Philosopher Matt Zwolinski on "Bleeding-Heart Libertarians," The Poor, and Social Justice

"Libertarians ... when they try to convince people of libertarianism, they do it by talking about the way in which free markets make life better for the poor," says Matt Zwolinski, a philosopher at the University of San Diego and a creator of the web site Bleeding Heart Libertarians.

While the notion of "social justice" has long been anathema to some libertarians, Zwolinski says that a bleeding-heart libertarian realizes that an abiding concern for the most vulnerable in society is an essential part of any moral political system.

"But, simply being committed to social justice does not mean that you have to be committed to the view that government must directly try to promote the well-being of the poor and vulnerable members of society," says Zwolinski. Instead, the bleeding-heart libertarian looks at the empirical evidence and accepts that small government and free markets are the best methods by which to provide for the poor.

Interview by Zach Weissmueller. Shot by Paul Feine. Edited by Weissmueller. Approximately 10 minutes.

(visit Bleeding Heart Libertarians at http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com).

Visit Reason.tv for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube Channel to receive automatic notifications when new material goes live.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• reason magazine
• nick gillespie
• libertarian philosophy
• john rawls
• murray rothbard
• ethics
• natural rights
• consequentialism
• bleeding heart libertarian
• liberaltarian
• left libertarian
• classical liberalism

[rdiamond401008]

@666or999 I learned from a wise man many years ago that one starts with a Discussion, then proceeds with a Debate and when it becomes apparent that further progress is not possible, then Depart. Bye.

[666or999]

@rdiamond401008 Well if your not tralking about 100% market shares the term monopoly becomes a vague concept that is only really useful to create strawman arguements.This very similar to how the term 'isolationist' is used in that it sometimes means closing all borders to interaction and at other times means zero political interaction. You can flip-flop the meaning to mean one to the other to create a strawman just as some people flip flop between 100% and most market shares.

[rdiamond401008]

@666or999 A "pure" monopoly is as rare as a "pure" free market. Let's not get caught up on splitting hairs.

[666or999]

@rdiamond401008 'As a result of a combination of regulatory actions by government and actions by AT&T, the firm eventually gained what most regard as monopoly status.' , 'In 1918 the federal government nationalized the entire telecommunications industry'

[666or999]

@rdiamond401008 'In 1904, Standard controlled 91% of production and 85% of final sales.', 'Due to competition from other firms, their market share had gradually eroded to 70% by 1906 which was the year when the antitrust case was filed against Standard, and down to 64% by 1911 when Standard was ordered broken up' Yeh thats not a monopoly. In case you didn't know a monopoly is 'The exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service.'

[rdiamond401008]

@666or999 AT&T was at times the world's largest telephone company, the world's largest cable television operator, and a regulated monopoly.The Bell System divestiture, or the breakup of AT&T, was initiated by the filing in 1974 by the U.S. Department of Justice of an antitrust lawsuit against AT&T

[rdiamond401008]

@666or999 On May 15, 1911, the US Supreme Court upheld the lower court judgment and declared the Standard Oil group to be an "unreasonable" monopoly under the Sherman Antitrust Act. It ordered Standard to break up into 34 independent companies with different boards of directors, the biggest two of the companies were Exxon and Mobil.

[666or999]

@rdiamond401008 Standard oil never became a monopoly and AT&T was nationalized.

[rdiamond401008]

@666or999 Standard Oil Company and At&T - both had to broken up by the courts. Perhaps you are saying that the US is not a free market, if so please tell me where the free market you worship exists.

[666or999]

@rdiamond401008 You want proof? Your the one assuming that a monopoly can even exist in a free market. Name 1 monopoly that formed without government help.