"Renounced" is a bit of a dramatic word. Anyway, I was interested to see what you might think. That said, I think that, as you've said, substantively many policy outcomes are the same. I just think that some of the more doctrinaire positions cannot be justified.Alain Delors wrote:I'm somewhat disappointed that you've renounced libertarianism, but at least utilitarianism can in many cases lead to the same policy outcomes in practice
My view now is that if you interpret libertarianism in a non-fundamentalist way, you are being intellectually inconsistent if not slightly self-delusional. (This is especially true in the case of libertarianism because it has a very clear premise. It is a bit harder to pin down the premise for conservatism, for say.) If you believe that liberty has to be balanced against other considerations, then surely there has to be some higher criteria, some higher principle by which the right balance can be determined (utility in my case, obviously). And given that for a libertarian liberty by definition has to be the highest ideological principle, once exceptions are introduced, I don't think that you can truly be a libertarian anymore. And that, of course, is the conclusion that I have come to in my own case.Alain Delors wrote:I do think you can support a social safety net and certain exceptions to the negative freedom concept on without having to renounce libertarianism in principle, unless you interpret it in a fundamentalist, Rothbardian sense.
Alain Delors wrote:I see your point, but by that strict definition not even Hayek or Ron Paul would qualify as libertarian. Maybe it's better to opt for the term classical liberal instead of libertarian, because the latter is perhaps a bit misleading as it is mostly associated with the United States libertarian movement whose more radical factions tend to start from ultra-dogmatic premises such as an unabashed Non-Aggression-Principle which shapes their definition of the term "liberty". In classical liberalism, however, the idea of liberty seems to be based on the view that liberty should be maximized, but not absolutized. So while in classical liberalism freedom is the main value and reigns supreme above all other considerations, this does not mean that there can't be any other values that are also part of it to a lesser extent. So I think it is possible to run a basic social safety net and have some form of central authority for security purposes (without which liberty and security of property cannot be guaranteed universally to every individual) as long as it does not come with invasive levels of coercion or taxation. I don't think this view equals the idea that liberty must be "balanced" against other considerations as if it was only one of many values of equal importance. It is rather based on the idea that matters of social or national security should be addressed through measures that do not inflict excessive damage to the idea of liberty.
As for the welfare state, I think you wouldn't find a single libertarian who would speak in defense of a welfare state as we commonly know it (the Social-Democratic version) or as "society" deems reasonable. At most, libertarians would endorse a Swiss-style "welfare state" with very low taxation and very high levels of economic freedom where health care is mostly provided privately (in most First-World countries, this would, in practice, result in a quite radical shrinking of the welfare state). That's why I always say that I'm in favor of a basic social safety net, not a welfare state, because the latter term is associated with existing regimes whose scope and tax burden cannot be justified from the classical liberal point of view. And the idea of including basic social security in an otherwise minimalist state is part of the classical liberal tradition, so I don't think it necessarily amounts to backwards justification.
With respect, it's not my problem if they choose to be intellectually inconsistent.Alain Delors wrote:I see your point, but by that strict definition not even Hayek or Ron Paul would qualify as libertarian.
My view is that so long as you have more than one basic principle - even if one is more basic than the others (liberty in this case) - there is some need to balance those principles. In that sense there is a need for a higher principle to exist, in which case why say that liberty is your highest principle?Alain Delors wrote:In classical liberalism, however, the idea of liberty seems to be based on the view that liberty should be maximized, but not absolutized. So while in classical liberalism freedom is the main value and reigns supreme above all other considerations, this does not mean that there can't be any other values that are also part of it to a lesser extent... I don't think this view equals the idea that liberty must be "balanced" against other considerations as if it was only one of many values of equal importance.
Ah, but that's making your mind up and then coming up with an excuse to substantiate it. Let's say that the only thing you knew, principally speaking, was the fact that liberty was your core principle. Is there a way for you to arrive at a conclusion that would morally permit the existence of social welfare, for example, working from that premise alone? I suspect not.Alain Delors wrote:It is rather based on the idea that matters of social or national security should be addressed through measures that do not inflict excessive damage to the idea of liberty.
That's not the point. If you defend any type of welfare state at all, you are, I think, being inconsistent if you consider yourself a libertarian.Alain Delors wrote:As for the welfare state, I think you wouldn't find a single libertarian who would speak in defense of a welfare state as we commonly know it (the Social-Democratic version) or as "society" deems reasonable.
I am not sure that something being a tradition necessarily means that it is intellectually coherent.Alain Delors wrote:And the idea of including basic social security in an otherwise minimalist state is part of the classical liberal tradition, so I don't think it necessarily amounts to backwards justification.
I second that, notwithstanding our new-found ideological differences. I still have fond memories of Dranland and Hulstria.Aquinas wrote:BTW, I'm delighted to see you here again Alain and I hope you'll be hanging around!
Alain Delors wrote:I see your point, but by that strict definition not even Hayek or Ron Paul would qualify as libertarian. Maybe it's better to opt for the term classical liberal instead of libertarian, because the latter is perhaps a bit misleading as it is mostly associated with the United States libertarian movement whose more radical factions tend to start from ultra-dogmatic premises such as an unabashed Non-Aggression-Principle which shapes their definition of the term "liberty". In classical liberalism, however, the idea of liberty seems to be based on the view that liberty should be maximized, but not absolutized. So while in classical liberalism freedom is the main value and reigns supreme above all other considerations, this does not mean that there can't be any other values that are also part of it to a lesser extent. So I think it is possible to run a basic social safety net and have some form of central authority for security purposes (without which liberty and security of property cannot be guaranteed universally to every individual) as long as it does not come with invasive levels of coercion or taxation. I don't think this view equals the idea that liberty must be "balanced" against other considerations as if it was only one of many values of equal importance. It is rather based on the idea that matters of social or national security should be addressed through measures that do not inflict excessive damage to the idea of liberty.
As for the welfare state, I think you wouldn't find a single libertarian who would speak in defense of a welfare state as we commonly know it (the Social-Democratic version) or as "society" deems reasonable. At most, libertarians would endorse a Swiss-style "welfare state" with very low taxation and very high levels of economic freedom where health care is mostly provided privately (in most First-World countries, this would, in practice, result in a quite radical shrinking of the welfare state). That's why I always say that I'm in favor of a basic social safety net, not a welfare state, because the latter term is associated with existing regimes whose scope and tax burden cannot be justified from the classical liberal point of view. And the idea of including basic social security in an otherwise minimalist state is part of the classical liberal tradition, so I don't think it necessarily amounts to backwards justification.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests