There’s an interesting new philosophy blog called “Bleeding Heart Libertarians,” featuring an all-star cast of Andrew J. Cohen, Daniel Shapiro, Jacob T. Levy, James Stacey Taylor, Jason F. Brennan, and Matt Zwolinski. Actually, some of the participants reject the term “libertarian”; one of the first posts, by Jason Brennan, is entitled, “Neoclassical Liberalism: How I’m Not a Libertarian.” Provocative stuff – check it out.
About Pileus
What is a Pileus?
Meet The Authors
Our Published Work
Archives
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
Tags
Post Categories
- 2010 Elections (15)
- 2012 election (64)
- Book Recommendations (13)
- British politics (7)
- Budget Deficit (67)
- bureaucracy (1)
- Canadian politics (2)
- capitalism (15)
- Chart of the Day (1)
- Civil Liberties (30)
- civil war (3)
- collective goods (1)
- Comparative culture (5)
- Congress (14)
- corporate welfare (9)
- courts (2)
- democratization (2)
- development (3)
- drugs (5)
- Economic geography (1)
- Economic recovery (26)
- Economics (71)
- Education (21)
- elections (2)
- electoral behavior (4)
- electoral systems (4)
- employment (5)
- Energy Policy (1)
- Enlightened Self-Interest (8)
- Entitlement Reform (12)
- Environment (2)
- Ethics (27)
- European Union (1)
- Eurozone (2)
- federalism (24)
- finance (9)
- fiscal policies (25)
- foreign policy (29)
- freedom (15)
- Greece (1)
- growth (11)
- Guest Post (9)
- Guns (2)
- Hayek (1)
- health care (22)
- Hero of the Week (1)
- History (18)
- History of Political Philosophy (1)
- ideologies (6)
- immigration (2)
- Immigration policy (6)
- inequality (10)
- institutions (22)
- international political economy (1)
- international relations (2)
- interstate conflict (1)
- IPE (3)
- judiciary (2)
- justice (3)
- labor (1)
- Law (31)
- left-libertarianism (4)
- libertarianism (13)
- libertarianism (6)
- Locke (2)
- Markets and Morality (5)
- Marriage (5)
- marriage law (4)
- methodology (4)
- National defense (7)
- Nozick (4)
- paternalism (1)
- political philosophy (22)
- Political Science (47)
- politics (56)
- psychology (8)
- Public Opinion (10)
- race and ethnicity (2)
- Rants and Raves (21)
- Rawls (4)
- redistribution (5)
- Regulation (38)
- religion (3)
- rent-seeking (8)
- representation (6)
- resource curse (2)
- secession (15)
- secession (11)
- social justice (2)
- Social psychology (2)
- socialism (5)
- Sociology and Anthropology (4)
- Spain (1)
- state politics (32)
- state politics (13)
- taxes (4)
- trade (4)
- Turkey (1)
- U.S. presidential elections (22)
- Uncategorized (1429)
- welfare policy (6)
Almost lost my breakfast hearing classical liberalism and “social justice” combined. The above quoted neoclassical liberal post lays out the position of a modern leftist who is not yet comfortable with total government control over all individual action, yet concedes that one person may exert a legally binding claim over the assets of another ok the bass of not having or deserving said assets himself. That is not a new position. Further, the writer jumps to the conclusion that in a libertarian society, people will starve by necessity- ignoring the evidence to the contrary- and further assuming that individuals are incapable of charitable acts absent government coercion.
I have to largely agree with you here. As probably the “least pure” of the Pileus bloggers, I have quite a bit of sympathy for various types of hybrids and fusionists, and I like to think of myself as a bleeding heart libertarian. But this was a bit hard to stomach. Trying to steal the classical liberal label and attach it to Rawlsian social justice notions is quite noxious, indeed.
Of course this isn’t new. Lefties have been trying to hold on to the “liberal” label for a long time, even as they move further and further away from its original, classical meaning.
This speaks to the universal appeal of freedom and how almost everyone wants to co-opt the language of liberty. Everyone wants to bear aloft the banner of freedom whether they are worthy to or not. Perhaps I’m not worthy, either, but these guys don’t strike me as eligible candidates at all.
Hopefully we’ll have some good interactions with them.
pardon the typos: I typed that on my phone. Should read “on the basis”, not “ok the bass”…