I don’t think there really is an objective definition of a healthy, flourishing and sustainable free society, sorry.
Do you understand the difference between a priori and what you were doing? If so, please stop this childish nonsense. If not, read more of this site, or a dictionary.
Yeah, funny thing that came after your remark so kind of…wrong. And it still isn’t a strawman. Saying racists are inclined toward violence but due to free will they are not all violent at all times isn’t an a priori, its still an a posteriori. You simply cannot just know such information, specifically because of the free will of the individuals in question.
Again, you have yet to even prove they are all inclined towards violence at any time, ever. Not an a priori - collectivism.
No you cannot, you keep saying people have free will but then contradict yourself around and say you can logically predict what they will or are more likely to do. Either free will exists or not. Such predictions can only come through a posteriori knowledge. Its impossible to know independently of experience what a racist, is more likely to be violent.
I agreed with that statement, you left out many that I disagreed with though. Hence the “there.” I’ve already pointed out some of the disagreements, you failed to include them in that passage is all.
In that case, libertarianism risks collapsing in on itself.
and speeding up the thought process that “thought process” is called contemplation or realization and such…
This ^^^
well, there clearly is an objective definition of a healthy , flourishing and sustainable free society,
a society above reproach on matters of justice and capable of enjoying a free market economy.
i.e. ‘thin libertarianism’
There’s no such thing as ‘thin libertarianism’.
i think of it as libertarianism. its other people that want to call my libertarianism ‘thin’ . complain to them maybe ?
No, there is. Nobody lives by it, because it isn’t a complete system. It is just a canvas to arrange your preferences on. But a lot of people reduce libertarianism to voluntarism (you protest this loudly often). I don’t think voluntarism is reasonable as a complete definition, because we all have preferences, and so define flourishing for ourselves.
So in that regard, libertarianism is thick for everyone. But it is subjective flourishing, not objective flourishing unless we again, want to use the thinnest possible definition of voluntarism as flourishing.
I’m not complaining. Maybe I shouldn’t have said ‘thin libertarianism’ doesn’t exist. Indeed, there are people who hold a position that sometimes is described as ‘thin libertarianism’ - but think it is not so much libertarianism as some sort of theoretical panarchy which includes all kinds of ‘voluntary’ governments - governments which are hardly in line with the spirit of individual freedom - for instance, theocracy.
You’re hung up on this caricature of libertarians which at best are a very small group amongst libertarian anarchists. Among libertarian statists, it is going to be a mixed bag, and I don’t think many of us consider them to truly be libertarian because they aren’t even thin, let alone thick.
The spirit of individual liberty is subjective. Unless you plan to violently enforce it on people, you will have to accept that the world isn’t going to see things through your prism exclusively.
Liberty is the goal, not safety. (Nothing against safety though) Really, it could be argued that allowing religious freedom could possibly threaten libertarianism or the broader social philosophy, or that strict adherence to the NAP itself could risk collapse. There are always going to be risks, but I don’t necessarily care about growth for the sake of growth.
But do you really think there is an objective definition of a healthy, flourishing and sustainable free society?
Reading outside ideas can really introduce new ideas or help clarify things or help put them into perspective or challenge them or strengthen them. In my opinion moreso than just contemplation alone.
No State Project. Free your mind.
I agree with Juan, there isn’t such a thing a “thin” libertarianism, there are just libertarians who speak of their personal preferences more “loudly” than others. Really I don’t see a difference between libertarianism and voluntaryism in this light, neither one are suitable as complete definitions in my opinion. Just as two libertarians can disagree on almost anything so can two voluntaryists. Of course with respect to Juan, he defines libertarianism differently than I, so we may actually disagree.
yes, I’m not arguing against reading - hope you didn’t think I was, obviously I read. I’m merely making a factual statement about even when you read outside ideas you are contemplating, in other words, while reading the mind moves.
I never disagreed. If I didn’t already say so, in my opinion, reading makes the mind move faster.
Yeah, there is no state. There never was a state. It’s just a bunch of criminals pretending to have any legitimacy.
Voting, campaigning, protesting, following the law, its all arbitrary. The criminals will stop preying on us when we stop acting like they have any authority or legitimacy, and not before. As long as we say MR. President, or THE HONOURABLE MEMBER FROM TEXAS then we’re locked into their paradigm, dancing on their strings.
Free your mind.
Oh please don’t do that. You’re just encouraging him. He is really insufferable when he thinks he has allies in an argument. [:P]
yeah… I was simply bullshitting - shooting the breeze… good chattin’ with ya. [:)]