Any libertarian who doesn’t have a plan to implement a Universal Basic Income in one form or another ultimately subscribes to an inherently contradictory philosophy. Liberty can only be realized when a person is not forced against their will to work in order to live.
I’m not sure currently what my thoughts on that situation are. The concepts of freedom and liberty are kinda non-natural concepts, that I have a good framework for discussing meaningfully regarding humans, but the further away an entity gets from being similar to a person, it’s harder for me to think concretely about what freedom is. I do suspect in some sense “liberty” is a concept whose specific relevance and salience to humans is unique in contrast to most other forms of life, including many closely related animal species- the human desire to have control over one’s own destiny is a social emotion that likely developed to help us maximize our success in the context of the human social environment, which is quite unique even in comparison to other great ape social structures.
None of this is meant, of course, to imply that animals and apes can’t or don’t value freedom, either extrinsicly or intrisicly, just that the human case is unique and I don’t at this moment have a good framework for extrapolating my post to non-human lifeforms.
Agreed, but my understanding is that most “libertarians” aren’t trying to top-down maximize liberty or anything like that but are starting from state of nature and extrapolating some kind of social contract from there.
I think on the level you’re evaluating, ALL political philosophies (perhaps excluding solopsistic or nihilistic ones) some inherent contradictions. If you take them as “preference for slight to major changes from the status quo” rather than “a complete description of a perfect end-state”, they get a lot more reasonable.
It’s quite consistent to decry some of the more egregious current impositions on liberty without demanding the additional impositions on some that would further free some others.
Any libertarian who doesn’t have a plan to implement a Universal Basic Income in one form or another ultimately subscribes to an inherently contradictory philosophy. Liberty can only be realized when a person is not forced against their will to work in order to live.
So a forager animal with no predators isn’t free because it has to look for food?
I’m not sure currently what my thoughts on that situation are. The concepts of freedom and liberty are kinda non-natural concepts, that I have a good framework for discussing meaningfully regarding humans, but the further away an entity gets from being similar to a person, it’s harder for me to think concretely about what freedom is. I do suspect in some sense “liberty” is a concept whose specific relevance and salience to humans is unique in contrast to most other forms of life, including many closely related animal species- the human desire to have control over one’s own destiny is a social emotion that likely developed to help us maximize our success in the context of the human social environment, which is quite unique even in comparison to other great ape social structures.
None of this is meant, of course, to imply that animals and apes can’t or don’t value freedom, either extrinsicly or intrisicly, just that the human case is unique and I don’t at this moment have a good framework for extrapolating my post to non-human lifeforms.
Why do you believe that your concept of freedom is automatically the same as the concept of freedom that other libertarians use?
Even in a “state of nature” you need to work in order to live — even if that’s just gathering food from the environment.
State of nature ≠ liberty
Agreed, but my understanding is that most “libertarians” aren’t trying to top-down maximize liberty or anything like that but are starting from state of nature and extrapolating some kind of social contract from there.
I think on the level you’re evaluating, ALL political philosophies (perhaps excluding solopsistic or nihilistic ones) some inherent contradictions. If you take them as “preference for slight to major changes from the status quo” rather than “a complete description of a perfect end-state”, they get a lot more reasonable.
It’s quite consistent to decry some of the more egregious current impositions on liberty without demanding the additional impositions on some that would further free some others.