• Cryophilia@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    You mean libertarian. LIberals aren’t stupid enough to believe in a silly non aggression pact.

    • Eldritch@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      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.

    • ESC@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      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.

        • ESC@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          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.

          • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            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.

            • ESC@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              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.