No because I have never stated that I am a deontological libertarian. I am a consequentialist libertarian which means I am interested in libertarianism as a way of organizing humans at a macroscopic scale. I do not look at libertarianism as something that applies on an individual scale.
"I’m operating on the assumption that others share the same goal, and that at least some ppl are willing to recognize what is right and live by it. Debating is a cooperative activity and it involves give and take.
I’m not sure where you’re trying to go with all this"
Well you have a confusing argument. You don’t want people who are net tax-consumers to be able to use things like public roads but then go onto say that you just apply your principles to yourself. Is libertarianism an individual journey for you or do you find the need to convince others of its morality?
Just for the record, and with no intention of derailing anything: My teeth fell off repeatedly agreeing to the consesus definition (for the sake of the discussion), while most counter-arguments comprised of repeating how we must agree on definitions in order to have a constructive discussion.
Btw, you’ve started using “we” quite often recently – for a (methodological) individualist, that is.
Z.
Remarkably, you’re right. This is what I am getting at. I am not for welfare, but I don’t take welfare just the same.
You are for welfare, and don’t have a problem with anyone taking it. Consistent.
These people who say welfare is bad or wrong, or Caley justifying his welfare as barely hurting people (while acknowledging it does come from someone else) is all just contradiction. If you want to be a libertarian, then be a libertarian. If you wanna be something else, be that. Be great at whatever you are, even if I personally don’t prefer your choices. But be sincere.
So you reject methodological individualism then?
Right, so once you adopted the language everyone else was using, there no longer was the conflict which originally concerned you. Perfect.
I’m not sure you understand what methodological individualism is.
Firstly, I haven’t committed any crime. You just put your own spin on what “being a libertarian” means. Don’t ever use a road again if bothers you so much. It’s more like I’m the one here not self-fooling. I’m not cherry picking what is okay. Secondly, it isn’t hurting anyone at all- nobody that doesn’t ask for it, that is. What was done to me, on the other hand, did hurt me very much. If anything, I always gave people in general more respect than they deserve.
That depends which law we’re using, doesn’t it?
Not at all. You tell me what libertarian means. Please do.
No.
Nope. As I also repeatedly pointed out, the “definiton issue” was a red herring. It had no bearing on the validity of my argument.
I’m not sure if you are lumping me into “these people” but I have never made a statement of bad or wrong. As I have stated before I am a moral nihilist which means I don’t believe that anything is good/bad or right/wrong, there are only consequences to actions.
There is one set of actions I partake in which is accepting handouts from the state and exploiting the system to maximize that. There is another set of actions I partake in which is promoting anarcho-capitalism, libertarianism, anything else that reduces the size of the state. I do not believe that the consequences of the first will negatively impact my attempts at the second. I believe that I can accept handouts from the state without hurting my arguments against the state. In fact, often times they help my arguments because it is an example of how easy it is to game the system.
I do not reject it. I’m assuming based on your question that you feel the above quoted text is in opposition to methodological individualism but I don’t see the connection.
Take the scholarship, just take the scholarship. Please, take the scholarship!
First of all, this is all a major deviation from the core topic.
Second: well I said I was more interested in recognizing correct principles and living by them then I am in changing others, I never said I wasn’t interested in changing others.
Third: If my goal is to change others, it just does not follow that enforcement is the only means of doing so. By and large, Adherence to any legal or moral system depends on that system having legitimacy in the minds of the public, so changing ppl’s ideas of justice is more important fundamentally than the enforcement of justice.
Forth: my environment and I are not independent of each other. Personal growth and changing the world go hand in hand. Both are means toward the other. It is of course much easier to focus on changing oneself, first.
Next: even if a principle does not apply to me directly, knowing that it is there changes my incentive structure so that I avoid being in a position were it would apply to me. However, even if there were no chance that it ever would ever apply to me, it is still to my advantage to put it out there and have it challenged, because if I am wrong about it, it means there is a flaw in my reasoning, and I have to reevaluate the principles which form the structure of my moral worldview.
Lastly: It is an individual journey and I also feel the need to convince others of its morality. But the personal growth is definately the more important one at this point in my life. Before I try to pursuade anyone of anything, I had better be damn sure of it myself. But the two are not mutually exclusive ends and engaging in argument is a productive way of achieving both simultaneously.
I hope that clears things up.
Your argument was a non-argument when the appropriate definitions were applied. That’s why the conversation died.
You basically said you reject individualism and favor macro social planning.
I presume you are referring to my statement, “a way of organizing humans”? If so I would like to note that I did not say forced or planned organization. Spontaneous organizanization is a valid form of organization. The human body isn’t planned by the cells that make it up, yet we still can define the human body and address it as a whole in many situations. A political system or “society” doesn’t have to be planned by the humans that make it up and even if it’s not planned we can define it and address it as a whole. Anarcho-capitalism is a potential political system that could organize spontaneousy and we often will talk about it here as a whole rather than as a collection of parts even though it only comes about due to the actions of the individuals who make it up.
I disagree. I accepted your definition halfway through the first page of the thread. It’s a four page thread, as of now.
It’s not like if you don’t take it they are going to give it back to the tax payers, they will just spend it somewhere else.
This. Moreover, you will be taxed far in excess of it. I wouldn’t advocate dependence on the government, but stripping as much of “its” funds out of its possession as possible is a good idea. There’s two things to factor in here:
i) The money -will- be taken from you at some point or other when you work, or even from your parents (reducing your inheritance, say.)
ii) Its previous owners will often be indeterminate if not impossible to trace back.
You therefore certainly have the right to at least get back as much as was stolen from you.
BTW consequentialism is as much a moral system as deontology. Neither comport with moral nihilism. Only epistemologically rooted moral arguments do.
After learning of the difference between consequentialist libertarianism and deontological libertarianism I feel I can safely say that the NAP is a requirement of deontological libertarianism but it is not a requirement of consequentialist libertarianism.
Interestingly enough, rule utilitarianism can support the NAP. Were pure consequentialism not ridden with other problems, I’d give it more attention. I consider both it and deontology a false divide and a waste of time.
What are those problems?
Could you elaborate?