And mine, I would say.
As long as all association is free, rather than forced, I don’t care if there are unions, cooperatives etc. It’s the freedom I’d fight for.
Cooperation/voluntarism doesn’t necessarily entail leadership either.
Again, when I work for a client I’m not ‘following’ him. Look, if you go to the bakery and buy bread, you’re not ordering anyone around. The baker has freely chosen to provide you with bread in exchange for something else. You’re not directing the baker on how to do his work and you’ve not persuaded him to be a baker. There’s no ‘leadership’ in sight.
Yes, but I choose what kind of goal I will satisfy. I’m bound to do something and my client is bound to pay me. We are equally bound. I need the money as much as he needs the job done. He can’t do it himself, so I’m superior to him ? But I can’t get the money unless I do the job so he’s superior to me ? Actually seeing the situation in hierarchical terms is pointless. Or purposely misleading.
Where’s the trouble ? The thing is, revealed religions are just fantasy. And conservatism belongs to the past. Sooner or later both will be wiped out.
What’s that supposed to mean ? By definition, a free-society (not anarchy) is a society without (institutional) coercion. If you think that’s impossible to maintain, why do you bother with libertarianism ?
It also does not preclude it.
You’re also not going to buy bread just because he baked it. You’re going to buy the bread you want, at the price you want, at the quality you want. If he makes lousy bread in a manned you do not like, he’s not going to sell any. Eventually, he will go broke.
A successful entrepreneur satisfies his customers, and thus he does take his direction from knowing and meeting his customers needs.
Now he voluntarily chooses to do so, but that doesn’t change the way the relationship unfolds.
I agree. But I don’t persecute people for their beliefs.
If you truly believed that, you would not obsess over it.
Because it is the nature of some men, to challenge the impossible.
I agree, in your utopian society, no one believes in religion, no one is a conservative and there is no violence. Also the moon is made of swiss cheese, and there is a pot of gold at the end of each rainbow.
Latino is not, strictly speaking, a racial classification. I think it pertains to mixed race individuals of a particular sociocultural background. Basically just another government classification for its purposes.
If he doesn’t meet the market’s standard (so to speak), yes, he’ll go broke. However the customer doesn’t get to unilaterally dictate the price and quality of products. I can demand gold plated bread at $1 or a Rolls Royce for $1000 but won’t get them. I can scream that “the customer is king” but that won’t make any difference.
Again, I believe that the relationship between consumer and producer is rather symmetrical meaning no one gets to unilaterally set the terms of the deal. The only hierarchical relationship out there is the relationship between subjects and government.
Neither do I. There are people however who seem to believe that absent the state their church will overrun the whole world…
I believe X will ultimately disappear. It doesn’t follow that I should stop criticizing X now. After all, X hasn’t disappeared yet…
That’s a misrepresentation…I’m not saying “no one will believe in religion” - I’m saying that revealed religion can’t be a key feature of a free society. I’m not saying there won’t be violence, but that there won’t be institutional violence, and the rate of ordinary crimes surely will be lower. And given that a libertarian society can exist only if the majority of people hold a libertarian worldview conservatism will be a minority position.
It’s convenient for you to generalize without addressing my specific arguments, isn’t it?
Stop trolling and misrepresenting.
I think this sentiment is a bit naive and misleading. Noone doesn’t care about the consequences of liberty. To have a goal and yet not care about the consequences of that goal relative to other goals makes no sense. I want a just and ethical framework based on liberty as well, and the entire point is that there are certain things that are either inherently incompatible with that or not healthy traits to foster and sustain it. A society full of dogmatists and bigots simply is not a healthy framework for a free society, and won’t remain one for long. Likewise, a society based on a feudalist model simply isn’t a free society to begin with due to what a fuedalist model actually means when compared to a libertarian social theory. I also don’t think it makes sense to act as if libertarianism only implies anti-statism when anything that contradicts the social theory comes into question. This includes “private” violations of personal sovereignty. Simply slapping the label “private” next to something or making something “private” doesn’t automatically make it immune from libertarian criticism.
Different cultures will lead to different social orders,some better some worst. Sure, but believing that some human group would perish without the state is ridiculous.
It seems to me that what is necessary is a good respect for property lines, once this begins to be blurred things become problematic. Conservatism, implies of all this, in the sense of exclusivity. As opposed to the mindset of the left, in which things become less exclusie.
And you’re equivocating, I don’t mean feudalism in the sens that you are, and you know that. Nevertheless, I don’t see how renting property out somehow defies some “laws of libertarianism”.
That’s exactly what I believe… No, there will be non believers still, fewer though, don’t worry though. You’ll pay for sins sooner or later.
You mean, for example, when the state was for smaller?
Of course, lifestyles based on low time preference will definately be wiped out. Perhaps, with the help of the state, yes.
I’m joking, hedonism is definately sustainable without a state to support it…
Which property lines? “A good respect for property lines” is incredibly vague. The state currently claims property lines - should I have a “good respect” for them as a libertarian? I certainly don’t recognize the claimed property lines of a thief, and from how I understand libertarian social theory, the property lines of a fuedal landlord is the property lines of an intergenerational theif, and the peasants are the ones with just ownership (I’m also merely echoing Rothbard’s own stated position from TEOL here). So this just begs the question of the specific criteria for property rights. There is no rational reason to simply respect property lines without context. A respect for property lines without context is just authoritarian apologetics.
No it doesn’t, that is just your own assertion of bias. Conservatism, as a political philosophy, does not imply a “respect for property lines” that is consistant with libertarianism as a political philosophy. Conservatism and libertarianism are two entirely different political philosophies.
So what? All you have done is assert your preferance for more exclusivity. But the moment you imply that this is the “natural order” implied by libertarianism, you’re simply twisting libertarianism to suite your preferances.
I’m not normatively objecting to the renting of property as such. I’m normatively objecting to the inherently coercive institutionalization of this into a system of feudalism, in which a handful of landlords have arbitrary intergenerational legal privilege to a property title that is illegitimate by libertarian social theory.
I’m sorry if I didn’t make myself clear, what I meant was that conservatism (in the context of statelessness) implies far greater exclusivity than any other cultural “preference”. As such, property lines (once again, in the context of a society without a state), would be more clearly defined and respected. As opposed to the mindset of the “left” of which the mentality “what’s mine is yours” is far more indicative.
I think it’s quite clear what I mean.
No, I’'ve done nothing of the sort, rather, I’ve claimed that exclusivity implies more clearly defined property rights, perhaps not in the formal sense, but as a general understanding between members of the community. As can be witnessed in regards to the left libertarian advocacy of “common property”.
Likewise.
We’ll have to agree to disagree then.
Except there is nothing about a non-conservative perspective that implies a lack of respect for property lines. It’s just different property lines. Nothing about anything I’ve stated and nothing about left-libertarianism aschews property lines, it’s just a different view on what kind of property arrangements follow from or are compatible with libertarian social theory.
Yes, and I’ve not said that there is anything about left libertarianism that doesn’t respect property lines. Only, the left libertarian mindset is left inclined to considered them to be so exclusive, and hence, more blurred.
Indeed, it’s important to remember that the left is never wrong. They just have different ideas. A key component of leftism is a denial of the basic nature of man, and the physical realities of existence. One could say they are dreamers, except their ideology in action, usually ends up being a nightmare.
Once again, you’re simply making blanket statements without regaurd for the actual content of anyone’s ideas. Simply assuming that someone “is in denial of the basic nature of man and the physical realities of existance” because the label “left” is applied to them is illogical. You sound a lot like an Objectivist with such sweeping statements. “Leftism” in this way is just a strawman that you’ve invented to justify your prejudices.
Nothing about a general desire to see the conditions of people improve inherently means that someone is “in denial of the basic nature of man and the physical realities of existance”. This is a weak argument to justify a traditionalist bias. That’s the problem with you blanket attacks on “the left” - even the slightest desire to improve conditions is brushed off as utopian. I have to wonder why someone with such an ideology would go for libertarianism to begin with, which inherently implies a massive change from the current social order. Hence, one could just as easily make the same disingenous argument against libertarians and it would be no worse than your own argument here. “Oh, you libertarians are just rebelling against the nature of reality itself! Don’t you know that the state is the natural order?”.
One gets the impression that you’re quite the fountain of knowledge, apparently anytime you argue against something it counts as a refutation.
Next time you “respond” to me, ask yourself “Did GS actually say that?”, in this case, no I didn’t.
Only, society isn’t “flat”, without the state. And if you believe it to be so, prove it. Without the state, society would be based on private property. Which is highly inegalitarian, since if I own something, you don’t. We’re not equal. Moreover, on my property, I make the rules.
Yes, so what? Nobody has denied/ agree with what you’re saying.
No, not less hierarchy. Of a different kind. Instead of those who are most adept at using violence to attain their means rising to the “top”, those who acquire the most respect from the community, or society, do. These individuals are known as natural elites, and they are likely to run down family lines due to being highly selective in their relationships.
The fact is people like inequality and hiearchy. That’s why almost all institutions are hierarchichal, even unions.
When you think it suits you.