You got it.
Back to praxeology.
Absolutely silly. An action is either consistent with libertarianism or it is not. A libertarian is someone who tries to act consistently within libertarianism.
Because the word apple doesn’t have anything to say about whether you should regard apples as apples, then …
I was a libertarian before I knew what libertarianism was. All of the hardcore sincere anarchists I know are the same way. We got it, before we knew about it.
Why would a person want to be a libertarian if they’re not willing to live by it themselves?
Wanting only OTHER people to be libertarian simply means you’re not a libertarian yourself.
As I stated in another thread, libertarianism is a political philosophy, not an ethical philosophy. Wanting libertarianism is different from wanting to live by it yourself.
I want everyone else to behave a certain way so that things are better for me. If that means I have to behave that same way in order for this society to function then I am willing to do that.
Are you saying you have a need to rape and steal and murder?
The NAP is an ethical philosophy. You can subscribe to the NAP ethically and not to the libertarian political philosophy. You can also subscribe to the libertarian political philosophy and not to the NAP ethical philosophy. You can also subscribe to both at the same time.
Unfortunately, many people get ethical philosophies and political philosophies confused in conversation and try to apply libertarianism to ethics and the NAP to politics. This is what leads to people saying, “you aren’t libertarian if you accept government handouts”. What they really mean is, “you aren’t a NAP believer if you accept government handouts”.
No because I don’t believe that would increase my net utility and even if it did, I do not believe the risk is worth the reward.
One does not have to be morally bound to avoid murder, rape, theft, etc. There are economic reasons not to do such things. It is opinion that economic barriers are more effective than moral barriers. Looking at history we can see that traders generally prefer peace but people following a moral code tend to want war.
I’m not asking you if you anticipate being better off, I’m asking you if you have need for it.
Thanks for the insight LS.
Ultimately, it is impossible to act contrary to one’s values. Although I can imagine situations where it might seem otherwise, I am ignoring fundamently what it means to act: the use of means to achieve ends. The example of a libertarian thief who supports libertarianism as a political philosphy but not a moral code assumes that he actually supports the former. However, it is inconceivable that someone could hold a given value (end) and act against it–he must be holding a different value.
Bingo, which is why just because someone is a libertarian on the internet, doesn’t mean they actually have libertarian values. I try to judge action by the means and ends, not the motives and propaganda.
What is the libertarian political philosophy?
Come on, this is just untrue. “Traders who prefer peace” is an expressment of their own moral code: voluntary exchange. Your own utilitarian reasons for not raping and murdering constitutes a moral code. Don’t conflate all of morality with an objective morality imposed on the world.
I’m not sure where you are going with this or how it is relevant but I’ll bite. No, I have no need for raping or murdering.
Ah, I have run into this before. You are misusing the word “moral”. As defined in several dictionaries it is dependant on a metaphysical belief in right/wrong. The word is rooted in a belief in the unproveable, that there is an objective rigth/wrong.
What you are trying to get at is personal decision making processes commonly referred to as value judgments. Value judgments are what all humans make. Morality will influence value judgements in some people, but not in all people. It is entirely possible for someone to have no belief in morality (moral nihilism).
According to merriam-webster a libertarian is:
a person who upholds the principles of individual liberty especially of thought and action
Libertarianism being the political philosophy with a matching description:
a political philosophy which upholds the principles of individual liberty especially of thought and action
Note that this definition does not define why a person upholds those principles, just that they do.
I don’t care why you hold those principles, only that you do. So apply them consistently. If you claim to be a libertarian, be consistent with libertarianism. And that means non-aggression because aggression is not compatible with individual liberty.
I am not.
of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules ofright conduct or the distinction between right and wrong
founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct ratherthan on legalities, enactment, or custom
expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to rightconduct, as a speaker or a literary work
conforming to the rules of right conduct
Merriam-Webster:
of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior
expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior
conforming to a standard of right behavior
sanctioned by or operative on one’s conscience or ethical judgment
Notice how almost all definitions use the word “right”?
Right:
in accordance with what is good, proper, or just
You cannot define moral without defining good/proper/just/correct. All of these are either subjective or you believe in an absolute to them which depends on a metaphysical belief system.
If I eat breakfast it’s not because I believe it’s ‘right’. I eat breakfast because I belive it will maximize my utility. I don’t avoid killing people beacuse I think it’s ‘right’. I avoid killing people because I believe it will maximize my utility. This is me making a value judgement, not making a moral decision.
Oh disagreement? Well well! Hehe.
“Ethics - the validity of the principle of self-ownership and original appropriation - is demonstrably not dependent and contingent upon agreement or contract; and the universality claim connected with Rothbard’s libertarianism is not affected in the slightest by the circumstance that moral discussants may or may not always come to an agreement or contract. Ethics is the logical-praxeological presupposition - in Kantian terminology: die Bedingung der Moeglichkeit - rather than the result of agreement or contract. The principles of self-ownership and original appropriation make agreement and contract - including that of not agreeing and contracting - possible. Set in motion and stimulated by the universal experience of conflict, moral discussion and argument can discover, reconstruct, explicate, and formulate the principles of self-ownership and original appropriation, but their validity in no way depends on whether or not this is the case, and if so whether or not these formulations then find universal assent.” - Hoppe, Intro to TEOL.
This is because rothbard believed in natural rights. However, there are no such things as natural rights. The NAP does not make sense in the context of ethical relativism.
I, for one, hold to libertarian political philosophy because I hold to libertarian moral philosophy.
The NAP isn’t dependent on natural rights.