I see Boaz quotes the same Locke text you used in the “What Is Freedom?” essay. Accident?
We now know what Freedom is (thanks to the “Constitution of Liberty” and your essay), but what is a libertarian? I mean in the strict sense.
To take myself, I meet some definitions, but not others. I don’t meet the Nolan test, for instance. If Boaz’ test is “a libertarian is someone who believes in liberty,
not in chaos; in the rule of law, not in lawlessness; and in a voluntary social order,” then that looks like a pretty big tent to me. (Which I understand is Boaz’ point, and I don’t mean it as a criticism, but just got me thinking about the difficulties with a strict definition).
Unfortunately, despite the best wishes of David Boaz and Dean Russell, some people use the word “libertarian” to mean anarchism.
I wish there were a word to use with less risk, which would convey without additional qualification that you’re a libertarian, but not an anarchist; a liberal, but not a socialist; in short, a “classical liberal” like Hayek or James Buchanan. This last phrase is just too academic though.
I know David Boaz toyed with the label “market liberal”. That doesn’t quite work either.
I know Hayek struggled to find a new word, too.
I have found that the use of the word “libertarian” is just too confusing. The instant reaction from the man on the street is “You’re against government?” I wish it weren’t so, but that’s the life this word has taken. It covers two camps, which need to be distinguished, as they are opposed.
{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }
Wow
I see Boaz quotes the same Locke text you used in the “What Is Freedom?” essay. Accident?
We now know what Freedom is (thanks to the “Constitution of Liberty” and your essay), but what is a libertarian? I mean in the strict sense.
To take myself, I meet some definitions, but not others. I don’t meet the Nolan test, for instance. If Boaz’ test is “a libertarian is someone who believes in liberty,
not in chaos; in the rule of law, not in lawlessness; and in a voluntary social order,” then that looks like a pretty big tent to me. (Which I understand is Boaz’ point, and I don’t mean it as a criticism, but just got me thinking about the difficulties with a strict definition).
Unfortunately, despite the best wishes of David Boaz and Dean Russell, some people use the word “libertarian” to mean anarchism.
I wish there were a word to use with less risk, which would convey without additional qualification that you’re a libertarian, but not an anarchist; a liberal, but not a socialist; in short, a “classical liberal” like Hayek or James Buchanan. This last phrase is just too academic though.
I know David Boaz toyed with the label “market liberal”. That doesn’t quite work either.
I know Hayek struggled to find a new word, too.
I have found that the use of the word “libertarian” is just too confusing. The instant reaction from the man on the street is “You’re against government?” I wish it weren’t so, but that’s the life this word has taken. It covers two camps, which need to be distinguished, as they are opposed.