Round and round it goes, and where it stops no one knows.
Agreed. Anyone who changes his opinion AND attitude in such a dramatic way, and so quickly; is someone to be cautious of in the most profound way.
See if the last few posts have any relevance to the original topic. The answer on most threads is there is none.
Welcome to the internets.
Let me know when you’re all done.
Sadly. I hoped it would be better on a board like this.
Look how many members it has. The old Austrian forum was able to remain high quality because it had relatively few members, interested in the topic to a high level. If you prefer that I close this thread, I can, but it’ll just burst out into many other ones as when a hydra’s head is severed.
I was thinking of just doing it anyway. I’ve given a couple subtle hintwarnings already.
I’m not quite sure I understand the problem. Is it that the threads get off topic, or … ?
You’re going to have to prove that.
You’re correct, in the same that in neither answer is there a logical contradiction.
No society will be owned. Not even all of the society will be run according to manorialist lines, just, that I believe the vast majority will be.
The fact that the same people have the same personality conflict in thread after thread after thread.
I’m not 100% sure that’s his issue based on a prior private conversation we had.
Can you be more specific?
I’d rather Andrew answer, I don’t want to answer for him. That’s why I am asking the question.
That’s a non sequitur. A right to life implies a positive obligation: if I’m starving, then you MUST give me food, if I’m dying from a curable disease, then you MUST give me the cure, etc. You have a right to self ownership. If others kill you, it is a violation of your right to self ownership, not of your fictitious right to life.
And self ownership is legitimate. Hence, you are wrong. Or do you want to argue that me killing you is perfectly okay?
Please, go read Rothbard. There is no such thing as a “right to life.” Nobody has a right to live moreso than they have the right to die or to eat or to not eat, etc. A “right” to life implies positive obligations on others - and all positive obligations are a refutation of negative rights, making positive obligations void, since they must necessarily stem from negative rights.
The word “people” is not singular; it denotes plural.
No. What you say is a non-sequitur. A right to life only means it’s not legitimate to kill people.
No, that’s a non-sequitur you attribute to me. I said that humans have a (negative if you will) right to life. If you claim that it then follows humans have a right to free food, you are wrong. And if you pretend I said that, you are strawmanning me.
No, you miss the point. Self-ownership is a bad metaphor for a correct idea.
Rothbard or no Rothbard self-ownership is a self-contradictory metaphor. And this is a semantic quibble anyway.
Indeed.
I’d like some clarification from Andrew if he would be willing to oblige.
Beyond the fact that most of the threads end up turning into off topic tirades between the usual suspects and the gallery (which of course is how teh netz wurk), this forum is not doing anything to help solidify the LvMI aims toward productive means. All it is doing is serving as fodder for the “other side” rather than having legitimate Austrian discussions and working on steps ahead.
That is not to say that some of the topics are not productive - on the contrary many are and some are great like LS’ post “Stuff we can do” (which sadly gets significantly less chatter than other topics). But when it comes to substantive issues - not only can members not stay on topic, the “debates” often spin out of control into semantic issues and everyone claiming “Strawman!!” While I realize this is a result of the topics and the inherent disagreements about word use (see capital and production), there are many mis-representative voices and it seems to be getting the bulk of the attention. These voices are loud and are only interested in proving how correct they are - even on issues which are very subjective.
We are never going to agree fully 100% with the “left libertarians” we know that. However there is enough commonality that if we simply stop trying to kill the other one we might get somewhere. Agree to disagree as it were. I have been spending more time over at the LL Forums and notice that for the most part (Francois aside [:P]) there is reasonable debate and good organization to the forum - such that it invites discussion. If the world gets to the point where is left libs vs right libs then I think we will be doing ok. If we can at least stop the threadjacking tirades then I think there will be a better spread of ideas and less animosity towards us from them.
Who is we ?
Thanks AK. I agree. Self-discipline from many of us could go a long way.