Comments on: Big-Government Libertarianism vs. Limited-Government Liberalism

By: Limited-government liberalism | American Times

Limited-government liberalism | American Times — Tue, 14 Sep 2010 22:12:32 +0000

[...] url='http://www.americantimes.org/2010/09/14/limited-government-liberalism/';I’d like to excerpt almost the entirety of this Will Wilkinson post from wayback in February of ‘09, because it does a very good job of getting at where I’ve been [...]

By: Nancy

Nancy — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 21:08:51 +0000

You seem to be confused it's only the Liberals that push for big government & over the top social programs. Libertarianism is a term used by a broad spectrum of political philosophies which seeks to maximize our individual liberties and minimize or even abolish the size of governments.

By: Nancy

Nancy — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 14:08:51 +0000

By: A Matter of Scale « Four Cat Morning

A Matter of Scale « Four Cat Morning — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 03:18:43 +0000

[...] February 25, 2009, 3:18 am Filed under: Uncategorized Will Wilkinson has a post about small-government liberalism. If I get the pith of his gist then sign me up. I have no particular beef against the government [...]

By: Terrence Watson

Terrence Watson — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 01:37:19 +0000

“Call me ignorant, but I didn't know there was agreement (among libertarians) on these premises.”

I don't think there is. But it's probably that difference that makes Wilkinson a limited-government liberal instead of a libertarian.

By: forkthis

forkthis — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 00:52:05 +0000

The question isn't whether they starve to death. Rather, to me, the question is whether someone should be required to keep them alive, and if so, who.

And that's where I part ways with the liberal crowd. To the extent some humans are not empathetic, I do not believe they should be required to keep others alive. I, on the other hand, would willingly pay to prevent old people and children from starving to death. Frankly, I do so every Sunday.

Incidentally, I also believe that allowing the choice validates (and in some ways encourages) my voluntary contribution.

I'm sure this issue is more sophisticated than i realize, but the whole discussion above seems to imply that libertarians agree with this Rawlsian notion that everyone is entitled to a certain minimum standard of living, but that libertarians disagree about the best means to that end. At the very least, the discussion is premised on the notion that an important justification for government is to assist the less fortunate. Call me ignorant, but I didn't know there was agreement (among libertarians) on these premises.

By: Terrence Watson

Terrence Watson — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 21:02:10 +0000

Heh, alphie. That sounds about right.

Quite a controversial moral principle, isn't it?

By: Hunter

Hunter — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 20:52:10 +0000

Will: I'd love to see your comments on this:
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2009/...

By: alphie

alphie — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 20:46:54 +0000

Um,

Liberals won't let old people and children starve to death?

By: Craig

Craig — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 20:10:11 +0000

“I am, more or less, starting from a fairly typical liberal account of the state and it’s aims.”

To repeat what some of the other commentators have asked – what exactly are the aims of the liberal account of the state? And why do you find them preferable to a libertarian or classical liberal account?