Tuesday, February 17, 2009
I'm thinking of writing a short book or long pamphlet/essay, with a purpose and theme that may be controversial to some and constructive to others. That purpose is internal criticism of the general libertarian and/or anarchist movement, in both philosophical and strategic terms, something which I think is very much needed. This isn't to say that it may be purely negative in nature, because part of the process of such internal criticism is fleshing out libertarianism as a social philosophy. The purpose is not merely to negate things, it also is an expression of my viewpoint on the complexities of libertarianism and anarchism in terms of social philosophy.
Some of the main and fairly well-known libertarian thinkers who have certain ideas that I have varying degrees of criticism of are: Hans Herman Hoppe, Walter Block, Stephan Kinsella, Stefan Molyneux and Noam Chomsky. The material on this blog alone contains some criticisms of the ideas of these people already. I have varying degrees of both sympathy and disagreement for their ideas. But my criticism most certainly isn't restricted to the ideas of specific people, it also applies to certain ideas that are generally held by certain libertarians, wether they are under the influence of these thinkers or not.
There are quite a few areas of contention and controversy internal to the libertarian and anarchist movements that I think are in great need of being clarified or resolved. Such concerns include things such as: the validity of an axoimatic approach to libertarianism, thin vs. thick libertarianism, the idea of alienable rights and voluntary slavery, the legitimacy of corporate status and limited liability, questions about monarchy and democracy, the issue of individually owned cities, the issue of children's rights, questions of immigration restriction and/or border enforcement, the degree to which violence is justified or unjustified in the context of property theory, neo-lockean property rights vs. proudhonian or usufrunct property rights, methods of privatization, self-ownership as a dualism vs. a monist approach, the validity and practicality of participating in political processes, the relationship (if any) between libertarianism and conservatism and the general concern of vulgar libertarianism and vulgar collectivism.
To be sure, a lot of my criticism is generally conductive toward a fairly thick left-libertarian perspective. But it's also conductive toward a tempered or contextual anarchism without adjectives, and my criticism is not restricted to the libertarian right. In particular, I have just as much criticism for guys like Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn for somewhat different reasons. In either case, I certainly have a lot of ground to cover and am not entirely sure where to start. I'm open to suggestions and minor help from anyone who's willing to contribute.
Some of the main and fairly well-known libertarian thinkers who have certain ideas that I have varying degrees of criticism of are: Hans Herman Hoppe, Walter Block, Stephan Kinsella, Stefan Molyneux and Noam Chomsky. The material on this blog alone contains some criticisms of the ideas of these people already. I have varying degrees of both sympathy and disagreement for their ideas. But my criticism most certainly isn't restricted to the ideas of specific people, it also applies to certain ideas that are generally held by certain libertarians, wether they are under the influence of these thinkers or not.
There are quite a few areas of contention and controversy internal to the libertarian and anarchist movements that I think are in great need of being clarified or resolved. Such concerns include things such as: the validity of an axoimatic approach to libertarianism, thin vs. thick libertarianism, the idea of alienable rights and voluntary slavery, the legitimacy of corporate status and limited liability, questions about monarchy and democracy, the issue of individually owned cities, the issue of children's rights, questions of immigration restriction and/or border enforcement, the degree to which violence is justified or unjustified in the context of property theory, neo-lockean property rights vs. proudhonian or usufrunct property rights, methods of privatization, self-ownership as a dualism vs. a monist approach, the validity and practicality of participating in political processes, the relationship (if any) between libertarianism and conservatism and the general concern of vulgar libertarianism and vulgar collectivism.
To be sure, a lot of my criticism is generally conductive toward a fairly thick left-libertarian perspective. But it's also conductive toward a tempered or contextual anarchism without adjectives, and my criticism is not restricted to the libertarian right. In particular, I have just as much criticism for guys like Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn for somewhat different reasons. In either case, I certainly have a lot of ground to cover and am not entirely sure where to start. I'm open to suggestions and minor help from anyone who's willing to contribute.
No comments:
Post a Comment