Talk:Consequentialist libertarianism

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Libertarianism portal This article is supported by WikiProject Libertarianism (assessed as Mid-importance).

Philosophy: Social and political Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Social and political philosophy

Utilitarianism[edit]

Is consequentialism essentially the same as utilitarianism, or would utilitarianism be a subset of consequentialism, in that it favors a specific kind of consequence? I went ahead and excised this portion:

Murray Rothbard, in For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto, argues that utilitarianism was harmful to libertarianism because it led people to seek less radical reforms for expediency's sake. He argues, "There have been no utilitarian revolutionaries...Current free-market economics is all too rife with appeals to gradualism; with scorn for ethics, justice, and consistent principle; and with a willingness to abandon free-market principles at the drop of a cost-benefit hat."^[1]

EVCM (talk) 18:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Utilitarianism is a kind of consequentialism. Darimoma (talk) 10:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consequentialism is one of three features of utilitarianism. The other two are hedonism and universalism. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 20:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Rothbard, Murray. "The Libertarian Heritage: The American Revolution and Classical Liberalism". For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto. p. 16. ISBN 0-930073-02-9.

McVeigh[edit]

Wasn't Timothy McVeigh basically a consequentialist libertarian (and possibly even a utilitarian)? He said, "I have great respect for human life. My decision to take human life at the Murrah Building – I did not do it for personal gain. I ease my mind in that...I did it for the larger good." He's basically saying, It was necessary to kill a certain number of innocent people so that many more deaths could be avoided (e.g. from incidents similar to Ruby Ridge, Waco, etc.; which the bombing was intended to deter the government from carrying out) EVCM (talk) 07:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Friedman[edit]

I'm somewhat skeptical the line "who use utilitarian consequentialist arguments to justify libertarian philosophies." - one of the defining features of the way Friedman sets up his arguments in, for example, "The Machinery of Freedom" is that they are consequentialist without being utilitarian. (Entiex (talk) 09:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Amoralism?[edit]

Consequentialism is itself a type of moral code, and therefore is NOT the same as amoralism or moral skepticism. So until someone can provide the proper citation(s), I am removing this unsubstantiated and contradictory sentence, "A number of libertarians are amoralists, thus lending them to the consequentialist libertarian school" along with Amoralism and Moral skepticism in the See Also section, due to their irrelevance. --Adam9389 (talk) 23:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Socialist consequentialist libertarianism[edit]

Someone made an edit assuming that there was such thing as someone called a "consequentialist libertarian" who happens to be a socialist. I haven't seen a source saying this. A consequentialist can be a socialist of course, but the term "consequentialist LIBERTARIAN" appears to have only been applied to free market capitalists. Big Large Monster (talk) 18:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there are only sources that say this, then so it is. I must confess that if that is the case, it would confuse me greatly. There is general agreement that libertarianism is not necessarily support of capitalism and that, furthermore, the deonto/conse divide doesn't concern politics per se, but the justification of certain political systems. Therefore, should the deonto/conse divide apply just as much to non-capitalist libertarians? This seems to me like it's just a logical inference from the nature of the supposed divide. Byelf2007 (talk) 2 June 2012

Everything I've seen from socialists has not been without exploitation theory being essential to their views, i.e. capitalist exploitation as being intrinsically immoral. Maybe there is notable consequentialist socialist out there somewhere, who isn't concerned with exploitation but only consequences, and if there was I would be surprised if he called himself a consequentialist libertarian. Big Large Monster (talk) 20:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about Left Consequentialists[edit]

Why do Neo-Liberal Libertarians get a monopoly on the concequentialist label? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.125.230.135 (talk) 02:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I second this. The Niskanen Center would seem to lean in this direction, see e.g. https://niskanencenter.org/blog/libertarian-principles-niskanen-and-welfare-policy/ Carleas (talk) 22:32, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing no further discussion, I've removed the reference to this as an inherently right-libertarian position. Carleas (talk) 17:36, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Consequentialist libertarianism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130112210848/http://www.virginialawreview.org/content/pdfs/92/1605.pdf to http://www.virginialawreview.org/content/pdfs/92/1605.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:41, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Rothbard, Murray. "The Libertarian Heritage: The American Revolution and Classical Liberalism". For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto. p. 16. ISBN 0-930073-02-9.

[1]