I initially wrote the following in a private discussion forum a couple of years ago. I've removed the names and other things to respect privacy. I thought I had gotten Popper out of my system, but alas, I've been revisiting Popper's OSE lately which prompted me to repost this. In the Open Society and Its Enemies, Popper introduces a section, Chapter 5, on Nature and Convention. (pg 55) Natural Laws vs Normative Laws Popper states that it is important to understand the distinction between (a) natural laws , like the laws of physics, planetary motions, and (b) Normative Laws , A law in sense (a)—a natural law —is describing a strict, unvarying regularity which either in fact holds in nature (in this case, the law is a true statement) or does not hold (in this case it is false). If we do not know whether a law of nature is true or false, and if we wish to draw attention to our uncertainty, we often call it an ‘hypothesis’. A law of nature is unalterable; there are no e
AKA, Libertarianism has already been tried, it was called Feudalism. This post is part 2 of what I am calling the "Why I am not a Libertarian" series. Part 1 is located here . In this post, I am going to argue that libertarianism is not a liberal view. Although the differences between libertarianism and liberalism appear subtle, they are indeed so significant that I feel that the adoption of libertarianism would lead to the undoing of the open society. This is because libertarianism has more in common with feudalism than it does with liberalism. These are bold claims that require explanation. I think the best explanation I have found is in the essay "Illiberal Libertarians: Why Libertarianism Is Not a Liberal View" by Samuel Freeman. The essay can be found HERE . I will follow the essay closely with a few thoughts on my own, but Freeman's essay is worth reading in full. Like Freeman, I will not be focusing on philosophical liberalism but on liberal institut