In this series of posts, I am going to try to explain my thoughts on these discussions regarding “post-libertarianism” as well as my own ideas for solutions, a pragmatic case for being principled, and thus why I think that it is important to have consistent answers on these matters. Some say that they do not like the word “post-libertarian”, but I think it might be a fine way to describe my thoughts, but not because I reject the non-aggression principle. I hope to explain that very little of the ideology called “libertarianism” needs to be reconsidered. My issue is that I have always thought it was strange that the non-aggression principle is the fundamental premise of libertarianism. It is strange that liberty is defined by what one is not allowed to do. Indeed, when I read how anarcho-capitalists imagine a stateless society would function, it is clear that one person's freedom would end where other people and their property begin. Such a society would effectively be governed by landlords and contractual obligations and would be no less authoritarian and hierarchical than any which exist now. I do not think I am the only one who understands this, but it seems no one says it so clearly. With this realization, it is easy to question what the meaningful difference is between such private property absolutism and a monarchical state. I try to answer that question in the second post of this series.
Part 1: Defensive Authoritarianism
Part 1: Defensive Authoritarianism
Part 1: Defensive Authoritarianism
In this series of posts, I am going to try to explain my thoughts on these discussions regarding “post-libertarianism” as well as my own ideas for solutions, a pragmatic case for being principled, and thus why I think that it is important to have consistent answers on these matters. Some say that they do not like the word “post-libertarian”, but I think it might be a fine way to describe my thoughts, but not because I reject the non-aggression principle. I hope to explain that very little of the ideology called “libertarianism” needs to be reconsidered. My issue is that I have always thought it was strange that the non-aggression principle is the fundamental premise of libertarianism. It is strange that liberty is defined by what one is not allowed to do. Indeed, when I read how anarcho-capitalists imagine a stateless society would function, it is clear that one person's freedom would end where other people and their property begin. Such a society would effectively be governed by landlords and contractual obligations and would be no less authoritarian and hierarchical than any which exist now. I do not think I am the only one who understands this, but it seems no one says it so clearly. With this realization, it is easy to question what the meaningful difference is between such private property absolutism and a monarchical state. I try to answer that question in the second post of this series.