The word prejudice refers to a judgement made without information or evidence, so yes, prejudice is inherently irrational.
A stereotype is a collective exaggeration that overgeneralizes a group based on an empirical root that might be true. So what? Sometimes there is a grain of truth to some prejudices, but it doesn’t justify the prejudice, only the grain of truth, which applies to specific individuals in the group rather than the entire group by definition. So it is simply irrational to believe in blown up collective identities in any instrinsicist sense. Correlation does not equal causation, so it doesn’t necessarily follow from a stereotype based on a correlation that the trait is intrinsic to the group.
This is the point at which racist and classist theories simply fail. It doesn’t matter how much correlatative scientific or statistical data you have collected, it does not prove your prejudice and it is a misuse of science to try to use it in that way, it reduces to confirmation bias. All you can prove are some general trends based on incomplete data with uncertainty as to what the specific causes are. And sometimes the individuals in a given group and the environmental factors involved are diverse to the point where proposing any absolute or generalization of that sort is simply false.
Where is our web ring? Where are our alliance of the libertarian right websites? Who in the mainstream of libertarianism identifies as right? Lew Rockwell? Hans Hoppe? There are a lot of folks like Long and Carson who identify left. Where are the rightists?
The reality is, it’s the left which is obsessed with labels, and trying to differentiate libertarianism based upon sects, such that non-libertarian, and incompatible ideas can thrive. This is the oldest tactic for subversion in the book.
The argument against the state is not utilitarian or value driven. It is rational.
I implied no such thing. Feminism, like male chauvinism, is collectivist. There is nothing libertarian about feminism.
How so? You don’t even know what my values are. Not to mention, I have made clear many times that I have no desire to reveal or impose my values on anyone. Where you seek justice (your subjective definition of what is just) and liberty, I am content with liberty and property, and the justice will sort itself out as long as those are preserved.
That’s really the meat of the dispute. You want to add to liberty, but still declare it inherent to libertarianism so that your value judgments can benefit from the credibility of the liberty ideal. And again, none of this is new. It’s been done before. I think that’s why it appeals so much to young people, who might not have had an opportunity to look at the bigger historical picture, and how movements get subverted and undermined.
Interesting. I had recently begun to think similarar thoughts regarding the emerging divisions, specifically the very real possibility that the Statists themselves barley have to lift a finger in order to discredit anti-statists, possibly due to the massive in-fighting, as the debates and/or disputes on these forums are evident of.
Such a thought certainly doesn’t ease my cynicism, though.
this concept of owning land without also having the means to actually defend it against attack comes from the legal structure of the state. the state is one giant bully, to make all the smaller would be bullies simmer down. In the modern world we live in, the only people who actually own land are nuclear powers. everyone else is a renter.
most libertarian utopias are simply a rollback to the city state method of government. what reason do we have to believe that the city state won’t eventually turn into social democracies as it did the first time around? well, the most obvious difference is technology. But will technological progress prevent collectivism from taking hold? I doubt it.
There are a LOT of people who claim to be libertarian, and yet to claim to be totally different in ideology than other libertarians.
It’s very annoying. Like the anarchists who claim they are for socialism with the NAP. I mean…
I dislike socialism because it offends my values. It always ends up in authoritarianism and democracy (inconsistent and unprincipled mob control of property rights). It usually ends up with a lot of people dead.
It’s no mistake that as the west has become increasingly democratic and socialistic it has become increasingly dangerous. Regimes like those in Africa and Asia have nothing on the destruction and murder America can provide anywhere in the world on 24 hours notice (without nukes).
But the beauty of Mises and Austrian economics, is that it provides a rationale for why socialism is unworkable. So it’s not just a case of not being implemented properly, but the entire notion of anti-capitalism is badly flawed.
I wonder why, when you searched on dictionary.com and posted the answer you didn’t include the following: any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.
Give me a break. Your attempt to just pretend that there is no such thing as libertarian-conservative fusionism and libertarians who openly identify as right is outright disingenous. Yes, Lew Rockwell and Hans Hoppe are just two out of many examples. Ron Paul is the most popular example. Most of the minarchist segment of libertarianism identifies more with the political right by default to begin with. Your attempt to outright deny this is silly.
It’s amusing how you just assert your prejudices like this, asserting an institutional monopoly on libertariansm that excludes anything that deviates from the party line as incompatable, and then claim you’re neutral to the left/right distinction. That’s disingenous and orwellan on your part here.
That side-steps the point, which is that the elimination of the state is a goal, that the desire to eliminate the state implies that one does not favor the condition that is that state. Your nitpicky arguments are always side-tracking from the point.
Sorry, these blanket statements fail when it comes to the subtleys of specific people’s ideas. Not all feminists are collectivists. The same disingenous argument could be made against any “ism”.
That’s a ridiculous argument. A comprehensive libertarian concept of liberty is a concept of justice. Denying that you have a concept of justice is simply deceptive, a mere value-free mask.
Your implication that me and others are merely subverters is ridiculous. You’re an intellectually dishonest piece of shit.
Indeed it is. For instance, there are people who barefacedly claim that libertarianism is conservatism and feudalism. Up is down and war is peace.
As to socialism with the NAP, while it may not work even in a very small scale, at least it’s not an idea as absurd as equating conservatism, the historical arch-enemy of freedom, with the freedom movement itself.
It not only doesn’t work on a small scale, it doesn’t make any rational sense.
BP will insist there can be different interpretations of property rights, different systems, but that doesn’t change that property is what it is. You can have your own opinion, but not your own facts. Property is what it is, and within that, we try to deal with it in the most rational manner. Just because a bunch of people band together and decide to create a system, be it Christianity or Marxism, doesn’t change the fundamentals of the universe.
Why don’t you argue that then? That’s far more interesting than your strawmen and trolling.
Ah yes, the subtlety. I’m wrong, because there are subtle nuances only you can perceive. That’s truly classic. I wonder how you developed this style of argumentation. Are people on YouTube really that retarded?
Feminism by definition is collectivism along gender lines. To argue otherwise is pretty embarassing for you.
Can you source the following for me? One where Ron Paul claims to be a libertarian, and two where Hoppe and Rockwell claim to be right libertarian.
Otherwise, you’re just posting more projections of your right-left paranoia.
No argument there. Still, a bunch of people can buy/homestead a plot of land and set up a commune on “egalitarian terms” whatever that may mean.
The thing is, if anarcho conservatives believe that people will freely choose some kind of neo-feudalism, then anarcho commies can believe that people will freely choose a highly inefficient economic system. Personally, I doubt that the majority of people will choose these fringe options. But of course my forecasting of people’s preferences may be totally wrong.
Giles pulls your strings. And you love to cry monarchist at someone.
People can do whatever they want. I am totally for that. They can be Calvinist fanatics or communist artisans. If Giles insists that Byzantine address him as Duke and likewise Byzantine wants to be an Earl, and they walk around with scepters and crowns on their head like they escaped an SCA meeting, then more power to them.
Women are a historically oppressed group, and continue to be in many places. It makes sense for a group undergoing a similar phenomenon to have a common cause to unite in. So it’s misleading to paint feminism as collectivist, as much as it is misleading to paint any group with a common cause as such. Their means tend to be collectivist, but that’s just a sign of intellectual confusion.
Since I’m getting the impression that some people mix things too much, I’ll say this: libertarianism is a goal, anarchism is a means of achieving that goal, although they overlap a lot. Let’s have a simple example. Libertarianism may imply that eating pizza is a negative right that should always be there (not that someone should enforce them), while anarchism simply allows the possibility (and to some extent the probability) of protecting that right. So libertarianism is an ideal, not a mechanism.
If I got it right, BP might be talking about such ideals and principles and the others dismiss him as being an egalitarianist, believing he wants to enforce that equality in rights somehow. It may be an unintentional straw man from their part.