Whereas a thick libertarian with “leftish” cultural inclinations would say that there are independant reasons from the NAP for why things like nationalism are negative - not as an argument for doing away with the NAP, but as an argument for maintaining broader social goals, because social philosophy does not entirely revolve around the purely legalistic question of institutional violence. The “thin” libertarians then tend to respond by making the assumption that the only alternative to taking a neutral stance on such social issues is to be for violating the NAP, which is a non-sequitor, and by acting as if the NAP sums up all of social philosophy. Meanwhile, this serves the function of legitimizing the social goals of groups like ethinic nationalists, who will use “thin” libertarianism as a justification for their (nap-independantly objectionable) goals.
So where do you stop picketing/questioning/social activity and say “well it is your subjective preference.”
I think the dispute lies on some people fusing libertarianism with their own personal social preferences and goals and then saying libertarians who don’t share similar goals aren’t libertarians. At least from what I’ve read, the only difference “thin” libertarians and “thick” ones is that the thin tend to avoid mixing in their social goals.
Libertarianism itself is a social preference.
Usually with collectivist outlooks and that which brings disharmony to the individual. Not to long ago I gave an example of an individual who sees the human race as a virus upon the world and takes it upon him/herself to persuade individuals to commit suicide in ten years. From the point of this declaration to the tenth year he/she and his/her followers try to advocate then ending of life using non-coercive means. Accordingly these individuals to a thin libertarian would be libertarians themselves [ according to thick libertarians, myself being one, I would think that they are soft libertarians in the sense that they hold an objective that can easily be sway by whatever better ideology comes along ] also these individuals hold values that imply a violent nature to them. It will not take long for them to drop the non-coercion and take up the coercive methods in order to obtain a goal they see as pinnacle to their existence.
someone holds ideas that imply to someone that they are violent and will be violent later. matter of fact the person under suspicion is non-violent for 10 years. whilst under suspicion/observation. but those ideas have implications…
are we doing minority report now.?
It is a matter of logical deduction. If you conceptualize other individuals are baseless animals then you are more likely to treat them as such. Hypothetically if I see a woman as sub-human then what inclinations do I have towards recognizing human rights within her? It is very much like the individuals of the 19th century who used the size of your head to deduce your social standing/intelligence and thus treated you accordingly.
i had in mind your hypothetical, which seems to contradict the content of your arguments here. this person you said could claim to be thin libertarian. you say he has a philosophy of non-violence, and of voluntary relations with people. presumably he conceives of them as people and not baseless animals.
This notion of sub-human, i would have to hear more of it and how you use it to understand what you mean. to the extent that someone believed someone was less than human in the field of their rights, then they are anti-libertarian, to they extent they believe they are sub-human in other respects, I’d wager, the notion is either incoherent, or when it is possibly coherent, they are wrong. but I don’t know. tell me more about it. maybe in the sense they use it they happen to be correct. fill me in. clue me up.
My hypothetical said he viewed humanity as a virus. Clearly something sub-human. Perhaps he/she gathers that not ALL humanity is a virus [ those who join him are above such comments and those who don’t are not ] There can be individuals who when told ‘You are a virus’ are in fact in agreement with him/her. Perhaps there are those who just merely wish to cause chaos or who desire attention. There can be a number of reasons for why his/her organization can gather followers.
One does not need to be concerned with the rights of others in order to be a libertarian. They need only follow the NAP according to thin libertarians. Are you trying to establish something more then just the NAP which is implied in libertarianism?
i was just following your lead. thinking about ‘what is implied’. but its probably not worth doing since the topic , sociology and psychology, is somewhat beside the point of libertarianism. (despite the claims of the Thick)
Well to be a libertarian you need to have the psychology of the NAP. I see it akin to the action axiom. The action axiom is a wonderful foundation for the praxeological method. However we cannot deduce what money is or coinage without something like thymology. Each need each other in order to go beyond basic foundation. So while the NAP is great foundation, there needs to be more to libertarianism, a thymological side so to speak.
It’s not sociology and psychology. It’s something called ‘individualism’ - a philosophical position upon which libertarianism is built. The NAP is an abstraction justified by the fact that individuals have value as individuals, not as members of a tribe, nation, church, commune or whatever collectivist floating abstraction some ideologues may ‘prefer’.
you say , to be a libertarian you need, NAP principle, and good thymology so you actually are possibly capable of living according to it.
and then you you say that NAP is not enough you need more stuff.
well, i have just enough stuff to ground my theoretical NAP knowledge concretely, i.e. just enough so that you dont observe me violating any property rights.
so it somewhat raises questions to assert that I need more stuff. originally the more stuff was introduced just to make the NAP workable.
this goal reached and practical libertarian created. he is somehow not libertarian enough. i dont get it.
I still standby what I posted on this topic a fortnight ago
Libertarianism is compatible with any set of cultural values that are peaceful and cultural values are a matter of taste.
I asked for when and got…
You are collectively saying they are experiencing disharmony though.
All values, left and right and loopy, can in one way or another imply violence, as long as the violence (aggression that is) isn’t acted on they are still just as much libertarians. Libertarians can be cult members handing out pamphlets about crazy things (in fact, I’d say many of them are). If those people do commit suicide then they were hardly soft, in your own terms.
You have absolute the right to kill yourself.
Emphasis mine.
Not necessarily. According to them, they could not be but then I would ask them why they aren’t.
Then you claim that everyone who isn’t committing violence is a libertarian. Socialists, politicians, fascists, communists, conservatives, monarchists etc. Truly the only people who aren’t libertarians are essentially enforcers.
Oh you mean the cultists who want to end humanity through suicide?
Yeah and…?
Both left and right cultues are both peaceful and non-peaceful.