My review of Michael Otsuka’s Libertarianism Without Inequality is now available online. Comments welcome. (Some comments already appeared here, here, and here.)
P.S. Anyone interested in socialist criticism of libertarianism, especially along the lines that Otsuka propounds, might enjoy my essay on “G.A. Cohen on Self-Ownership, Property, and Equality.”
Our paper picked up a column on “left libertarianism” that referred to your review.
http://www.thepost.ohiou.edu/E.php?article=E4&date=010605
Thanks for the tip! I did a google on the author and found a somewhat longer version that includes a (much deserved) recommendation of David Boaz’s books Libertarianism: A Primer and The Libertarian Reader at:
http://www.michiganreview.com/article.php?id=1452
Don’t know about left-lib, but there does seem to be something about right-lib, best exemplified by Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) and some of the Rockwell crowd (esp. Gary North) who tend to favor libertarianism, but are against gay marriage (some against gay rights in general apparently) and favor gov. intervention to prevent abortion.
Harry Browne is correct on this (I support a woman’s right to choose, but anyway):
“I am firmly opposed to abortion. Knowing what government is and how it perverts whatever it promises to do, I am just as firmly opposed to any government program to stop abortion….Government never delivers what you want. It doesn’t protect adults on the streets. It doesn’t protect children in the schools. Why should we think it will protect the unborn?”
Adam,
Well, we can set aside the abortion issue for the moment, as the question of whether the issue involves two rights bearers or one makes it less straightforward than most other questions from a libertarian perspective. But there is no question that Gary North and some of the others who hang around lewrockwell.com are not — in any way whatsoever — libertarians. Gary North is not merely opposed to allowing people to get married; he wants to stone homosexuals to death. I posted information on that topic at http://www.tomgpalmer.com/archives/014604.php . Walter Olson documented some of North’s craziness (now unavailable on the web, for pretty obvious reasons) at http://reason.com/9811/col.olson.shtml . So, whatever “right” or “left” libertarianism might mean (and those who use the terms refer, not to such matters as the rights of gay people, but to the right to control property, earn profits, and the like), Gary North and his evil views do not deserve the name.
Yeah, I saw that piece (both the entry on this site and the Reason piece) on North, which is why I mentioned him. Now, I believe you CAN be a good libertarian and oppose abortion, but I think one has to draw the line at supporting a marriage amendment, and someone who advocates stoning homosexuals (and, for that matter, a theocracy) such as North and his ilk do cannot in any way be called libertarians.
As much as I dislike reviving the whole pissing contest, I can’t resist pointing out an irony of condemning Gary North for being “pro-life”:
actually, North is somewhat supportive of an ahem, “post-natal” abortion, as he (or at the very least the theological/political movement he sympathizes with) supports stoning to death disobidient children. Reminds me of the SouthPark episode where Cartman’s mother lobbies to have “32nd trimester abortion” legalized (by sleeping with Billy Clinton).
Hey Tom,
I loved your review of this book in Reason. I met you a few years ago when you gave a talk on Liberty and Happiness to students at the FEE Convention in Vegas in 2002. At the time I was working but I’ve returned to school and am now in a Phd philosophy program at UC Davis. Last year I took a course from a “Left Libertarian” and wrote an essay on Cohen’s critique of Nozick in “Self Ownership, Freedom and Equality”. Cohen has some fun examples too about rolling pins but nothing I’ve read tops that stuff on the hairy one and the bald one: such a penetrating thought experiment that sheds so much light on the nature of rights, justice, etc.. LOL
The funny thing is how these guys pretend like they are serious and they really believe this stuff. But it’s fun to watch them posture and make their ridiculous arguments and everybody play along and pretend like it is fascinating and important stuff. Somebody should really pile up a book of the ridiculous arguments and thought experiments coming out of academic philosophy. I can’t think of anything funnier. The sociology of academia is truly entertaining.
Greg (and anyone else who follows political theory),
Thanks for that. I do think that people such as Cohen represent the dead-end of political theory. Their willful ignorance of history, economics, game theory, anthropology, jurisprudence, psychology, and other disciplines leaves them with the barest form of intuitionism, which is not at all convincing to people who don’t share their intuitions.
You may enjoy my response to G.A. Cohen’s attack on libertarianism, which is available at http://www.tomgpalmer.com/papers/palmer-cohen-cr-v12n3.pdf . (Cohen’s response to an early critique of his claim that his argument did not lead to the conclusions he thought followed was, “Well, which are you critiicizing, the argument or the conclusion?” The sheer sophistry was breath taking.