Difference between revisions of "What Is Libertarianism?"

From Critiques Of Libertarianism
Jump to: navigation, search
(A Rhetoric Of Liberty)
Line 3: Line 3:
 
It's obvious that definitions of libertarianism by opponents are prone to bias.  By the same standard, self-serving definitions by  proponents are also prone to bias.  Because libertarianism is diverse and complex, the simple solution is to present multiple viewpoints, each true to some degree, to construct a picture of the whole.  The story of [[Blind men and an elephant]] illustrates how ridiculous clinging to a single viewpoint can be, and how building a more realistic picture would require critical acceptance of multiple viewpoints.  Viewpoints of proponents of libertarianism are well known; here are some viewpoints of opponents.
 
It's obvious that definitions of libertarianism by opponents are prone to bias.  By the same standard, self-serving definitions by  proponents are also prone to bias.  Because libertarianism is diverse and complex, the simple solution is to present multiple viewpoints, each true to some degree, to construct a picture of the whole.  The story of [[Blind men and an elephant]] illustrates how ridiculous clinging to a single viewpoint can be, and how building a more realistic picture would require critical acceptance of multiple viewpoints.  Viewpoints of proponents of libertarianism are well known; here are some viewpoints of opponents.
 
== A Rhetoric Of Liberty ==
 
== A Rhetoric Of Liberty ==
Libertarianism is united only by a rhetoric of liberty.  "Liberty" is the central glittering generality of libertarian propaganda.
+
Libertarianism is united only by a rhetoric of liberty.  "Liberty" is the central [[glittering generality]] of libertarian propaganda.
  
 
Who can reject "liberty"?  That makes it a powerful rhetorical tool; as long as you don't start getting specific.  Different people have different ideas of liberty, and can divide over those issues.  The defense against attempts to get specific is "equal liberty", but that rhetoric also begs important questions.  If we all had equal liberty to kill each other, would we want such liberty?
 
Who can reject "liberty"?  That makes it a powerful rhetorical tool; as long as you don't start getting specific.  Different people have different ideas of liberty, and can divide over those issues.  The defense against attempts to get specific is "equal liberty", but that rhetoric also begs important questions.  If we all had equal liberty to kill each other, would we want such liberty?

Revision as of 14:17, 9 April 2013