I think you’ve confused “axoim” with “principle”. There are plenty of principles that we might examine and critique. They are not contextless axoims, however. They relate to eachother, they are intertwined and they are derived from other principles.
My “approach” is, to a significant degree, influenced by neo-aristotilean libertarians such as Geoffery Allan Plauche and Roderick Long. This generally entails a more integrated and specified libertarian social theory.
Pretty much I’m in agreement with Brainpolice on this one. On that rights are the baseline for the market. It makes little sense to imagine one being able to contract one’s rights away as it was rights that came into play that would allow them to contract in the first place. This is sorta like assuming rights are mutable beyond consideration of other’s persons and properties. If rights are mutable outside of the scope of other’s persons and properties, then it would follow that rights are mutable categorically rather than situationally. Thus, giving rise to the assumption that there are no rights, and that Statism is a defensible position (again, back to square one).
if by principle you mean a fuzzy rule of thumb, as opposed to a hard axiom. then i hear you loud and clear. you want to have a nice fuzzy philosophy where you get to personally set the bounds of what you emotionally or aesthetically think is ‘right’ , then you can complain about how others that disagree, have failed to set their variables and tinker with the minutae of the intricate interrelated concepts and that they simply lack your perspective. this is an admirible way to phrame a moral philosophy. a sophist should not labour too hard.
You never hate your enemy as much as an ally with slightly different aims and motives. It’s called “betraying the revolution”, and we all fall for it every now and then. [;)]
No, I mean consistantly applied principles in a bundle of intertwined principles. It has nothing to do with aesthetics or emotion. It’s about specification in many ways. Principles are not floating in a vacuum, they relate to and are deived from other principles. You don’t even seem to be fully comprehending what I’m talking about. I view libertarianism as an integrated and more elaborate social theory, rather than a handful of vague maxims. If you’re going to have maxims, they should be clearly defined and how they are derived and relate to other things should be taken into account. I find both formal deontology and utilitarianism to be lacking, and somewhat of a false dichotomy. In either case, there’s nothing particularly “aesthetic” about absolute opposition to slavery and murder. In some sense, I am being the absolutist here, trying to point out what I see as contradictions entailed in a more vague and thin conception of libertarianism.
again, you state what is lacking, but you dont state your positive position.
also you claim
which invites regression. problems so soon?
Never fail to identify an enemy posing as an ally.
Rothbard himself argues in TEoL that all rights can only be consistently expressed as property rights. Right to life, right to privacy, right to free speech, etc are nonsense once removed from the context of property rights.
And Brainpolice, the restrictive covenant that people are arguing as legitimate are ones that have been homesteaded legitimately. Or do you not think a property owner has the right to sell portions of said property IE rent? If not, why? Rothbard would disagree with you on this as well, btw.
They are not arguing for a restrictive covenant imposed on a collection of legitimate property owners, but imposed on those who do not actually own the property they are living on! You seem to be consistently confused in this area, in every debate you have gotten into on the subject.
Global government? No thanks. And it wouldn’t even get out of the gate: some people think abortion is murder; others think it’s a fundamental right. The two views are irreconcilable. Best that they go their separate ways peacably rather than embroil themselves in endless conflict.
Rothbard was semantically wrong about that. Your right to life and liberty is not a property right or a commodity. It is inalienable. In the same book, as well as elsewhere, Rothbard upholds the notion of inalienable rights (and hence rejected Walter Block’s “voluntary slavery”). I am merely argueing, in turn, that rights are inalienable. The will is inalienable from the body. Hence, the right to life and liberty is absolute.
Wether or not they have been legitimately homesteaded is not the issue. The issue is wether they are enforced intergenerationaly via the initiation of force, wether they really differ significantly from the social contract. I have not normatively opposed rent. I’ve oppose with I see as possibly being a communitarian racist law being tried to justified via shoddy property theory and libertarian rhetoric.
That isn’t global government. That’s a retarded non-sequitor. She’s talking about ethical norms prior to the question of systems of law, not governmental systems per se. Libertarianism is not a mere legal theory. It’s a social theory.
In fact, it was one of you guys who was defending the pretext for a global government, by supporting the outrageous notion of an individual or single organization owning the entire world. That’s an apt pretext for a global government.
no they arent.no-one is for this (or was, its not like you’ve convinced us…) does that mean this thread is over?
GileStratton has openly defended precisely that earlier in the thread.
Strawman much? I never stated a global government. I stated a universal convenant. Meaning a simple set of rules by which everyone accepts as default. It’s much like setting up rules for programs to interact with each other. We call these protocols and interfaces. As such these rules will be very simple and reduced.
Here’s an example of a universal convenant that I devised years ago.
No one person owes a debt inherent, nor do others owe a debt inherent to one.
All debts are finite as all spans of existence are finite.
All persons and property are owned absolutely unless to be dispensed by contract.
Pretty simple huh? Not the crappy manor/pseudo-feudalism that some folks seem to wax their carrots to here. It’s easy enough to derive Life, Liberty, and Property from those three rules without having to get all in a tizzy over it, either. Also, enforcement of a universal convenant is pretty simple: any contract that violates it or those who violate a contract based on it are exempt from access to benefits of any given derived contracts (Same as unbundling a class from a set of other classes not deriving any ancestor code).
Rothbard is an authority to be invoked, except where he disagrees with one’s position. Then he was semantically confused, or temporarily crazy (right wing periods of his life) as opposed to when he was enlightened and at the top of his game (left wing periods).
It’s all very convenient you see. Invoke an authority, and when necessary, claim his authority is not absolute.
You can have and eat cake if you believe hard enough.
it was, me. if one person was the rightful owner of some world. then the arbitrary claims of others, that they didnt like it, or that it wasnt ‘cool’ would be just that. there is all the difference in the world between involuntary government and voluntary government. so too, for governments that are world sized. it is only bad when bad local involuntary governments grow world size. this is not so for voluntary ones. i hope im not beinn too vague here. i realise it may be a problem, it must stem from my penchant for axioms.
no i read Giles and he was quite clearly a proponent of intergenerational enforcment without initiation of force, by means of newer generations becomming parties to the contract vountarily, or else setting up their own homes elsewhere
Sure, so long as all 6.8 billion people on the planet agree with you.
No. The only ‘argument’ for ‘voluntary’ feudalism is that it would be no different than a landlord renting a couple of rooms. That’s called a 100% fallacious analogy.
If I ask you : Do you know how to build a 747 ? and you answer : yeah it’s like a paper plane, but bigger, then it should be obvious that you’re clueless.
The same thing is going on here. The idea that a libertarian society and its ‘rules’ will be owned by a landlord is a joke.
Why ?