Vance's reasoning is sound. His topic is relevant in times with so many libertarian posers.
Vance says, "What I want to focus on is whether [Ross Ulbricht] was a libertarian." Ok, then, what does make someone a libertarian? How about maintaining a principled, consistent, unwavering rejection of aggression against person and property? For example, would the person holding this belief qualify as a libertarian:
"I want to use economic theory as a means to abolish the use of coercion and aggression amongst mankind. Just as slavery has been abolished most everywhere, I believe violence, coercion and all forms of force by one person over another can come to an end. The most widespread and systemic use of force is amongst institutions and governments, so this is my current point of effort.
"The best way to change a government is to change the minds of the governed, however. To that end, I am creating an economic simulation to give people a first-hand experience of what it would be like to live in a world without the systemic use of force."
This quote is from Ross Ulbricht. Vance should do a modicum of basic research before picking a heroic libertarian to hammer up on a cross as a would-be example of faux libertarianism.
I think Ulbricht is libertarian (he participated on the libertarian political debate team at Penn State) but I don't view him as a libertarian hero or martyr. I see Ulbricht as another innocent victim of an evil state. There'll be many more I'm sure.
If Ulbricht had stated that Silk Road was a libertarian project, I'd see him more as a martyr. If Ulbricht had made Silk Road a libertarian project that actually succeeded in making the state more libertarian and less evil, I'd see him more as a hero.
All he has accomplished sadly is to ruin his life and give more confirmation that the state is unjust and evil. Maybe his persecution will result in more libertarian converts. Even some liberals might have a moral tipping point when it comes to state malevolence. Then again...
It doesn't matter what freedom one wants to take for oneself in the question of whether one is a libertarian, but whether one is willing to grant others rights and liberties according to the non-aggression principle. So, no, the above mentioned people are not libertarians *if* only judged by their specific actions.
If judging Lawrence Vance specifically by his anti-abortion stance, Lawrence Vance would not be a libertarian either.
Vance's reasoning is sound. His topic is relevant in times with so many libertarian posers.
ReplyDeleteVance says, "What I want to focus on is whether [Ross Ulbricht] was a libertarian." Ok, then, what does make someone a libertarian? How about maintaining a principled, consistent, unwavering rejection of aggression against person and property? For example, would the person holding this belief qualify as a libertarian:
"I want to use economic theory as a means to abolish the use of coercion and aggression amongst mankind. Just as slavery has been abolished most everywhere, I believe violence, coercion and all forms of force by one person over another can come to an end. The most widespread and systemic use of force is amongst institutions and governments, so this is my current point of effort.
"The best way to change a government is to change the minds of the governed, however. To that end, I am creating an economic simulation to give people a first-hand experience of what it would be like to live in a world without the systemic use of force."
This quote is from Ross Ulbricht. Vance should do a modicum of basic research before picking a heroic libertarian to hammer up on a cross as a would-be example of faux libertarianism.
I think Ulbricht is libertarian (he participated on the libertarian political debate team at Penn State) but I don't view him as a libertarian hero or martyr. I see Ulbricht as another innocent victim of an evil state. There'll be many more I'm sure.
ReplyDeleteIf Ulbricht had stated that Silk Road was a libertarian project, I'd see him more as a martyr. If Ulbricht had made Silk Road a libertarian project that actually succeeded in making the state more libertarian and less evil, I'd see him more as a hero.
All he has accomplished sadly is to ruin his life and give more confirmation that the state is unjust and evil. Maybe his persecution will result in more libertarian converts. Even some liberals might have a moral tipping point when it comes to state malevolence. Then again...
It doesn't matter what freedom one wants to take for oneself in the question of whether one is a libertarian, but whether one is willing to grant others rights and liberties according to the non-aggression principle.
ReplyDeleteSo, no, the above mentioned people are not libertarians *if* only judged by their specific actions.
If judging Lawrence Vance specifically by his anti-abortion stance, Lawrence Vance would not be a libertarian either.
Vance gives a list of things that does not make one a libertarian, but he never says what the criteria is that makes a person a libertarian.
ReplyDelete