Hey

[Spideynw]

@Liberté

I think if you want to rape someone, and the costs and benefits are worth it (from your perspective) then you’d have to be crazy not to.

And if you were an arbitrator, and the case were brought before you, would you rule on the side of the rape victim or on the side of the rapist (given some 20 year old woman is walking down a dark alley and some stranger raped her)?

[Spideynw]

@wilderness

I’m not speaking for spideynw

Why would anyone think you were?

@wilderness

as E.R. made a good point about his position.

If one thinks misconstruing the position of another is “good”.

[twistedbydsign99]

@Liberté

I think if you want to rape someone, and the costs and benefits are worth it (from your perspective) then you’d have to be crazy not to.

There is a grain of truth in that. A person is bound to act how they feel they should, its undeniable. That doesn’t mean that they should from an objective sense.

[AuthoritarianCommerc]

@Spideynw

@Liberté

I think if you want to rape someone, and the costs and benefits are worth it (from your perspective) then you’d have to be crazy not to.

And if you were an arbitrator, and the case were brought before you, would you rule on the side of the rape victim or on the side of the rapist (given some 20 year old woman is walking down a dark alley and some stranger raped her)?

I take my own side in all conflicts.

There is a grain of truth in that. A person is bound to act how they feel they should, its undeniable. That doesn’t mean that they should from an objective sense.

There is no such thing as value outside of the subjective context. Have you people even read Mises?

[wilderness]

@Liberté

There is no such thing as value outside of the subjective context. Have you people even read Mises?

to answer your question yes.

But the false dichotomy is subjective and objective. Human action is both and neither.

Both because in the moment of the act it is objective but is also agent-relative (subjective).

Neither in terms of how philosophically confusing it is to try to define human action by always having to say it’s subjective and objective. I mean how is something both s and o? Depending on the definition of those terms by the user the paradigm of human action puts a qualified new twist on what they mean.

Also, personally, it’s too long winded when it’s much simpler to just say ‘human action’. Saves on typing as well.

[twistedbydsign99]

@Liberté

There is no such thing as value outside of the subjective context. Have you people even read Mises?

There is an external valuer of survival instincts, do you disagree? Anyone who disagreed isn’t around anymore to disagree.

[mahsah]

This is a pretty good troll. Its a shame that people around here are so eager to debate as to cause the troll be fed with extreme ease.

[Laughing_Man]

@CrazyCoot

Fascinating; now boobs please.

Can you cease with the ill manners please?

[nandnor]

@Andrew Cain

@CrazyCoot

Fascinating; now boobs please.

Can you cease with the ill manners please?

cmon dont you feel the testosterone pummeling in you, in expectation of it [;)]

[wilderness]

@nandnor

@Andrew Cain

@CrazyCoot

Fascinating; now boobs please.

Can you cease with the ill manners please?

cmon dont you feel the testosterone pummeling in you, in expectation of it

Or one could easily say with a bunch of perverts it’s a no wonder woman wouldn’t want to stick around here for long when it’s a forum not devoted to ones personal lack of sex life. But I won’t say it.[:O]

What I will say it is highly disrespectful to spam a poster with such ill mannered comments. Yes ‘spam’ because CrazyCoot didn’t do this only once and not only in one thread to the same poster.

[E_R_Olovetto]

Bump for people asking me about this thing.

[Nitroadict]

@wilderness

What I will say it is highly disrespectful to spam a poster with such ill mannered comments. Yes ‘spam’ because CrazyCoot didn’t do this only once and not only in one thread to the same poster.

I had assumed another mod would take care of this, but I guess the thread got buried by inactivity, so… Fixed.

[BrianAnderson]

that is I sound like a Nazi to libertarians

Story of my life.

[PinoyLiberal08]

I just discovered this post and think of Liberte’s philosophy to be very interesting. However, there are important questions that have not been addressed:

1. We live in a world wherein the a lot of the most powerful are war profiteers, democratic demagogues, and killers. Knowing this, how is this aristocracy of knowledge supposed to come about. Who will they be? It seems to me that we need market anarchism and the corresponding increased certainty in the rule of law for evil parasites to be weeded out. Or do you think of high-powered politicians differently from how I see them? Which is that they are useless megalomaniacal assclowns.

2. You have said that your system would have the natural elites enforcing a dominant culture on the rest of society so as to prevent it from developing ‘democratic’ sentiment and birthing a new state. Are you saying that natural elites should use propaganda on the masses? It sounds like you are against a free market in ideas, against free speech. How would the natural elites even enforce this culture especially with the existence of the internet?

3. Your system sounds a lot like something Hans Hoppe would advocate, except that you try to portray the natural elites as independent from the ‘masses’ of people, which I think is fallacious since the only way one becomes a natural elite is to be voluntarily acknowledged by the many.

4. You mentioned the Catholic Church. What is your view on it and what is your view about religion in general? I ask this because you seem to add a cultural dimension to your ‘libertarianism’. I myself believe that some force independent from the market is required for the preservation of a free society. If we are to be completely rational (in the strict Randian sense) then the existence of the state itself becomes a market failure because it is more profitable to gain through coercion. It would help a lot of you expound on your views about culture.