I realize that the challenge, with any philosophy, is to thread the needle between a) a term means whatever those who use it want it to mean and b) the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.
IMHO, classical liberalism is the heart and soul of libertarianism, a term that really emerged to replace "liberal" in the United …
I realize that the challenge, with any philosophy, is to thread the needle between a) a term means whatever those who use it want it to mean and b) the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.
IMHO, classical liberalism is the heart and soul of libertarianism, a term that really emerged to replace "liberal" in the United States after "liberal" began to mean "left-wing statist" (in other parts of the world, "libertarian" seems to have a wider range of uses). It's useful to insist on a definition of the word, and in the US context that seems like a valid, historically accurate one. If we're going to allow it to also mean European-style left-wing collectivist anarchism (don't ask me how that's supposed to work), then it means nothing at all. Thus my insistence, "true Scotsman" style, that no anarchist is a libertarian: yes, they both oppose big government, but in philosophically distinct ways. There comes a point where the "true Scotsman" point is valid: a Londoner simply isn't one, despite coming from the same island.
Objectivism, which I haven't studied much, appears to me to be a philosophy that overlaps with libertarianism in some ways, but is also quite distinct, with its focus on objective reality. Its libertarian aspect comes from the idea that one's own happiness is the moral purpose of life, an idea I find somewhat troublesome: at the very least it requires a big asterisk.
Finally, what "anarcho-capitalism" would be, I have no idea. It sounds like something made up by one of my left-wing friends trying to scare people. Markets that involve participants beyond individuals known to each other and/or their direct relationships don't seem to exist in nature; large-scale capitalism has always been, and is today, a government policy choice (because it works). Any organization large enough to enforce large-scale capitalism would be a de facto government, I think.
Most of your other points taken. I even agree with your sentiment that classical liberalism is the heart and soul of libertarianism - or at least it should be 😀
It’s easy enough to learn what anarcho-capitalism is. It’s not a new term. In fact, I first heard it as a teenager watching Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Not that I had any idea what it meant back then…
Thanks for that clarification!
I realize that the challenge, with any philosophy, is to thread the needle between a) a term means whatever those who use it want it to mean and b) the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.
IMHO, classical liberalism is the heart and soul of libertarianism, a term that really emerged to replace "liberal" in the United States after "liberal" began to mean "left-wing statist" (in other parts of the world, "libertarian" seems to have a wider range of uses). It's useful to insist on a definition of the word, and in the US context that seems like a valid, historically accurate one. If we're going to allow it to also mean European-style left-wing collectivist anarchism (don't ask me how that's supposed to work), then it means nothing at all. Thus my insistence, "true Scotsman" style, that no anarchist is a libertarian: yes, they both oppose big government, but in philosophically distinct ways. There comes a point where the "true Scotsman" point is valid: a Londoner simply isn't one, despite coming from the same island.
Objectivism, which I haven't studied much, appears to me to be a philosophy that overlaps with libertarianism in some ways, but is also quite distinct, with its focus on objective reality. Its libertarian aspect comes from the idea that one's own happiness is the moral purpose of life, an idea I find somewhat troublesome: at the very least it requires a big asterisk.
Finally, what "anarcho-capitalism" would be, I have no idea. It sounds like something made up by one of my left-wing friends trying to scare people. Markets that involve participants beyond individuals known to each other and/or their direct relationships don't seem to exist in nature; large-scale capitalism has always been, and is today, a government policy choice (because it works). Any organization large enough to enforce large-scale capitalism would be a de facto government, I think.
Thanks for the conversation!
Most of your other points taken. I even agree with your sentiment that classical liberalism is the heart and soul of libertarianism - or at least it should be 😀
It’s easy enough to learn what anarcho-capitalism is. It’s not a new term. In fact, I first heard it as a teenager watching Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Not that I had any idea what it meant back then…