it could be said that lot of post-marxist stuff relies not on critisicm of free market on “natural law” grounds, but emotional and spiritual failing of competition, exchange and consumptions. i think marcuse’s quote sums of their views nicely
"Self-determination, the autonomy of the individual, asserts itself in the right to race his automobile, to handle his power tools, to buy a gun, to communicate to mass audiences his opinion, no matter how ignorant, how aggressive, it may be.”
yet it begs the question whether the jist of socialism is “conscious planning” or opposition to entrepenurial endevours in general. is it the egg of unvirtuos selfishness or the chicken of individual self-determination
It raises the question of why the arbitrary preferences of certain individuals (i.e. Marxoids) wrt how people exercise their autonomy is in anyway significant, provided they do not aggress. Substitute this for: I do not like how people choose to behave. Well isn’t that quaint. Try persuade them to act otherwise then.
No, it might be that some things are objectively immoral or unethical even if permissible (say, for instance drug abuse), yet the vibe I get from most Marxoids is that they want to legislate on these topics, legislate how man should be simply because they do not approve of how most people choose to exercise their autonomy, often concocting nonsense like a “false consciousness” &c.
this line of reasoning kinda wins the argument for them. we say that a woman has a right to self-determination and they say that using a power drill is objectivly immoral
thats why i like anarcho-com better, they at least base their reasoning on grounded laws rather than jumping from historical materialism to emotive mesmerising.
too late, u already conceded the point. i think rothbard hits the nail on the head when he refers to spooner’s vices and crimes essay. the problem being that so-called free-marketeers do not argue against post-marxists’ points and simply take a neutral -you could do as you please position.
The only thing I “conceded” is that things can be permissible but immoral. The Marxoid would still have to prove their case. The fact that it is permissible undercuts their argument to begin with. So no, no there is no “too late” to speak of. I agree with Rothbard of course.
the case that they dont like these things? we already know that. is seems that the smart ones have already conceded the fallacies of historical singularity.
No, I mean statements like “Power drilling is immoral”. Well why? They need to provide some argument for this, other than an assertion. Rothbard definitely would not accept a mere assertion as an argument.
but remember that rothbard in this case is not arguing the contrary against their point.
“The immoral or the “vicious” may consist of a myriad of human actions, from matters of vital importance down to being nasty to one’s neighbor or to willful failure to take one’s vitamins.”
so if their arguments hold up then the point is conceded. if one is separating vice from crime, then is it possible to state that free exchange is evil and that competition causes contradictions within society
Once proof has been forthcoming. Where is it? And again, I reiterate: by conceding something is permissible, much of the force behind the Marxian argument is diminished. It might be immoral, just as taking drugs might be, but all the Marxian can do is try to persuade someone of this fact. No rights are violated so they have no right to use force to subjugate those engaging in the activity.
the thing is that most arguments with marxoids run in circles. libertarians rely on natural law, marxists rely on material dialectics. the only law im aware of that their hold is the LVT. therefore i dont see how their argument is dimished as you pointed out. From a historical point of view class warfare may be possible, but that doesnt let you throw property rights out of the window. their saying that eating pizza will eventually make your organs fight against each other, we say that eating pizza is your right
Fine, if they don’t concede the validity of rights, they still need to show why their ethical judgements are correct. Where have they done so? Assertions don’t make arguments.