|
November 29, 2007
generic label loyalty?
Megan McArdle looks at a meme of which I've grown quite tired -- that "real libertarians" didn't support the war: This is the emerging meme, mostly, interestingly, among people who are not themselves libertarians.Stand by for my post tomorrow: real progressives won't vote for Hilary Clinton.Real or not, there's this test result. And there's this chart. The results I get don't change much, and they're based on my answers to questions. I think what I think, and I happen to agree with a lot of what most people would call "libertarian thinking." Whenever I take these tests, they tell me that I am libertarian. Pointing that out does not morally obligate me to do anything beyond agreeing with my own answers. The tests do not tell me what I think, nor what I should think. I tell the tests what I think, and I think what I think I should think. Is there anything in those tests or in my stated libertarianism which says I have to take an oath to be "real"? What is real? I find it appalling that anyone would tell anyone else that he is not a "real" libertarian. No one is in any position to do this, as there is no oath to take. Other than the Libertarian Party, there is no platform. So who would have the right to determine what is, and what is not, the correct ideology? As an individualist, I would not trust anyone who tried to claim such a right, because he'd be claiming a right to speak for me. Unless libertarianism has become like scientology, I don't think other libertarians have any such power. I think that part of the reason I fall into the libertarian camp is because of my individualism. I don't believe that anyone has the right to tell anyone else what to think. Telling someone he is not a "real" libertarian has no other purpose than attempting to bully him into thinking not what he thinks, but what the accuser thinks. This, I think, explains why most of the accusations that libertarians are not "real" seem to be coming not from libertarians, but from self-appointed antiwar scolds. The "libertarian" handle for me is a label of convenience -- something to help give people a general picture of my philosophical outlook which they can take or leave, but certainly not something worth fighting for. People can say I am not real, but unless they change the tests, I'm afraid the tests will go on saying I'm libertarianish, and I will too. I don't care whether I measure up to someone else's standards of "realness." Life is too short. posted by Eric on 11.29.07 at 10:56 PM
Comments
It's always legitimate to be curious what a word means, and the individual doesn't get to control it, but only to investigate. Often the political words take on doctrines, for which see Wm. Empson _The Structure of Complex Words_. Libertarian, in ``real liberatarian,'' uses a double meaning, claiming that the libertarian narrowly considered (opposing the war) is the right handle to take hold of the broader meaning, the narrow half being brought in with ``real'' to call out some distinction, which will be supplied nearby. But even the propagandist isn't free to make the word go just anywhere. It needs some support in the language already, which is where the individual has no part to play but to investigate. Ron Hardin · November 30, 2007 08:23 AM I would say that a sane libertarian knows his freedom games can only be played within the context of a national sovereignty, and that undermining his nation's efforts in wartime is rarely called for. This isn't one of those times. Brett · November 30, 2007 09:30 AM I find it appalling that anyone would tell anyone else that he is not a "real" libertarian. What about the self-appellated "socialist libertarians?" Seems oxymoronic. I mean minarchism isn't quite the sine qua non of libertarianism, but it's close. TallDave · November 30, 2007 02:14 PM I could never figure out how someone who thinks (like I do) that liberty is in serious jeopardy in America can also believe that someone living in Saddam's Iraq should buck up and just deal with it, because it isn't important enough for us to fight for. It seems that a lot of "real" libertarians think that liberty is an American right, not a human right. Phelps · December 3, 2007 11:01 AM I disagree. Don't most libertarians agree with some sort of truth-in-advertising law? That is, one cannot represent something as something else. Zach · December 7, 2007 01:18 AM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
December 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
December 2007
November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSALLAMERICANGOP See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Request for help
Does your right to puke make me sick? Weather is a "safe" topic.... I can hear the crunching sound from here Quote of the day Radical communitarianism in the name of the unknown Toxic Hsu toys 4 unbreakable nuts Distinguishing between N and Q Our Most Important Weapon Satan versus Satan?
Links
Site Credits
|
|
I hear you, Eric. I hear the same sort of stuff all the time. How dare I call myself a libertarian, even a "small-L libertarian," which is my chosen self-description.
I'm much less polite than you are, so I usually enjoy booting these boobs around as publicly as possible, but it does seem to me that the Libertarians are suffering from an influx of Bill Maher "libertarians" who really do confuse a pinkish sort of anarchy, or just plain libertinism with the sort of libertarianism I've been associated with for thirty years.
The party structure has always had a wing of Hoffer-style true believers (many of whom cluster around Reason Magazine these days), but they have never been, and are still not, the whole story of libertarianism in America.