pull down to refresh

913 sats \ 1 reply \ @elvismercury 20 Feb \ parent \ on: Human Rights and the Public Good libertarian
"Rights" is such a useful shorthand for something I do believe in that I don't completely avoid the term.
Same. I try not to be Comic Book Guy about it, but some people are deeply confused about the concept and so from time to time I uncork it.
This is explicitly not done by libertarians. I'd say we actually have one of the less totalizing world views.
Interesting! I suppose I should be more conservative in how I talk about these things -- in my head, I'm thinking of the "libertarians" that I know, who have a hodgepodge of attitudes; but that's presumably as misleading as when people are pwning the dems, or whatever.
Insofar as this is a sensible question: is there a canonical thing that captures the nuances of modern libertarian thought? Such that, if you read it, you could credibly feel like you knew what the mainstream views / philosophy was?
write
preview
this territory is moderated
328 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 21 Feb
is there a canonical thing that captures the nuances of modern libertarian thought?
"Nuances"? No.
The conventionally accepted definition is that libertarianism is defined by the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP), which I've also seen called the Zero Aggression Principle (ZAP).
To be a libertarian in good standing you can believe anything you want as long as you reject the initiation of violence against people.
reply