do you?

        • Bob Roddis says:

          a reliance upon non-violent sanctions is not a RECIPE FOR social anomie.

        • Philippe says:

          Of course, causing someone to die of hunger or thirst by denying them access to food or water is not “non-violent” in the slightest. It is the exact opposite.

          • Bob Roddis says:

            It may be outrageous, horrific and immoral but it is not violent. You are distorting the language as you must.

            Philippe is just another subject changer. When the going gets tough, the statists get going on obfuscation, language distortion and subject changing.

          • Bob Roddis says:

            I am so tired of this tactic. Refusing to engage in trade or exchange with someone is not that same as attacking him, his family and his dog with a meat cleaver. It’s hopeless.

            • Philippe says:

              “It may be outrageous, horrific and immoral but it is not violent.”

              Really. So someone comes into your shop and they are dying of thirst. They beg you for a drink and you say no. They proceed to move towards your bottled water, and you stand in their way. They try to push past to get the water, and you stop them again. They attempt to push you out of the way and you push them back. They try to push you harder this time and you hit them. You then push them out of the shop onto the sidewalk, where they lie down and die of thirst.

              Of course, that isn’t “non violent” at all is it.

              • Philippe says:

                Perhaps you didn’t read the article I linked to the last time I tried to point out to you that you don’t even understand the “non aggression principle”.

                http://mattbruenig.com/2014/04/20/fun-game-identify-the-aggressor-in-this-animated-gif/

                “Even if the NAP is correct, it cannot serve as a fundamental principle of libertarian ethics, because its meaning and normative force are entirely parasitic on an underlying theory of property.”

                “You can’t resolve a philosophical debate between a classical liberal and a socialist by appealing to the NAP, because each can claim their view is consistent with that principle given their theories of property”

              • Joseph Fetz says:

                Prove a sure-fire case for positive obligations, and then we’ll talk. Until then, you’re entirely full of shit.

              • Bob Roddis says:

                Positive obligations can be created by contract. It’s not rocket science. Futher, there are non-violent sanctions one might employ against people who refuse to give water to the dying even if they do not owe a contractual duty to provide water. Like not givingTHEM any water.

                Stop changing the subject. Spending decades of one’s life dealing with statist subject changers is not a productive life.

                It’s all hopeless. We’re doomed.

              • Philippe says:

                Bob, the reason people disagree with your arguments is not because they don’t understand them, but because your arguments are dumb.

                Despite constantly accusing everyone of not understanding your ‘simple truths’, the reality is that you don’t even understand basic aspects of your own ideology.

                “Even if the NAP is correct, it cannot serve as a fundamental principle of libertarian ethics, because its meaning and normative force are entirely parasitic on an underlying theory of property.”

                In other words, Rothbardianism is not simply the “rigorous enforcement of the NAP”. Any idiot should be able to see that very clearly.

              • Bob Roddis says:

                Most people already understand how private property and laws against assault work. If you want to rec-create the wheel, go for it.

                But when you do, what would be wrong with me and my gang of cut throats killing you and stealing all your stuff — since you don’t believe in my “system”?

                I’m out.

              • Philippe says:

                “Most people already understand how private property and laws against assault work.”

                Most people don’t believe that taxation is theft. Most people don’t believe that the US government has no right to exist. Most people don’t believe that public property “doesn’t exist”. Etc.

                Your “system” is not the system that actually exists, is it Bob.

                You want a different system, don’t you Bob.

                Does the law consider taxation to be theft, Bob?

                No.

              • Philippe says:

                Private property in the US is defined by US law, not by Rothbardian make-believe ‘theory’.

                “While it is a moot question whether the origin of any kind of property is derived from Nature at all … it is considered by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no one has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land … Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society.”

                Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson to Isaac McPherson, 13 Aug. 1813

                http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/print_documents/v1ch16s25.html

              • Joseph Fetz says:

                I’m curious Philippe, are you ever going to make a case for the [claims–RPM] that you say, or are you just going to keep making unbacked statements? Really, this [stuff–RPM] gets pretty tiring, seeing the same old statements without any substance.

                I have no problem with somebody making such statements as you do, but at least back it up with an argument. That’s the least that you can do considering how often you post comments here.

              • Philippe says:

                what exactly would you like me to explain to you, Joseph?

              • Major_Freedom says:

                Why you continue to believe in so many flawed, violence based convictions.

          • Major_Freedom says:

            Philippe,

            Right Philippe, just like a woman “denying you free access to her body” makes her the aggressor, rather than you the would be rapist.

            If mere need for sex is not sufficient to morally justify violating someone’s property rights of their person, then neither is need for food sufficient to morally justify violating someone’s property rights of what their person depends on in order to live and be happy.

            It would be violent for a person to steal food from another.

            • Tel says:

              He has already declared that government makes no claim of ownership over citizens, which entirely throws all positive obligations out the window.

              Needless to say, he will very quickly forget the inconsistency, and keep right on with the same.

      • Joseph Fetz says:

        Oh, for crying out loud, Gene. What is the justification for any sort of positive obligation to provide goods to another? Is there a moral imperative here?

        Granted, I wouldn’t restrict people from trading goods with those that needed it (i.e. I certainly oppose sanctions), in fact, I’d probably donate such goods to them if the situation was quite dire. But what does this have to do with whether or not somebody should be imprisoned or otherwise aggressed upon if they abstain (from such actions)?!

        As always, you resort to moralistic and dramatic statements, as if you’re proving some point. At the same time you proclaim that somebody like myself is the “ideologue”. (!!)

  3. Dan says:

    I doubt you’ll see much, if any, uncivil behavior on this topic here. It doesn’t seem like you have a lot of libertarians who embrace the whole “thick/thin” dichotomy to begin with.

  4. RPLong says:

    When I read the LRC article and as I listened to Woods, I was struck by a concept I have imported from TheLastPsychiatrist.com: Sometimes an apparent conflict is presented for mass consumption not to settle the conflict, but to get us to accept the concept being debated by default. TLP, for example, used the media concept of “unplugging from work” as an issue that merely teaches us that “plugged in” is the default position. It’s sort of like the “Loaded Question Fallacy,” but a little more elaborate.

    It seems far-fetched to believe that the libertarian media would do this. But then you read to the bottom of the LRC article, and he says right there:

    All of these additional claims are a distraction from the central principle: if you oppose the initiation of physical force, you are a libertarian. Period. Now how hard was that?

    So the debate between “thick” and “thin” is really there to teach us to accept the NAP without question.

    I just don’t know. I agree with Rockwell, but I don’t like feeling like someone’s tried to pull one over on me. The most offensive part about reading Chomsky is the fact that he doesn’t just make his case, he actively misleads the reader. I don’t think that’s what Rockwell is doing, but it still feels funny and I get a bad feeling from it. That’s not relevant to every reader, of course, but it’s relevant to me.

    I think the NAP is a useful concept, but I knew I was a libertarian long before I ever heard of the NAP. I think the NAP is a powerful moral argument for freedom, but I don’t believe libertarianism absolutely requires it. I think it is just one more great reason to be a libertarian.

    I’m an odd duck, because I tend to prefer Rockwell’s conclusions, but prefer the reasoning of the BHLs. That makes me neither “thick” nor “thin.”

    • Grane Peer says:

      I get it but without the NAP libertarianism is just more of the same political blather. I have had more than enough meaningless rhetoric vomited my way for 10 lifetimes.

      • Gene Callahan says:

        As opposed to with the NAP, when it becomes nonsensical political blather.

        • Grane Peer says:

          Good point, why bother trying anything unique when doing the same thing over and over is the only way to go. I am done with libertarianism thank you, if we ever end up on the same train I will be sure to shake your hand

      • RPLong says:

        Well, I don’t agree with that at all. The NAP is awesome, but there’s plenty of “meat” to libertarianism without it.

        For my part, I’ve tried to define libertarian-type thinking in a “rules vs. merit” framework, where the libertarian prefers that decisions be based on meritoriousness, while non-libertarians default to more rule-based logic.

        There are shortcomings to the way I look at it, too – plenty of them. All I’m trying to say is that I don’t need to accept Rockwell’s package-deal in order to come to similar conclusions.

  5. K.P. says:

    I liked the Rockwell article, I wish he would have thrown in some “thick” paleo issues just to balance things out a bit though.

  6. Transformer says:

    ” if you oppose the initiation of physical force, you are a libertarian.”

    I think the problem comes when you try and define what “initiation of physical force” means.

    Examples:

    An ancap might say “I was justified in shooting that guy – he initiated physical force by trespassing on my land”
    An left libertarian might say “I was justified in shooting that guy – he initiated physical force by fencing off land for his private use that really belongs to us all”
    A statist might say (if he was a cop) “I was justified in shooting that guy – he initiated physical force by refusing to co-operate when I arrested him for possessing of illegal drugs

    • Bob Roddis says:

      We already have a very complete set of laws regarding murder, theft, assault, rape etc…. I do not think these definitions are a problem at all.

    • Bob Roddis says:

      Drug rules would be established via community bylaws. Drugs, druggies and thugs could all be banned from the streets, schools and homes of private communities. People could be evicted for violating the rules. People could be made to put up a bond to live in a community and be evicted and forced to forfeit the bond for contractual violations.

      • Transformer says:

        What if left libertarians or others disputed the land-claims of these communities ?

  7. Bob Roddis says:

    Let’s say 40% of the population wanted to live under a Keynesian regime. What would stop them from having a voluntary non-contiguous system of communities across the US or the planet?

    I know. Rothbard would rise from the dead and force them to abandon their babies on the side of a mountain.

  8. Bogart says:

    These “Thick” Libertarians are really just inserting their preferences into a moral argument. Large majorities of “COOL” people may share many if not all of their preferences and may adhere to them as well but majorities and looks do not make things moral.

    The other area is that these “Thick” folks don’t seem to get is that the NAP is the minimum standard of morality. There are virtues that go beyond the NAP. These virtues include but are not limited to forgiveness, being kind, generous, not letting babies starve, etc.

  9. Sean says:

    Sheldon Richman wrote an article a couple of weeks ago in which he tried to prove (perhaps too strong a word) that because the NAP cannot be justified without bringing in other premises, it would be necessary to accept those premises and all other non-NAP implications of those premises in order for anybody to be logically coherent. This seems to imply that if a libertarian did not believe the premises that Richman alleges to be necessary to support the NAP and/or the other implications of those premises, then that person would not be a libertarian. To be clear, Richman did not draw this conclusion from his own argument, but I think it follows from it. I do not agree with his argument, but it demonstrates I think where some of this quarreling is headed. Richman’s argument in its own way is similar to Ayn Rand’s more totalistic philosophy. If I remember correctly Richman acknowledged Chartier as someone who aided him in formulating his argument.

    • Bob Murphy says:

      For what it’s worth, I agree that Sheldon has written at least one article on this stuff that to me sounded mixed up. In other words I couldn’t just say, “Hmm, I think maybe he’s being unclear here,” but rather I thought I just plain disagreed with him.

      But I think a lot of the other stuff people are writing is mostly just being misinterpreted, like how Tom and Gary might have thought they were going to rumble and it ended up being a tea party (in the everyday sense, not the political sense).

    • RPLong says:

      Rand actually had a name for it: package-deal.

  10. Innocent says:

    The big problem with aggression is that it is in the eye of the beholder. For instance. I am perfectly justified in placing you in court ( an aggressive behavior ) if you are doing something I deem to be aggressive against… For instance you have a factory that I say is causing Global Warming. Since you are the aggressor in Global Warming I have every right to attack you.

    There is no such thing as ‘non-aggressive’.

    Any action will be followed by an equal and opposite reaction. It is pretty close to a universal law.

    • Peter says:

      “The big problem with aggression is that it is in the eye of the beholder.”

      Yeah, usually the aggressor (typically the government) thinks he’s peaceful, while the “aggressees”, well, let’s just say they see it differently.

      “There is no such thing as ‘non-aggressive’.”

      Are you literally claiming that ALL behavior is aggressive? In other words, if I buy a TV from Best Buy, which, mind you, is a completely voluntary act on my part, it means I am aggressing against Best Buy? Or Best Buy is aggressing against me for offering me a TV without forcing me to buy? Or is it that because the TV is using energy, I am aggressing against “Global Warming” (Not sure who that is).

      What am I missing?

  11. Gene Callahan says:

    Libertarianism is not a “political philosophy” at all: it is an ideology. It is anti-philosophical.

    • Gene Callahan says:

      As evidenced, say, by a whole bunch of libertarians having an argument about who “really is” a libertarian!

      • Bob Murphy says:

        I’d classify you as a sophist, Gene, but then you’d accuse me of being anti-philosophical.

      • Grane Peer says:

        You are on fire Gene, what could more anti-philosophical than trying to figure out what it means to be something

      • Ivan Jankovic says:

        yeah, unlike pragmatists or empiricists in epistemology who all agree on every major point.

    • Gene Callahan says:

      Or try to decide who is “hard core.”

      • Tel says:

        A lot of religions do the same, and they also regard themselves as philosophical.

    • skylien says:

      Gene, your conviction that a state is necessary isn’t an ideology? If not, why not?

      I see you doing that often, to just call others “ideologists”, what to me is just short for: “I am right, they are wrong, and they are either stupid, brainwashed or intellectually dishonest, in any case closed minded, as opposed to me who is fair and balanced and has seen the light”.

      Or are you just trolling for the fun of it?

      • Joseph Fetz says:

        Gene only plays a troll on the internetz. In real life he’s a leprechaun.

    • Major_Freedom says:

      Gene:

      Then anti-libertarianism is not a political philosophy at all, and is an ideology, and anti-philosophical.

      Also, don’t think you know what an ideology is. It is juat a set of ideas.

  12. Ivan Jankovic says:

    It;s simple: “thick” libertarians like liberty but also like other things, some of which are in contradiction to liberty (material equality, “racial tolerance”). And what they do is to declare those other things to be just the “aspects” of liberty instead of negation of it, and that those people who do not accept those other idiosyncratic concepts are not the ‘real’ libertarians. And they think they have a right to use coercion against those who don’t understand what the “real”, “thick” freedom means.

    that;s essentially the same phenomenon that Isiah Berlin detected in the attempts to impose the concept of “positive liberty”: condoning the use of force in order to achieve some other ideals, and calling this “noble” coercion a “true freedom:

    “‘No one has … rights against reason.’ ‘Man is afraid of subordinating his subjectivity to the
    laws of reason. He prefers tradition or arbitrariness.’44 Nevertheless, subordinated he must be. 45
    Fichte puts forward the claims of what he called reason; Napoleon, or Carlyle, or romantic
    authoritarians may worship other values, and see in their establishment by force the only path to
    ‘true’ freedom.”

    Nothing new under the Sun, except terminology which gets more and more stupid and annoying as time goes by.

    • martinK says:

      t;s simple: “thick” libertarians like liberty but also like other things, some of which are in contradiction to liberty (material equality, “racial tolerance”).

      How exactly are material equality and racial tolerance in contradiction to liberty? Do people have to be racially intolerant in a free society? Are there no peaceful ways to strive for more material equality? The thick libertarians I know of mostly rail against current material inequality which they think is mostly caused by state interference.

      And they think they have a right to use coercion against those who don’t understand what the “real”, “thick” freedom means.

      Do they?

  13. Ivan Jankovic says:

    “How exactly are material equality and racial tolerance in contradiction to liberty?”

    In a free society, some level of material inequality and racial intolerance will exist. If you believe that they are not allowed in a free society, this simply means that you authorize the using the force against the people who do not initiate the use of force, which means you are against liberty.

    • martinK says:

      If you believe that they are not allowed in a free society, this simply means that you authorize the using the force against the people who do not initiate the use of force, which means you are against liberty.

      To oppose something doesn’t necessarily mean you disallow it in the sense of using force against to prevent it. Many libertarians oppose political correctness, that doesn’t mean they want to counter it by force.

  14. Ivan Jankovic says:

    “And they think they have a right to use coercion against those who don’t understand what the “real”, “thick” freedom means.

    Do they?”

    Yes, they do. They for example support Civil Rights Act of 1964 which bans individual racial discrimination. And many other similar things.

  15. Gentile Ben says:

    Yeah, Tom handled (dispatched the ideas of) his guest (wackadoo blindness in econ) with skill

Leave a Reply to Anonymous

Cancel Reply