Strategy and Tactics
DiscussieLibertarian and Market Liberals
Sluit je aan bij LibraryThing om te posten.
Dit onderwerp is gemarkeerd als "slapend"—het laatste bericht is van meer dan 90 dagen geleden. Je kan het activeren door een een bericht toe te voegen.
1lawecon
Given my recent interaction with one of the standard bearers of libertarianism on Librarything (at least in his own self image), I thought it might be interesting to revisit one of the standard topics among libertarians, market liberals, neoclassical liberals, libertarian conservatives, etc. - "How do we get there from here."
Yes, I'm familiar with Hayek's view on this topic. I am also familiar with the view of the "pragmatists" in the LP, who, apparently, and despite 30 years experience to the contrary, believe that they are going to sweep the next election cycle. But is there another view?
Since I've also discovered from several rather sad interactions on Libertything that merely posing a question is frowned upon, since, apparently, people can't think for themselves or be original on their own, let me suggest a possible view. This view might be called "principled pragmatism." It really is very simple. You never take your eye off the ball of where you ultimately want to end up, but in doing so you also don't necessary become the next libertarian hermit - pristine in your purity and deploring the despicable state of the world around you. You actually address the world around and take seriously the "problems" that other people perceive as problems.
Now, does this view imply the one and only libertarian answer for every "issue"? Of course not, but it at least rules out some alternatives. For instance, let's take the current "budget crisis." The libertarian spectrum would, I think, run from the Murray Rothbard view of "Finally, a default! There is now going to be real restraints on future borrowing by the Feds. If we could obtain repudiation of the debt next, that would really be progress." to "Let's use this debacle to educate people in how totally incompetent the political process really is in addressing any social problem. The last thing we want is for this mess to be blamed on the present crop of Republicrats or the Demoasses. Let's put the blame where the blame belongs - on a process that is broken and cannot be fixed."
In other words, there is a spectrum of libertarian responses to "social issues," but part of that spectrum is not to ignore what is a real problem. It is to embrace the problem as a problem and suggest a new perspective on it - a perspective that doesn't involve the sudden intervention of libertarian angels, and doesn't deny that the problem is a problem. In other words, it is both principled and non-utopian.
Yes, I'm familiar with Hayek's view on this topic. I am also familiar with the view of the "pragmatists" in the LP, who, apparently, and despite 30 years experience to the contrary, believe that they are going to sweep the next election cycle. But is there another view?
Since I've also discovered from several rather sad interactions on Libertything that merely posing a question is frowned upon, since, apparently, people can't think for themselves or be original on their own, let me suggest a possible view. This view might be called "principled pragmatism." It really is very simple. You never take your eye off the ball of where you ultimately want to end up, but in doing so you also don't necessary become the next libertarian hermit - pristine in your purity and deploring the despicable state of the world around you. You actually address the world around and take seriously the "problems" that other people perceive as problems.
Now, does this view imply the one and only libertarian answer for every "issue"? Of course not, but it at least rules out some alternatives. For instance, let's take the current "budget crisis." The libertarian spectrum would, I think, run from the Murray Rothbard view of "Finally, a default! There is now going to be real restraints on future borrowing by the Feds. If we could obtain repudiation of the debt next, that would really be progress." to "Let's use this debacle to educate people in how totally incompetent the political process really is in addressing any social problem. The last thing we want is for this mess to be blamed on the present crop of Republicrats or the Demoasses. Let's put the blame where the blame belongs - on a process that is broken and cannot be fixed."
In other words, there is a spectrum of libertarian responses to "social issues," but part of that spectrum is not to ignore what is a real problem. It is to embrace the problem as a problem and suggest a new perspective on it - a perspective that doesn't involve the sudden intervention of libertarian angels, and doesn't deny that the problem is a problem. In other words, it is both principled and non-utopian.
