Yes. Here’s a whole lot of rope for all that straw you must keep in that yard of yours. Call it charity. I feel…hmmm… empathetic.
Use it yourself. You need it.
I’m fed up with the conservative game. Conservatives are control freaks who believe that people must do what their religious delusions dictate is right. You see, conservatives hear voices in their heads, aka god, and thus they know what is right and wrong. They have a direct line to god - they can’t be wrong.
Now, some conservatives here pay some lip service to the NAP, but not really since after all, you have only the rights you can pay for.
At any rate, I was replying to marquise who apparently realizes that the kind of thing that some people here advocate is not really libertarianism, but reactionary conservatism with a NAP sticker pasted on it. But the sticker is not likely to stick for long.
So you can play the NAP game yourself all you want, and try to lecture me. I’m likely to simply ignore you. Your comments in this topic to me are as valuable as your comments on physics…
Ah, no. I posted something, and then you said it had nothing to do with this thread. Juan… you need some serious help. Your lack of reasoning power is off-track. And if you can’t come up with something intellectual then I might just go ahead and assume you’re trying to intentionally kill the quality in here.
Get out of their head Juan. Seriously.
Rights you can pay for? Until somebody here says this, other than hearsay, then I’ll go for it. I’ll need a lot more context than this. Cause perspective on the same events can twist diverse interpretations.
Well, that’s why I said stick to the NAP. You falling prey to moral value arguments isn’t going to help your stance. Whether you try to or not, you come off as trying to control people’s moral values. I admit it’s a fine line, but battling morals and values being the virtuous stance it is can also appear, if gone too far, controlling. If you don’t like it, fine, I really don’t think anything is wrong with protesting, but if they want to do something on their property that you don’t agree with then so be it. But I thought somebody that understood natural rights would understand this. I really have more important events to focus upon than this tedious cat and mouse game of yours.
Ok go on arguing against others morals and values.
As to the physics comment, wow! Here’s some more rope…lol Copernicus, you might learn from him, he really revolutionized science, he really did Juan. But since you don’t believe that why do I even bother with you…lol Call it - care.[:)]
Did I ask you for advice ? And of course, you are not addressing the fact that conservatives are the real control freaks. So, please, don’t bother replying to my posts if you don’t address what I say.
That’s right - since I believe that people can do whatever they please, say, smoke pot or be gay or whatever, that means I want to control ‘people’s moral values’. On the other hand, the people who advocate ‘voluntary’ theocracy and tribalism are the real libertarians. I get it.
That’s not what I’m doing. So use some of your rope.
I think most libertarians don’t realize that critics use lifeboat scenarios as reductiones ad absurdum of an absolutist NAP. In other words, applying the NAP while ignoring context leads us into absurd conclusions.
I recommend you check out Christopher Wellman’s “Liberalism, Samaritanism, and Political Legitimacy.” His case for statism is very interesting.
His argument has two premises, one normative and one descriptive:
1- We have samaritan duties to rescue others from peril, when it is not unreasonably costly.
2- Governments provide vital benefits which could not be secured otherwise.
Premise (1) is similar to what Danny has been arguing, and I think Wellman makes a strong case for it. But (2) can be easily demolished; all he offers as support is nothing more than the old “private agencies would battle” nonsense.
So even though (1) legitimizes aggression in certain contexts, it doesn’t justify the state. To argue for statism, Wellman needs both the normative and descriptive premises; I think he has the former, but not the latter. As Wellman notes: “I must confess, though, that if someone could generate conclusive evidence that peace and security could be secured in the state of nature, I would reject descriptive statism and endorse both descriptive and normative anarchism.” (p.23) Thus, without (2) his argument commits him to anarchism.
Respectarianism?
Yeah, I think that position is rubbish. Any argument which legitimizes aggression should be looked at long and hard, preferably with a jaundiced eye IMHO.
Sounds about right.
I disagree. A lifeboat scenario usually has no sensible solution, so it proves nothing. If there are not enough lifeboats some people are going to drown. Libertarian solution ? None. Socialist solution ? None. So, what did the lifeboat scenario prove ? Nothing really. It’s an attempt to show that libertarianism fails while not admitting that other systems will fail as well.
I don’t think it does legitimize aggression. Even in the not-at-all-common case in which stealing $5 would save a life (sob story) you are not proving that stealing is legitimate. Smith can steal $5, save a life, and pay the back the $5 plus damages. That did not legitimize stealing.
True, but I think rejecting samaritan duties leads us to a really implausible position. I think premise (1) captures our moral intuitions much better than an absolutist NAP. And as I pointed out above, this doesn’t commit us to statism.
Have you read this paper: “Libertarianism and the Possibility of the Legitimate State”? The author basically restates Wellman’s argument in shorter form.
Uncomfortable, perhaps. Implausible? Nope.
This assumes that everyone has common moral intuitions.
Thanks for the link, I will try to find time to check all of this out this week.
Have you read the Sterba thread here that I linked to? There is an actual discussion about his views, that he participated in. It’s much more worthwhile than a blog post, that is basically a soapbox sermon for whoever is delivering it. Comments on blogs just don’t provide the same level of rigor in argument that you can find in eye level forum posts within a threaded discussion. Where posts are in sequence, but not attributed more value than any other based on hierarchy of display or moderation.
Then tell me what natural rights have they violated Juan. Or are you going to argue over morals and values?
I never said they violated any natural right. So, guess what, you’ve just strawmanned me ? I said conservatives are control freaks and deluded. And you can’t address that. You fail.
I don’t fail. If you aren’t arguing natural rights, then you are arguing with their moral values. Or is there something else going on that you care to bring up?
These are “social conservatives”.
Those who classify themselves as “Conservative”, include three main groups:
-
Fiscal Conservatives - (essentially libertarians who are not anarchists)
-
Neo Conservatives - (support foreign policy intervention)
-
Social Conservatives - (support state restrictions on personal liberty in the name of religious values)
When you blindly attack the group you alienate potential allies.
Please, defend Anti-Gay Marriage Legislation without instilling judeo-christian values.
Poptech,
Thanks, I’m aware of the existence of fiscal conservatives, but as you correctly guessed I’m talking about social/cultural conservatives. Also, fiscal conservatives may be close to libertarians, but not necessarily, since ‘ordinary’ conservatives can (sometimes) be fond of ‘god and country’.
Questioning somebody’s moral values? I mean it’s not their natural rights you are arguing you said.
Do you think you have a point ? Try to understand this : 1) I’m not questioning moral values 2) If I were, it’s none of your business (as per your own implicit premise) 3) If you feel like objecting to what I post, fine, I think your objections have zero merit - so, I’m going to ignore you. Is that OK ?
Then what are you questioning. I asked you numerous times and you avoid it. If not natural rights and moral values, then what?
Then define your argument or else don’t post in a public forum for all to see. I never said it was wrong to argue moral values I hope you know. I even said it might be good to protest against some moral values. The point is to understand that you are arguing moral values or not. Maybe natural rights or not. Or maybe something else that you keep hidden for yourself since you are not willing to share.
Ignoring what you can’t answer is your MO. If you need to private message this, then I’m fine with that. I really don’t think we disagree for the most part. I think you skirt when you could really embrace some of your own opinions.