Röpke is right that we just have to be careful when we use the [“capitalism”]. We have to distinguish it from crony-capitalism or corporatism. Clearly “capitalism” denotes an important aspect of the economy of an advanced libertarian social order. (bold added)Did you catch the irony? If you aren’t aware of the debate, then I doubt you would so I’ll briefly explain.
Plumbline libertarians generally associate strictly with the non-aggression principle: anything goes so long as property rights, usually non-Proviso Lockean property rights, and person are not aggressed against.
Thick libertarians propose a basket of values as being consistent with, but subsumed under the NAP. So if aggression were to become a non issue in a stateless, peaceful society, thick libertarians, contrary to the plumbliners, would still see work to be done. This generally includes opposition to racism, sexism, and “bossism.”
(Though I don’t believe I’ve stated so, I’d consider myself a “thick libertarian with reservations.” The “with reservations” is due to my primary focus on strategy. I do, no doubt, agree that liberty has to do with a lot more than just the NAP, but my reservation lies in stating, as a matter of fact, what that entails. Surely, this is characteristic of other thick libertarians, but I just wanted to point out my concern over the concept. For example, even though I think “bossism” is antithetical to liberty, it’s hard to really say where bossism exists and how exactly in manifests itself. So, except in hypothetical situations, I’d be uncomfortable saying “this is ‘bossism’ and I oppose it.” Aggression is fairly simple to identify by comparison and, as a result, is an easier call. I’ll have more to say about thick libertarianism in a coming article.)
Now, here’s another quote from Kinsella:
But what I object to is [left-libertarians] who say they oppose traditional capitalism as libertarians. To do this they have to sneak in some thickish notions, which is improper IMO. (Italics original, bold added)Kinsella and most “plumbliners” support capitalism as part of “an advanced libertarian social order” because it coincides with their preferences and views on “the way things are.”
How exactly is this any different than the plumbliner version of "sneak[ing] in some thickish notions?"
Apparently, the NAP plus capitalism is just standard libertarianism, tried and true. But the NAP minus “bossism” is silly leftism? Am I the only one seeing this as just thick “non-prefix” libertarianism?
The only difference I see is that Kinsella is associating libertarianism with capitalism for “independent” economic reasons while most thick libertarians seem to think that their values are implied by the goal of liberty itself. But in order for any plumbline libertarian to support capitalism as following from libertarianism in practice, they’d have to assume that libertarians will care about all the wealth vertical industry will supposedly create. And since Kinsella seems to think that libertarians should care, he must think there’s something about libertarianism that leads to preferences for capitalism. That’s no different than left-libertarians saying that opposition to racism is a part of libertarianism.
Or do Kinsella and other thin libertarians think libertarianism and capitalism are totally independent of each other? In which case, why ever mention them together?
How can some preferences be lumped in with libertarianism and be called "standard" while other preferences can't be? Am I interpreting this incorrectly?