by Realist Left in a great new video responds to libertarians in this video:[embedded content]This is an excellent critique. I add some points below. I would classify libertarians into the following groups:(1) Randians(2) Austrians(i) the Anarcho-capitalists, like Rothbard and Hoppe;(ii) The minimal state Austrians like Mises (with his praxeology);(iii) Austrian supporters of Hayek’s economics, with a minimal state;(iv) The “orthodox” Austrians (probably supporters of a minimal state) who have a moderate subjectivist position (like Israel Kirzner and Roger Garrison);(v) statist Austrian radical subjectivists Ludwig Lachmann (though there seem to be few of these people left); (3) Non-Austrian libertarians (but influenced by Austrian economics to some extent and neoclassical economics)We can probably place many of the “Free Bankers” in this category.(4) Neoclassical libertarians (but sometimes influenced by Austrian economics) (i) followers of Robert Nozick’s libertarianism;(ii) followers of David D. Friedman’s anarcho-capitalism, and other non-Austrian anarcho-capitalism (e.g., Jan Narveson);(iii) other non-Austrian, neoclassical influenced libertarians (e.g., Tom Palmer, Bryan Caplan and Tyler Cowen). Libertarians tend to base their political thought on these ethical theories:(1) Rothbard’s natural rights ethics (for my refutations, see here, here, here, and here).
Topics:
Lord Keynes considers the following as important: Realist Left with Answers for Libertarians
This could be interesting, too:
This is an excellent critique. I add some points below.
I would classify libertarians into the following groups:
(1) RandiansLibertarians tend to base their political thought on these ethical theories:(2) Austrians
(i) the Anarcho-capitalists, like Rothbard and Hoppe;(3) Non-Austrian libertarians (but influenced by Austrian economics to some extent and neoclassical economics)(ii) The minimal state Austrians like Mises (with his praxeology);
(iii) Austrian supporters of Hayek’s economics, with a minimal state;
(iv) The “orthodox” Austrians (probably supporters of a minimal state) who have a moderate subjectivist position (like Israel Kirzner and Roger Garrison);
(v) statist Austrian radical subjectivists Ludwig Lachmann (though there seem to be few of these people left);
We can probably place many of the “Free Bankers” in this category.(4) Neoclassical libertarians (but sometimes influenced by Austrian economics)(i) followers of Robert Nozick’s libertarianism;(ii) followers of David D. Friedman’s anarcho-capitalism, and other non-Austrian anarcho-capitalism (e.g., Jan Narveson);
(iii) other non-Austrian, neoclassical influenced libertarians (e.g., Tom Palmer, Bryan Caplan and Tyler Cowen).
(1) Rothbard’s natural rights ethics (for my refutations, see here, here, here, and here).Both Rothbard’s natural rights ethics and Hoppe’s argumentation ethics are utterly flawed and cannot possibly function as the ethical foundations for any political philosophy.(2) Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s argumentation ethics (for my refutation, see here).
(3) some kind of utilitarianism or consequentialism.
As it happens, some type of consequentialism is actually the best and most defensible foundation for a rational and secular ethics, as I have argued here, but once we see how flawed Austrian and neoclassical economics is, and the severe problems with libertarian social and other political thought, consequentialist ethics lends support to some kind of Social Democratic system.