I was talking about "right-libertarians", or US ones; I'd note they themselves can divide up into "left" or "right" depending on the relative emphasis placed on civil liberties vs. tax freedom. I leaned left, as does William Stoddard of the LFS. But still propertarian, not old-anarchist.
"I would claim that it is all about greed and would-be robber barons"
And I claim, as someone who held all those right-libertarian positions with minimal income or expectation of same, that you are *wrong*. I was *there*. People can have ideals you don't like, or whose consequences you don't like, and still be idealistic. Libertarians themselves often grant that the opposing ideal of altruism is attractive -- not all do, especially Objectivists, but many do -- while valuing autonomy and freedom more absolutely. Why is it so hard for the other side to acknowledge freedom as an attractive ideal of its own?
And I'd say "right-libertarianism" has much deeper roots than the 1970s, though the Libertarian Party started then. Roots going past Ayn Rand in the 1940s, Hayek and von Mises in the 1930s, through 19th century English liberalism, into 18th century liberalism -- Locke, the early draft of the Declaration which declared the rights to "life,liberty, and the pursuit of property", Adam Smith's economics -- and arguably into the Levellers of the 17th century. Some libertarians call themselves "classical liberals" and that's not historically empty propaganda. I remember Milton Friedman in his 1962 Capitalism and Freedom insisting that he was a liberal, refusing to surrender the word to the increasingly socialist-influenced meaning in the US; to this day the international use of 'liberal' has as much if not more to do with US libertarianism than US liberalism, with an emphasis on free trade and stable property rights and small government, much like the Liberal Party of 19th century Britain.
"the resolution of all social problems via private means,"
Or, equivalently, the resolution of all social problems via voluntary means, without recourse to the use of force save in immediate self-defense. "Taxation is theft!" isn't a rhetorical gimmick but an honest heartfelt belief, that taking the fruits of someone's labors from them at gunpoint is *wrong*. Clearly, obviously, wrong, just as someone else finds the prospect of someone dying because they can't afford food or medical care to be wrong. And they could talk about the callous disregard for the freedom of others exhibited by communists of whatever stripe.
I think one reason Ken MacLeod keeps receiving the Prometheus Award is that he gets it: he understands the appeal, even if he doesn't agree, and can portray it sympathetically. As befits someone who was convinced to value freedom of speech by British right-libertarians, and who tries to defends free markets to Iain Banks.
no subject
"I would claim that it is all about greed and would-be robber barons"
And I claim, as someone who held all those right-libertarian positions with minimal income or expectation of same, that you are *wrong*. I was *there*. People can have ideals you don't like, or whose consequences you don't like, and still be idealistic. Libertarians themselves often grant that the opposing ideal of altruism is attractive -- not all do, especially Objectivists, but many do -- while valuing autonomy and freedom more absolutely. Why is it so hard for the other side to acknowledge freedom as an attractive ideal of its own?
And I'd say "right-libertarianism" has much deeper roots than the 1970s, though the Libertarian Party started then. Roots going past Ayn Rand in the 1940s, Hayek and von Mises in the 1930s, through 19th century English liberalism, into 18th century liberalism -- Locke, the early draft of the Declaration which declared the rights to "life,liberty, and the pursuit of property", Adam Smith's economics -- and arguably into the Levellers of the 17th century. Some libertarians call themselves "classical liberals" and that's not historically empty propaganda. I remember Milton Friedman in his 1962 Capitalism and Freedom insisting that he was a liberal, refusing to surrender the word to the increasingly socialist-influenced meaning in the US; to this day the international use of 'liberal' has as much if not more to do with US libertarianism than US liberalism, with an emphasis on free trade and stable property rights and small government, much like the Liberal Party of 19th century Britain.
"the resolution of all social problems via private means,"
Or, equivalently, the resolution of all social problems via voluntary means, without recourse to the use of force save in immediate self-defense. "Taxation is theft!" isn't a rhetorical gimmick but an honest heartfelt belief, that taking the fruits of someone's labors from them at gunpoint is *wrong*. Clearly, obviously, wrong, just as someone else finds the prospect of someone dying because they can't afford food or medical care to be wrong. And they could talk about the callous disregard for the freedom of others exhibited by communists of whatever stripe.
I think one reason Ken MacLeod keeps receiving the Prometheus Award is that he gets it: he understands the appeal, even if he doesn't agree, and can portray it sympathetically. As befits someone who was convinced to value freedom of speech by British right-libertarians, and who tries to defends free markets to Iain Banks.