Mark Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 FromNew Libertarians: New Promoters of a Welfare Stateby John McCaskeyBrink Lindsey, then [2006] Vice President for Research at the Cato Institute, called on libertarians to abandon the doctrine that a good government is one that protects the rights of its citizens, abandon the non-aggression principle, and instead adopt the moral standard of social justice advanced by Rawls. By Lindsey’s reasoning, free markets are not moral because they protect individuals’ rights to keep the fruits of their own labors and to freely contract with other individuals doing the same but are moral because they benefit the poor. ... The proposed new libertarianism would be a marriage of left and right, “liberaltarianism”; it would be a marriage of Rawls and Hayek ... Brink Lindsey and his collaborator on this, Will Wilkinson, left -— or, many speculate, were made to leave -— the Cato Institute. But ... There was now a new libertarianism to be reckoned with ... Lindsey took the proposal to academic venues across America. ... Then, in October 2012, after the organization appointed a new president, John A. Allison, Brink Lindsey returned to the Cato Institute as a Senior Fellow. He has since become, again, Vice President for Research. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 Poke Brink in the ear with a rubber hose. He wants to take Libertarianism back to the communist/Rothbard era. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 Throw-in-the-towel libertarianism.Since common libertarianism has no philosophical roots being purely a self-contained political philosophy, the only libertarian ethics or morality is within individual rights--or, it is wrong to initiate physical force and violate rights. Hence it is vulnerable to chucking even that, ergo: Chuck-that Libertarianism (what's "that"?).--Brantas Wilke said: "Me too!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francisco Ferrer Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 From the link: "Nozick is increasingly being replaced as libertarianism’s canonical theorist by F. A. Hayek . . . Hayek replaced Nozick as the standard theoretician of the libertarian right."What? Not to disparage Nozick's contribution, but having followed the libertarian movement for nearly a half century, I am simply not aware of any significant number of libertarians who came to the philosophy by way of Nozick or who rely primarily on his work.Furthermore, the author fails to note that Nozick retreated from laissez-faire purity in his later writings. How can you have as a "canonical theorist" a writer who rejected many of libertarianism's core principles? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francisco Ferrer Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 Poke Brink in the ear with a rubber hose. He wants to take Libertarianism back to the communist/Rothbard era.Evidence please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoAMadDeathWish Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 I guess you can teach an old libertarian new tricks.So why did this happen? My guess is that the "New Libertarians" didn't like working for CATO for whatever reason, and in order to be able to find employment in their field elsewhere, they modified their ideology to conform more to mainstream politics, thereby making themselves more marketable to other propaganda mills think tanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francisco Ferrer Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 No, even when he was at Cato, Lindsey was writing nonsense about "the essential role of coercion in safeguarding freedom." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 Frisco: but that's a true statement. You'll have to find the "nonsense" in the supporting context.--Brantguardian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoAMadDeathWish Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 No, even when he was at Cato, Lindsey was writing nonsense about "the essential role of coercion in safeguarding freedom."Then he must have been planning to leave even back then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 "What? Not to disparage Nozick's contribution, but having followed the libertarian movement for nearly a half century, I am simply not aware of any significant number of libertarians who came to the philosophy by way of Nozick or who rely primarily on his work.Nozick is very difficult to read and follow.Ba'al Chatzaf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 I tried to read his "On the Randian Argument" when it was published in The Personalist over 40 years ago. I could neither understand it nor appreciate what was of obvious pseudo value except maybe to philosophical academics, themselves mostly worthless. I never bothered reading the rest of his stuff though I likely have his magnum opus--title?--lying around the house somewhere. Nathaniel Branden, an understandable author, thought Nozick was fresh bread for liberty--or something great (I don't recall why).--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 Mark quotes: "The proposed new libertarianism would be a marriage of left and right, “liberaltarianism” " Ron Paul also represented that "marriage" through his ability to draw political support from the dopesmokers on the extreme libertarian right as well as the radical anarchical left. Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 That new word is much too difficult to work its way into this country's political culture even if it weren't supported by crappy reasoning. It's really the New Libertarianism from people who never learned from the New Coke.--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted April 18, 2014 Share Posted April 18, 2014 Brant writes: That new word is much too difficult to work its way into this country's political culture even if it weren't supported by crappy reasoning. It's really the New Libertarianism from people who never learned from the New Coke. --Brant I agree that word is cumbersome, but the principle is valid even if it's a description of wrong headed fools. For the political spectrum forms a circle where the radical left meets the extreme right in complete accord on the "dark side". Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now