Comments on: Liberaltarianism: Back the Future

By: Liberals + libertarians = liberaltarians « The Spirit of Moderation

Liberals + libertarians = liberaltarians « The Spirit of Moderation — Tue, 06 Jul 2010 22:57:30 +0000

[...] blog commentary on the idea: “Is Rawlsekianism the Future?“, December 2006; “Liberaltarianism Back to the Future”, May 2008; and “Liberaltarian Reactions”, February [...]

By: New Terms for New Times « Quantum Sense

New Terms for New Times « Quantum Sense — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 04:22:18 +0000

[...] of this terminology problem is the recent flurry of blog activity about a relatively new term: “liberaltarianism.” The word, coined by Will Wilkinson, apparently points to a new perspective on creating workable [...]

By: You Fuse You Lose? « The Enterprise Blog

You Fuse You Lose? « The Enterprise Blog — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 16:10:06 +0000

[...] my enormous admiration for Will Wilkinson and Brink Lindsey, I don’t see much hope for liberaltarianism — a kind of fusionism of liberals and libertarians — as a viable political movement [...]

By: Blond with Sandel(s) | The League of Ordinary Gentlemen

Blond with Sandel(s) | The League of Ordinary Gentlemen — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 18:37:24 +0000

[...] three is not always as sharp and distinct as it is normally portrayed in the media or blogosphere. Liberaltarianism (advocated by a few members of this very League) is the basic assumption that libertarianism is not [...]

By: JoeAnne11

JoeAnne11 — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 13:13:29 +0000

I read pretty much all the article but many things remained unclear for me. That`s why I am asking you to reply me in a comment a better explanation if you have. I am glad I read your forum. A small advice from me to you would be to try Life Extension vitamins.

By: Alexjr

Alexjr — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 05:56:19 +0000

Are you interesting?

By: Neal Locke

Neal Locke — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 13:24:10 +0000

Frankly, “liberaltarianism” and “progressive fusionism” don’t really amount to much beyond what Hayek, Friedman, and Buchanan thought anyway. So the fusionism here isn’t really a fusion of anything. It’s just seeing our way back to a pre-existing economically literate political liberalism.

I agree that these aren't new concepts, but I also think that sometimes new words, new labels are helpful for breaking free from ones whose common usage has shifted.

To this end, a few of us who self-identify as "liberaltarians" are starting an open, group blog over at http://www.liberaltarian.net -- still in the very early stages of figuring out what to do with it, but if you're interested in contributing via posts, comments, or even reposting what you've written here, we'd love to have you as part of the discussion.

By: Shockingly Progressive Friedmanism « Indistinct Union

Shockingly Progressive Friedmanism « Indistinct Union — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 17:50:42 +0000

[...] to be fair to Friedman for a second (as well as Hayek) Milton was well aware of the failure of trickle down theory to reach the poor. And designed [...]

By: PrestoPundit

PrestoPundit — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 01:26:29 +0000

One problem. Hayek didn’t make a slippery slope argument.

“Hayek himself made the slippery slope argument powerfully, though unsoundly.”

By: PrestoPundit

PrestoPundit — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 01:26:00 +0000

One problem. Hayek didn’t make a slippery slope argument.

“Hayek himself made the slippery slope argument powerfully, though unsoundly.”