Clark has a post doing that over at Popehat:
It is excellent, and well worth your time.
Because I’m a nerd, and way more of an algebraist than an analyst, I like to find principles behind the things I believe and build frameworks out of them. I’m not always a Good Scientist, trying to falsify my beliefs at every turn, but so far this approach has worked out pretty well for me. One of the key principles behind liberaltarianism (I prefer the portmanteau because it’s a fun little context switch when you’re talking to people locked into a single-axis political mindset) comes from something Jim Henley wrote a while ago, distinguishing between government-provided crutches and government-enforced shackles. Most of us libertarians and an-caps like to talk in terms of cuts to government spending, power, and pervasiveness — and then get indignant when “liberals” complain, because we’re including things like scaling back the drug war and opening up immigration law and how dare you suggest we just want to shut down pension funds and fire departments? Henley sensibly suggests that liberaltarians should prefer to shitcan the more odious shackles first, and remove the crutches from the strong before the weak.
Clark strips this mindset to its foundations, pointing out that liberaltarians pay a lot more attention to the care/harm axis than “regular” libertarians. This should come as no great surprise.
He also notes that
most [right-libertarians] picture ourselves as captains of industry and not as workers. Ayn Rand wrote about a lot about copper mine owners and train barons, and not much copper miners working 12 hour shifts swinging picks in the dark.
I’d quibble with this, just a little. I don’t think right-libertarians picture themselves as captains of industry so much as identify with captains of industry. We see those capital owners as successful wealth sprinters, people with impressive skillsets who worked a lot of eighty-hour weeks to get to the top of the ladder, and we like to think of ourselves as people who could do the same, at least in principle. So we have a tendency to take soak-the-rich tax proposals as personal put-downs — “even if you finally make it to the big leagues, we’re still going to hate you” — and find the sanctimonious progressives who scold us for not voting in our best interests condescendingly tone-deaf at best.
My problem with right-libertarians boils down to the Sympathy with Workers bit–I see how ordinary people, especially the poor, even the poor who are trying to better themselves, are screwed by the powerful in our system, and the way right-libertarians handwave that away annoys me. However, the left-statist solutions to that problem don’t actually work and impose injustice elsewhere.
It’s easy for someone like me to say “just learn some marketable skills and go get a better job” — and probably far more condescendingly tone-deaf.