They get psychological delight from belittling a race of individuals? Where is the logic that in that?
sure, ideas which the mainstream culture denotes as being ‘bad’ stupid ideas. ideas that are immoral to think. personally i find that notion, disgusting.
its a phrasing of what your position boils down to. or rather, a possible reason why it is that we are talking about racism , sexism etc, and not other isms that might be dropped in, ageism, heightism, weightism, hairism, geekism, stupidism etc etc.
My etymology of anti-racism is the idea that if enough people say ‘racist’ things, and then commit horrid crimes, the saying of ‘racist’ things becomes correlated with the committing of horrid crimes. indeed it is a stereotype. in the spirit of having fun with words i can say that you are a ‘collective-thought-ist’, i.e. that you discriminate against those who think along collectivist lines, whether or not they commit crimes, or would commit crimes.
(there are worse things to be called, and this is only meant playfully, not mean-spiritedly)
now, i completely understand such classification. such stereotyping is often a good heuristic tool for orienting yourself to people. but elevating the stereotype to a central plank of ones moral or political beliefs is foolish whether one is a racist or anti-racist.
trivia: If someone thinks that non-racists are ‘superior’ to racists then they might be racistist
Subjective value doesn’t have to be logical to you. That is why it is subjective.
First, racism, sexism, and xenophobia aren’t necessarily belittling. Second, what if they do? Do you actually think logic applies to subjective preferences? Tell me, what is the logical standard of beauty any any other preference?
Are you saying I reject racism and nationalism because I’m being politically correct ? Am I getting my moral stance from mainstream opinion ? Well, that’s simply not true. If a part of mainstream culture is still in synch with classical liberalism, I’m not going to reject it just to be a non-conformist.
Besides, individualism is hardly mainstream. Go burn a flag and see what happens to you (or maybe in your case you should insult the queen of england ?)
Rather it’s a description of facts.
Well, you can joke about it, it doesn’t bother me, but I still get the impression that you are missing the point or downplaying it.
Dunno. It seems I don’t tolerate racial intolerance. And in turn you don’t seem to tolerate my lack of tolerance for intolerance…Where would that put you ?
Ok I just thought of a conundrum for thin libertarians.Libertarianism to them is only the NAP. Beyond that it is subjective desire. Then I propose to them that all politicians are in fact libertarian because they do not commit violence themselves.
Well, the easy retort to that is that politicians advocate violations of the NAP - whereas people who advocate, say, voluntary nationalism or voluntary slavery are still voluntarists…sort of.
You should focus on answering the challenges to your positions, instead of creating a false front to go on the offensive.
Yes, and all soldiers are not committing violence either because they are just following orders at their job like good GovMart employees. [8-)]
Well this does answer some of my challenges because as you will see below in my developing argument, I think there is more to libertarianism and the lifestyle it implies then just simply the NAP.
Actually soldiers would be committing violence if they did such a thing. Whether they have orders is irrevelant as long as they can say ‘no.’ If I get someone to yell fire in a crowd building then I am not responsible for what transpires, the person who did yell it had the chance to say yes or no and therefore had their own separate will on the matter.
And racist individuals can advocate the violations of the NAP also.
If subjective value is illogical then there is no way to have explanatory subjective value which is necessary for apriorism.
You’re developing argument is bunk. You can’t have subjective value, and then maintain objective value. This is the rabbit hole every leftoid goes down, and I just don’t have the stamina or passion to pull you back out.
Once you embrace objective values, then it’s game over for markets, for individualism, and for diversity. Good luck. I’m out.
Libertarianism is a moral system grounded on the objective value of life, liberty and property.
But if you’re out, you’re out =P
Actually, I would argue that economic subjectivism (in the Misesian sense) entails ethical objectivism:
(source)
Value judgements are objective because to hold otherwise is to introduce a vicious circularity into propositions involving value judgements: if all that is meant by “X is good” is “X is held by me to be good”, than you can legitamitely substitute the latter for every use of the word “good”, ad infinitum. If you take the emotivist route instead, where “X is good” means “X, yay!”, then you are completely divorcing yourself from logic, as “X, yay!” asserts nothing.
What is meant when Roderick Long states that logical form of value judgements require objectivity?
Left-libertarians in the sense of people like Long and Johnson are not ideologically “collectivist”. Talk about strawmanning.
It seems that the fundamental flaw here is the assumption that social problems can completely be reduced to questions of explicit violence and state policy, when that clearly is a narrow conception of what constitutes a social problem. Clearly, the fact that the market may be free, in and of itself, does not solve all social problems.
Actually it’s a non-sequitor. It does not follow from the fact that, for example, I object to social custom X, I inherent advocate the initiation of force to stop it or a political policy that illegalizes it. Nor does it follow from the idea that there can be voluntary unions that one rejects “the market as a mechanism for dealing with relationships”. These conclusions of yours only follow if you conflate social preferences you don’t like with NAP violations, which is simply bad argumentation. What you’re basically doing is conflating voluntaryism with your social goals, and implying that those who have different social goals inherently are involuntaryist. This is part of why discussing these matters with you is tedious.
Once again, you’re very clearly making a non-sequitor in which having a desired end that you disagree with is conflated with coercion. I think the point he was trying to make is that freeing the market does not magically end all social conflict - that’s simply realism.
From my perspective, the point here is that just because people with stupid ideas don’t engage in formal rights violations doesn’t mean that I should stop opposing their stupid ideas.