Professor M-to-the-Zwo is looking at this construct of libertarian theory; he sees that it is not complete – not every single question of life is fully and satisfactorily addressed, at least to his understanding. He stares at it and says “as the structure is not complete, the entire building must be rejected.”
Two thoughts come to mind. First, as I hinted at earlier: for any libertarian thinker to state, categorically, how various issues might be resolved in a libertarian world would be to admit that life can be efficiently centrally planned. Of course, it cannot. Because it cannot, Matt decides to reject the principle.
More fundamentally – and I am saddened, but not surprised, to see that someone so lacking in basic understanding can reach a position of teaching young, impressionable minds – the NAP is a principle. Nothing more.
While the application of the principle is quite clear in most circumstances, in several areas there are libertarians who are still struggling with the appropriate application. In a few cases, I am satisfied that different communities might come to different answers on a few things – each community believing that its answer is consistent with NAP in the context of actual life.
The NAP is a principle; a guiding light, if you will. Mr. Z is suggesting that a principle should be rejected because either a) its application has not been fully worked out in every situation, or b) taken to the extreme, life seems unlivable.
If this is the case, every principle should be rejected.
And perhaps this is the goal of thick, bleeding heart libertarians.
sexta-feira, abril 25, 2014
Libertarianism: So Thick that it is Unrecognizable: