That’s correct, just like there’s no such thing as a witch.
dictionary says : libertinism : libertine practices or habits of life; disregard of authority or convention in sexual or religious matters.
But it turns out there’s no valid authority or valid ‘conventions’ in sexual or religious matters, so such conventions are purely personal preference. Hence, when A calls B a ‘libertine’ what A is actually saying is : “what you do is wrong because the mob says it’s wrong”.
Nonsense, I highly doubt that any market anarchists became constitutionalists upon hearing Ron Paul. Anybody who did become a constitutionalist probably came from a neocon position,which is a step in the right direction. And any anti voting anarchists that have been converted by Paul obviously weren’t very sincere if they were converted by the very thing they were again.
Your last point begs the question, you don’t show why the political process is bad in the first place.
Minus the bit about libertines not having malevolent, supernatural powers… which is what really makes witchery incredible.
But that definition is abstract in the extreme, and makes no reference to particular habits. So how about fleshing it out, a little?
-Jon
]
Or because it’s ridiculous.
What I really like about Molyneux is his passion and emotional commitment to our libertarian cause. Molyneux has dedicated his life to helping the common man to a better, more virtues and free life and he will always have my blessing for doing that.
Libertarians are sometimes very cold and impersonal but Stef isn’t, he takes it personal, and I think we can all learn from that even if some of you are Christians or don’t like his views on the family (I respect that). And yes, his accent CAN be very irritating!
In some countries during the 19th century, classical liberalism was a mainstream movement welcomed by the majority of productive citizens like workers and buisness men, I want that today! We NEED that today! Stef is trying to organise such a movement (but with an updated version of classical liberalism), and I will always appreciate his confribution for trying to do that, even though I don’t always agree with him.
I’m all for a libertarian movement, not so much a Molyneux cult.
I want to hear you debate Molyneux. Either in video or in audio. Either that or point me towards some of your books or articles. On any subject.
In fact, I’m not going to listen to your replies until you have your shot at trying to embarrass his supposedly ridiculous theories in audio format for all of us to hear. Right now – as I’ve said before – you are talking to the wrong person.
My point is…both witches and libertines are imaginary creatures…Besides, I seem to recall that the catholic church and protestants did believe in witches ? And today social conservatives seem to believe in ‘libertines’…
Uh…Well…I thought that’s what definitions are all about, no ? An attempt to capture or abstract general features ?
I don’t see why such fleshing out is needed ? I mean, I don’t believe there are ‘particular habits’ that make one a libertine – that’s my whole point. If you on the other hand believe that some people can be characterized as libertines, based on what they do or maybe think, go ahead and post your list of libertine actions/thoughts.
I caught your point, I’m just curious what substance there is to it.
No, it is too abstract. It offers no specific examples. Is prostitution “libertinism”? Licentiousness? Oral sex or sex with anybody I come into contact with? Drug abuse or just drug use? And so on. Because if your argument is that there are no people with very high time preferences that indulge in activities destructive of their own selves, and damage their credibility toward others… I’m going to have to respond with incredulity. And those are more or less the individuals Hoppe (and perhaps Molyneux) mean by the term “libertinism”. It’s easy to just paint their view as reactionary conservatism, but Hoppe is making a point about PR here.
-Jon
I’ve got better things to do than debate your precious idol thanks, no wonder you’re an atheist, there’s no room for Stefan Molyneux and God in your world.As for my books or articles? In comparison to Molyneux’s poor literature I wouldn’t have to do much.
[:'(]
:rolls eyes:
You tell me. I already said that for me the concept(libertinism) is meaningless, so your question can only be a rhetorical question.
My argument is : the word libertinism has a more or less standard definition, which I provided (by copying and pasting…). Libertinism is a loaded word which implies there’s a valid authority in sexual and religious matters. Such belief is a core conservative belief and is, of course, false.
Now, you’re claiming that the word libertinism means something else and are conflating unrelated things :
Some people have high time preference – so what ? Still, libertinism = high time preference is by no means the accepted meaning of the word.
Some people ‘indulge’ in activities that, according to you, destroy their own selves ? I suppose that’s true for people that commit suicide but I fail to see how things like, say, “oral sex” implies high time preference, or even more ridiculously, self-destruction.
Finally, I’m not even sure what you mean when you say that those actions “damage [libertines’] credibility toward others”.
If you’re not sure about Molyneux, why bring him ?
It’s easy because that is what Hoppe’s views are. I haven’t followed Molyneux close enough to put him in the same bag as Hoppe, though I’ll repeat that if he believes in the evil of tattoos he’s…confused.
PR ?
The term libertine by itself does not imply that. Libertine is someone who indulges in activities percieved by his enviroment to be vices. The word itself does not imply that the enviroment is right in its definition of vices or that there is a some sort of final arbiter with authority on deciding what constitutes a vice.
Actualy Hoppe`s only has a problem with those libertines that want to engage in what the society generaly percieves to be vices, but are at the same time not prepeared to face the social stigma associated with going against the prevailing norms. In a sense they want their rights to do as they please be respected but would at the same time deny other people their right to form negative opinions of them based on their activities and discriminate against them if they so please.
What he is saying is you are free to get tattoed, but don`t cry intolerance if someone declines you a job over it.
No. I want you to answer. You’ve said it is meaningless. What is meaningless? The definition you provided is, to an extent, meaningless, because it is too broad.
Who cares? The question is what makes a libertine. You’ve not answered that, and so offered no refutation of the existence of such individuals.
With the definition you offered, I could “conflate” it with just about anything, because it is that vague.
Well considering the activities in question may or may not be linked to things commonly associated with individuals of high TPs…
I never said it implies it… as opposed to asking whether it counts as something a libertine would do.
What, exactly, do you think the violation of social conventions entails?
To see if I am correct.
Not really, considering the point he is making.
Duh? Oh right, you probably have no idea what this is all about. As usual.
-Jon
That’s putting words in the mouths of ‘libertines’…in other words, a straw-man. I’m not arguing for any sort of ‘enforced integration’, ‘right to not be discriminated’ or free drugs for junkies…
I’m only saying that social conservatives are conservatives, not libertarians. Conservatives are free to discriminate based on their narrow minded bigotries and religious superstitions or whatever. But if they do I don’t see why they should complain when called bigots. It seems that it is actually conservatives the ones who don’t want other people to form opinions about them.
Wait, since when are the two mutually exclusive?
About the title of the thread.
While I think that the term “nerd” is now neutral and thus ok to use, I don’t think anyone is a “loser” (or worse that this is terminal). That is not the point about why I am concerned for people who are drug abusers or people who hurt themselves in some other way. I don’t care about PR, either. It’s more out of empathy that I even offer my opinion about this subject. As I said, if anyone is abusing alcohol or is in some other bad situation… I offer them my condolensces and best wishes. Not that they remove themselves from our “movement”, so to speak.
Why limit it to the movement? Drug addicts should remove themself from society, not just the movement.
I have to agree. This sounds like more of the tripe that BP regularly foists on this forum. I’d like to know one genuine libertarian who was turned to statism by Ron Paul. Just one verifiable example.
Otherwise this is just more strawmen and baiting from the bullshit faction of the movement.