Studies in Dialectical Libertarianism: Part One Outline
Things are picking up steam again on Studies in Dialectical Libertarianism. Here’s the outline for the first part that I’ve recently begun writing.
1. The meaning of libertarianism–
A. Control of the individual over their lives.
B. By extension, control of collectives over their affairs.
2. Political level–
A. Political level is defined as when it’s appropriate to use force.
B. Answer being only in retaliation thus establishing non-aggression principle.
C. Definition of liberty following from principle centered around freedom from aggression.
D. Natural law and subsequently natural rights as justification for answer.
E. Logical end point of justification and non-aggression principle is anarchism.
3. Economic level–
A. Economic level is defined as trade in goods and services.
B. Completely free market in the sense of Sam Konkin’s quote that “The Market is the sum of all voluntary human action. If one acts non-coercively, one is part of the Market.”
C. Preferred conception of property rights to underlie the free market.
4. Cultural level–
A. Cultural level is defined as the dominant disposition towards what is and isn’t acceptable. Think of a continuum with extreme liberalism on one end and extreme conservativism the other.
B. Culture that supports individuals being their authentic selves (extremes noted).
C. Extreme cultural liberalism and tolerance being the most conducive to this.
D. Subsequent importance of genuine liberation for outcast groups such as drug users and sex workers.
Update: Compliments to Matt Jenny for inspiring a word change from coercion to aggression.
Natasha | Studies in Dialectical Libertarianism
Sounds interesting! Take care that you don’t confuse coercion and aggression (See Kinsella’s post [url=http://blog.lewrockwell.com/lewrw/archives/010897.html]here[/url]). I think Konkin got it wrong. I think if one acts non-[i]aggressively[/i], one is part of the market. Restitution sometimes requires coercion. Still, restitution is surely part of the market. Or are there tiny bubbles of statism in anarchy every time someone is forced to pay restitution.
Nice!
Matt,
A very constructive point. Pacifist libertarians would likely consider any use of coercion to imply statism but I’m not among them. Coercion used to obtain restitution would fall under the banner of retaliatory force and thus part of the market.
Jeremy,
Thanks!
Oh by the way, sorry for the stupid BB-code. I thought this was possible in WordPress.