I quite like the emphasis on judgment and choice, but it sort of risks blowing up the whole libertarian project. I think the sharp divides that were made apparent in 2016 show there's a pattern to the judgment and choice libertarians made, and *that* pattern is far more defining than whatever definitions we can come up with for libertarianism. In other words, whether you identify as a libertarian is basically meaningless next to the question of how you perceived Trump.
Appreciate the thought provoking questions. I do see some troubling No True Scotsman arguments even among libertarian leaning institutions and your take is much more nuanced
I agree, Matt. The Kissel essay is puzzling. And J. Brennan's endorsement of the essay is too. We should we talking about relevant issues of the time - so what's wrong with changing the language to have these talks? And if it's true that the IHS is funding bad work, even if not "classical liberal" then that's a separate issue.
But, especially to all the philosophers out there, why should we even care about what is libertarian or not? Shouldn't we be concerned with what is true? I once complained to Dave Schmidt that Nozick was not a consistent libertarian, and Dave responding by saying that consistency is a good value to uphold, but truth is an even better one.
I’ll happily embrace the BOL label. When pressed I do often resort to describing myself as a Reason/Cato libertarian, so it fits. Given the association with some folks calling themselves libertarians now, I’ve mostly reverted to calling myself a classical liberal.
My political philosophy is largely Kantian, with a healthy dose of American skepticism about the efficacy of government and the good will of its agents. Years ago, that seemed to be small "l" libertarian. However, the term has become so polluted that I avoid using it. I don't want to be associated with some of the people to whom you link in your post. Now, plain old conservative is a more accurate shorthand for the positions I'm willing to defend.
"So what is libertarianism? Is it a right-wing view? A left-wing view? Or is it neither?"
Here is one answer: https://jclester.substack.com/p/the-political-compass-and-why-libertarianism
I quite like the emphasis on judgment and choice, but it sort of risks blowing up the whole libertarian project. I think the sharp divides that were made apparent in 2016 show there's a pattern to the judgment and choice libertarians made, and *that* pattern is far more defining than whatever definitions we can come up with for libertarianism. In other words, whether you identify as a libertarian is basically meaningless next to the question of how you perceived Trump.
Appreciate the thought provoking questions. I do see some troubling No True Scotsman arguments even among libertarian leaning institutions and your take is much more nuanced
That Kissell essay is yet another demonstration of just how poorly the libertarian peg fits into the conservative hole.
Such people don't see the market as the seculiarzing, progressive force that it is; they see it as a conservative refuge from such forces.
I agree, Matt. The Kissel essay is puzzling. And J. Brennan's endorsement of the essay is too. We should we talking about relevant issues of the time - so what's wrong with changing the language to have these talks? And if it's true that the IHS is funding bad work, even if not "classical liberal" then that's a separate issue.
But, especially to all the philosophers out there, why should we even care about what is libertarian or not? Shouldn't we be concerned with what is true? I once complained to Dave Schmidt that Nozick was not a consistent libertarian, and Dave responding by saying that consistency is a good value to uphold, but truth is an even better one.
I’ll happily embrace the BOL label. When pressed I do often resort to describing myself as a Reason/Cato libertarian, so it fits. Given the association with some folks calling themselves libertarians now, I’ve mostly reverted to calling myself a classical liberal.
My political philosophy is largely Kantian, with a healthy dose of American skepticism about the efficacy of government and the good will of its agents. Years ago, that seemed to be small "l" libertarian. However, the term has become so polluted that I avoid using it. I don't want to be associated with some of the people to whom you link in your post. Now, plain old conservative is a more accurate shorthand for the positions I'm willing to defend.