Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
He seems like a reasonable philosopher. He even supported a modest social safety net it seems libertarians have drifted far from the likes of Hayek and Friedman. Friedman also supported a universal basic income.
He seems like a reasonable philosopher. He even supported a modest social safety net it seems libertarians have drifted far from the likes of Hayek and Friedman. Friedman also supported a universal basic income.
You're attempting to build a strawman, and none of the libertarian/AnCap/anarchist folks here are falling for it.
The straw man is as follows:
The assumption that Hayek and Friedman are the total basis of libertarian thought and that to be libertarian, one must adhere to the ideas of Hayek and Milton in totality.
The assumption that there are "How To Be Libertarian, Volume 1" type textbooks, and there is a grading scale for how well one follows the rules therein.
The assumption that libertarianism has a strict set of specific policy rules and guidelines, and adherence is absolutely binary, as in straying from one rule or the other negates your status in the club or something.
Finally, that your definition of how ALL libertarians think is what is applied to Hayek and Friedman, and you alone get to judge how well your definition of libertarians holds up to those two specific writers across all of their writing.
The only specifics to individualist, voluntaryist, minimal/zero state thinking are
property rights are absolute
You own you
Non-Aggression Principle
All associations are voluntary
No collective can have rights/powers that the individuals within said collective do not possess.
After that, there are all manner of discussion spaces, shades of grey on implementation and function, normative vs descriptive, ethical and moral dilemmas (aplenty), etc. I know that at least No_Recess and myself have frequently pointed out that properly consistent logic in the ideological and philosophical world is really tough. No easy logical/philosophical row to hoe, this whole anarchist thing. I've never argued otherwise. But at no point have any of us said "just do what Hayek and Freidman say, and it's all good."
If I was going to use specific writers as the How 2 Libertarian gurus, I'd start with Rothbard, Mises and Spooner. Rothbard in particular because he actually titled a book "For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto." If Marx/Hegel get to be the guidebook for communism because of their manifesto, we'll let Rothbard's manifesto be a decent starting point for books to read for a clue on at least the basic, generalized thinking.
He seems like a reasonable philosopher. He even supported a modest social safety net it seems libertarians have drifted far from the likes of Hayek and Friedman. Friedman also supported a universal basic income.
Not really ironic that what you like best about both disqualify them as truly libertarian. However both held some libertarian views.
You're attempting to build a strawman, and none of the libertarian/AnCap/anarchist folks here are falling for it.
The straw man is as follows:
The assumption that Hayek and Friedman are the total basis of libertarian thought and that to be libertarian, one must adhere to the ideas of Hayek and Milton in totality.
The assumption that there are "How To Be Libertarian, Volume 1" type textbooks, and there is a grading scale for how well one follows the rules therein.
The assumption that libertarianism has a strict set of specific policy rules and guidelines, and adherence is absolutely binary, as in straying from one rule or the other negates your status in the club or something.
Finally, that your definition of how ALL libertarians think is what is applied to Hayek and Friedman, and you alone get to judge how well your definition of libertarians holds up to those two specific writers across all of their writing.
The only specifics to individualist, voluntaryist, minimal/zero state thinking are
property rights are absolute
You own you
Non-Aggression Principle
All associations are voluntary
No collective can have rights/powers that the individuals within said collective do not possess.
After that, there are all manner of discussion spaces, shades of grey on implementation and function, normative vs descriptive, ethical and moral dilemmas (aplenty), etc. I know that at least No_Recess and myself have frequently pointed out that properly consistent logic in the ideological and philosophical world is really tough. No easy logical/philosophical row to hoe, this whole anarchist thing. I've never argued otherwise. But at no point have any of us said "just do what Hayek and Freidman say, and it's all good."
If I was going to use specific writers as the How 2 Libertarian gurus, I'd start with Rothbard, Mises and Spooner. Rothbard in particular because he actually titled a book "For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto." If Marx/Hegel get to be the guidebook for communism because of their manifesto, we'll let Rothbard's manifesto be a decent starting point for books to read for a clue on at least the basic, generalized thinking.
Libertarians need to think harder about subjects.
There are complicated situations in the world, and saying as long as you support voluntary participation it makes good policy is lazy.
Things are complicated, learn about private equity firms, global investment, property markets, price manipulation, the iron law of oligarchy, over development, and then tell me about the 'freedom' of voluntary relationships.
Libertarians are too absolute, they have to think issues over, not be ideological/
There are complicated situations in the world, and saying as long as you support voluntary participation it makes good policy is lazy.
Things are complicated, learn about private equity firms, global investment, property markets, price manipulation, the iron law of oligarchy, over development, and then tell me about the 'freedom' of voluntary relationships.
Libertarians are too absolute, they have to think issues over, not be ideological/
No, you need to think harder about subjects (if they are important to you).
That's because no statist has ever come up with an answer to to one of their problems that didn't involve me.
I only wish to live and die by my own decisions based on non-aggression and respect for private property rights. That way when I decide to do something it only impacts me and not you.
You're attempting to build a strawman, and none of the libertarian/AnCap/anarchist folks here are falling for it.
The straw man is as follows:
The assumption that Hayek and Friedman are the total basis of libertarian thought and that to be libertarian, one must adhere to the ideas of Hayek and Milton in totality.
The assumption that there are "How To Be Libertarian, Volume 1" type textbooks, and there is a grading scale for how well one follows the rules therein.
The assumption that libertarianism has a strict set of specific policy rules and guidelines, and adherence is absolutely binary, as in straying from one rule or the other negates your status in the club or something.
Finally, that your definition of how ALL libertarians think is what is applied to Hayek and Friedman, and you alone get to judge how well your definition of libertarians holds up to those two specific writers across all of their writing.
The only specifics to individualist, voluntaryist, minimal/zero state thinking are
property rights are absolute
You own you
Non-Aggression Principle
All associations are voluntary
No collective can have rights/powers that the individuals within said collective do not possess.
After that, there are all manner of discussion spaces, shades of grey on implementation and function, normative vs descriptive, ethical and moral dilemmas (aplenty), etc. I know that at least No_Recess and myself have frequently pointed out that properly consistent logic in the ideological and philosophical world is really tough. No easy logical/philosophical row to hoe, this whole anarchist thing. I've never argued otherwise. But at no point have any of us said "just do what Hayek and Freidman say, and it's all good."
If I was going to use specific writers as the How 2 Libertarian gurus, I'd start with Rothbard, Mises and Spooner. Rothbard in particular because he actually titled a book "For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto." If Marx/Hegel get to be the guidebook for communism because of their manifesto, we'll let Rothbard's manifesto be a decent starting point for books to read for a clue on at least the basic, generalized thinking.
Yeah.......what he said !!! Keep telling them !!!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
....what he said !!! Keep telling them !!!
