Challenge to Brainpolice, Juan et al to Formally Debate Giles

[sicsempertyrannis]

@Juan

In fact I can remember reading an essay where Rothbard rejected the notion that libertarianism is anything other than an economic ideology.

Utter nonsense.

What is? Are you doubting I read such a statement by him, or do you just disagree with Rothbard?

[Juan]

I’m disagreeing with Rothbard, assuming he said such a thing.

[sicsempertyrannis]

@Juan

I’m disagreeing with Rothbard, assuming he said such a thing.

I will see if I can find the source, perhaps Mr. Tucker can help me out with this one?

[Juan]

Furthermore, “economic ideology” sounds like marxist jargon. Libertarianism is a political philosophy. There’s also a scientific discipline known as “economics” – economics is not an ideology either.

[sicsempertyrannis]

@Juan

Furthermore, “economic ideology” sounds like marxist jargon. Libertarianism is a political philosophy. There’s also a scientific discipline known as “economics” – economics is not an ideology either.

It was a rough paraphrase. Maybe he said an ‘economic movement’ instead of ‘..ideology’. IIRC, it was used in the context that some randians were trying to use libertarianism to promote athiesm.

[Avram]

@Juan

cultural conservatism being the belief that an arbitrary set of traditions represent the true, god-ordained natural order and proper human behavior.

I don’t think that’s the case at all. Cultural conservatism is traditions but it’s traditions that have proven true to increase wealth not any “god-ordained natural order”. Rather they are methodology that has historically been able to lead to happiness success and fulfillment of long genealogical lines. If this then becomes acknowledged as the best way for people to behave I see nothing wrong with it.

@Juan

It seems that people who prefer drugs instead of sports think just the opposite.

No doubt they do. The question here is will these people be more successful than their sporty counterparts? Will they have children? If they have children will that change their outlook on drugs?

It is in answering these questions that I have formulated the belief that yes drug users will always exist and yes in an anarchocapitalist society the culture will get smaller than it is today.

[ladyattis]

@sicsempertyrannis

Unless the world is populated by Randians.

So you don’t teach your children not to take other people’s things? Or not to play with them without permission? If so, you seem more liberal than I.

@sicsempertyrannis

Rothbard was Mr Libertarian, but had mostly socially conservative values. In fact I can remember reading an essay where Rothbard rejected the notion that libertarianism is anything other than an economic ideology.

I’m sorry to say, but even Rothbard on that point was dead wrong. Also, values are neither conservative nor liberal. Either they improve the human condition or they do not. There is no false dichotomy in Nature. And Man is not magically disconnecte from it, so our values follow in kind.

Or in other words: drop the false distinction.

[sirmontius]

@ladyattis

Wichita, Augusta, Newton, … etc?

Small town about 30 minutes or so west of Wichita. I work in Wichita though.

[Nerditarian]

@Juan

Furthermore, “economic ideology” sounds like marxist jargon. Libertarianism is a political philosophy. There’s also a scientific discipline known as “economics” – economics is not an ideology either.

Your right he used political theory. I believe the quote he is refering to is here. In this LRC article" http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard12.html . Here’s the quote:

@Rothbard the Irrepressible

Myth #2 Libertarians are libertines: they are hedonists who hanker after “alternative life-styles.”

This myth has recently been propounded by Irving Kristol, who identifies the libertarian ethic with the “hedonistic” and asserts that libertarians “worship the Sears Roebuck catalogue and all the ‘alternative life styles’ that capitalist affluence permits the individual to choose from.”² The fact is that libertarianism is not and does not pretend to be a complete moral, or aesthetic theory; it is only a political theory, that is, the important subset. of moral theory that deals with the proper role of violence in social life. Political theory deals with what is proper or improper for government to do, and government is distinguished from every other group in society as being the institution of organized violence. Libertarianism holds that the only proper role of violence is to defend person and property against violence, that any use of violence that goes beyond such just defense is itself aggressive, unjust, and criminal. Libertarianism, therefore, is a theory which states that everyone should be free of violent invasion, should he free to do as he sees fit except invade the person or property of another. What a person does with his or her life is vital and important, but is simply irrelevant to libertarianism.

It should not be surprising, therefore, that there are libertarians who are indeed hedonists and devotees of alternative life-styles, and that there are also libertarians who are firm adherents of “bourgeois” conventional or religious morality. There are libertarian libertines and there are libertarians who cleave firmly to the disciplines of natural or religious law. There are other libertarians who have no moral theory at all apart from the imperative of non-violation of rights. That is because libertarianism per se has no general or personal moral theory. Libertarianism does not offer a way of life; it offers liberty, so that each person is free to adopt and act upon his own values and moral principles. Libertarians agree with Lord Acton that “liberty is the highest political end” – not necessarily the highest end on everyone’s personal scale of values.

There is no question about the fact, however, that the subset of libertarians who are free-market economists tends to be delighted when the free market leads to a wider range of choices for consumers, and thereby raises their standard of living. Unquestionably, the idea that prosperity is better than grinding poverty is a moral proposition, and it ventures into the realm of general moral theory, but it is still not a proposition for which I should wish to apologize.

[Marko]

I`m ready to challange and formally debate Giles on his assertion that overwhelming mayority of people in a stateless society would live in a manoralist arangement. My position would be that there is no real evidence to support this, thus it is nothing but a wild guess and should not be presented as a fact.

While at it, I am also ready to challange his assertion that cultural conservatism equals low time preference. My position would be that traditional mainstream cultures are for the most part of moderate time preference and frown on secluded workaholics and hoarders as well as on hedonists and bums.

[hayekianxyz]

I`m ready to challange and formally debate Giles on his assertion that overwhelming mayority of people in a stateless society would live in a manoralist arangement

Since Juan and BP have declined, I appreciate the offer. So yes, this seems like a good idea to me.

[Physiocrat]

@GilesStratton

I`m ready to challange and formally debate Giles on his assertion that overwhelming mayority of people in a stateless society would live in a manoralist arangement

Since Juan and BP have declined, I appreciate the offer. So yes, this seems like a good idea to me.

Great news. Now we just need to sort out the precise wording of the motion and the details of how the debate will function. I suggest the ones laid out in my OP. When it’s done I’ll create the debate thread and the commentary thread and we can get going.

[hayekianxyz]

@Physiocrat

Great news. Now we just need to sort out the precise wording of the motion and the details of how the debate will function.

I agree with the details, so unless Marko has any issues I guess we can proceed.

[hayekianxyz]

The wording could, perhaps, be along the lines of:

“In a stateless society, the land arrangement that would predominate would be that of manorialism”.

[Marko]

@GilesStratton

The wording could, perhaps, be along the lines of:

“In a stateless society, the land arrangement that would predominate would be that of manorialism”.

Accepted.

Im fine with any moderator and any structure. Albeit I suggest it be kept short and undramatic as IMO there is not a great deal of material to debate.

You have the first word since you argue in the positive.

[Marko]

But BTW I think another poster a few pages back presented a challange of his own. He should probably get advantage having been the first if he stil wants to. Albeit if the aim of this was to lower the number of flame wars on the other hand…

[hayekianxyz]

Well, I’ll begin to type it up now. But I’ll wait for the go ahead from Physiocrat before I post it.

[hayekianxyz]

@Marko

But BTW I think another poster a few pages back presented a challange of his own. He should probably get advantage having been the first if he stil wants to. Albeit if the aim of this was to lower the number of flame wars on the other hand…

Your position pertains more closely to that which I wish to attempt to refute.

[hayekianxyz]

@Marko

You have the first word since you argue in the positive.

No, you argue in the positive also.

[Spideynw]

Since there is no way to know who “wins”, I call Giles lost.