Discutia de aici, mi-a atras atentia asupra unei probleme, aceea a definitiei termenului "libertarian"

De exemplu:

vizigot a scris:

libertarian este orice om care considera ca liberalizarea este mai buna decit etatizarea.

dfiordean a scris:

Pt. mine e mai mult, libertarian este [cel ce nu] accepta deloc statul.[...] Libertarian eu inteleg 'stat zero' + alte principii (non-agrsiune, proprietate, etc.)

Cred ca ar trebui sa clarificam aceasta problema si din acest motiv va rog sa scrieti fiecare o scurta definitie a termenului libertarian si in acest context, viziunea sa asupra statului!
 
  Merita vizionat si acest interviu:
Milton_Friedman:Despre_libertarianism

  Opinia mea este urmatoarea:

    Libertarian este orice individ care considera ca liberalizarea este mai buna decit etatizarea; iar in acest context statul minimal este statul din ce in ce mai mic, care tinde catre zero, toata aceasta liberalizare fiind supusa unei conditii estentiale: functionalitatea. Mai precis, orice liberalizare trebuie sa genereze efecte pozitive superioare pentru fiecare individ, comparativ cu situatia in care statul intervine in acel domeniu!
   Eu consider ca orice obiect care are valoare este un bun economic, dar nu toate bunurile economice pot fi obtinute in urma unui schimb volutar prin mecanismul pietei libere.


_________________
The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can't tolerate a libertarian community. – David D. Boaz

Nu cred ca exista o definitie la modul la care o vrei tu.

Aceasta eticheta e corect aplica unui grup de oameni care nu au o doctrina sau teorie in comun, ci se suprapun pe mai multe dimensiuni, insa nu neaparat pe toate. (E ca-n ideea de "asemanare de familie": Ionela are nasul Maricicai, Maricica are buzele ca Mihai, Mihai are fruntea lui George... toti sunt dintr-o familie insa nu au toti o trasatura in comun.)

Ideile care cred ca sunt relevante aici sunt:

* O presupozitie anti-paternalista: cu exceptia cazurilor extreme (comatosi, handicapati, bolnavi mintal), indivizii sunt cei mai in masura sa judece ce e bine pentru eu. Autonomia individuala e foarte importanta (atat ca o capacitate pozitiva a indivizilor de a fi autonomi cu succes, cat si ca norma morala, adica autonomia e dezirabila). Povara de a argumenta e pe cei care vor sa rastanga libertatea de actiune, asociere, etc.

* Credinta ca un sistem legal performant si echitabil poate fi bazat pe considerente de proprietate, ca (mai) toate dilemele din sfera legala si conflictele de interese se pot reformula si rezolva in termeni de proprietate.

* Individualismul metodologic: pentru multi libertarieni propozitii gen "idealurile poporului roman" nu sunt doar generalizari vagi care pot fi un mod eficient de a comunica ci potentiale surse de confuzie conceptuala si argumentatie eronata. -- Orice argumentatie, daca se vrea a fi respectabila si transparenta trebuie, mai devreme sau mai tarziu, sa se reduca la considerente despre indivizi si preferintele si drepturile lor.

* O viziune politica in termeni de drepturi, nu una in termeni de indreptatiri. Ex: "dreptul la viata" = dreptul de a nu fi omorat vs. dreptul de a fi intretinut.

* Credinta ca, macar ca o limita inferioara, mecanismele economice bazate pe libera asociere nu produs saracie sau nedreptate in mod sistematic.

Etc.

Ce faci tu, Vizigot, mi se pare a fi o confuzie grava... Iei o concluzie a unei analize libertariene a procesului politic, "liberalizarea este mai buna decit etatizarea.", si o transformi din concluzie in principiu/criteriu.


_________________
"It is by invisible hands that we are bent and tortured worst." - Nietzsche

Vizigot, f. scurt (n-am citit linkul tau, sunt pe fuga). Eu cred ca e un idealist si doar uneori bate campii (n-am votat deloc ca n-am optiunea asta). Anarhia (mediul in care se simte el cel mai bine) e peste tot in jurul nostru. Insa imaginea pe care o are el despre societate e idilica (eu cred ca-i utopica).

Definitii, etichete... la un moment dat e contraproductiv sa iti spui in fel si chip, iti pui prea multe piedici in calea cunoasterii, te incarci cu prea multe prejudecati. Ideea e sa iti pastrezi controlul, sa iti cunosti limitele pentru a incerca sa le depasesti progresiv, sa nu sari calul. Prea multa infatuare in toata povestea asta cu 'libertarieni', obiectivism etc. (nu vreau sa jignesc pe nimeni, scuze). Prea multa vanitate, totul peste semidoctism, ceea ce da un aer de provincialism.

Si mai frustrant e ca sunt oameni care iau chestiile astea foarte in serios, precum Sorin... Ei studiaza, reflecteaza, analizeaza, verbalizeaza, scriu, iar se documenteaza, totul la modul cat mai serios, numai pentru a se vedea amestecati cu tot felul de scelerati lipsiti de discernamant, caci, nu i asa, eticheta e usor de pus: rasfoiesti zece carti, iti tragi broadband mobil si laptop, si voila! esti libertarian.

Trist.

Gabriel a scris:

Nu cred ca exista o definitie la modul la care o vrei tu.

Aceasta eticheta e corect aplica unui grup de oameni care nu au o doctrina sau teorie in comun, ci se suprapun pe mai multe dimensiuni, insa nu neaparat pe toate.

Corect, libertarianismul este un conglomerat de idei, teorii, concepte, uneori contradictorii, dar au un element comun! Care este acela?

Gabriel a scris:

Ce faci tu, Vizigot, mi se pare a fi o confuzie grava... Iei o concluzie a unei analize libertariene a procesului politic, "liberalizarea este mai buna decit etatizarea.", si o transformi din concluzie in principiu/criteriu.

Nu, ai inteles gresit, este exact invers! Un om care ajunge la concluzia asta [chiar in intr-o singura ramura], fara sa fi auzit de "libertarianism" sau vreo teorie de acest gen, este libertarian?

Avem doua viziuni empirice asupra rezolvarii problemelor umanitatii:
1) etatismul ." Sa faca statul, sa ne dea, sa..."
2) libertarianismul (liberalismul). "Statul mai rau incurca, blocheaza, frineaza, creeaza privilegii artificiale..."

Of Chatalin, daca nu explicam/definim termenii pe care ii folosim, mi-e teama ca discutam aiurea... Daca imi amintesc corect, tu faceai referire la "cultura dialogului" pe un alt topic, rugamintea mea a fost simpla si clara... Explicati simplu si clar ce intelegeti prin "libertarian". Chiar este atit de greu? Chiar pe forumul asta nu poate exista o discutie sincera, fara sa epatam, ca cream impresia ca sintem intelectuali, fara explicatii savante inutile... fara complexe de acest tip?

P.S. Daca va deranjeaza termenul "libertarian",va rog definiti-l pe "liberal", ca doar sintem pe un forum care se numeste 'Liberalism'! Nu ma intereseaza explicatii sofisticate, ci opinia fiecarui utilizator asupra acestor cuvinte (libertarian/liberal)!


_________________
The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can't tolerate a libertarian community. – David D. Boaz

vizigot, ar fi chiar demential sa epatez eu - incultul forumului - legat de cerintele tale pe firul asta. As putea discuta cu Basescu sau Becali de la egal la egal, dar, sa fim seriosi, nu sunt chemat sa dau vreo explicatie sau sa definesc libertarianismul

Tot ce scriu e din burta! Nota Bene!

...

Variantele sunt prea simpliste. Si un social democrat poate sustine liberalizarea vs. etatism pana la un punct. Apoi, sunt libertarieni care sustin statul minimal. A treia varianta mi se pare mult prea vaga.

Totusi, daca e sa aleg una, m as opri la a doua varianta.

vizigot a scris:

Avem doua viziuni empirice asupra rezolvarii problemelor umanitatii:
1) etatismul ." Sa faca statul, sa ne dea, sa..."
2) libertarianismul (liberalismul). "Statul mai rau incurca, blocheaza, frineaza, creeaza privilegii artificiale..."

Vizigot, pot exista mai multe forme de organizare sociala si de aici decurg evident si abordari diferite ale problemelor 'de rezolvat' sa zicem (apolitice, religioase, tribale, etc.). E off-topic asta (nu te mai supara si tu, take it easy).

chatalin a scris:

 Si un social democrat poate sustine liberalizarea vs. etatism pana la un punct. Apoi, sunt libertarieni care sustin statul minimal.

Asta voiam sa aud/citesc. Exista un ideal, o utopie libertariana , statul zero (absenta statului), in realitate lucrurile sint mai... relative!

Chatalin, imi cer scuze pentru mesajul anterior.


_________________
The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can't tolerate a libertarian community. – David D. Boaz

Gabriel a scris:

Ideile care cred ca sunt relevante aici sunt:

* O presupozitie anti-paternalista: cu exceptia cazurilor extreme (comatosi, handicapati, bolnavi mintal), indivizii sunt cei mai in masura sa judece ce e bine pentru eu. Autonomia individuala e foarte importanta (atat ca o capacitate pozitiva a indivizilor de a fi autonomi cu succes, cat si ca norma morala, adica autonomia e dezirabila). Povara de a argumenta e pe cei care vor sa rastanga libertatea de actiune, asociere, etc.

Gabriel, pornind de la chestia asta cu 'individul stie ce-i mai bine pt. el' si toti cei care sustin contrariul sunt impotriva libertatii, putem spune ca orice actiune individuala poate fi justificata, pt. ca ea de fapt urmareste satisfacerea intereselor personale. Sa nu ma intelegi gresit, nu sunt impotriva principiului. Problema care o am eu cu chestia asta e ca pare o dogma si oricine incearca sa arate ca de fapt nu-i chiar asa simpla treaba apare ca un blasfemitor.

Chestia cu 'tragedia comunelor' apare in urma intereselor individuale. Intr-o economie cu doua persoane, desi cei doi nu-si fac rau unul altuia, ajungem la o tragedie. Simpla limitare a libertatii prin impartirea unei parcele care inainte era exploatata in comun - si care ne-a condus la tragedie - in proprietati private, ne poate aduce la o situatie mai fericita.

[EDIT] Din dorinta noastra de-a accede la resurse (rare), apar conflicte. Proprietatea privata rezolva bine o parte din ele, cum am vazut. Insa vreau sa mai adaug ca nu avem peste tot proprietate privata. E importanta chestia asta pt. ca apare recurent ca solutie - totu-i privat - in interventiile de pe forum; si nici nu se pare c-o s-avem curand. Ba mai mult, unii liberali/libertarieni admit posibilitatea existentei unui spatiu public, nu neaparat in sensul ca-i 'in proprietatea guvernului' sa zic asa, ci putem imagina spatiu public chiar si-ntr-o lume fara stat.

De aici inainte putem ajunge la stat (ca proprietatile alea trebe impuse si imaginate pedepse pt. cei ce le incalca), insa asta am mai discutat pe 'Anarhia utopica'.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/libertarianism/

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/libertarianism/

Citat:

Libertarianism is attractive because (1) it provides significant moral liberty of action, (2) it provides and significant moral protection against interference from others and because it is sensitive to what the past was like (e.g., what agreements were made and what rights violations took place). It faces, however, the serious objection that it gives too much protection from interference and not enough attention to making the future better (e.g., by meeting people's basic needs, making people's lives go better, or promoting equality). As with all prominent moral and political theories, the overall assessment of libertarianism is a matter of on-going debate.

Citat:

Bibliography
Right-Libertarianism

    * Barnett, R., 1998, The Structure of Liberty: Justice and the Rule of Law, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    * Feser, E., “There Is No Such Thing As An Unjust Initial Acquisition” Social Philosophy and Policy 22 (2005): 56-80.
    * Friedman, D., 1989, The Machinery of Freedom: A Guide to Radical Capitalism, New York: Harper and Row.
    * Hayek, F. A., 1960, The Constitution of Liberty, Chicago: Gateway Editions.
    * Hospers, J., 1971, Libertarianism, Los Angeles: Nash.
    * Lomasky, L., 1987, Persons, Rights, and the Moral Community, New York: Oxford University Press.
    * Kirzner, I., 1978, “Entrepreneurship, Entitlement, and Economic Justice,” Eastern Economic Journal 4: 9-25. Reprinted in Vallentyne and Steiner, 2000a.
    * Locke, J., 1690, Two Treatises of Government, ed. by P. Laslett, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1960. Extract reprinted in Vallentyne and Steiner, 2000b.
    * Machan, T., (ed.), 1974, The Libertarian Alternative: Essays in Social and Political Philosophy, Chicago: Nelson-Hall Company.
    * Machan, T., (ed.), 1982, The Libertarian Reader, Totowa: Rowman and Littlefield.
    * Machan, T., 1989, Individuals and Their Rights, La Salle, IL: Open Court.
    * Mack, E., 1990, “Self-Ownership and the Right of Property,” Monist, 73: 519-543.
    * Mack, E., 1995, “The Self-Ownership Proviso: A New and Improved Lockean Proviso,” Social Philosophy and Policy, 12: 186-218.
    * Narveson, J., 1988, The Libertarian Idea, Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
    * Narveson, J., 1999, “Original Appropriation and Lockean Provisos,” Public Affairs Quarterly 13: 205-27. Reprinted in Respecting Persons in Theory and Practice (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2002), pp. 111-131.
    * Nozick, R., 1974, Anarchy, State, and Utopia, New York: Basic Books. Extract reprinted in Vallentyne and Steiner, 2000a.
    * Paul J., (ed.), 1982, Reading Nozick: Essays on Anarchy, State, and Utopia, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
    * Rothbard, M., 1978, For a New Liberty, The Libertarian Manifesto, revised edition, New York: Libertarian Review Foundation.
    * Rothbard, M., 1982, The Ethics of Liberty, Atlantic Highlands: Humanities Press. Extract reprinted in Vallentyne and Steiner, 2000a.
    * Schmidtz, D., 1991, The Limits of Government, Boulder, CO: Westview.
    * Wheeler, S., 1980, “Natural Property Rights as Body Rights,” Nous, 16: 171-193. Reprinted in Vallentyne P., and H. Steiner, eds., 2000a.

Left-Libertarianism

    * Fried, B. “Left-Libertarianism: A Review Essay” Philosophy and Public Affairs 32 (2004): 66-92.
    * Fried, B. “Left-Libertarianism, Once More: A Rejoinder to Vallentyne, Steiner, and Otsuka” Philosophy and Public Affairs 33 (2005): 216-222.
    * Cohen, G. A., 1995, Self-Ownership, Freedom, and Equality, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    * George, H., 1879, Progress and Poverty, 5th edition, New York, D. Appleton and Company, 1882. Reprinted by Robert Schalkenbach Foundation, 1966. Extract reprinted in Vallentyne and Steiner, 2000b.
    * Grunebaum, J., 1987, Private Ownership, New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Extract reprinted in Vallentyne and Steiner, 2000a.
    * Otsuka, M., Libertarianism without Inequality (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2003).
    * Steiner, H., 1994, An Essay on Rights, Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers. Extract reprinted in Vallentyne and Steiner, 2000a.
    * Tideman, N., “Global Economic Justice” Geophilos 00 (2000): 134-146.
    * Tideman, N., “Creating Global Economic Justice” Geophilos 01 (2001): 88-94.
    * Vallentyne, P., “Libertarianism and the State” Social Philosophy and Policy, 24 (forthcoming 2007).
    * Vallentyne, P., and H. Steiner, eds., 2000a, Left Libertarianism and Its Critics: The Contemporary Debate, New York: Palgrave Publishers Ltd.
    * Vallentyne, P. and H. Steiner, eds., 2000b, The Origins of Left Libertarianism: An Anthology of Historical Writings, New York: Palgrave Publishers Ltd.
    * Vallentyne, P., H. Steiner, and M. Otsuka, 2005, “Why Left-Libertarianism Isn't Incoherent, Indeterminate, or Irrelevant: A Reply to Fried” Philosophy and Public Affairs 33: 201-15.
    * Van Parijs, P., 1995, Real Freedom for All, New York: Oxford University Press. Extract reprinted in Vallentyne P., and H. Steiner (eds.) 2000a.

Related Topics

    * Christman, J., 1994, The Myth of Property, New York: Oxford University Press.
    * Kagan, S., 1994, “The Argument from Liberty,” in In Harm's Way: Essays in honor of Joel Feinberg, J. Coleman and A. Buchanan, eds., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    * Simmons, A.J., 1992, The Lockean Theory of Rights, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
    * Simmons, A.J., 1993, On the Edge of Anarchy, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
    * Sreenivasan, G., 1995, The Limits of Lockean Rights in Property, New York: Oxford University Press.
    * Vallentyne, P., 2002, “Equality and the Duties of Procreators,” in Children and Political Theory, D. Archard and C. MacLeod, eds., Oxford: Oxford University Press.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/

Citat:

Given that liberalism fractures on so many issues — the nature of liberty, the place of property and democracy in a just society, the comprehensiveness and the reach of the liberal ideal — one might wonder whether there is any point in talking of ‘liberalism’ at all. It is not, though, an unimportant or trivial thing that all these theories take liberty to be the grounding political value. Radical democrats assert the overriding value of equality, communitarians maintain that the demands of belongingness trump freedom, and conservatives complain that the liberal devotion to freedom undermines traditional values and virtues and so social order itself. Intramural disputes aside, liberals join in rejecting these conceptions of political right.

Citat:

Bibliography

    * Beitz, Charles (1997). Political Theory and International Relations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
    * Benn, Stanley I. (1988). A Theory of Freedom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    * Bentham, Jeremy (1952 [1795]). Manual of Political Economy in Jeremy Bentham's Economic Writings W. Stark, ed. London: Allen and Unwin.
    * Bentham, Jeremy (1970 [1823]). Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, J. H. Burns and H. L. A. hart, eds. London: Athlone Press.
    * Berlin, Isaiah (1969). ‘Two Concepts of Liberty’ in his Four Essays on Liberty. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 118-72.
    * Beveridge, William (1944). Full Employment in a Free Society. London: Allen and Unwin.
    * Bird, Colin (1999). The Myth of Liberal Individualism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    * Bosanquet, Bernard (2001 [1923]). Philosophical Theory of the State in Philosophical Theory of the State and Related Essays, Gerald F. Gaus and William Sweet, eds. Indianapolis: St. Augustine Press.
    * Buchanan James M. and Gordon Tullock (1966). The Calculus of Consent: Logical Foundations of Constitutional Democracy. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
    * Chapman, John W. (1977). ‘Toward a General Theory of Human Nature and Dynamics’ in NOMOS XVII: Human Nature in Politics, J. Roland Pennock and John W. Chapman, eds. New York: New York University Press: 292-319.
    * Christman, John and Joel Anderson, eds. (2005). Autonomy and Challenges to Liberalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    * Cranston, Maurice (1967). ‘Liberalism’ in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Paul Edwards, ed. New York: Macmillan and the Free Press: 458-461.
    * Dagger, Richard (1997). Civic Virtue: Rights, Citizenship and Republican Liberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    * Dewey, John (1929). Characters and Events, Joseph Ratner, ed., New York: Henry Holt.
    * Dworkin, Gerald (1988). The Theory and Practice of Autonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    * Dworkin, Ronald (2000). Sovereign Virtue. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    * Eberle, Christopher J. (2002). Religious Conviction in Liberal Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    * Ely, James W. Jr (1992). The Guardian of Every Other Right: A Constitutional History of Property Rights. New York: Oxford University Press.
    * Feinberg, Joel (1984). Harm to Others. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    * Freeden, Michael (1978). The New Liberalism: An Ideology of Social Reform. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    * Galston, William (1980). Justice and the Human Good. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    * Galston, William (2003). ‘Parents, Governments and Children: Authority Over Education in the Liberal Democratic State’ in NOMOS XLIV: Child, Family and The State, Stephen Macedo and Iris Marion Young, eds. New York: New York University Press: 211-233.
    * Gaus, Gerald F. (1983a). The Modern Liberal Theory of Man. New York: St. Martin's Press.
    * Gaus, Gerald F. (1983b). ‘Public and Private Interests in Liberal Political Economy, Old and New’ in Public and Private in Social Life, S.I. Benn and G.F. Gaus, eds. New York: St. Martin's Press: 183-221.
    * Gaus, Gerald F. (1994). ‘Property, Rights, and Freedom,’ 11 Social Philosophy and Policy: 209-40.
    * Gaus, Gerald F. (1996). Justificatory Liberalism: An Essay on Epistemology and Political Theory. New York: Oxford University Press.
    * Gaus, Gerald F. (2000). Political Concepts and Political Theories. Boulder, CO: Westview.
    * Gaus, Gerald F. (2003). ‘Backwards into the Future: Neorepublicanism as a Postsocialist Critique of Market Society’, 20 Social Philosophy & Policy: 59-92.
    * Gaus, Gerald F. (2004). ‘The Diversity of Comprehensive Liberalisms ’ in The Handbook of Political Theory, Gerald F. Gaus and Chandran Kukathas, eds. London: Sage: 100-114.
    * Gauthier, David (1986). Morals By Agreement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    * Green, Thomas Hill (1986 [1895]). Lectures on the Principles of Political Obligation and Other Essays, Paul Harris and John Morrow, eds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    * Greenawalt, Kent (1995). Private Consciences and Public Reasons. New York: Oxford University Press.
    * Gutmann, Amy (1985). ‘Communitarian Critics of Liberalism’, 14 Philosophy & Public Affairs: 308-22.
    * Hampton, Jean (1989) ‘Should Political Philosophy by Done without Metaphysics?’ 99 Ethics: 791-814.
    * Hayek, F.A. (1960). The Constitution of Liberty. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    * Hayek, F.A. (1976). The Mirage of Social Justice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    * Hayek, F.A. (1978). ‘Liberalism’ in his New Studies in Philosophy, Politics, Economics and the History of Ideas. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
    * Hobbes, Thomas (1948 [1651]). Leviathan, Michael Oakeshott, ed. Oxford: Blackwell.
    * Hobhouse, L. T. (1918). The Metaphysical Theory of the State. London: Allen and Unwin.
    * Hobson, J.A. (1922). The Economics of Unemployment. London: Allen and Unwin.
    * Kant, Immanuel, (1965 [1797]). The Metaphysical Elements of Justice, John Ladd, trans. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.
    * Kant, Immanuel, (1970 [1795]) ‘Perpetual Peace’ in Kant's Political Writings, Hans Reiss, ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    * Kavka, Gregory S. (1986). Hobbesian Moral and Political Theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
    * Keynes, John Maynard (1972). ‘The End of Laissez-Faire’in his Essays in Persuasion. London: Macmillan.
    * Keynes, John Maynard (1973 [1936]). The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. London and Cambridge: Macmillan and Cambridge University Press.
    * Kukathas, Chandran (2003). The Liberal Archipelago. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    * Kymlicka, Will (1989). Liberalism, Community and Culture. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    * Larmore, Charles (1996). The Morals of Modernity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    * Larmore, Charles (2001). ‘A Critique of Philip Pettit's Republicanism’, 35 Nous-Supplement: 229-243.
    * Larmore, Charles (2004). ‘Liberal and Republican Conceptions qof Freedom’ in Republicanism: History, Theory, and Practice, D. Weinstock and C. Nadeau, eds. London: Frank Cass: 96-119.
    * Locke, John (1960 [1689]). The Second Treatise of Government in Two Treatises of Government, Peter Laslett, ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 283-446.
    * Locke, John (1975 [1706]). An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Peter H. Nidditch, ed., Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    * Lomasky, Loren E. (1987). Persons, Rights, and the Moral Community. New York: Oxford University Press.
    * Lomasky, Loren E. (2007). ‘Liberalism Without Borders’ in Liberalism: Old and New, Ellen Frankel Paul, Fred D. Miller and Jeffrey Paul, eds. New York: Cambridge University Press: 206-233
    * Machiavelli, Niccolo (1950 [1513]). The Prince And the Discourses, L. Ricci and C.E. Detmold, trans. New York: Random House, Inc.
    * Mack, Eric and Gerald F. Gaus. (2004) ‘Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism: The Liberty Tradition’ in The Handbook of Political Theory, Gerald F. Gaus and Chandran Kukathas, eds. London: Sage: 115-130.
    * Margalit, Avishai, and Joseph Raz (1990). ‘National Self-Determination,‘ 87 Journal of Philosophy: 439-61.
    * Mill, John Stuart (1963). Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, J. M. Robson, ed. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
    * Miller, David (2002). ‘Two Ways to Think about Justice’, 1 Politics, Philosophy and Economics: 5-28.
    * Mummery A. F. and J. A. Hobson (1956). The Physiology of Industry. New York: Kelly and Millman.
    * Nozick, Robert. (1974). Anarchy, State and Utopia. New York: Basic Books .
    * Nussbaum, Martha (2002). ‘Women and Law of Peoples’, 1 Politics, Philosophy and Economics: 283-306.
    * Paul, Ellen Frankel, Fred D. Miller and Jeffrey Paul, eds. (2007). Liberalism: Old and New. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    * Perry, Michael J. (1993). ‘Religious Morality and Political Choice: Further Thoughts— and Second Thoughts — on Love and Power’, San Diego Law Review, vol. 30 (Fall): 703-727.
    * Pettit, Philip (1996). ‘Freedom as Antipower’, 106 Ethics: 576-604.
    * Pettit, Philip (1997). Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    * Pogge, Thomas W. (1989). Realizing Rawls. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
    * Pogge, Thomas W. (2002). World Poverty and Human Rights. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
    * Popper, Karl (1945). The Open Society and its Enemies. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
    * Rawls, John (1996). Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.
    * Rawls, John (1999a). Law of Peoples. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    * Rawls, John (1999b). A Theory of Justice, revised edition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    * Rawls, John (2001). Justice as Fairness: A Restatement, Erin Kelly, ed. New York: Columbia University Press.
    * Raz, Joseph (1986). The Morality of Freedom. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    * Raz, Joseph (1990). ‘Facing Diversity: The Case of Epistemic Abstinence,’ 19 Philosophy & Public Affairs: 3-46.
    * Reiman, Jeffrey (1990). Justice and Modern Moral Philosophy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
    * Ritchie, D.G. (1896). Principles of State Interference, 2nd, edn. London: Swan Sonnenschein.
    * Robbins, L. (1961). The Theory of Economic Policy in English Classical Political Economy. London: Macmillan.
    * Rousseau, Jean-Jacques (1973 [1762]). The Social Contract and Discourses, G.D.H. Cole, trans. New York: Dutton.
    * Sandel, Michael. (1982) Liberalism and the Limits of Justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    * Scanlon, Thomas (1982) ‘Contractualism and Utilitarianism’ in Utilitarianism and Beyond, Amartya Sen and Bernard Williams, eds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 103-28.
    * Scanlon, T.M. (1998) What We Owe Each Other. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    * Spencer, William (1995 [1851]). Social Statics. New York: Robert Schalkenback Foundation.
    * Skinner, Quentin (1998). Liberty Before Liberalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    * Spector, Horacio (1992). Autonomy and Rights: The Moral Foundations of Liberalism. Oxford: Clarendon.
    * Steiner, Hillel (1994). An Essay on Rights. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
    * Swaine, Lucas (2006). The Liberal Conscience. New York: Columbia University Press.
    * Tamir, Yael (1993). Liberal Nationalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
    * Tawney, R. H. (1931). Equality. New York: Harcourt. Brace.
    * Taylor, Charles (1992). Multiculturalism and The Politics of Recognition. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
    * Viroli, Maurizio (2002). Republicanism, A. Shugaar, trans. New York: Hill and Wang.
    * von Humboldt, Wilhelm (1993 [1854]). The Limits of State Action. Indianapolis: Liberty Press.
    * Wall, Steven (1998). Liberalism, Perfectionism and Restraint. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Reflexul meu este tot unul "din carti", ca sa zic asa. Hayek de pilda spune in "Competition as a Discovery Procedure" ca piata ar trebui sa defineasca un bun rar. Pe de alta parte John Gray afirma ceva de genul ca intr-adevar ar trebui sa se liberalizeze insa pana la un punct. Oricum, multi autori se afla undeva la mijloc, insa asta nu inseamna ca acolo este si adevarul.

Termenul de libertarian , asa la o prima impresie, cred ca te duce cu gandul undeva inspre un "liberalism radical", adica sustinerea statului minimal absolut (cat "mai minimal" posibil). Interesant este totusi de ce termenul  a facut cariera doar in randul teoreticienilor, nu si in practica politica. Cred ca teremenul de libertarian are o componenta ideologica mai puternica si mai mult decat atat este mai specific  deoarece ,ar spune unii, aproape toate regimurile sau partidele de astazi sunt la o adica "liberale".