That’s exactly what I said.
Or alternatively they’re not, no matter how much the libertarian atheists would like it to be so.
Didn’t look like it.
But they are, no matter how much it makes you feel embarrassed. You need to do something about that. But whatever you do: don’t blame us atheists for pointing it out. It’s YOUR problem. YOU deal with it.
That’s because my objection to gays has nothing to do with making me feel like a man.
Trying to convince yourself of that, are you?
Here’s something else to think about: why do I get the same reaction from theists when I say that there is no god as I do from statists when I tell them that the state is a gang of thieves and should be eliminated?
Because you choose to see it in such a way.
I dunno, both are abstractions of central and/or ultimate authority. It’s not a stretch that challenging both concepts can yield similar reactions; I would say they certainly rhyme.
Not really actually, most people these days views the democratic state as something established by the people to acheive certain ends the people find desirable. Nobody really sees the state as the ultimate authority, they view the people as the ultimate authority.
I already explained it (three or four times ?). Sorry if you don’t get it, or are playing dumb.
Libertines do exist in the sense that, by definition, anybody who doesn’t bow to religious or sexual dogma is a libertine.
Yet the concept is nonsensical because there’s nothing objective about sexual preferences or religious fairy tales. Your position is purely collectivistic - you’re assuming that ‘society’ exists and is an entity with dictates valid conventions. I might as well be arguing with somebody who believes the earth is flat because it’s written in some ‘holy book’.
No. I refuse Hoppe the ‘right’ to twist language for his own ends. But for argument’s sake, let’s grant that libertinism = hight time preference. Now what ?
How do you define ab-use as opposed to mere use ? Also I’m curious how a particular sex practice can be ‘self-destructive’ ?
Random sex with strangers ? You mean like ‘randomly’ buying things you like ? Is see nothing wrong with that.
Now, what’s the point of polling me about these things ?
I offered the standard definition. You just whine about it not being good enough. Whether in your personal definition actions A, B, and C relate to high time preference, or not, is up to you. Redefining words is not a hobby I cherish.
As I just said, I reject the idea that “society considers acceptable [anything]” because it’s a collectivistic fallacy. I am, after all, a “vulgar individualist”…
Oh, actually I did parse PR to public relations but the sentence didn’t make any sense, that’s why I thought you were referring to something else. So, you said :
Hoppe and co. are indeed reactionary social conservatives. Just look at the things Giles Stratton is saying. Now, what’s public relations got to do with anything ?
I consider myself a Hoppean, stop promoting stereotypes. You’re starting to sound as ridiculous and intellectually bankrupt as BP with his imaginary people groups.
Giles obviously has some socially conservative ideas, but that is irrelevant because he doesn’t speak for everyone and I resent the intellectual dishonesty of trying to portray it as a majority opinion.
In a libertarian society, I can tolerate people who have different sexual practices, and people who are interested in ingesting different substances. And I can also tolerate people like Giles, who are a lot less tolerant than I am. It’s hypocritical to condemn Giles for being against something, without taking the opposite ideological stand and being for everything. Which is nonsense.
Libertarianism isn’t about everything being good. It’s about every opinion bearing the consequences of it’s own advantages or deficits, without tranferring those costs or profits onto others involuntarily.
Why? I think it only reflects the his preferences. Perhaps culturally conservative libertarian societies will be numerous, who knows. But given that there is no longer a central authority whose dictates are to be obeyed, the potantial societies that might arise are infinite, and yes, amongst them will be more conservatives communities. Some will just be less successful than others.
-Jon
Hoppe may not cohabit with such people, but that isn’t really the point of his remarks. He is saying a lot of libertarians tend to be libertines, and that this distances us from the general public, i.e. is bad for PR reasons. Which is definitely true. People associated moral degeneration with libertarianism, as well as callousness and aloofness.
-Jon
I completely agree with you. And to a large extent this is what my issue is, the leftist correctly view the statist use of coercion to discourage drug use as immoral and then somehow leap to the conclusion that voluntary measures to deter the use of these substances is equally wrong, it isn’t. I have no doubt that some people would continue to live alternative lifestyles when the state has been abolished. However, when there’s nobody to protect such lifestyles, to force employers to hire you, to stop any form of social ostracism (both directly and indirectly) and to crush private charity in which support would be contingent upon rehabilitation things would be largely different. The stakes are very different when the drug users has to bear responsibility for his actions, which is why I draw a distinction between smokers and perhaps even those who use cannabis and alcohol to some extent and users of heroin, cocain and harder drugs on the other.
As for gays, a libertarian society would be built around the institution that the state has, for the longest time, been in competition with. An institution that has existed for far longer than the state, the family. Needless to say, homosexuality and the family aren’t very compatible, at the very least in a free society homosexuality would be discouraged as opposed to today’s state of affairs where it is absolutely forbidden to discriminate against homosexuals.
No. I find your definition inadequate. You have refused to flesh it out.
Conveniently, you failed to mention some other things that the definition might capture. Here:
**
Now, which does Hoppe mean? Answer: you have no idea. Hint: it’s the last.
Translation: “I have no idea what I am talking about, so I’ll set up a strawman.” See below.
No, of course not - that right is yours and yours alone. Arguendo, he is saying such individuals don’t do libertarianism much good in the eyes of the general public.
Abuse, is to use a substance to the point that it starts becoming severely damaging and begins inhibiting your physical and even mental faculties, to the end point of being utterly dysfunctional or even dying. As for the latter, have you heard of STDs?
Who said anything about “wrong”? You’re the one discussing this in normative terms. BTW, does randomly buying things potentially result in STDs, out of curiosity?
To get you to substantiate the definition.
Well the problem is that definition is strongly context-dependent. So far from “whining”, I am requesting you offer clarity. Which you’ve failed to do. Repeatedly. No matter, though, because the definition is not nearly as clear-cut as you think it is.
Guess what? So am I. This won’t work on me, because I am not saying there is a society over and above individuals. No, I am using the word in its usual context, meaning a group of individuals which share certain norms, goals, whatever. Deny it all you want. You’re free to engage in senseless linguistic deconstruction, in reaction to an argument I do not make.
Considering the topic of the thread…
I don’t care what Stratton did or did not say. I’m discussing Hoppe. As usual, in your dull little crusade against him, you have failed to apprehend the proper context of this discussion. And, even so, Hoppe does not intend to force me to live in his preferred society. And I have no problem with him living in his. By contrast I must endure your ignorant tirades every single time the topic of Hoppe comes up…
-Jon
Wrong. Now then: put some thought into your answer. Don’t keep proving me correct with your “oh gee whiz I’m so embarrassed by my love of the godstate” responses.
And you should know that most of the people I talk to about how the state shouldn’t exist are atheists. And I get the same psychological rationalizations from them as I do from christians. So please: be a good lad and consider the question carefully.
You’ve never chatted with legal positivists, have you?
Who’s protecting them now? Certainly not the government, since there are no laws prohibiting the denial of hiring drug addicts. Why do you think employers are allowed to do drug testing, hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?
I think you’re just projecting.
Because we all know that gays want to ruin families and make everyone gay, right?
Puh-leaze. Do you think you could, perhaps, maybe, stop rationalizing your hatred?
Of course not. Libertines do that. Most people who do drugs and have promiscuous sex are not libertines.
In that case, you would have the right to force people not to worship God. I don’t believe that you believe that.
I don’t, the government in every action weakens “social power” to use Nock’s term. In practical terms this means that social ostracism simple isn’t viable under the state, whereas in a free society it would be, it’s that simple. Then there’s today’s youth culture which glorifies drug use, and the state intervention in the family which stops the most effective way of preventing drug use by children. In today’s society, the state has detatched responsibilities from actions, in all areas of the life, drug use is just one example of this.
So yes, the state does protect drug users.
Likewise, we all know that I actually said that, right?
Do you think you could, perhaps, may, stop posting straw men?
So, what, it somehow follows that because you get the answers from two groups of people (this is assuming you do, which I doubt) the two things they defend are the same? It just doesn’t follow.
If it did it would mean that if two people defended the market and the state in the same way the two would be the same, which would be absurd.