For those who are instead principled libertarians who genuinely wouldn’t turn this around on a moment’s notice, well, I am sorry that others have ruined this and so many other principled stands.
I am not sure if I understand what is meant by this, but I’m interpreting it to imply that principled libertarians should be against a ban on meat derived from animals.
I think anyone claiming that ought to also provide a justification as to why non-human animals shouldn’t be afforded some basic negative rights within libertarian principles?
To argue that one conscious being should be granted full license to do whatever they want with another conscious being doesn’t really strike me a pro freedom stance.
Unless you have a reason why it’s okay to have an out-group for whom you deny freedoms in order to maximize the freedoms of the in-group? Are libertarian principles just “might makes right” privileging the smallest number of individuals you can get away with?
I agree: appealing to libertarianism shouldn’t automatically win someone the argument on whether it’s okay to still have factory farms.
The fact that Zvi thought he provided enough of a pointer to an argument there feels weird, in my opinion.
That said, maybe he was mostly focused on wanting to highlight that a large subset of people who are strongly against this ban (and may use libertarian arguments to argue for their position) are only against bans when it suits their agenda. So, maybe the point was in a way more about specific people’s hypocrisy in how they argue than the question of concern for animals.
Either way, I continue to appreciate all these newsletters and I admit that the opinionated tone often makes them more interesting/fun to read in cases where it’s not triggering me on issues that I see differently.
Zvi is talking about those people who use libertarianism as a gloss for “getting what they want.” In other words, people who aren’t into liberty per se, but only into liberty to the extent it satisfies their preferences. There probably is, and if there isn’t, there should be, a word for people who invoke liberty this way. That way, when talking about the sort that, for instance, want children to be allowed to read the Bible in the classroom (because LIBERTY!) while simultaneously wanting to ban some book on trans-youth (because PARENTS RIGHTS), we can say: oh, yes, that (word) is at it again. I mean, hypocrite for sure, and perhaps gaslighter, but we need a better word. Well, if there is an existing word, please let me know. There are so many of these sorts out and about, they easily dwarf the population of libertarians.
On the lab grown meat section
I am not sure if I understand what is meant by this, but I’m interpreting it to imply that principled libertarians should be against a ban on meat derived from animals.
I think anyone claiming that ought to also provide a justification as to why non-human animals shouldn’t be afforded some basic negative rights within libertarian principles?
To argue that one conscious being should be granted full license to do whatever they want with another conscious being doesn’t really strike me a pro freedom stance.
Unless you have a reason why it’s okay to have an out-group for whom you deny freedoms in order to maximize the freedoms of the in-group? Are libertarian principles just “might makes right” privileging the smallest number of individuals you can get away with?
I agree: appealing to libertarianism shouldn’t automatically win someone the argument on whether it’s okay to still have factory farms.
The fact that Zvi thought he provided enough of a pointer to an argument there feels weird, in my opinion.
That said, maybe he was mostly focused on wanting to highlight that a large subset of people who are strongly against this ban (and may use libertarian arguments to argue for their position) are only against bans when it suits their agenda. So, maybe the point was in a way more about specific people’s hypocrisy in how they argue than the question of concern for animals.
Either way, I continue to appreciate all these newsletters and I admit that the opinionated tone often makes them more interesting/fun to read in cases where it’s not triggering me on issues that I see differently.
Zvi is talking about those people who use libertarianism as a gloss for “getting what they want.” In other words, people who aren’t into liberty per se, but only into liberty to the extent it satisfies their preferences. There probably is, and if there isn’t, there should be, a word for people who invoke liberty this way. That way, when talking about the sort that, for instance, want children to be allowed to read the Bible in the classroom (because LIBERTY!) while simultaneously wanting to ban some book on trans-youth (because PARENTS RIGHTS), we can say: oh, yes, that (word) is at it again. I mean, hypocrite for sure, and perhaps gaslighter, but we need a better word. Well, if there is an existing word, please let me know. There are so many of these sorts out and about, they easily dwarf the population of libertarians.