Difference between revisions of "What Is Libertarianism?"
From Critiques Of Libertarianism
(→Philosophical Fairytales) |
|||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
== Philosophical Fairytales == | == Philosophical Fairytales == | ||
| − | There are three dominant libertarian fairytales. They are natural rights, Nozickian night-watchman state, and Objectivism. All three are non-positivist: they are not founded on observable facts and just plain make stuff up that contradicts what's known of reality. Each has produced large, complicated apologetics that attempt to explain away their myriad failings. Like science, they create models, but unlike science their models cannot be validated because they presume the unobservable. | + | There are three dominant libertarian fairytales. They are natural rights, the Nozickian night-watchman state, and Objectivism. All three are non-positivist: they are not founded on observable facts and just plain make stuff up that contradicts what's known of reality. Each has produced large, complicated apologetics that attempt to explain away their myriad failings. Like science, they create models, but unlike science their models cannot be validated because they presume the unobservable. |
| + | |||
| + | Natural rights were originally invented to oppose stories such as rights of kings. They are "nonsense on stilts" that is as popular, insubstantial and unprovable as souls. Most libertarian authors rely on natural rights.<ref>[[David Boaz]], [[Libertarianism: A Primer]] pp.82-87</ref> | ||
| + | |||
| + | The supposedly just and non-coercive Nozickian minimal state of [[Anarchy, State and Utopia]] is notorious for its failure to justify initial acquisition of property, the basis of the entire scheme. The whole thing appeals to gut feelings as fallaciously as Steven Colbert does, starting with the first sentence: "Individuals have rights, and there are things no person or group may do to them (without violating their rights.)" | ||
| + | |||
| + | Objectivism starts with the fairytale of a priori knowledge. "A is A", for example. But that doesn't work for the real world, because the real world has time and A at time 1 is not necessarily the same as A at time 2. It's never the same water in the river, and even protons can spontaneously decay. There is no supposed a priori knowledge that doesn't have this basic sort of problem. | ||
== A Justification of Personal Righteousness == | == A Justification of Personal Righteousness == | ||
