‘Libertarianism isn’t a philosophy of life…Libertarianism asks one question ‘What should the law be?’ and gives one answer ‘The Non-aggression principle and its implications’’ - Walter Block.
I think that quote is a fantastic outlook on the basic philosophy of libertarianism.
Good non-answer.
I don’t think there is ‘living-libertarianism’ that is what I meant by providing the Block quote which states that it is not a philosophy of life.
Oh, I see. So the NAP is just an abstraction and not an ethical system.
The NAP deals with a small portion of ethics. It just tells you to keep your hands to yourself. It doesn’t imply that you can’t burn books, be a hater, always be nice to your grandma or something like that.
I have only been aware of the specific labels since I found myself among Ron Paul supporters debating the meaning of terminologies. Prior to that, terms like libertarianism, capitalism, anarcho-capitalism, or austrian economics had no meaning to me.
Beyond my previous reply I don’t know how to answer your question concisely because I have never studied what it means to be a libertarian or what it means to believe in austrian economics. For instance I have studied the federal reserve and monetary policy for years holding libertarian positions based on my own conclusions, while at the same being oblivious to libertarianism. When Ron Paul came along I did not question what he was saying, I firmly believed it. For me it was more like I can’t believe there is a politician running for president that is advocating repealing legal tender law and abolishing most of the federal government.
I don’t believe the way I think and form conclusions has ever changed. I have come to learn since the Ron Paul campaign the way I think and resulting conclusions have labels. Those labels include terms like libertarianism, capitalism, and austrian economics.
I hope this adequately answers your question.
Many choices I have made in life do in fact answer the question(What should the law be). I do not base my decisions exclusively on what the law is. I have made several decisions in life that run afoul with a law and endured the adverse consequences.
This same tired old crap again. Being nice to grandma is not ethics. Burning books is not an issue of ethics.
I’m done before this thread goes off track like so many others.
Ethics is a systematization of moral codes. Morality can deal with: Is being nice to your grandmother good or bad? Whether you are good or bad to your grandmother is irrelevant to libertarianism. Libertarianism doesn’t say ‘Don’t smoke’ or ‘Don’t do drugs’ or ‘Be nice to people’.
Since you are new to libertarianism, here are some good lectures:
Plumbline Libertarianism by Walter Block
Introduction to Libertarianism I by Walter Block
Introduction to Libertarianism II by Walter Block
An Informal Talk on Anarchism by Roderick Long
5 Ways the Government Grows and What the Mises Institute is Doing About it by Lew Rockwell
How States Fall and Liberty Triumphs by Lew Rockwell
The Myth of US Government Benevolence by Joseph Stromberg
Murray Rothbard’s View on the Warfare State by Joseph Stromberg
Philosophy and Violence by David Gordon
There is also the audio book of Murray Rothbard’s For a New Liberty which can be found here.
You’re sounding like a thin libertarian! [:P]
I respectfully disagree Laughing Man, in that those things you mentioned are outside of Libertarianism (yes), but are not a part of morality (so thats my no there)
Yes, I think I found a nice middle ground. I’m still against racism, sexism, etc but I see it as something more personal issue and not necessary for others to follow.
Well the definition of morality is defined as a code of conduct. Now that code can either be moral [ good ] or immoral [ bad ]. So how you treat certain people or what actions your are allowed to commit is something I would consider to be a code.
Excellent!
well morality has multiple definitions, one of them is code of conduct i grant you. so maybe we can agree if we are using that qualification and saying that morality does not equal ethics. (when we use that definition) .
its sticky since moralities other definitions pretty much map to ethics.
our language is weird…
Too bad. Next, you’ll be preaching the wonders of amoralism…
i personally doubt that he will.
regardless; play nice, juan… [H]
Oh don’t be so harsh Juan. There are many cases in history where a good premise was taken into immoral practice. I’m against racism, I just don’t think we can or should force people to be non-racist. I’m still for persuasion, just I want to be the one to do it and don’t want to be an agent for an organization because then I am lost in a sea of collective voice.
Well I think the traditional interpretation of ethics makes it interchangable with morality. I think that ethics was just the ‘scientification’ of it through systemic reason.