Comments on: Tactically Speaking http://toddseavey.com/2008/12/04/tactically-speaking/ Conservatism for punks. Sun, 14 Mar 2010 20:57:25 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Todd Seavey http://toddseavey.com/2008/12/04/tactically-speaking/comment-page-1/#comment-25137 Todd Seavey Thu, 04 Dec 2008 22:02:31 +0000 http://toddseavey.com/2008/12/04/tactically-speaking/#comment-25137 Tomorrow, to avoid delving too much into libertarianism alone instead of continuing the conversation about feminism, I'll try to describe some differences between the state and patriarchy -- and will try to flesh out thoughts on different strains of libertarianism Monday on PJTV, if that delayed second appearance happens. Tomorrow, to avoid delving too much into libertarianism alone instead of continuing the conversation about feminism, I’ll try to describe some differences between the state and patriarchy — and will try to flesh out thoughts on different strains of libertarianism Monday on PJTV, if that delayed second appearance happens.

]]> By: x. trapnel http://toddseavey.com/2008/12/04/tactically-speaking/comment-page-1/#comment-25136 x. trapnel Thu, 04 Dec 2008 21:50:49 +0000 http://toddseavey.com/2008/12/04/tactically-speaking/#comment-25136 To piggyback on Ken - and that variety is despite libertarianism never being anything like a mass movement, as feminism certainly has been at various points. One should expect social theories that become embodied within mass movements to exhibit a lot of diversity! Let's look at liberalism (of which I take libertarianism to be a flavor or at least a cousin): liberal philosophers include Locke and Bentham, Paine and Hume, Mill and Tocqueville and Kant, Hobhouse and Spencer, Hayek and Rawls and Nussbaum and Kukathas. Tons of disagreement there on everything from the nature of value, to nationalism, welfare spending, and revolution. But all are recognizably part of a continuing conversation, and all believe themselves to be deeply committed to defending liberty. I take feminism to combine an (empirical) acknowledgment that contemporary society disadvantages women relative to men and a (normative) insistence that (at least some aspects of) this disadvantage is morally problematic. It's clear that this two-dimensional view is going to encompass a lot of territory--just on the normative side, while it's true you could be an outcome-egalitarian, you could also simply oppose domination (while believing that gender-related oppression is a distinct and important class thereof). Not all feminisms are libertarian, or even liberal, but the right ones are--and vice versa. To piggyback on Ken – and that variety is despite libertarianism never being anything like a mass movement, as feminism certainly has been at various points. One should expect social theories that become embodied within mass movements to exhibit a lot of diversity!

Let’s look at liberalism (of which I take libertarianism to be a flavor or at least a cousin): liberal philosophers include Locke and Bentham, Paine and Hume, Mill and Tocqueville and Kant, Hobhouse and Spencer, Hayek and Rawls and Nussbaum and Kukathas. Tons of disagreement there on everything from the nature of value, to nationalism, welfare spending, and revolution. But all are recognizably part of a continuing conversation, and all believe themselves to be deeply committed to defending liberty.

I take feminism to combine an (empirical) acknowledgment that contemporary society disadvantages women relative to men and a (normative) insistence that (at least some aspects of) this disadvantage is morally problematic. It’s clear that this two-dimensional view is going to encompass a lot of territory–just on the normative side, while it’s true you could be an outcome-egalitarian, you could also simply oppose domination (while believing that gender-related oppression is a distinct and important class thereof).

Not all feminisms are libertarian, or even liberal, but the right ones are–and vice versa.

]]> By: Ken Silber http://toddseavey.com/2008/12/04/tactically-speaking/comment-page-1/#comment-25129 Ken Silber Thu, 04 Dec 2008 19:09:39 +0000 http://toddseavey.com/2008/12/04/tactically-speaking/#comment-25129 That the competing conceptions of libertarianism are "very similar" is, I find, not true. Rothbard said he was "more and more convinced the war-peace question is the key to the whole libertarian business." Friedman said "I don't believe that the libertarian philosophy dictates a foreign policy." Some anarchists have likened minarchists to wife-beaters who beat their wives only on occasion. Some people (like me) call themselves libertarians but find minarchism too minimal. And so on. It may well be that feminism is more internally chaotic than libertarianism, but that's not saying so much. That the competing conceptions of libertarianism are “very similar” is, I find, not true. Rothbard said he was “more and more convinced the war-peace question is the key to the whole libertarian business.” Friedman said “I don’t believe that the libertarian philosophy dictates a foreign policy.” Some anarchists have likened minarchists to wife-beaters who beat their wives only on occasion. Some people (like me) call themselves libertarians but find minarchism too minimal. And so on.

It may well be that feminism is more internally chaotic than libertarianism, but that’s not saying so much.

]]>