I don’t think so.
I don’t think so either.
Credit where it is due.
You usually strawman a lot.
I like Danny Shahar’s conception of libertarianism as “a philosophy of mutual respect, self-determination, and decentralization.”
Danny Shahar supports property rights violations via lifeboat scenarios. In that regard, his libertarian “property rights” voodoo is incredibly weak IMO.
Also, it sounds as if Danny believes that libertarianism needs to go back to the drawing board…and he is in charge of redesigning it…
Funny this, two people whose knowledge concerning political philosophy doesn’t come close to that of Danny’s speaking as if he’s clueless.
Lifeboat scenarios was probably the most insightful chapter in the Ethics of Liberty.
One of the things I’ve come to appreciate from reading his blog is that an absolutist conception of rights conflicts with commonsense morality.
See, e.g. this post.
I think he is pretty thoroughly and roundly refuted in the Sterba thread for having those positions. You might want to read it as a critique of his position.
Lifeboat scenarios are diversion and mostly a waste of time. Some ‘intellectuals’ might find them entertaining, but lifeboat scenarios are not important when discussing what’s right and wrong in everyday life as opposed to what to do when the Titanic is sinking.
I have a strange interest in unrepeatable events or circumstances.
Fine. But they are not relevant to moral theory.
I didn’t write that! Calumny!
Sorry, my mistake. For some reason I put ‘Sage’ instead of ‘Laughing Man’ in the user=“…” tag. Fixed now.
If people want rules, tradition, community - geez those stinkin’ people who want a community…lol Surely you didn’t really mean that? Darn the neighborhoods…lol
If they want those events and are not coercing people into those events, then you’re arguing morals and values and not focusing on the NAP.
Focusing on the NAP would really help on libertarian issues and not what you personally desire other people to like or dislike Juan.
I don’t think you’re addressing what is being discussed.
I think I did.
No.
I can understand why people make lifeboat scenarios up. It’s not easy reconciling the consequences of strict interpretation of rights. So people water them down a little, one day it’s stealing the dog I keep locked up, the next day it’s taking my boat to rescue a drowning swimmer. But they fundamentally undermine the argument against the state, and that is that aggression against person or property is never justified.
If we can justify aggression against person and property, then we can justify the state. And when we can justify the state, then libertarianism becomes meaningless.
I know Danny’s position feels good. It isn’t however consistent libertarianism. IIRC, I read on another forum he may have invented a new name for his particular positions on rights. It’s probably mentioned somewhere on his blog.
Still, if you’re hung up on lifeboats, read the Sterba thread I linked to. Several good arguments from different people.