I already told you that your prediction of the future is totally irrelevant
Well it’s good we reached this point then, because while you might find value in neurotically policing the forum against Calvinists or arguing forever in favour of theoretical utopias that defy the nature of man and the capacity to reason, I do not.
Ciao.
Oh I’m so glad that a great thinker like you schooled me on the nature of man. Too bad you won’t be enlightening me anymore. Well, I guess the natural elites can’t waste their precious time with the unwashed masses. It’s a pity but I realize it’s the ‘natural’ god ordained order of society.
ps: I do realize that my position defies your capacity to reason…
Every single time that there has been hope for a libertarian society in the world, the “unwashed masses” have been seduced by thugs and tyrants to overthrow it. I don’t see how you can possibly see much hope in the masses an their ability to critically reason, every single time one Caesar has been deposed they proceed to raise another one.
If you believe ‘the masses’ are hopeless, then you should reconsider libertarianism, because libertarianism is only possible IF the masses act in a way consistent with individuals rights. So let’s forget for a sec whether this is utopian or not. The point is that for the system to work people must have a given set of beliefs, if they don’t it won’t work.
Basically, if the masses are morally and/or intellectually flawed (as some of the enlightened people on this board seem to believe) then libertarianism is not possible.
Not sure whether this description fits all of them. Some certainly acted as mercantilist agents, others probably did believe in genuine individual liberty.
But it wasn’t just politicians who supported slavery at the time. I’m quite sure that even among the general population who did not have that big a stake in upholding slavery, a good number found nothing wrong with rights for “freemen” only.
It is an objective fact that the feeling of “love” is just a weird accumulation of chemical elements, hormones and genetic preferences. It’s a real shame that so many people waste their children’s time making them read poems and stories about this boring baloney and indoctrinating them with a false sense of desire for this confusing state of mind.
It is an objective fact that cartoons do not represent reality. It’s a real shame that so many people let their kids be indoctrinated by this disturbing amalgamation of violence, sex and fantasy.
It is an objective fact that parents are nothing more than means to an end for a child to enter the world. How outrageous that by raising them in a loving and caring fashion, they create emotional bindings that may influence a child’s behavior and even fundamental decisions regarding its future.
Your presumptions of objectivity already begin to crumble when the nature and origin of rights is defined:
Who actually has rights? Humans? Why only humans? Because humans are rational animals and thus able to recognize the nature of rights? What about mentally handicapped humans who cannot do so?
What if animals are capable of recognizing rights, but unable to communicate with us? Do Chinese people have no rights just because I don’t speak Chinese? But animals kill each other for some base motives all the time you say? I don’t know, but all those human wars raging at the moment, in addition to those that have already been fought, do not really testify to the rationality of man.
I’m eager to study your objective philosophy. I’ll begin with how you solve the miracle of the origins of rights above.
The existence of a monopoly on violence facilitates such endeavors quite enormously. I’d be surprised if you could name me one example of mass genocide in the history of man that did not involve the use of the state.
Fortunately, the last time I checked, both of us advocated the abolition of this monopoly. Right?
Here, let me give you another one:
“The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them; the weak would become a prey to the strong.”
That was Thomas Paine for you. I know, I know, quite the 18st century gun lobbyist, but still.
If the masses act in a way consistent with individual rights, then libertarianism shall be established. Now believing that libertarianism is right and believing that we will win are too entirely different beliefs. Personally, I believe libertarianism can win, but even if I was pessimistic about that point I’d still be a libertarian.
I don’t think that I put words in LS’ mouth. I was acting in good faith. If I was wrong about what he meant and then he changed his tune, I don’t know what to do about that. Just doing my best.
Natural elites in the sense Mencken used it? Would men gain influence by serving consumer tastes that would allow him to be vaguely elite? Why not? I don’t see why it’s conservative. Libertarianism does rely on individual moral judgment. True enough. But are you contending that individuals would never come together to create rules or would never rely on each other? That sounds Stirnerite to me. I would disagree. But if that’s not what you mean I don’t understand your point. If people come together to share their hypothesis about the afterlife or to make rules as part of contractual usage of tennis courts or whatever fine. I don’t care. None of my business. Now it’s your hypothesis that religion is a crackpot idea and therefore sharing your crackpot idea with your children is child abuse. I’m not sure if I agree with your premise, but assuming I did, let’s make analogy. Now everyone, or almost everyone, on here believes that as US Presidents, sorry to be americentric, Lincoln and FDR were horrible. But most others believe otherwise. It is, as we see it, an obvious fact that FDR did not fix the depression or perform any of the other miracles accredited to him. Should we have the right to aggress against the vast majority of people who believe in the Civic Religion of FDR/Lincoln because we disagree with their views, which are in fact baseless? Would are aggression be proper retaliation for them abusing their children by feeding them bull?
Yeah. Great heroes like, say, jefferson believed in liberty…for whites only. Now, the fact that X is an hypocritical criminal who babbles about “inalienable rights” and then violates them doesn’t mean that such rights don’t exist.
So. What. You named the ‘founding fathers’ and got your answer. There were more people who liked slavery. So. What. A lot of people believed the earth was flat. Maybe the earth was really flat because some people sucked at natural science ?
Blah Blah blah. Prove that revealed religions are not a bunch of lies, otherwise remain silent.
There are lots of refutations of moral relativism. I suggest you do some googling.
What if pigs fly but we never saw a flying pig ?
Fine. Do it. I’m eager to get rid of your self-refuting relativism.
Your point ? If there’s no moral compass and (some) people fund PDAs based on their amoral whims then we’ll be dealing with ‘private’ states.
I love Thomas Paine. Do you know what “The Age of Reason” is ? Btw, that american thing about people being armed was meant to check goverment. You tell me how well that worked ?
You have been acting in good faith but I doubt LS has.
Yes and I appreciate it. That line wasn’t directed against you =]
I don’t know how Mencken used the term. But when I say ‘natural elites’ I’m not referring to successful entrepreneurs. I’m referring to political ‘natural’ elites. People who think they have figured out the mysteries of the universe because they read the ‘answers’ in some ‘holy’ book.
Great – that’s interesting. But what has that got to do with organized revealed religion ? Answer : nothing.
I said revealed religion is a crackpot idea and I’ll add that a lot of times it’s a totalitarian political tool too. And yes, lying to rational beings is ab-use.
I fail to see the relevance of your analogy. Did I advocate the use of force against ‘believers’ ? Of course not. And please notice that it’s rather common for ‘believers’ to use force against dissenters.
Did I ever say it was ? Did I ever advocate coercion against people who brainwash ‘their’ children ? I’m just talking to the wise grown ups here, who believe they have everything figured out…
Juan, I find this all quite amusing. You claim that in order to keep a “free society” alive, people need to accept a “moral compass” - your moral compass, if I may add -, otherwise we’d be dealing with ‘private states’ and anarchic havoc? On the other hand, you’re accusing LibertyStudent of being elitist for his entrepreneurial approach to liberty, even though he’s advocating a purely bottom-up, grassroots strategy: showing people the quality of an idea by satisfying their demands with it.
It all reminds me of communists who claim that their idea is “objectively” and “scientifically” good, but not enforceable due to the failure of mankind to “really embrace it”. How pharisaic is that?
You didn’t refute my point about the nature of rights either. “Go read my stuff” is a bad excuse for “I cling to my philosophy, but don’t have an answer to your request right now”.
Finally, if a libertarian society lacks aggression per definition, then it’s a pipe dream, period. You’re advocating the elusive city upon a hill that will never exist and only serves to make you feel right. Even worse, you attack anyone who wants to work within the real-world framework of imperfect human nature for refusing to believe in your “objective” code of law.
Is “liberty in our lifetime” a goal for you? If yes, stop the ivory tower thing and show Joe Sixpack the benefits of freedom without forcing him to read Rothbard’s collected essays.
This is off the current topic, but
I just read:
Natural Elites, Intellectuals and the State, and
The Private Production of Defence
And thought they were excellent, except the unnecessary extreme racist comments.
My guess is you’ve never actually read anything that is actually extremely racist…
Yeah. People need to respect individual rights. Are you saying that’s something I came up with ? My arbitrary deluded preference which I want to force upon others ? Come on.
The only point you made is that some people failed to understand the nature of rights, or rather were hypocrites who practiced “do as I say don’t do as I do”. Gotta love libertarian slaveholders…
I said lacks institutionalized/systematic aggression. I repeated it a few times, but that won’t stop dishonest people from pretending I said something I didn’t say. It’s called, I think, strawman. One of LS favorite words, go figure…
ps : Have you looked up “The Age of Reason” by one Thomas Paine ? Also, did Paine believe in natural rights ?
Actually Juan, you did not say systemic. Someone else did. You said institutionalized. There is a difference between systemic and institutionalized.
Of course, you’ll continue to pretend they mean the same thing to score points.
Strawmen et tu?
Oh LS you are tedious. I didn’t say systemic, I said systematic :
Please see my posts at
Jan 29 2009 3:23 PM (I used the word systematic)
Jan 29 2009 4:34 PM (I used the word institutionalized)
and I summarized (again) the exchange at Jan 30 2009 2:44 PM
And Nerditarian and Jon and even Giles did I acknowledge that if aggression is institutionalized/systematic in society X then society X is not a libertarian society. Which, frankly, is almost self-evident since it follows from the definition.
Systematic : having, showing, or involving a system, method, or plan.
Yes, I was using institutionalized and systematic to mean the same thing. Maybe you can complain about my usage of words not being optimal. I think that my point was clear enough though and you are just pretending I said something I didn’t say.
I didn’t say that a free society will lack random aggression. What it will lack is organized crime be it public or private. And you and other fellow conservatives regard that as a pipe dream because you seem to believe that the masses can’t respect individual rights. Oh, and individual rights are just an arbitrary whim of mine, btw.
to everyone
can we just draw a line from
- statist society
to
2)minarchy,
to
3)immature anarchy with occasional bouts of PDA recklessness
to
4)anarchy wherein institutions exhibit no systematic coercion
and just say that the 3 is more likely than 4 in the early days but its a question of maturity. and you are just arguing about how mature your ‘realistic’ libertyland happens to be.
i may have missed the point on this though.
edited on Juan’s advice
You prolly meant 3 is more likely than 2 ? Also you used ‘3’ twice =]
- is imposible and 3) is more likely than 4) in the early days. Is that what you meant ?
pretty much.
minarchy is no more impossible than a bigarchy (1).