Dear Sheldon:
Re our debate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?
Suppose it were proven that racism, prejudice, hatred for homosexuals, etc., was the best way to promote libertarianism. Let us stipulate that this is so, arguendo. Would you then say that libertarians should promote these stances?
If so, you would then be a right libertarian, not a left libertarian, correct?
Suppose it were proven that chess playing was the best way to promote libertarianism. Let us stipulate that this is so, arguendo. Would you then say that libertarians should promote these stances?
If so, don’t you see that we are no longer discussing what libertarianism IS, and are now talking about how best to promote it, an entirely different matter?
If I read Jeff Tucker correctly, he would consider me a brutal libertarian since I think that libertarianism, qua libertarianism, simply has NO position whatsoever on racism, prejudice, hatred for homosexuals, etc. Do you agree with him on this?
Since this was a public discussion-debate of ours, I hope and trust you don’t mind that I copy some other people on this bcc.
Best regards,
Walter
Walter E. Block, Ph.D.
Harold E. Wirth Eminent Scholar Endowed Chair and Professor of Economics
Joseph A. Butt, S.J. College of Business
Loyola University New Orleans
Dear Walter
ReplyDelete“If so, you would then be a right libertarian, not a left libertarian, correct?”
In answer to your question: I don’t believe in sacrificing people to The Cause.
http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2015/07/a-leftist-wolf-in-libertarian-sheeps.html
Best Regards
Sheldon
NB: I am not really Sheldon; I am finding such disclaimers necessary.
For literally decades, I have never understood the alleged problem with “thin” libertarianism. What is so wrong with converting known racists and Nazis to the NAP (as if that were likely or would be a problem)? Adhering to the NAP means that you are going to respect other people's rights regardless of how much you might otherwise loathe them. Is that so wrong? People are always going to loathe other people for whatever reason. The NAP minimizes that problem.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, if you are willing to grant someone the full protection of the NAP, in what meaningful way are you a “racist” anyhow?
Further, there are tons of non-violent sanctions that can and would be applied to unpopular people and ideas through discrimination and exclusion.
I just do not see the problem with the pure NAP. It should be clear by now that no one who is not already a libertarian seems to (or wants to) understand the NAP and no one who is not already an Austrian has the slightest familiarity with (much less an understanding of) Austrian economics (human action with monetary calculation). Why make things more complicated than they have to be with “left” libertarianism?
We should always just start with pointing out that everyone already lives and understands a basic form of the NAP which they live in their own lives. Insist that the statists have the burden of proof to show where the existing manifestation of the NAP breaks down and requires violent intervention (either now or in history). They won’t be able to do it and will invariably start obfuscating and throwing little tantrums.
Following decades of statists parading around different victim groups to guilt people into supporting this or that gov program has trained libertarians to be dismissive of these favored victim groups.
ReplyDeleteThe truth is that these groups are primarily victimized by the state. The racist restaurant owner may make a black man leave his restaursnt, but he doesn't follow him home, shoot him in the face and terrorize his family, which is what agents of the state routinely do.
The poor person on welfare gets a trivial temporary benefit from the gov, but it costs him something far more dear than cash, it costs him the incentives to better his circumstances. The upper class family who is taxed to pay for is out some cash, but the family on welfare is robbed of something far more precious.
That's not Richman's position. His position is left-libertarian reasons for arriving at respect for the NAP are objectively the right reasons and thus merit promotion along with the NAP. Block needs to address the position Richman is actually taking rather than the position Block wants to address.
ReplyDelete