Certainly. Reading seems to help speed up the thought process from my experience though.
Angurse,
Please show where I said that ALL racists are necessarily violent.
I asked if you think that anarcho-commies are libertarians. Then you started to quibble, in my opinion. I had enough quibbling for today, so I asked “what the meaning of is is” - that was sarcasm.
I’ll use libertarian and individualist. You can do whatever you please =]
I never claimed you did, please show where I made such a claim? However, you did call my objection to the calling of all racists violent (being for aggression) a joke, did you not?
Qibble? I already answered that one.
Honestly, I cannot speak for all anarcho-commies, I seriously doubt they all are libertarians, but again, yes, they certainly can be.
Why would you go with that, it seems to make a distinction which isn’t necessary from your definition of libertarian. It works for mine well though. But thats great.
No I didn’t. I commented on something you said in response to Laughing Man - but I admit it was a mistake, since he seems to be saying that racists are more likely to use violence.
At any rate, I wasn’t making the generalization “all racists are violent”.
I only said all racists are collectivists - which I think we agree.
I don’t think so. Communism, even voluntary communism (if there’s such a thing) is not libertarianism. Of course, you’ve redefined libertarianism to mean any system which is allegedly ‘voluntary’. I do not consider your definition valid, though.
Because it highlights the fact that libertarianism and individualism are closely tied and are different from ‘voluntary’ collectivism.
What, your comment started with “What a joke”? Perhaps I’ve just assumed too much and it was a more general comment than I thought. No problem.
Again, I never said otherwise.
Absolutely.
Fair enough. I think your definition is lacking but I’m not going to bicker over a definition.
Highlights? It really sounds like fusion of ideologies more than a complete one, but define as you please.
My apologies. Given what Laughing Man had said your remark was pertinent.
Actually, what seems to be a fusion is your system in which, if I understand you correctly, anarcho-commies, racists, nationalists, classical liberals, etc, are all considered ‘libertarians’.
Again, no problem.
Well, you are kind of missing it, its not so much a fusion of ideologies as it is an adherence to a principle, the NAP. I think there are other tenets of libertarianism, such as property rights, but they still founded on the NAP. They all can be considered libertarians (with the possible exception of nationalists, I’m not quite sure what that is) if they follow the NAP. This being only on dentological grounds, of course. If you want to hold the term to mean something different that seems fine to me. I generally go with Voluntaryist because libertarian has been used to mean so many different things over the years anyways. So it really doesn’t matter.
No, “thickness” does not mean that one has to share one’s social goals to be a libertarian, it means that libertarianism is concieved of as a part of a broader social philosophy.
Well, this is part of why I argue against the idea that the NAP is an axoim. Because, as you just stated, it is derived from a more fundamental sense of individualist humanism. It seems to lose a lot of weight in the absence of that.
It does not follow from this that libertarians qua libertarians are required to be neutral to cultural values, as if they cannot have broader social goals which they treat libertarianism as a part of in a bundle of values.
The fact of the matter is that not a single libertarian completely alienates their libertarianism from their social preferences (and in this sense, “thin” libertarianism is selective and disingenous, in that it is only used when one is objecting to viewing libertarianism through the lense of social preferences that one doesn’t want libertarianism to be associated with while one is often implicitly assuming a certain connection between libertarianism and opposition to “cultural liberalism”). It is always tempered by their cultural and economic outlook, which is precisely why there are so many different manifestations of libertarianism. And, as you point out, libertarianism itself is a social preference for non-aggression.
The point is that the NAP by itself is necessary but not sufficient to create a healthy, flourishing and sustainable free society with the most optimal social outcomes (for example, a society full of people who hold to an ideology of traditionalism and subservience/duty is not a desirable social outcome for reasons other than the NAP alone, as well as consequentialist considerations that in all likelyhood will make such a society authoritarian in nature in the long-run). There are reasons other than the NAP for desiring social outcomes other than non-aggression. Simply because something is non-violent does not make it inherently a good social practise or outcome, nor does it mean that it becomes completely irrelevant from the standpoint of social philosophy, and hence it is simply stupid to take a neutral stance towards social outcomes “so long as the NAP is respected”.
“Thin” libertarianism, viewed from a broader philosophical standpoint, is simply too reductionistic in this sense. Trying to reduce the entirety of social philosophy to nothing but a legal question of violence is just oversimplistic and naive. The values of the people in a society have consequences pertaining to how it turns out, and a free society will not magically arise in a cultural vacuum. Furthermore, even if a given society is nominally free, this does not mean that it inherently will be flourishing or have a particularly good social model. The abolition of a given state, by itself, tells us nothing about what kind of social model(s) will arise, and to take a “who cares?” attitude about whatever happens to “emerge” is naive. This is part of why anarchism has traditionally been about more than just anti-statism, in that anti-statism by itself does not encompass the whole of the solution to social problems - being an anti-statist does not give one a free pass to act as if the problem of politics magically ends or as if social philosophy ends at non-aggression. It doesn’t.
This is why I’m for more than liberty alone, I’m also for broader social goals in the context of liberty.
Which refers to all libertarians as far as I can tell.
It really just looks like you are saying that there is no such thing as a “thin” libertarian, and that referring to people as “thin” is candid, to which I agree. But I doubt you’ll disagree that some libertarians who argue “louder” than others (paleos, lefts) often conflate their broader social goals and to tend to play the “more libertarian than thou” card, which is what the dispute (that I referred to) seems to be about (at least, constantly collapse into).
Exactly, they all do, and as long as they follow the NAP they are all still very much libertarians. Their broader social goals are just that.
And in my opinon what exactly constitutes a healthy, flourishing and sustainable free society with the most optimal social outcomes, really comes down to taste.
I don’t recall stating its inherently good, just still libertarian. I’m taking a neutral stance toward defining what makes a libertarian after adherence to the NAP. It doesn’t mean I agree with all libertarians or think that any position with adherence to the NAP is good necessarily.
This is getting beside the question of what make a libertarian to what makes a flourishing society.
As am I, perhaps our social goals just differ a bit.
And I think that’s an unjustifiable relativism.
Ah but you said that saying ‘All bacholers are unmarried’ IS the defintion of bacholers.
This is the strawman part:
As I have told you numerous upon numerous time. I said racists are inclined to violence but due to free will they are not all violent at all times.
Actually I can logically deduce that if a racist actually shows hatred towards a select race then they are more likely to mistreat that race and show violence towards it.
Stopped short of where? That was my statement and you said ‘No disagreement there.’ That must infer that somewhere in the statement I presented, you agreed with something I said. What is it?