Very interesting. So you are saying that without having been exposed to Mises, or Rothbard, or really any libertarian or Austrian economist, you arrived, on your own, to the conclusion that government is a parasite and society would be better off without it and that it is OK to do anything so long as one is not harming another without the other’s consent?
I am not doubting you. Just clarifying.
For political liberty, and also for tolerance? Who could hold such a terrible philosophy ?
By the way, due to your recent post, I’m currently reading The Development of Economic Doctrine, with The Socialist Tradition on order.
Yes but only in areas of personal interest I have taken the time to study. I could cite several real world examples of people asserting some kind of authority over me I did not appreciate and the reasons I came to libertarian positions without actually studying Mises or Rothbard.
Interaction with extremely knowledgeable Ron Paul supporters and exposure to writings from organizations like Mises has greatly broadened my views in other areas that I did not know much about prior to the Ron Paul campaign.
Well let me address this point first. Both fantastic books. Development is a much broader history of economics and even includes the Austrians. The Socialist Tradition will probably make you laugh out loud with some of the witty humor Gray gives on some of these socialists. I like his critique of Mably, Babeuf and Fourier. So I would say pay particular attention to those, especially Malby’s ideas for awarding hard work in a socialist society with ribbons. Hilarious. He is extremely harsh on Marx and no one is more deserving of it. Both wonderful works and I wish you happy reading.
Well as you may know libertarianism involves the NAP, which I am for wholeheartedly. Like I was saying before in this post, libertarianism just tells you to keep your hands to yourself. It doesn’t tell you to not be a racist or to be a racist. I am against racism & sexism and about a month ago [ I think ] I wrote a topic about how I think cybernetics could result in an egalitarian society in which anyone could be anything they wanted [ the topic is called " Cybernetic Brains and the March toward Egalitarianism if you are interested in seeing it ] , therefore diversification would be so diffuse that people would stop prima facia stereotypes about gender and race. It got some response, mostly bad but some good. But anyways I listened to a lecture by Ralph Raico called ‘The humanitarian with the atom bomb’ [ a very good lecture and I would recommend it ] and I realized that many movements in the past mutated into oppressive organizations that used force. I realized that this should be something personal that I can control. I don’t want to force people to be anti-racist or anti-sexist. I think a libertarian society would function better if people were. I would obviously be contradicting my goals if I forced people to do such a thing. What I want to do is persuade why its not in people’s interests through moral or economic arguments or both.
Good enough for me. Did you like any of the lecture links I presented? Walter Block is a bit radical so at first it may seem bizarre but just give it time to sink in. If you listen to him, I would suggest taking a break in between or after to actually digest what he is saying. He is shocking yet very sound on theory. At first I wasn’t rather fond of him. He was too crude for my tastes but when you start listening to him, it is rather interesting.
I listened to your first link and I found it very dry. My mind was drifting and found it hard to focus my attention on the lecture especially during the second half of it. An hour to primarily cover two topics with a few points. I think I would rather read a long bullet point list of what libertarianism is. Something that reads like the previous libertarian party platform. It just goes right down the list and if I have any questions about a specific issue I am not fully understanding I can research more about that specific thing.
Right. A philosophy based on individualism has nothing to say about grossly stupid forms of collectivism…
Any more brilliant insights ?
You can be a collectivist and a libertarian. It is obviously harder to do because you often run into contradiction from time to time but possible none the less.
Ok, I will sum it up for you. Short and sweet.
The Non-aggression principle, private property and its application to all spheres. You can do anything so long as your not threatening people with violence or committing violence against them.
Please define threatening.
Since this is my welcome thread I might as well add a little humor to it [:D]
Did you ever see my you tube reply to Alan Grayson? (1:23 minutes long)
Link just in case the insert media button doesn’t work as intended:
LOL
‘Give me your watch or I will plug you’
Or
Pointing a weapon towards an individual.
w00t! The more the merrier! [:D]
This is how I got to it. I always followed the “Golden Rule”. Libertarianism, when I bumped into it, just made me consider being more consistent in every single aspect of my life and how I view the rest of the world. I had always had a distrust for policemen and politicians.