- 26 Jun 2013 11:58
#14261661
Libertarianism sounds, at first blush, like license for the worst excesses of greed and exploitation. The ressaurances (in the lit' you succinctly summarise) involving the free market fairy, impossible lawsuits and it's-all-govt's-fault are the wingnuttery.
How reassured are non-Libertarians ? They typically end up saying you must be talking about a different world.
Earlier, SueDeNîmes wrote:Hence Libertarianism just sounds like selishness and wingnuttery to most folks.
Subsequently, he also wrote:No, my initial reservations were the common ones and (more than) confirmed by the Libertarian literature.
Finally, when asked to provide examples, he wrote:Look no further than the clear and concise précis of the lit' with which you address non-Libertarian objections on this very forum.
Eran wrote:I am flattered that you consider my random ramblings to be "Libertarian literature". But even accepting that, where in what I wrote, do you find any evidence for "selfishness"?
Libertarianism sounds, at first blush, like license for the worst excesses of greed and exploitation. The ressaurances (in the lit' you succinctly summarise) involving the free market fairy, impossible lawsuits and it's-all-govt's-fault are the wingnuttery.
How reassured are non-Libertarians ? They typically end up saying you must be talking about a different world.
SueDeNîmes wrote:No, they also extend these meanings to countless interactions with non-government bodies such as employers, landlords, money lenders etc where disparities of property and bargaining power would circumscribe the weaker parties' liberty (ie most folks' liberty) compared to interactions with democratic rules.
So when I consistently refer to voluntary cooperation as "voluntary", I am considered to have redefined the term "voluntary" when I also apply it to the contract you signed with a landlord or an employer?Certainly if you preclude options which would afford the weaker parties (ie most folks) more liberty. Voluntarism would then just mean whatever people end up doing, from joining a bridge club to having to sell their organs. The semantic trickery is in pretending voluntarism is a black and white binary, when the reality is always a messy spectrum.
Conversely, when we can all agree that breaking down my neighbour's door and grabbing his stuff is an act of aggression, I redefine "aggression" by applying the same standard when government agents do exactly the same thing?Certainly if it's in response to transgression or good reason to anticipate it.
I can accept that libertarians use some terms in some contexts in an unconventional way. But that is because the conventional usage is inconsistent, while the libertarian usage is strictly consistent.No, it's because conventional usage reflects the reality that freedom always comes in degrees and with conflicting interests.