Quote:
Originally Posted by peter12
Then your knowledge of libertarianism is fairly thin. Rand isn't even considered a libertarian by many standards, she is more of an objectivist and rejects many of the standards set forth by Friedman and Hayek. Friedman stated in opposition of the Vietnam draft that the state does not have the right to treat its citizens like property. The same principle applies to criminal law.
|
Well, as I don't care if I am in a lose-lose proposition, let me say I spent half a decade in my twenties as a hard-core libertarian, so I'm reasonably certain my knowledge of libertarianism is actually quite extensive. I think if you did some further research on libertarian theories of justice - like Friedman
here (where, btw, he specifically cites Rand as a libertarian, contrary to your view), proposing contracts, private agencies and courts, vs. Nozik
here, where he proposes a limited state apparatus of justice, you would see that claiming any particular unifying principles of libertarian justice is premature.
You simply cannot claim that Friedman speaks for all libertarians on this issue, as if you actually reference the
Libertarian Wiki, it explicitly states that libertarians are split on the issue, and one would think that if this was controversial, it would reference a far more extensive discussion than looks to be the case. Friedman and Hayek are no more the end-all and be-all of libertarianism any more than St. Paul is the ultimate arbiter of Christendom.
Forgive me for the digression, but it might be interesting to know that I became disillusioned with libertarianism after I worked at a large multi-national (Digital/Compaq) and realized that large corporations were examples of how economies of scale overcame neo-classic theories of laissez-faire capitalism by distorting free markets with their own peculiar brand of bureaucratic ineptitude. And at least with a government, you can vote the bums out.
