"Post-libertarianism" is a moronic name for a movement that purports to value libertarian principles. It suggests that libertarianism is not merely incomplete but outdated and generally wrong. It discourages us, and encourages our adversaries. A better term is "pragmatic libertarianism".
A pragmatic libertarian bears in mind libertarian principles of justice and the goal of minimizing the state, while prioritizing issues according to their interdependencies, importance (both personally and societally), proximity, economics (resource constraints), risk, and the Zeitgeist (Overton window). Pragmatism is not an excuse for betraying principles. Of course, reasonable people will disagree about priorities, and the finer points of principles, so we should be reasonably flexible and cooperative. Sometimes one needs to build a coalition with non-libertarians, e.g. to achieve progress in drug decriminalization or educational choice.
We often liken Ron Paul to the pure and humble Frodo Baggins—the one who could be trusted to carry the ring of power but not use it, always bearing in mind the mission: destroying it. The post-libertarians sound like Boromir. They may start like conservatives, saying that wielding the ring is a necessary evil, but they will likely degrade into statists, finding an increasing number of worthy uses. "Compromise" is a positive word in the context of conceding personal interests to common ones, or forming coalitions if one simply lacks manpower, but negative when it means sacrificing principles for expediency.
I'm sure some of the American Revolutionaries didn't have their personal lives in perfect order, but Jordan Peterson's rule to "clean your room" first is generally good advice. Some of revolutionaries took large risks, and paid with imprisonment or their lives. Be a smart activist: maximize the ELROI (expected lifetime return on investment) of your activism efforts.
"Post-libertarianism" is a moronic name for a movement that purports to value libertarian principles. It suggests that libertarianism is not merely incomplete but outdated and generally wrong. It discourages us, and encourages our adversaries. A better term is "pragmatic libertarianism".
A pragmatic libertarian bears in mind libertarian principles of justice and the goal of minimizing the state, while prioritizing issues according to their interdependencies, importance (both personally and societally), proximity, economics (resource constraints), risk, and the Zeitgeist (Overton window). Pragmatism is not an excuse for betraying principles. Of course, reasonable people will disagree about priorities, and the finer points of principles, so we should be reasonably flexible and cooperative. Sometimes one needs to build a coalition with non-libertarians, e.g. to achieve progress in drug decriminalization or educational choice.
We often liken Ron Paul to the pure and humble Frodo Baggins—the one who could be trusted to carry the ring of power but not use it, always bearing in mind the mission: destroying it. The post-libertarians sound like Boromir. They may start like conservatives, saying that wielding the ring is a necessary evil, but they will likely degrade into statists, finding an increasing number of worthy uses. "Compromise" is a positive word in the context of conceding personal interests to common ones, or forming coalitions if one simply lacks manpower, but negative when it means sacrificing principles for expediency.
I'm sure some of the American Revolutionaries didn't have their personal lives in perfect order, but Jordan Peterson's rule to "clean your room" first is generally good advice. Some of revolutionaries took large risks, and paid with imprisonment or their lives. Be a smart activist: maximize the ELROI (expected lifetime return on investment) of your activism efforts.
Further reading:
https://fee.org/articles/the-radical-case-for-pragmatic-libertarianism/