Libertarianism Is Not Simple To Argue For

The next talk at the Rose and Crown is one I’ve been particulaly looking forward to. Recently, comments here have been debating over how to most effectively  argue for libertarianism and this talk is 100% along those lines.

Brian Micklethwait, who has developed a fondness for  long titles will be speaking on the topic “Libertarianism Is Simple To Describe But Not Simple To Argue For: What That Says About How To Argue For Libertarianism Effectively”.

Note the intellectual precision. If you wanted to breifly relate the core idea of libertarianism you could use something like Bob Layson’s contribution:

acknowledging and respecting the private property and liberty of one another (so-called negative liberty) is the best means to the creation of valuable opportunities to be taken by one another (so-called positive liberty).

Furthermore, neither property nor law needs a government to bring it into being – no more than does language and cuisine.

That’s just 53 words, but is it really the type of talk that will persuade people to give libertarianism a go? or does it merely describe the idea? Is another style of language entirely called for?

If you’re interested to know, then give the London Mises Circle a miss and come along on November 1st to the Rose and Crown in Southwark’s Colombo Street, in misty London.

Map, address and optional (but desired) RSVP buttons on Meetup.com.

 

Simon Gibbs

Simon is a London based IT contractor and the proprietor of Libertarian Home. Working with logic and cause-and-effect each day he was naturally attracted to nerdy libertarianism and later to harshly logical Objectivism. Find him on Google+