Suchergebnisse

LIKE JEFFREY FRIEDMAN'S PROPOSED POSTLIBERTARIANISM, MAINSTREAM LIBERTARIANISM HAS ALWAYS EMPHASIZED THE CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVE INSTITUTIONS FOR HUMAN WELL-BEING. MAINSTREAM LIBERTARIANISM DOES, HOWEVER, SHARE SOME SIMILARITIES WITH THE RADICAL LIBERTARIANISM CRITICIZED BY FRIEDMAN, AS CAN BE SEEN BY CONSIDERING POSSIBLE ANSWERS TO THE QUESTION ALEC NOVE RECENTLY POSED FOR POSTLIBERTARIANS.

"Have you ever wondered what libertarians think about vaccine mandates? About gun control? About racial and sexual inequalities? While libertarianism is well-known as a political theory relating to the scope and justification of state authority, the breadth and depth of libertarian work on a wide range of other topics in social and political philosophy is less well-known. This handbook is the first definitive reference on libertarianism that offers an in-depth survey of the central ideas from across philosophy, politics and economics, including applications to contemporary policy issues. The forty essays in this work provide an encyclopaedic overview of libertarian scholarship, from foundational debates about natural rights theories vs. utilitarian approaches, to policy debates over immigration, punishment and policing, and intellectual property. Each essay presents a comprehensive and up-to-date overview of historical and contemporary libertarian thought on its subject, and thus serves as an essential guide to current scholarship, and a starting place for discovering future lines of research. The book also contains a section on criticisms of libertarianism, written by leading scholars from the feminist, republican, socialist, and conservative perspectives, as well as a section on how libertarian political theory relates to various schools of economic thought such as the Chicago, Austrian, Bloomington, and Public Choice schools. This book is an essential and comprehensive guide for anyone interested in libertarianism, whether sympathiser or critic. Matt Zwolinksi is Professor of Philosophy at the University of San Diego, USA, and Director of USD's Center for Ethics, Economics, and Public Policy. Benjamin Ferguson is an Associate Professor at the University of Warwick, UK, and Director of their program in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics"--

The only way to shrink government, significantly and sustainably, is to convince more people that smaller government is better.

Many libertarians make a moral argument that liberty requires the freedom to exercise strong property rights. From this, they argue that no more than a minimal state with sharply limited powers of taxation can be justified. A larger state would supposedly interfere with private property rights and thereby reduce liberty. In response, this article shows how natural rights to property do not entail any particular vision of the state. It demonstrates that the principles of natural property rights support monarchy just as well as they support a capitalist aristocracy. Nothing in the theory of natural property rights rules out government ownership of property or government ownership of the right to tax. Therefore, the natural rights argument does not necessarily imply libertarian limits on the state, but rather the acceptance of whatever state powers and property rights have been in place for a sufficient amount of time. For example, historical property rights in Britain do not imply that private titleholders possess rights that have been subject to interference from the state, as libertarians claim. Instead, they imply that the Queen and her ministers in parliament have a strong claim to at least partial ownership of the whole island of Britain and the property within it. If this argument holds, it poses a serious dilemma for libertarians, forcing them to choose between their account of liberty as the exercise of property rights and their belief that only a minimal state is justifiable.