The failure of many to understand thick libertarianism truly baffles me. No, believing that libertarianism should lead us to oppose some activities does not in any sense mean that you have to abandon non-aggression. No, believing that some actions are unbecoming of a libertarian does not in any respect require actionable, positive rights. No, thinking that libertarians should for libertarian reasons oppose, say, certain forms of discrimination, does not in any way whatsoever mean that property rights become violable. Heres an example people might easily grasp. Libertarians qua libertarians object when communists advocate communism. As libertarians, we would not want a world where everyone believed in communism. Believing in communism and advocating it do not violate rights—so as libertarians we are also bound not to use force against communists merely for expressing their views. But a libertarian would surely prefer that people not believe in it. When a libertarian critiques an article written by a state communist, do you jump on that libertarian for criticizing something—writing an article—that is not a rights violation? No, because it is totally sensible that libertarianism would lead us to object to statist communist arguments, just as its totally sensible that libertarianism would naturally lead us to object to other behavior, even if that behavior shouldnt be addressed through force.
Posted on: Sat, 12 Apr 2014 22:38:15 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015