Difference between revisions of "What Is Libertarianism?"

From Critiques Of Libertarianism
Jump to: navigation, search
(Philosophical Fairytales)
Line 32: Line 32:
 
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.
 
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>
+
Most libertarian authors rely on natural rights.<ref>[[David Boaz]], [[Libertarianism: A Primer]] pp.82-87</ref> 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.
  
 
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.)"
 
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.)"

Revision as of 22:02, 9 October 2010