A Left Libertarian Manifesto.

[liberty_student]

@AdrianHealey

@liberty student

How can someone be mistreated if they want it? Are you arguing against free will?

So, you accept behaviorism?

Answer my questions. How can someone be mistreated when they ask to be treated a particular way?

I’m making a simple praxeological insight. People act rationally.

[liberty_student]

@AdrianHealey

@liberty student

@Autolykos

Whether the proposition “anything voluntary is moral” can be refuted depends on the definitions being used for “voluntary” and “moral” – definitions which others are in no way obligated to agree with?

What is your point?

Probably this: “What are your own definitions for “voluntary” and “moral”?”

You know, the part you didn’t quote?

Autolykos knows I have little patience for semantic debates.

[AdrianHealey]

@liberty student

@AdrianHealey

@liberty student

How can someone be mistreated if they want it? Are you arguing against free will?

So, you accept behaviorism?

Answer my questions. How can someone be mistreated when they ask to be treated a particular way?

I’m making a simple praxeological insight. People act rationally.

…given the circumstances, yes. It doesn’t follow that people can act immorally, even though people put up with it.

[AdrianHealey]

“Yes, it is very clear you don’t know what authority is. That ^^ is not an example of authority. Want to try again?”

<= Those are examples of moral authority. If you define the word differently than the common conception of that word, feel free to explicitly say so.

“So you agree, involuntary relations can never be moral?”

<= I don’t think so, no.

“I have no idea what this concept or party is. It is meaningless to me. I’m not appealing to tradition. I am appealing to reason.”

<= Well, if you use words and concepts, it’s best you use words and concepts that have a general meaning. Not that you give them new meanings as it fits you.

“It cannot.”

<= That is true.

“Does this make any sense? Besides the blatant appeal to authority that is.”

<= Yes, it does. Luckily, they knew what they were talking about when saying so.

“Ancap or voluntarism are not legal/political systems or theories.”

<= They are. At least; in the common way that the term political philosophy is used.

“Your subjective opinions beyond voluntary relations are irrelevant to me. I don’t care what voluntary choices you make or approve of. They are arbitrary and subjective.”

<= They might be irrelevant to you; it doesn’t follow that they are irrelevant, period.

Well; can you proof that all ought statements beyond voluntary relations are arbitrary and subjective? In other words; can you proof the assertion that nothing meaningful can be said about how people ought to act, given a libertarian law code?

[liberty_student]

@AdrianHealey

Well; can you proof that all ought statements beyond voluntary relations are arbitrary and subjective?

If ought statements are value statements, then praxeologically they must be subjective.

@AdrianHealey

In other words; can you proof the assertion that nothing meaningful can be said about how people ought to act, given a libertarian law code?

The burden is on the person claiming this (you, Scott, Roderick Long etc) to prove it. I can’t prove a negative.

[Autolykos]

@liberty student

What is your point?

Isn’t it self-explanatory? By the way, that sentence you quoted was supposed to end with a period – I’ve edited the post to reflect that.

Please answer my question. What are your own definitions for “voluntary” and “moral”?

[liberty_student]

@AdrianHealey

@liberty student

Answer my questions. How can someone be mistreated when they ask to be treated a particular way?

I’m making a simple praxeological insight. People act rationally.

…given the circumstances, yes. It doesn’t follow that people can act immorally, even though people put up with it.

What does this mean? Your reply is not clear.

[Autolykos]

@liberty student

Autolykos knows I have little patience for semantic debates.

First off: semantics, as premises, can’t be debated except as to their consistency in use.

Second: you ask others to define their terms, but you refuse to define your own. Why is that?

[liberty_student]

@Autolykos

@liberty student

What is your point?

Isn’t it self-explanatory?

If it was, I wouldn’t ask.

@Autolykos

By the way, that sentence you quoted was supposed to end with a period – I’ve edited the post to reflect that.

I’m not sure how that is relevant, but ok.

@Autolykos

Please answer my question. What are your own definitions for “voluntary” and “moral”?

I’ve already answered one on the first page. Have you bothered to read all my posts before I have to hunt back through the thread to see if I answered the other?

[liberty_student]

@Autolykos

Second: you ask others to define their terms

VVVV

@Autolykos

First off: semantics, as premises, can’t be debated except as to their consistency in use.

@Autolykos

but you refuse to define your own. Why is that?

Don’t let your laziness be conflated with my dishonesty.

[Autolykos]

@liberty student

If it was [self-explanatory], I wouldn’t ask.

My point was that there is no correct definition for “voluntary” or “moral”.

@liberty student

I’ve already answered one on the first page. Have you bothered to read all my posts before I have to hunt back through the thread to see if I answered the other?

You’re right, you gave a definition for “voluntary”. I missed that because I was initially looking only for a post where you defined “moral”. Sorry about that – I stand corrected.

Can you provide a definition for “moral” now?

[Autolykos]

@liberty student

Don’t let your laziness be conflated with my dishonesty.

What laziness is that, exactly? I believe I explained myself in my last post.

[AnonLLF]

@liberty student

@Scott F

“I maintain, anything voluntary is moral. No one has refuted this yet. No one will without making up logical fallacies.”

Which can only be defended by relativism which is logically contradictory if not impossible.

“Non sequitur.”

Your still hung up on the simplistic thin notion which is that voluntary= moral.The nuance position is that relations are moral insofar as they are voluntary i.e. it is necessary for relationships to be voluntary to be moral (coercive ones are inherently immoral) But not sufficient(or in simple terms, not enough).As I’ve said repeatedly that two individuals are in a voluntary relationship does not mean that one(or both) cannot be treated badly in a way they dislike, cannot have sexism or racism say directed again them or be lied to or manipulated Etc Etc…

What I’ve saying is that to ignore this is to say that as long as it’s voluntary it’s not just moral because being voluntary is a necessary condition of it being moral but that it’s sufficient and that’s the end of the story.This results in a blanket approval of any relationship which is voluntary but immoral in the sense of being manipulative,controlling,hurtful etc.Essentially it’s extreme thin libertarianism taken to the point of moral relativism.It’s a caricature almost.It fuels the fire that libertarianism is heartless, 'selfish, conservative,rightwing or functions as apologetics for the status quo.It gives ammo to the critics of libertarianism -statist and anarchist.Furthermore on an ethical level,I consider it disgusting. Thankfully logic and experience together seem to tell me you cannot live this out in action making it just a mere slogan.Philosophy leads us to see that moral relativism is untenable if not contradictory.

@Scott F

Your essentially saying no voluntary relationship in which someone is being mistreated is immoral.That’s absurd.

“How can someone be mistreated if they want it?”

How does it follow that mistreatment= they want it.

Are you telling me that a women whose husband calls her a fat ugly slag ,controls her money and dictates her life down to the smallest details wants it? that’s god damn perverse!

" Are you arguing against free will?"

That has nothing to do with it.It seems your conflating a range of concepts which you are keeping concealed.It also seems you have taken praxeology to be /mean something it does not invalidating in this case the claim AE/praxeology is value free(which of course it is)

[AnonLLF]

@liberty student

@AdrianHealey

<= I don’t think one can be immoral against oneself.

“So then one cannot behave immoral, voluntarily. Thanks.”

Does not follow. cannot be immoral again self(unproven) = cannot be voluntarily ,immoral(ignoring immorality against others ).

@AdrianHealey

<= That is true. (Moral) authority doesn’t come from ‘I have something to say’. Who’s claiming otherwise?

“Where does moral authority come from?”

From arguments based on logic and experience.

" I’m under no moral obligation to help someone in dying need. I’m under no moral obligation to report a crime. "

proof?

“It’s irrelevant to libertarianism.”

I and others have shown it is not.

" The point of libertarianism is to facilitate diversity of social views peacefully, "

Your assuming this is not occuring.

" Again, tolerance is the highest libertarian value."

Which is thick libertarianism.Thus you’ve contradicted your above statement of “it’s irrelevant to libertarianism”.It’ve caught you red handed.

" What flavor ice cream you like, or which sex you are attracted to, or how much charity you should give, are all irrelevant to libertarianism."

This is a strawman attempt to make the position seem absurd when it is more substantial than you claim.Your error comes from misunderstanding.

The first two are irrelevant.The latter isn’t.

[AnonLLF]

@AdrianHealey

“Where does moral authority come from? That’s the question you and Scott continue to avoid.”

"if there arguments make sense about what I ought to do, I follow there suggestions (or try to so). "

That’s the essence of it.

" I’m under no moral obligation to help someone in dying need. I’m under no moral obligation to report a crime. Do you understand the difference between positive and negative obligations?"

"<= Traditional libertarian taught that has any notion of philosophy and the terms used in that, would say that you don’t have legal obligation to help someone in dying need and no legal obligation to report a crime. "

It’s important to note that legal and moral obligations may overlap but they are distinct subjects.

" that people have positive legal obligations against other peoples, i.e. that they have positive obligations that can be enforced by the law to help/assist other people. People only have legal negative obligations. Traditional libertarianism - Rothbard, Long, Friedman, Schmitdz, Nozick, Randians, etc. - doesn’t deny the fact that people can have, in fact, positive moral obligations. We just deny that people can have positive moral__(should read legal)__ obligations. "

Agreed though be careful on the positive legal obligations part because technically a contract is such a thing .

[AnonLLF]

@liberty student

@AdrianHealey

Well; can you proof that all ought statements beyond voluntary relations are arbitrary and subjective?

“If ought statements are value statements, then praxeologically they must be subjective.”

Nothing in AE or praxeology says this.Your reading into it.If you’d like to show why this is or should(I wouldn’t try to prove it should ,you’ll undermine your whole claim) be the case then state your claim.

AE says economic value is subjective.It says nothing about value statements in general.

@AdrianHealey

In other words; can you proof the assertion that nothing meaningful can be said about how people ought to act, given a libertarian law code?

“The burden is on the person claiming this (you, Scott, Roderick Long etc) to prove it. I can’t prove a negative.”

I doubt you live in accord with your rhetoric LS.I doubt you actually are indifferent in all issues considered moral.Furthermore you miss the larger point.Libertarianism is a political ETHIC. It is a subset of general ethics but applied to legal and political issues largely.

[mikachusetts]

Scott,

Let me see if I understand your position: You say that A) there are certain moral rules that are part of libertarianism. B) This morality is objective (not subject to individual valuations) and C) ascertainable with reason (as opposed to divine revelation). Is this about right?

Even if you were granted the first claim that thick libertarianism is the way to go, you have a hell of a lot of explaining to do about the latter two claims. Despite what you seem to think, B and C are not established truths. In fact, if B is true I’m not so sure it can be discovered with reason.

[AnonLLF]

@mikachusetts

Scott,

“Let me see if I understand your position: You say that A) there are certain moral rules that are part of libertarianism. B) This morality is objective (not subject to individual valuations) and C) ascertainable with reason (as opposed to divine revelation). Is this about right?”

Correct.

" you have a hell of a lot of explaining to do about the latter two claims. "

That’s fair enough.But that’s not the task of libertarianism, that’s the task of general philosophy especially ethics.The task of libertarianism is to apply moral claims not necessarily justify morality per se.Obviously there will be a need a times to justify certain kinds of claims e.g. equality, concern for the poor etc.

" In fact, if B is true I’m not so sure it can be discovered with reason."

We can disagree on this but it’s philosophy.It is important and right in my view philosophically to argue this way BUT It’s not necessary to believe this to be a left-libertarian or a thick libertarian.Left libertarians form a rough consensus on what they consider immoral not how they justify why they think this.Left libertarianism is a specific kind of thick libertarianism.While I’m on this point I’ve noticed something about LS. LS claims that social issues are irrelevant to libertarianism and that tolerance is a prime value for voluntarism(or anarchism of which libertarian consistently understood is a kind of).Not only are these contradictory(surely tolerance leads to considerations of social issues? I’d certainly argue so) but it seems LS is not opposed to thickness per se but the left libertarian thickness- essentially he is setting himself up as a cultural conservative reactionary.More fulfillment of what I’ve been repeatedly saying.

[mikachusetts]

@Scott F

Left libertarians form a rough consensus on what they consider immoral not how they justify why they think this.

This is an extremely honest and true sentiment.

[AnonLLF]

“I’m making a simple praxeological insight. People act rationally.”

Only to some extent.It’s more complex than that.In truth,there are degrees of rationally.What Mises seems to have meant is that people act rationally in that they have ends and seek what they consider correct means to do so.But that does not mean that the choice of those means are necessary the correct ones.That’s simplistic and implies no one can ever act irrationally which is crazy.LS has clearly misunderstood this