Rothbardian libertarianism (aka ancap) is liberalism. He’s been on the record about it being a con.
Traditionally the term means anarchist. The concept of an NAP (which amounts to the legalized protection of inequality) is liberal, not anarchist. Anarchism supports the physical protection of equality because inequality is hierarchy.
True. But it is both liberalism and a con. The con is in branding it as something other than liberalism, which he was able to do by conflating positive and negative freedoms.
Well it’s definitely not liberalism. It’s such an extreme, it’s well past what liberals would consider effective policy. It’s way beyond laissez-faire capitalism, which is typically the rightmost edge of liberalism. Dunno what you’d call that, but liberalism it ain’t.
Rothbardian libertarianism (aka ancap) is liberalism. He’s been on the record about it being a con.
Traditionally the term means anarchist. The concept of an NAP (which amounts to the legalized protection of inequality) is liberal, not anarchist. Anarchism supports the physical protection of equality because inequality is hierarchy.
Being a con doesn’t mean it’s liberalism. It just means it’s a con.
True. But it is both liberalism and a con. The con is in branding it as something other than liberalism, which he was able to do by conflating positive and negative freedoms.
Well it’s definitely not liberalism. It’s such an extreme, it’s well past what liberals would consider effective policy. It’s way beyond laissez-faire capitalism, which is typically the rightmost edge of liberalism. Dunno what you’d call that, but liberalism it ain’t.
To me laws establishing private property rights in a capitalist framework are the NAP in actual practice, so I think we can agree to disagree.
To me a cheeseburger is a helicopter