I just wonder at what point Walter Block will be satisfied that we, in fact, know what libertarianism is; so that we can get into the particulars. I don't at all agree that having those on the left and on the right discussing and debating what their particulars are, undermines it. I tend to eschew labels (left, right, thick, thin) for the very reasons that people (like Walter Block) will insist on erecting straw men to attack my label. But, Sheldon, I gladly welcome the label "Sheldon Richman libertarian" to describe myself.
The problem with Block's thin libertarianism is that, once applied (or, on his terms, once all violations of the NAP are dis-applied), it's entirely unclear as to why the resulting society would be in any way preferable to the present one. The problem
One can easily imagine voluntarist organizations arising that could mimic primitive accumulation, forcing others to sell their labor on the market under "non-aggressive" duress. Block's libertarianism has nothing to say, for example, about the kinds of "restrictive covenants" that accompanied suburbanization following WWII. The problem with Block's libertarianism, then, is that it relies on a mythical construct of ahistoricity and neutrality to support its definitions, and ends up promoting libertarianism plus disempowering social structures.
Left and right thick libertarianism at least have the honesty to admit that libertarianism is not merely a neutral presentation of conditions that promote liberty in some absolute sense, but in a specific, relative sense -- they recognize that there are kinds of liberty, some models of which are preferable to others. Derrick Bell, though he was not a libertarian, pointed out that someone who supports free speech absolutely, regardless of the context, cannot be considered neutral if the result is that a member of the KKK's right to free speech holds more weight than a person of color's right to not be intimidated, threatened, etc.
In any case, thin libertarians are fundamentally dishonest if they hold that only a kind of "paper libertarianism" should be considered representative of their views.
A point worth making in the whole thick/thin debate is that an anarchist order which respects property wouldn't necessarily follow the NAP/O, and what would make this more likely would be the prevalence of things like racism, sexism, etc. Let's say that we have different defense agencies/co-ops/mutual aid groups, but due to prevalent racism miscegenation is one of the things for which these agencies fine or banish or imprison people. By no definition would this be libertarian. So, if we got to the thin libertarian goal of a stateless society with property, it would be important for the libertarian qua libertarian to oppose the widespread bigotry in the society because it would make it far more likely that an initially libertarian stateless order would become a non-libertarian stateless order.
I just wonder at what point Walter Block will be satisfied that we, in fact, know what libertarianism is; so that we can get into the particulars. I don't at all agree that having those on the left and on the right discussing and debating what their particulars are, undermines it. I tend to eschew labels (left, right, thick, thin) for the very reasons that people (like Walter Block) will insist on erecting straw men to attack my label. But, Sheldon, I gladly welcome the label "Sheldon Richman libertarian" to describe myself.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with Block's thin libertarianism is that, once applied (or, on his terms, once all violations of the NAP are dis-applied), it's entirely unclear as to why the resulting society would be in any way preferable to the present one. The problem
ReplyDeleteOne can easily imagine voluntarist organizations arising that could mimic primitive accumulation, forcing others to sell their labor on the market under "non-aggressive" duress. Block's libertarianism has nothing to say, for example, about the kinds of "restrictive covenants" that accompanied suburbanization following WWII. The problem with Block's libertarianism, then, is that it relies on a mythical construct of ahistoricity and neutrality to support its definitions, and ends up promoting libertarianism plus disempowering social structures.
Left and right thick libertarianism at least have the honesty to admit that libertarianism is not merely a neutral presentation of conditions that promote liberty in some absolute sense, but in a specific, relative sense -- they recognize that there are kinds of liberty, some models of which are preferable to others. Derrick Bell, though he was not a libertarian, pointed out that someone who supports free speech absolutely, regardless of the context, cannot be considered neutral if the result is that a member of the KKK's right to free speech holds more weight than a person of color's right to not be intimidated, threatened, etc.
In any case, thin libertarians are fundamentally dishonest if they hold that only a kind of "paper libertarianism" should be considered representative of their views.
A point worth making in the whole thick/thin debate is that an anarchist order which respects property wouldn't necessarily follow the NAP/O, and what would make this more likely would be the prevalence of things like racism, sexism, etc. Let's say that we have different defense agencies/co-ops/mutual aid groups, but due to prevalent racism miscegenation is one of the things for which these agencies fine or banish or imprison people. By no definition would this be libertarian. So, if we got to the thin libertarian goal of a stateless society with property, it would be important for the libertarian qua libertarian to oppose the widespread bigotry in the society because it would make it far more likely that an initially libertarian stateless order would become a non-libertarian stateless order.
ReplyDelete