This story is unavailable.

Bleeding-heart libertarianism, sometimes referred to as the Arizona School and Neoclassical liberalism, is a libertarian political movement and ideology that focuses on the compatibility of support for civil liberties and free markets on the one hand, and a concern for social justice and the well-being of the worst-off on the other. Adherents of bleeding-heart libertarianism broadly hold that an agenda focused upon individual liberty will be of most benefit to the economically weak and socially disadvantaged. The first recorded use of the term “bleeding-heart libertarian” seems to have been in an essay by Roderick Long. It was subsequently used in a blog post by Stefan Sharkansky, and later picked up and elaborated on by Arnold Kling in an article for TCS Daily. Since then, the term has been used sporadically by a number of libertarian writers including Anthony Gregory and Bryan Caplan. In March 2011, a group of academic philosophers, political theorists, and economists, created the Bleeding Heart Libertarians blog. Regular contributors to the blog include Andrew J. Cohen, Daniel Shapiro, Fernando Tesón, Gary Chartier, James Taylor, Jason Brennan, Jessica Flanigan, Kevin Vallier, Matt Zwolinski, Roderick Long, Jacob T. Levy, and Steven Horwitz. Canadian musician and author Neil Peart has identified himself as a bleeding-heart libertarian. 2012 Libertarian Party presidential candidate and former governor of New Mexico, Gary Johnson, has also been identified as a bleeding heart libertarian, and once posed for a photo in a bleeding heart libertarian T-shirt. The term “bleeding heart libertarian” does not refer to a single comprehensive philosophical position. Some bleeding heart libertarians are consequentialists, others are natural rights theorists. Some are anarchists, some are minarchists, and some are classical liberals who allow for the state provision of public goods and possibly some form of social safety net. What they all have in common is the belief that “addressing the needs of the economically vulnerable by remedying injustice, engaging in benevolence, fostering mutual aid, and encouraging the flourishing of free markets is both practically and morally important.” Matt Zwolinski has identified three main varieties of bleeding heart libertarian: Contingent BHLs, Anarchist Left-BHLs, and Strong BHLs. Contingent BHLs are essentially standard libertarians who happen to believe that libertarian institutions will be especially good for the poor, and that this is a good thing. For this group, libertarianism is justified on standard natural rights or consequentialist grounds. That libertarian institutions allegedly help the poor is merely a contingent fact that plays no justificatory role. Fernando Teson is the clearest example of this sort of BHL. Anarchist Left-BHLs believe that all states are morally impermissible, and should be abolished. Moreover, they believe that the abolition of the state would be good for the poor and marginalized. This group draws on the writings of figures like Benjamin Tucker and Thomas Hodgskin. Current notable examples include Gary Chartier and Roderick Long. Strong BHLs believe that the fact that libertarian institutions would help the poor is not merely a contingent fact. It is an essential part of the justification of those institutions. Strong BHLs believe that libertarianism is justified insofar and to the extent that such institutions are compatible with the requirements of social justice. The idea of social justice plays not only a justificatory role for strong BHLs, but also a revisionary one.[13] Insofar as certain elements of standard libertarianism are found to be incompatible with the requirements of social justice, Strong BHLs hold that those elements should be abandoned. Thus some Strong BHLs argue that minarchist libertarian governments might be justified in distributing a universal basic income.[1Matt Zwolinski, Jason Brennan, and Kevin Vallier are Strong BHLs.

One, can ideologies other than Progressivism support social justice? As shown above, yes. Two, is Progressivism not selling good solely to blame for all the Americans who aren’t it? No, there are reason why Conservatism and Libertarianism are selling good among Americans. Three, what percentage of Americans and American young people support each ideology? A good question, but I will have to look into it. There was a survey showing a plurality of American being Libertarian as opposed to Progressive, Conservative, or Populist with a plurality being a little more than 25%+1. Fourth, what are the good selling points and strong points of each ideology and their bad selling points and weak points of each ideology? This is a subjective question with subjective answers. Fifth, are social issues or economic fiscal issues or both the divide you see in politics? Sixth, where are you on various political quizzes like the Nolan Chart, Political Compass, On The Issues, I Side With, Politiopia, 2D Political Quiz, etc?

I recommend everyone take all of them to showcase the various different positions possible on political spectrum.

I also forgot to mention that Bleeding Heart Libertarian Gary Johnson is running for the Libertarian Party nomination again in 2016. Also, Marc Allan Feldman is running for it too. I wrote on them and their On The Issues profiles earlier.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.