TheAgitator.com
Meso-Libertarianism
Tuesday, November 25th, 2003Via Jim Henley via Ask Brendan , I find this year-old Matthew Hogan piece that neatly outlines my political philosophy.
Finally! I have a label!
14 Responses to “Meso-Libertarianism”
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial NoDerivs 2.5 License.
Wow. I always get creeped out when someone describes my political views that accurately.
Never was comfortable with Lew Rockwell linking to Robert Fisk articles.
I read this the other day and it troubled me. You don’t need the “meso-” since all it does is delinate the mainstream, small “l” libertarian view. I’m not hyphenating shit just because the Lewbies and neos can’t stay intellectually consistent.
And as per our lack of a pundit, like Sullum or a Raimondo, I suggest we do have one. His name is Balko.
If the collective can legitimately impose national defense and border control then why not any other damn thing it wants?
Nice.
I am not sure I would classify Lincoln’s actions as “evil” considering the historical context, the unresolved nature of the status of the western territories (the South did march on western territories (New Mexico included) and seize it as a new part of the Confederacy, something probably feared would happen following secession), and the possible international ramifications of an independent Confederacy vis-a-vis alliance/ties with England etc etc etc. But I would still put it in the unconstitutional and therefore “wrong” camp.
As for national defense and border control: as long as other nations, and non-state actors, are not as liberal (in the classical sense) as we are, we must defend against any designs they may have to do us harm. When we all live in a utopian libertarian world we will not need such things, but right now we do not.
Lack of a pundit? Doesn’t the entire Cato Institute and most of Reason magazine subscribe to this philosophy?
Meso = the middle = intermediate
Iâ??m curious as to your precise definition of the term â??liberalâ? Mr. Balko?
liberal – not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms
Clearly ‘liberals’ are not liberal when they support socializing everything under the sun.
fangsign: liberal – not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms
Not bound by authoritarianism sounds to me like anti-hierarchical, which is the same as pro-equality, which is the same as pro-conformity, which is the same as pro-authoritarianism.
But that would certainly explain why “they are socializing everything under the sun.”
Why is there such a confounded need to label yourself or align yourself within a group? Can we not just be men with like minded ideas of liberty and sovereign individuality? Even if some of your political ideologies differ in regards to the size of government, as compared to other labeled individuals, does the group label offer you any kind of safety, or is it just a need to belong that is being fulfilled by the label? The group mentality, in most instances, only provides a bludgeon to use against other groups.
Yo, Venlet: tell it, man.
Principles are what matter. Leave the fashions for twits and other un-serious people.
My dad never belonged to a party, though he was very politically active his entire life. His reasoning for rejecting labels was simple.
“I never agree with anyone on everything.”
I, on the other hand, use the label libertarian because it is the shortest and easiest explaination of my basic ideals. Of course I find that most folks don’t even know what that seemingly basic affiliation is, so why would I further confuse them with a prefix?
John Venlet: Why is there such a confounded need to label yourself or align yourself within a group?
So you can quickly tell your friends, from your not-friends???
John Venlet: Can we not just be men with like minded ideas of liberty and sovereign individuality?
Sure, but what do you call such Men?
John Venlet: Even if some of your political ideologies differ in regards to the size of government, as compared to other labeled individuals, does the group label offer you any kind of safety, or is it just a need to belong that is being fulfilled by the label?
A label is just a symbol for the underlying definition, but if you donâ??t comprehend the label and its definition, then how are you suppose to communicate with other individuals (like-minded or otherwise)?
John Venlet: The group mentality, in most instances, only provides a bludgeon to use against other groups.
I donâ??t see where having something in common with someone else is always a bad thing? For starters Iâ??d say it was impossible to communicate with someone if you have absolutely nothing in common with them.
Mesolibertarians
(via The Agitator) Neither paleo nor neo, Matthew Hogan describes a Third Way for libertarians….