Shedding some light on the libertarian surge - Sean Parr, Renew America:
April 10, 2014 - "David Boaz's Politico article, "The Libertarian Surge," commented on the uptick in recent years of libertarianism or, rather, of what libertarians are often associated with espousing (an important distinction, this, as one can incidentally support many libertarian positions without actually being a libertarian). The author defined libertarianism as 'the political philosophy that says limited government is the best kind of government.' Sadly, this definition of his is wanting. I mean, how limited a government constitutes 'limited government'? This could mean that libertarians are for whatever half-hearted, bipartisan, bait-and-switch budget compromise that is laughingly said to shrink the State – its size, scope, or expenditures.
"Here's more like it.
"Libertarianism holds to the non-aggression principle (NAP): it is illicit for any individual (or group of individuals) to initiate, or threaten to initiate, aggression against the person or legitimately held property of any other individual (or group of individuals)....
"The principal reason that libertarians defend the right to keep and bear arms is that they are staunch supporters of property rights. As a matter of fact, in many ways libertarianism boils down to property rights. The NAP is simply incoherent if one cannot know what belongs to whom. In this respect, libertarianism holds to the notion of self-ownership – that an individual has a better claim to his own body than any other person whom might wish to aggressively claim title to, or exercise control over, it. Also, the notions of Lockean homesteading which, as Stephan Kinsella noted, concerns 'the first use or possession of [a] thing' and transfers of contract allow us to discern in a dispute to whom a given thing belongs."
Read more: http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/parr/140410
'via Blog this'
See also: ''The Non-Aggression Principle", by George J. Dance
April 10, 2014 - "David Boaz's Politico article, "The Libertarian Surge," commented on the uptick in recent years of libertarianism or, rather, of what libertarians are often associated with espousing (an important distinction, this, as one can incidentally support many libertarian positions without actually being a libertarian). The author defined libertarianism as 'the political philosophy that says limited government is the best kind of government.' Sadly, this definition of his is wanting. I mean, how limited a government constitutes 'limited government'? This could mean that libertarians are for whatever half-hearted, bipartisan, bait-and-switch budget compromise that is laughingly said to shrink the State – its size, scope, or expenditures.
"Here's more like it.
"Libertarianism holds to the non-aggression principle (NAP): it is illicit for any individual (or group of individuals) to initiate, or threaten to initiate, aggression against the person or legitimately held property of any other individual (or group of individuals)....
"The principal reason that libertarians defend the right to keep and bear arms is that they are staunch supporters of property rights. As a matter of fact, in many ways libertarianism boils down to property rights. The NAP is simply incoherent if one cannot know what belongs to whom. In this respect, libertarianism holds to the notion of self-ownership – that an individual has a better claim to his own body than any other person whom might wish to aggressively claim title to, or exercise control over, it. Also, the notions of Lockean homesteading which, as Stephan Kinsella noted, concerns 'the first use or possession of [a] thing' and transfers of contract allow us to discern in a dispute to whom a given thing belongs."
Read more: http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/parr/140410
'via Blog this'
See also: ''The Non-Aggression Principle", by George J. Dance
No comments:
Post a Comment