This is a convoluted mess. What is illegal? We’re not talking about arbitrary law. We’re talking about immorality.
You claimed that religion was immoral. I asked you how it could be immoral if it is voluntary. Since then, you have admitted that initiating force is immoral because it is a violation of rights. But you still haven’t explained how religion violates rights.
Can you offer any clarity on your position?
Do you still support this position (below)? If so, how?
I think as long as its voluntary and consensual then it’s libertarian.
I side with you here .I used to be a liberal too so thats where i came from and i would say i still hold to ‘liberal’ type views myself:-
support same sex marriage/gay adoption, atheist but not really anti religion,fluid definition of family etc.
I think its really divisive that culturally conservative libertarians bundle there personal views in with libertarianism and culturally liberal ones do the same.
whether either of the two is conducive to a libertarian society is an interesting question but 1 irrelevant at present and 2 probably irrelevant in the future.I mean in a libertarian society there would be a diversity of communities cultures and values.
about left libertarianism. you do need to be wary of it .often it promotes an attack on contracts, wages,hierarchy etc essentially the basic parts of major austro libertarian thought. I often find ‘left libertarianism’ is just a cover for leftism in general. we need to get away from this left/right false dichtomy.we’re all libertarians neither left nor right.
For the record I don’t consider myself left libertarian or culturally conservative. I’d say im culturally liberal but i often agree with cultural conservatives in some respects.
I probably used to many words that would need clarification. I was simply trying to say that “initiation of force isn’t the only immoral thing, but it’s the only time you can forcibly do something to another person”. I wasn’t talking about arbitrary law, I was trying to say that initiation of force is the only proper standard for any law to consider.
Religion absolutely does not violate rights (when it is voluntary), but whether or not someone violates rights is not the standard in which I judge morality. It is only one of the ways in which I judge people.
Yes it is.
Then your definition of morality is not libertarian.
Libertarianism isn’t about judging people based on their preferences. If you consider voluntary and peaceful action immoral, then that is your problem. It has nothing to do with the scope of this discussion.
I think what he is trying to say that morality extends beyond questions of violence, like pornography, adultery etc. Perhaps he is having trouble in relying the thought that there is a distinction between what is wrong legally speaking [ such as NAP violation ] and what is wrong socially [ perhaps something concerned with judeo-christian values ].
How does one separate spiritual thought from any other thought? Afterall, we are talking about thoughts not just actions. Two people may act identically, but for two very different reasons. Is one immoral because he acted based on his spiritual beliefs whereas the other is moral because he’s an atheist?
Yes, that is what I wanted to convey. But more specifically, what is wrong for an individual rather than socially.
I’m not suggesting this is a libertarian definition of morality, but libertarianism is not an ethical philosophy anyway. Purely a political philosophy.
Who are you to determine what is wrong for others?
It’s positivism.
Presumably you follow some kind of moral subjectivism. But as a libertarian, you must think that justice is objective.
So how do you justify saying that one part of morality — justice — is objective, and yet that the rest of morality is subjective?
Do you think it’s immoral to peacefully advocate and promote statism?
Why?
Of course not.
It would only be possible to say what principles to use to determine what is right or wrong. A lot of things are not necessarily immoral. Usually only an individual can decide what is right or wrong based upon their values. But the key is to use principles rather than rules.
LS, you know I answered your questions before. But I admit there’s another possibility. You lost your memory…
Anyway, to recap : Revealed religion is a collectivistic fraud. It’s at odds with libertarianism for two key reasons
So, all you have is a strawman, that is, suggesting that I would like to use force to interfere with ‘voluntary’ collectivism and fraud. Of course I won’t but that doesn’t mean I won’t call liars liars.
Now, with respect to your position…I suggest you don’t bother talking about morality. You are a moral subjectivist/amoralist. Please do realize that whatever you say about morality, as per your own dogmatic premise, is just opinion - I’ve zero interest in your personal tastes.
Maybe, before trying to lecture me on anything, you should find a consistent position and stick to it.
LOL. What is that supposed to mean ? You think you are my big brother, lecturing me on ‘responsibility’ ? And what should I take ‘responsibility’ for, I beg you inform me ?
*you don’t know me.
The libertarian party, and families, and firms are ‘collectivist’ in the way you are using the word
libertarians are opposed to fraud that is de facto implicit theft. i.e. property has been extorted under false pretences. can you prove implicit theft?
The challenge here would be to even attempt it on a case by case basis for everyone you have been calling religiously ‘collectivised’, since
I doubt you can demonstrate property theft for the whole class at a stroke. (but maybe you can)
You are starting to distinguish the conflict of ‘ethical subjectivism’ and through the same author [ Long ] I did no less.
Well perhaps the wrong words on my part. I meant the realm of social interaction. Not necessarily legal dealings.
Well its not a philosophy of life per say. It does have ethical implications. It establishes what is and isn’t wrong in terms of legal theory. There are sphere of morality beyond libertarianism like whether pornography is good or bad, is smoking good? etc.
Are you going to answer my question, or continue to evade it?
Who are you to determine what is wrong for others?
Wonderful hand waving Juan. By why can’t you answer my questions? Are people who practice revealed religion frauds? Are they behaving in an unlibertarian manner? We both know that the people behind LvMI, many are theists. You have taken some cheap shots now and then, but let’s get to the bottom of your obsession with religion, and whether it is actually compatible with your own definition of libertarianism. That is if you have the moral courage to avoid watering down and obfuscating, and being direct about your views you normally have no problem promoting here.
My position wasn’t part of the debate. This is simply more obfuscation. You’re trying to defend your position, by undermining your questioner for being a subjective ethicist. But that’s another debate I would be happy to have with you. However, in this context of this discussion, it is simply dishonest ad hom.
On the contrary, I know you by your actions, not these middle of the road words you use to hide behind. You’ve got a reputation as attacking people for their personal views, and personal habits, while proclaiming libertarian superiority. That’s not my opinion, that is observable fact.
The question is, will you be honest with us when confronted on it, or will you attempt to avoid responsibility for the things you have said. The choice is yours.
The me-tooism on losing arguments doesn’t help your cause. So far, Sage has only made assertions, not discoveries.
Sage,
I am a subjectivist libertarian And this is what i mean by that.
My subjective values are such that I regard ALL murder, theft, and enslavement as wrong, and violent retribution for such crimes as right.
I do not pretend such values exist outside of my own psyche.
Nonetheless, I will band together with others of similar subjective values (including those admirable but confused folk who try to project their subjective values upon the cosmos) to actualize what we regard as justice.