On Thu, 21 Jun 2001 a3495@cotse.com wrote:

"This diversity of libertarian viewpoints can make it quite difficult to have a coherent discussion with them, because an argument that is valid for or against one type of libertarianism may not apply to other types."

....you mean you actually have to LISTEN to people before you stick them in a conceptual box and slap your two-bit pre-made labels on them??? Say it ain't so!!!! Moron. And you're proud you don't have to listen to folks before you stick 'em in a box?

Er, you might want to have a look at my old posts to get my thoughts on thar sort of thing.

Bullshit, Libertarians choose to call themselves by that label, it's a self imposed box. Your criticism is without merit. Or perhaps the ghost of Wittgenstein will walk through you...

You probably have a point if you're talking about the "capital L" fanatic types. Nevertheless, I don't think anyone should be so intellectually lazy and mentally impoverished that they need to rely on labels--self-imposed or otherwise--to have a "coherent" conversation. Maybe the people who do deserve to talk at each other.

Further, you misrepresents what he says.

Oh? I fully reserve the right to remain unimpresssed. LOL

Check the archives, various folks have made the distinctions between the various components of CACL quite clear, it's why I always make it clear what the particular 'common character' I am refering to when I 'lump 'em into one box'.

I'm guessing this has more to do with the caliber and temperament of people who post to message boards than as something representative of any particular body of academic works, such as it is. Face it: if all you knew about any group of ideas was what you could deduce from Usenet posts, it would be a pretty sorry spectacle indeed. What passes for fascinating debate on message boards is more often than not uninformed bush-league armchair philosophizing, it's that simple. In fact, that's part of the problem right there: people are too busy throwing labels around to really get to the meat of the issues.

It is also clear that a global critique of one 'view' isn't necessarily applicable to the other.

But when is a global critique truly useful and relevant at all? The point I'm trying to make is a little clearer if you substitute a more familiar concept: "What is liberalism?" "What has liberalism meant, historically?" "What does it mean to be 'a liberal' in the United Stated today?" See, not so easy, is it. You can start talking about certain aspects of the term and its usage, but it's certainly not the type of thing you can completely cover and come to terms with in a few posts! No need to try to force something rich, complex and evolving into a brittle "all or nothing" proposition. It's as ridiculous to assume that any one person can "speak for" libertarianism as it is to have a "representative of liberalism". The people who try generally aren't with the time it takes to read them.

In other words, there are a variety of issues with a concomitent multiplicity of views that get pushed into 'libertarian'.

Sure-- as is the case with other general terms like "liberalism" and "conservatism".

His point that this makes it hard to understand the fundamental characters to qualify for 'libertarian' is valid. It also happens to be a valid critique of its practitioners.

This might be an issue for partisans and ideologues, otherwise it's 100% irrelevant. As far as I'm concerned, the real enemy is a mindset which allows you to let a label do your thinking for you.

You can take any philosophical position under the sun and always find idiots and straw men who "support" it to knock around, why should libertarianism be any different. There's plenty of room for real debate here, too bad he's not up for it. Oh well!

...

Exactly, and if the philosophy can't stand on it's own two feet despite this then it deserves the ignomy it will receive.

It's not "a philosophy" any more than liberalism is, and you're confusing the supporters with the ideas themselves again. You want to talk Hayek? Let's talk Hayek. You want to debate Stirner? Jim Bell and AP? Go for it. The fact that there isn't much overlap in no way keeps me from having a meaningful and "coherent" conversation about libertarian ideas with people who happen to agree with parts of them. It's when the discussion degenerates into partisans throwing dogma and generalities at each other that it gets really, really tiresome. I'm certainly no purist, but the fact remains that I'm far more likely to pay attention to critiques of the free market by real economists who actually have a clue as to what they're talking about--like Brad Delong at Berkeley(http://www.j-bradford-delong.net). People on all sides can foam at the mouth all they please, but it won't affect policy and scholarship one way or the other. Which in the long run, is all that matters anyway. ~Faustine. BTW, no hard feelings Jim, I think it's great you're bringing this sort of thing up here. Shaking people out of their complacency is always a good thing.