Quote:
|
By 'see no' do you mean that you have never seen an argument put forward for this, or that you find them all inconclusive?
|
They all seem inconclusive.
Quote:
|
I mean what is the current commonly accepted definition of libertarianism.
|
That is the American meaning. Outside the internet and America it doesn't necessarily have that meaning, globally it is as often take to be leftwing.
Quote:
|
Secondly, I never made the argument that the Lockean idea of ownership necessitates this ideology, which is why I made it clear that I was talking about Nozick's reformation of the Lockean proviso. However, concerning whether I own myself or not, whether or not Locke said this is irrelevant. I don't see an axiom such as this up for debate. Furthermore, the majority of modern interpretations of Locke would place him as a precursor to (or a member of) the modern libertarian/classical liberal movement (obviously after we, like with Aristotle, ignore the small sections on slavery and such). So I don't really understand what you are implying by the latter part of this statement.
|
I don't think classical liberals are the same as modern, American style libertarians. Classical liberalism is a nuanced and diverse movement which has influenced most modern ideologies. But that is not what I was saying.
Quote:
|
I don't agree that this would be the case. However, the Geolibertarian stance does the exact opposite, it restricts freedom in the opposite direction.
|
I don't see how.
What I'm looking for is an iron-clad argument from you why your version of lockean property rights, the Nozick one, is necessarily, always and in all contexts and situations, the route to liberty.
Personally I don't define economic liberty in terms of a version of property rights like that. I define it in terms of the real autonomy and freedom an individual has over his creative activity. And if local convetion can increase this by making the local rules of property conform to a less "sticky"(ie a kind of ownership which allows less absentee ownership.) version of property then I have no problem with this.