The only proper response when a liberal tries to hide behind the NAP no one can freely or willingly enter into a contract under duress of starvation and homelessness.
“American Libertarians” are acolytes of Economic liberalism. They fetishize Adam Smith. Economic liberalism is generally referred to as liberalism. They are definitionally liberals. Not libertarians.
They call themselves libertarian. But they aren’t. They don’t believe in public ownership of natural resources. A core precept of Libertarianism. Or many of the other things actual libertarians do. Also the NAP isn’t a libertarian thing itself. The man who coined and defined the term PARTICIPATED IN THE FRENCH REVOLUTION. The NAP is a thought short circuiting exercise designed by Rothbard 100 years after the establishment of Libertarianism. To discourage and alienate actual libertarians from the group.
Those that often call themselves libertarian babble about the invisible hand of the market. As well as fetishizing Adam Smith and his ideology. Economic liberalism. Because they are liberals. In the actual political definition of the term. Not the modern colloquial misuse of the term.
Rothbardian libertarianism (aka ancap) is liberalism. He’s been on the record about it being a con.
Traditionally the term means anarchist. The concept of an NAP (which amounts to the legalized protection of inequality) is liberal, not anarchist. Anarchism supports the physical protection of equality because inequality is hierarchy.
True. But it is both liberalism and a con. The con is in branding it as something other than liberalism, which he was able to do by conflating positive and negative freedoms.
Well it’s definitely not liberalism. It’s such an extreme, it’s well past what liberals would consider effective policy. It’s way beyond laissez-faire capitalism, which is typically the rightmost edge of liberalism. Dunno what you’d call that, but liberalism it ain’t.
Then there’s also the little issue of them denying that such a thing as a social contract exists, and I never signed no NAP so I cannot possibly be bound to it.
The only proper response when a liberal tries to hide behind the NAP no one can freely or willingly enter into a contract under duress of starvation and homelessness.
No liberal has ever mentioned the NAP.
I didn’t even know what NAP was until a few weeks ago. Marx and Smith never used the initialism.
You have to be into Libertarianism or have debated Libertarians to know what NAP stands for.
“American Libertarians” are acolytes of Economic liberalism. They fetishize Adam Smith. Economic liberalism is generally referred to as liberalism. They are definitionally liberals. Not libertarians.
You mean libertarian. LIberals aren’t stupid enough to believe in a silly non aggression pact.
They call themselves libertarian. But they aren’t. They don’t believe in public ownership of natural resources. A core precept of Libertarianism. Or many of the other things actual libertarians do. Also the NAP isn’t a libertarian thing itself. The man who coined and defined the term PARTICIPATED IN THE FRENCH REVOLUTION. The NAP is a thought short circuiting exercise designed by Rothbard 100 years after the establishment of Libertarianism. To discourage and alienate actual libertarians from the group.
Those that often call themselves libertarian babble about the invisible hand of the market. As well as fetishizing Adam Smith and his ideology. Economic liberalism. Because they are liberals. In the actual political definition of the term. Not the modern colloquial misuse of the term.
Rothbardian libertarianism (aka ancap) is liberalism. He’s been on the record about it being a con.
Traditionally the term means anarchist. The concept of an NAP (which amounts to the legalized protection of inequality) is liberal, not anarchist. Anarchism supports the physical protection of equality because inequality is hierarchy.
Being a con doesn’t mean it’s liberalism. It just means it’s a con.
True. But it is both liberalism and a con. The con is in branding it as something other than liberalism, which he was able to do by conflating positive and negative freedoms.
Well it’s definitely not liberalism. It’s such an extreme, it’s well past what liberals would consider effective policy. It’s way beyond laissez-faire capitalism, which is typically the rightmost edge of liberalism. Dunno what you’d call that, but liberalism it ain’t.
To me laws establishing private property rights in a capitalist framework are the NAP in actual practice, so I think we can agree to disagree.
To me a cheeseburger is a helicopter
Then there’s also the little issue of them denying that such a thing as a social contract exists, and I never signed no NAP so I cannot possibly be bound to it.