how can i tell if you said it?
Geoffrey,
Looking at the text more carefully has cast the above doubts away. What I was thinking of above was agathos, not eudaimonia. If you have time, please let me know what you think of my post that has resulted from considering this matter: Aristotelean Eudaimonia and Value Theory.
I’m especially interested to see if you agree with my interpretation of certain passages as shadowing forth Austrian value theory.
If I have time tomorrow, I’ll consider the doubts I have about the thick libertarian use of the word “politics”.
Thanks again for writing such a stimulating dissertation chapter.
Lilburne
Let’s hope you figure out if being an a-hole is morally good before I do.
That’s not exactly what I said. Some associations disregard the idea of individualism by definition. I’m discussing whether that is in line with the core beliefs and positions of libertarian philosophy…or not. I am also suggesting that it is kind of obvious that people who don’t believe in individualism won’t have much respect for individual rights…
Sorry, I think you are just playing word games. It doesn’t cut it. You don’t think lying is wrong. I assume you are going to lie whenever you feel like.
I don’t know what you have in mind when you say ‘cultural preferences’. Dress ? Music ? Food ? Drawing styles maybe ?
You keep on trying to reduce it to crime not-crime. That’s not what I’m talking about. By the way, I said nothing about sexism - not sure what that is.
You keep on evading the issue. Amazing. I’m asking where is the harm If I say something you don’t like on a piece of land you conventionally own.
More evasion. You do realize that your “there’s nothing wrong with lying” is self-refuting no ?
and yet you keep communicating with me.
there is a difference between you needing to put a ‘questionmark’ next to the things i tell you because you might doubt me.
and needing to keep a gun close by because you dont trust me not to kill you.
if i own it , and i find you using my property as a launch pad from which to say things that i dont like, and denying me of my pleasure to look at my patch of grass untrammelled, that is obvious harm.
no.
Of couse. Just like I keep communicating with subjectivists who hold self-refuting positions =]
I see no harm caused by words.
So…please show the material harm caused by [free] speech. Please explain what sort of crime speech is. Do NOT conflate it with trespass because doing so is fallacious.
im saying free speech is irrelevant, to libertarianism(my point was that talk of things like free speech adds nothing…)
the only thing that is relevant is if property is aggressed or no. free speech is harmless when a person is not committing property crime. i merely note the fact that a person who is exercising their free right to speech could not thereby excuse themselves of any property crime that they might concurrently be doing. (i.e. rights dont conflict)
Being an ‘asshole’ is an agent relative term. I could call someone who is being nice and whom I hate an ‘asshole’, while it could be used to signify a jerk also.
Not a problem for me. I don’t hate anyone.
I think a better question is if we have natural rights, is it liberty only if we are not threatened with violence?
LL supporter [:P]
I find labels extremely limiting. Sure Hoppe is a great scholar, but he’s not the only author I read. I’m generally open minded. If you feel that you must attach a label then how about ‘normal libertarian’; not ‘right’, ‘left’, ‘thick’, ‘thin’, ‘paleo’, ‘Rothbardian’, ‘Hoppean’, ‘Misesian’, ‘market anarchist’, ‘radical’, ‘moderate’, ‘Aristotelian’, ‘Randian’, ‘youtube kid in his mom’s basement who needs to get a job, girlfriend, and life’, or whatever else. Arguments should be judged on their own merit and not from their source (I’ve got big stones [:P]). Labels are used to compartmentalize arguments and avoid responding to them. Some ppl act as though a label just explains a persons whole position and explanation is needed for agreeing or disagreeing. The X-libertarians think this, so Y is wrong because he belongs to that group. (You can call me an X-libertarian too, cause that sounds cool. I am a member of generation X after all.)
I don’t know about the whole hammer and nail. I was just replying to AC as he went further and further out on a limb. He brought up intelligence and then eugenics.
Also, I agree somewhat with Wombatron. I do think that social values are important. For one, libertarianism is a legal framework, and a legal framework cannot exist independently of the social order in which it applies. And some social orders will be more conducive than others.
Mises gave us the insight that a willingness to respect property titles requires a sufficiently low time preference, and that respect for property titles leads to a lower time preference. He also gave the insight that ‘moral restraint’ requires and leads to lower time preference. So it seems to me that promoting moral restraint indirectly promotes libertarianism and promotion of libertarianism indirectly promotes moral restraint.
Now, I don’t think that libertarianism needs a prefix, but I also don’t think libertarians ought to be socially disinterested. Issues such as aids, substance abuse, an aging population, the quality of our health care system, and so on, are important. At least, to me and the majority of people. And these problems are not independent of the current political economic structure.
Furthermore, the extent of most people’s methodologies consists of their prejudices, which they have been taught by their parents and teachers. Just look at AC. His whole reason for diagreeing with me is that it ‘sounds like chauvinism’ to him (and, of course, I’m insecure as well). One of the reasons why social democrats (the name of our main opposing intellectual movement) are winning, is because they understand that one wins hearts and minds by framing debates in terms of good and evil (attitudes, psychoanalysis, ect.) instead of right and wrong (correct and incorrect). By teaching their audience how they should regard certain moral or scientific positions, only one side is heard. I think the only way to win is by embracing the same tactic. By waging a kulturkampf, if you will.
Now I challenged you a while back to consider whether or not some social values are more compatible with libertarianism than others. I don’t know if you have thought about it. Considering the above, what are your thoughts now?
I am a human. I agree with libertarianism, but it doesn’t mean I don’t eat maple syrup. I think to limit human nature to only libertarianism is to limit human nature. I think it would be a category error to try to squeeze everything any particular person stands for or does in their life into the category: libertarian.
I am offended by your lack of politeness, & your complete disregard for sensitivity. Banished, ye be, from libertarianism! Prepare yourself!
…
You’ve still got some time. Prepare Yourself!
[Y] [Y]
(We need Siskel and Ebert smilies.)
Is this addressed to me?
I think when a person does try to squeeze everything into the category - libertarian - that’s where this whole mess with thick, thin, left, right, hairy, and bald libertarianism begins. Libertarianism becomes some kind of highly prized item that if possessed by one agenda or another then some kind of libertarian cause can be better achieved or maybe it’s something else as well. Intellectual turf wars over a label. I think a more open-ended pursuit is the person reading this - yes - that means you, not Lilburne specifically [:)] - I’m talking about the person reading this who ever you might be.
Not competing for rhetorical authority over libertarianism & giving up the paradoxical collectivist behaviors of that which libertarianism supposedly opposes? That almost sounds reasonable.
…
But first, if you can show you me your libertarian papers, of which they should definitely have the latest official RL and/or LL stamp on it, we can get down to having a civil conversation about this.
huh?
I was poking fun at commadre between libertarians of a certain type treating others that aren’t a certain type or of a different type (LL, RL, etc.).
Too much? I suppose this is why my avatar looks indifferent & analytical rather than goofy & subversive :\