Hey, I’m a libertarian for the same reason, but I thought you were a consequentialist, what happened?
There are three clauses in my statement (see below), you cannot use “former”, and “latter” if you expect me to be able to understand what you’re speaking about:
Former = naturalistic “fallacy”, latter = ought-is gap.
No, it doesn’t. The cop-out of “good flows from god’s nature” begs the question of how we know god’s nature to be good in the first place to make such a claim–is it because god says so (subjective dynamic) or because we can determine it without god (objective). So Euthyphro still holds.
I’m a libertarian because most I believe happiness assumes liberty.
I thought you were a utlitarian? And before that a consequentialist?
Go with the flow. He’s headed in a positive direction! [:)]
Yes, happiness does assume liberty.
You overestimate the effect that liberty has on happiness, one could easilly be a happy slave.
Some issues that might make such a “unity” not as coherant as it may first seem:
-
If people have a different understanding of what constitutes the state or what the preconditions for state formation are, then while they may both nominally be “anti-state”, the ultimate substance of their positions may potentially widely vary to the point of not going together very well at all. Even if the groups in question are largely in opposition to the same particular state, what one “anti-statist” proposes “post-state” may reduce to another form of statism from the perspective of another “anti-statist”. To an anarcho-capitalist, the anarcho-syndicalist’s “worker’s councils” may just be localized democracies, while to an anarcho-communist, the anarcho-capitalist’s “PDAs” or “DROs” may just be “private” mini-states.
-
Shared opposition to a particular state doesn’t necessarily imply shared opposition to “the state” as a matter of principle. While this may seem like just a slight against anarchist-minarchist alliance, it also applies within the vague rubric of “anarchism”. From a hardline social anarchist perspective, anarcho-capitalists aren’t against “the state” as a matter of principle, they just want “private states”. From a hardline anarcho-capitalist perspective, social anarchists aren’t against “the state” as a matter of principle, they just want universalized, hyper-inclusive states in the form of “direct democracy”. The anarchist-minarchist debate consequentially plays itself out inside of anarchism.
Social democracy in Eastern Europe is capitalist. It’s not like in Scandinavia.
social democratic capitalism is like dry water.
Social democracy is the opposite of capitalism. In capitalism, people own property. In social democracy, the majority or bureaucrats can take property whenever they want. In order to have a free market, there has to be an expectation of a consistent system of property rights, so people can plan how they will store wealth, how they will acquire wealth, how they will trade property etc. In a social democracy, such stability is always at the mercy of the mob or some special interest.
Rule utilitarianism does not necessarily entail your happiness. Merely the maximization of social happiness in society. You could very well be the individual who losses out in the deal in order to maintain that happiness.
Happiness is not zero sum. Just like economics.
I thought that utilitarianism = consequentialism in this context.
In a sense, yes. Good consequences are those which prevent suffering and lead to more happiness.
No. Utilitarianism is a species of consequentialism, as well as of hedonism.