tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6756434140794129886.post5260851641589618102..comments2010-07-13T04:31:11.949-07:00Comments on Knowing Humans: Varieties of Principled LibertarianismBrian Holtzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18284822676116941984brian@holtz.orgBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6756434140794129886.post-30605852969244650222010-07-13T04:31:11.938-07:002010-07-13T04:31:11.938-07:00Brian,
After reading your lengthy "history lesson...Brian,<br /><br />After reading your lengthy "history lesson" here, if I weren't a vegetarian I would be asking "Where's the beef?" Where is the real proof that the Non-Aggression Principle isn't the heart and soul of libertarianism?<br /><br />You can wax on about property variables, enfranchisement variables, etc., all you want, but that doesn't change the fundamental centrality of non-aggression in libertarian thought. <br /><br />You yourself advocate that the Libertarian Party's mission should be to minimize the role of aggression in society! Even I, as a non-anarchist who totally rejects your claim that there are lots of other "schools of libertarianism" which deserve to be placed on some kind of equal footing with the Non-Aggression Principle, can go along with that -- I simply happen to believe that championing the N.A.P. *is* the most effective way to minimize aggression in society!<br /><br />I do find it a bit curious though, that you don't appear to be concerned that an LP focus on minimizing aggression would leave those other "schools" outside the tent. Is your lack of concern for alienating their followers simply a recognition of the fact that they barely *have* any followers? Is it a recognition of the fact that most of the people who believe in various combinations of the "variables" you discuss -- including myself! -- probably don't recognize those beliefs as forming any kind of "school" of thought that is at odds with the Non-Aggression Principle?<br /><br />I think it's safe to say that many if not most Libertarians *do* believe that allowing some legal aggression is practically unavoidable if we want to avoid risking much worse. However if you take any random ten Libertarians, you will probably get about ten different lists of the circumstances in which they believe government aggression is justified. <br /><br />Therefore I think the best solution is to separate our personal beliefs from what the Libertarian Party advocates. Most of us recognize that libertarianism has to do with limiting aggression, even if we don't think limiting aggression is practical 100% of the time. So instead of each of us fighting to have the LP reflect our own personal mix of libertarian and non-libertarian beliefs, when we will never agree on on what that mix should be, we ought to simply agree to let the party consistently stand for non-aggression 100% of the time. That way each of us will be free to make it clear that we don't personally favor allowing X, Y, and Z, so long as we don't misrepresent the party platform or libertarianism.Starchildhttp://isil.org/resources/introduction.swfnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6756434140794129886.post-5191334881557175262010-07-13T04:29:54.779-07:002010-07-13T04:29:54.779-07:00Brian,
After reading your lengthy "history lesson...Brian,<br /><br />After reading your lengthy "history lesson" here, if I weren't a vegetarian I would be asking "Where's the beef?" Where is the real proof that the Non-Aggression Principle isn't the heart and soul of libertarianism?<br /><br />You can wax on about property variables, enfranchisement variables, etc., all you want, but that doesn't change the fundamental centrality of non-aggression in libertarian thought. <br /><br />You yourself advocate that the Libertarian Party's mission should be to minimize the role of aggression in society! Even I, as a non-anarchist who totally rejects your claim that there are lots of other "schools of libertarianism" which deserve to be placed on some kind of equal footing with the Non-Aggression Principle, can go along with that -- I simply happen to believe that championing the N.A.P. *is* the most effective way to minimize aggression in society!<br /><br />I do find it a bit curious though, that you don't appear to be concerned that an LP focus on minimizing aggression would leave those other "schools" outside the tent. Is your lack of concern for alienating their followers simply a recognition of the fact that they barely *have* any followers? Is it a recognition of the fact that most of the people who believe in various combinations of the "variables" you discuss -- including myself! -- probably don't recognize those beliefs as forming any kind of "school" of thought that is at odds with the Non-Aggression Principle?<br /><br />I think it's safe to say that many if not most Libertarians *do* believe that allowing some legal aggression is practically unavoidable if we want to avoid risking much worse. However if you take any random ten Libertarians, you will probably get about ten different lists of the circumstances in which they believe government aggression is justified. <br /><br />Therefore I think the best solution is to separate our personal beliefs from what the Libertarian Party advocates. Most of us recognize that libertarianism has to do with limiting aggression, even if we don't think limiting aggression is practical 100% of the time. So instead of each of us fighting to have the LP reflect our own personal mix of libertarian and non-libertarian beliefs, when we will never agree on on what that mix should be, we ought to simply agree to let the party consistently stand for non-aggression 100% of the time. That way each of us will be free to make it clear that we don't personally favor allowing X, Y, and Z, so long as we don't misrepresent the party platform or libertarianism.Starchildhttp://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swfnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6756434140794129886.post-86996389964489484082010-07-13T04:29:07.721-07:002010-07-13T04:29:07.721-07:00Brian,
After reading your lengthy "history lesson...Brian,<br /><br />After reading your lengthy "history lesson" here, if I weren't a vegetarian I would be asking "Where's the beef?" Where is the real proof that the Non-Aggression Principle isn't the heart and soul of libertarianism?<br /><br />You can wax on about property variables, enfranchisement variables, etc., all you want, but that doesn't change the fundamental centrality of non-aggression in libertarian thought. <br /><br />You yourself advocate that the Libertarian Party's mission should be to minimize the role of aggression in society! Even I, as a non-anarchist who totally rejects your claim that there are lots of other "schools of libertarianism" which deserve to be placed on some kind of equal footing with the Non-Aggression Principle, can go along with that -- I simply happen to believe that championing the N.A.P. *is* the most effective way to minimize aggression in society!<br /><br />I do find it a bit curious though, that you don't appear to be concerned that an LP focus on minimizing aggression would leave those other "schools" outside the tent. Is your lack of concern for alienating their followers simply a recognition of the fact that they barely *have* any followers? Is it a recognition of the fact that most of the people who believe in various combinations of the "variables" you discuss -- including myself! -- probably don't recognize those beliefs as forming any kind of "school" of thought that is at odds with the Non-Aggression Principle?<br /><br />I think it's safe to say that many if not most Libertarians *do* believe that allowing some legal aggression is practically unavoidable if we want to avoid risking much worse. However if you take any random ten Libertarians, you will probably get about ten different lists of the circumstances in which they believe government aggression is justified. <br /><br />Therefore I think the best solution is to separate our personal beliefs from what the Libertarian Party advocates. Most of us recognize that libertarianism has to do with limiting aggression, even if we don't think limiting aggression is practical 100% of the time. So instead of each of us fighting to have the LP reflect our own personal mix of libertarian and non-libertarian beliefs, when we will never agree on on what that mix should be, we ought to simply agree to let the party consistently stand for non-aggression 100% of the time. That way each of us will be free to make it clear that we don't personally favor allowing X, Y, and Z, so long as we don't misrepresent the party platform or libertarianism.Starchildhttp://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swfnoreply@blogger.com