Originally Posted by
ProIndividual
I also don't subscribe to the NAP anymore...but that doesn't mean I think initiations of aggression in almost any circumstance are a way to create the least coercive outcomes. That can only occur in choice sets where there is no non-coercive choice (where nature is coercing so much, that human coercion is paled in comparison, and the least coercive choice is not a lack of offensive or defensive aggression). An example of this would be stealing in a famine to save you and your child from starvation death...it should be illegal because you created a victim and they deserve compensation for what you've done, but it would be my contention that although this is a violation of the NAP, it is NOT unethical (as it was the least coercive path - 2 people starving to death is MORE coercive than 1 person being stolen from).
Why did I explain that? Because what some neocon-leaning "libertarians" at SFL are advocating is not congruent with any known theory in ethics within libertarianism (and that includes my theory, which I developed on my own). It neither decreases coercion, decreases initiations of aggression, nor maximizes utility. Under deontological, consequentialist, or my circumstantialist ethics, it's still unethical to do what they are advocating.
While I agree with tod evans about tolerance of ideas (especially in ethical theory) within libertarianism, we also need to be careful to not expand the ranks so far as to erase any meaning of the word "libertarianism" by continuously allowing the term to be co-opted by people who merely resemble us philosophically. Ethics is the cornerstone of libertarian philosophy, and until these seemingly neocon-leaning "libertarians" can coherently define and defend their alternative ethical theory, which they seem to think supports acts of initiated aggression in circumstances where it isn't the least coercive path available and doesn't maximize utility, then we have to be very careful not to define them as libertarians for sure (hence, I keep putting the word in " " when referring to them).
This is where sgt150 is right. We're redefining libertarian ethics, or often allowing inconsistent logic to be applied far too much to the implications of those ethics, and therefore watering down libertarianism as a philosophy. It's bad enough we already have seemingly accepted libertarians who want closed borders (or anything but open borders), minarchy, a standing army, tariffs and other protectionism (like IP), etc. Now I have to accept people who are interventionists in foreign policy as libertarians too? No $#@!ing way. That's a line in the sand. You want interventionist foreign policy, and can't heavily detail your alternative ethical theory and defend it, then you aren't a libertarian...you're a neocon who heavily leans libertarian, or a "libertarian" who leans neocon. Either way, you aren't a libertarian.
People aren't simply libertarian by calling themselves one, being in an organization that uses "liberty" in its title, or because they support Rand Paul. The word libertarian is becoming fashionable, and therefore distorted. It's like how Barry Goldwater said people who considered themselves "conservatives" would come to use the term but wouldn't at all resemble what he considered conservative. Just like he said about conservatism, I'm saying the same about libertarianism...using the term while advocating something clearly outside its original meaning is disgraceful, and ruins the word's reputation for principled stances based on some theory of ethics. Either detail and defend your alternative ethical theory (as I do with my theory), or stop calling yourself libertarian.
Connect With Us