So, how about it?
We can pick 5 judges of the forum and they can judge wether or not they are correct economic statements.
Feel free to pick any definition you like. And work your way from there.
i’ll just drop the ad hominem comment.
Action absent aggression.
I never claimed they should be.
If I was interested, I would have replied earlier. Your attempts to one up me are pointless.
Still waiting for you to define legal. You claimed it was first. What is your definition?
It’s funny you call it an ad hominem when it isn’t, because its basically in response to your logical fallacy of composition. You see, an ad hominem would be, “Adrian is dishonest” rather than “Adrian has not yet made an honest argument”. Ad hominem is an argument to the man, not about your argument.
Please learn some logic, than come back and try again.
“Still waiting for you to define legal. You claimed it was first. What is your definition?”
<= Well, usually the term ‘legal’ is used for things that will not cause the (justified) use of force against you. Stealing is illegal: if you steal, people may be justified in using force against you. Drugs are illegal: if you use drugs, the cops may be justified in using force against you. Libertarianism has a consistent theory about what ought to be legal and what ought not be legal.
So; libertarianism is ‘all’ about legality.
I’ll drop the ad hominem remarks once again.
LibertyStudent, what is “aggression”? And if only voluntary actions are moral, why shouldn’t all human actions be voluntary?
Adrian,
If you’re going to keep calling logical statements ad hominem, there really is no point in my (or perhaps anyone else) spending time debating with you.
When you’re ready to deal with logic, which is what I consider the standard for an honest discussion between two intelligent human beings, let me know.
Initiation of force.
I try not to make ought statements. I prefer the “is”.
that’s a point I am trying to make in these forums too. That’s why I dislike term “voluntaryism” much more than simple “anarchism”.
Thank you Scott. A valuable post in my opinion.
Following from this left-libertarians are on the side of the downtrodden and the marginalized.
**Concern for the downtrodden.**Furthermore concern for the downtrodden follows from left-libertarian opposition to aggression against innocents.Those aggressed against- the oppressed- are just one group of the downtrodden.
Concern for dehumanization and about aggression leads to concern for the marginalized and downtrodden…
**Pro-migrant.**Culturally, left-libertarians are pro-migrant which follows from concern for the downtrodden…
I guess its true lefties love losers.
What is this conservative baggage of traditional libertarianism? Was Lord Acton a conservative? Proudhon? Thoreau? Spooner? Conservative is such vague and useless word in the libertarian political sphere.
LS, two problems:
-
Initiation of force against what? I bet you mean against person or property, but are those really equivalent?
-
All moral statements are “ought” statements. Are you saying that which is moral is not preferable to that which is immoral? If so, what makes it moral at all?
Which of these tenets do you consider to be different from libertarianism without adjectives?
They don’t have to be equivalent, but libertarians believe in property rights so initiation of force against one’s property is initiation of force against the person.
Why does there have to be a “left” libertarianism? I don’t identify with any left or right, why use such political labels?
When in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.
^^Sound familiar? There will always be people dissatisfied with the general interpretation of an ideology they agree with. That being said, I don’t see much of a difference between the variant of left-libertarianism presented here and libertarianism in general.
What’s the deal with ‘bargaining power’?
If you wrote this and just didn’t just parrot/ cut and paste, it is good to get one thoughts in order. Even if I am non cognitive to / disagree with everything right down to the premise itself. But I suppose there is nothing that can be said by me that would be productive.
Here is some advice by George Orwell: