You’re trolling me still and not comprehending my point, so I really should ignore your rhetorical question. But I won’t.
The argument was NOT that “feminism is the same thing as libertarianism”. The argument was that someone can be both at once, that the two are not absolutely mutually exclusive or inherently contradictary as you seemed to imply they are. So your argument is simply a bad one and a misleading one, since you’re not responding to my argument.
Feminism is a more specific social cause. If one has concerns with regaurd to that specific social cause, feminism can possibly provide appeasement of those concerns where libertarianism by itself as a neutral social theory cannot. On the other hand, there is no natural law that libertarianism as a social theory is inherently incompatible with the social cause of feminism, and there is no reason why the social cause of feminism cannot be fitted into a libertarian context.
I for one am not a feminist. It has never particularly been a pet issue of mine. But I am aware of the degree to which the negative rights of women is a perfectly valid cause, I can see the historical reasons why a feminist movement would come about in the first place and I am aware of libertarian feminists as a separate category from PC gender feminists.
In the sense that a feminist argues for the equal freedom (in a state especially equality before the law) for women and men, a libertarian would automatically be a feminist. When feminism gets twisted to mean something else (e.g. equal pay legislation, quotas etc) then it is not strictly feminism; feminism is about equality, and this is essentially raising the status of women above men in the law. Many feminists would accept this distinction.
Equally, insofar as white nationalism advocates equality before the law (in a state) and equal freedom for whites, I would say I am a white nationalist. If it were to go farther and call for the expulsion of blacks, hispanics, asians, africans etc, then WNs would be asking for a higher status than others. As WNs always do want to end free movement of peoples, end free association, then their views are clearly qualitatively different than those of the truest strain of feminism.
One can be a “libertarian feminist/WN” in that one may think libertarianism might be the means most conducive to solving that group’s problems, as opposed to means typically proposed. Libertarianism is the means, not necessarily the end, whereas feminism for example has as an end to terminate systematic bias against women. Many feminists think the state is needed for this, whereas those like McElroy or Long think social change effected through voluntary means is sufficient, and that at any rate using violent means would be unjust. So I wouldn’t say it’s redundant.
Well it would - but I was speaking of a world in which most people or everyone kept to my definition of what feminism is. If feminism merely meant libertarianism in a very specific way, as I argued, then you are entirely right.
Hey BP, are you up for my proposed debate with Giles? He’s expressed his willingness to so if you refuse to debate him formally I believe it will be taken as an admission that your beliefs are false.
The leftists love to shout abot how libertarianism and socialism have the same ends, they just favour different means. So unless you’re claiming that because two things may have similiarities they are identical, yes, you are equivocating.
You’re deluded, the choices people make have everything to do with the consequences they may have. And, without doubt, the way society is organized impacts the consequences of an action.
That’s just not the case, actually the opposite is true. What you label traditionalism is being destroyed by the state. The state takes people’s children and forces them into public schools, denying that this weakens the family is absurd. I’m going to assume that you’ve read Nock, he makes the point that as the state grows social power is weakened, in this case the natural, spontaneous hierarchies that exist in a free society are replaced by fake, state sponsored “hierarchies”.
You’d better work on giving more power to the central state because you’re going to be thoroughly disappointed with a stateless society.
It’s a shame that one of the few things Argentina has going for it is that it is one of the most religious countries on this planet, unfortunately you haven’t followed the good example of the rest of your country in this regard. And yes, children are manipulated in schools, they’re taken away from their parents and their family, who previously would have had the right to choose how they’re educated and given to the state who then chooses how to educate them, of course that weakens the family.
It’s called time preference, perhaps you’ve not heard of it.
Isn’t this a bit of a canard? I’m no expert on WN, but from what I have seen, a lot of them just want to be left alone to do their own thing, certainly outside the state. My understanding is that a key component of white nationalism is the superiority of the race, and thus open competition would render their desired result.
But doesn’t libertarianism already encompass this? I’m wondering why someone would have to identify as libertarian and feminist/wn-ist. I think it is safe to say that a libertarian by definition has to be for racial and sexual equality. So what additional facets of these collective systems exist outside libertarianism?
This is not directed at Juan, or even the current discussion specifically. I wanted to point out that the elimination of the state, but maintenance or supremacy of the state ideals of zero social cohesiveness really bother me.
I don’t want to live in a formless society. I want forms to emerge, so I can choose and participate with the best of them. The issue here is that the debate about family or church, anti-hierarchical relationships etc, undermines the validity of structures in general.
By all means we should stand against coercive structures, but anything voluntary should be treated with the same reverence we all claim to hold for the broader concept of individual liberty. To do otherwise, would be uncivilized.
But, LS, are the conservative ideas of family and church the only forms that are possible? I would think not. This goes with what I was saying about mutual aid societies earlier. The elimination of the state will open up social organization and expression to a degree that has never been seen in human history, rather than restricting it to idealized versions of past social orders. That’s not to say that churches or traditional families won’t exist; they probably will. However, those will no longer be the only accepted forms of organization, simply because there is no state to punish non-conformers.
Well that’s part of my whole problem with this traditionalist approach to libertarianism - it’s about bringing back an idealized vision of past social orders. I see this as irrational because this romanticized vision of the past is utter nonsense and the idea of going back to how things were before makes no sense when the entire purpose of the political philosophy is to tear down the already established power structures. Furthermore, the reality of these past social orders was generally oppresive, not some kind of libertarian ideal. The idea of opposing the state only for the purpose of bringing it back in an older form bothers me.
Well, I’m not 100% sure what WNs are like “nowadays”. But they often lynched, supported anti-immigration government policies, attacked the employment of immigrants etc.
You’re right of course - and that’s why I merely call myself a libertarian. I was merely pointing out that the terms libertarian and feminist are not mutually exclusive.
I can see many reasons why the price of land would fall, as well as reasons why the price of land would rise. For example Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac underwrote or directly supported 90% of mortgages last year - surely this would lead to lower house prices, due to lower availability of mortgages (to unsuitable candidates, but the point still stands). While of course, this itself may lead to higher levels of renting (due to the inability to get a mortgage and buy a house), I don’t think your points on uncertainty are as important as the ability to actually get a mortgage. Time preference only affects the price relations between renting and mortgage payments, so in order to have as high levels of renting as you predict, I imagine rents would have to be very low, and mortgage availability would have to be very low.
Giles, do you speak spanish ? Have you been to argentina ? The thing is, you don’t know what you’re talking about. Characterizing argentina as ‘religious’ is a joke.
Once Byzantine said that 97% of the population here was ‘white’. I later realized that he just copied and pasted a line from the CIA website. Maybe that’s how you got your information too ?
You know that saying ‘time preference’ answers nothing. So, please explain the mechanism that will make rent cheap while land is so expensive that only the ‘natural elites’ will be able to afford it.
Here’s a hint : according to you a stateless society would be characterized by lower time preference. But renting is what people with high time preference usually do…so…you’d better drop ‘time preference’ as a bogus explanation and come up with another mistaken ‘theory’…
edit: also, low time preference means lower interest rates, which in turn means credit is more affordable (despite not being subsidized by the state)
It’s about reaching a social order that we’ve yet to see, a social order that resembles one that has previously existed. Amusingly, these social orders also existed when the state was considerably smaller.
No you’re wrong, the entire purpose of political philosophy has nothing to do with tearing down anything. How very revealing however.
If you feel these social orders are oppresive, you’d best content yourself with the state.
Actually Giles’ position is patently false. Not to mention that BP must have already written hundreds of posts refuting Giles. What’s the point of proposing a debate which already exists…?