Which relates to my statement about epistemology. Preston’s point about not attracting straight women and non-whites has a lot to do with the fact that the conception of, and the emphasis y’all place on racism and sexism is flawed, and in some cases, repugnant. That doesn’t deter you guys, or encourage you to re-examine your premises, as we saw with Preston, instead it is ATTACK ATTACK and silence the person pointing out the elephant in the room.
Unless you are willing to admit you don’t know, then yeah, the notion of being able to generalize human existence and fashion a universal ethic is not totally dishonest as a second order conclusion. But I like to think we all are ready to admit we don’t know a lot of things, and when exposed to new information, may have to radically examine and redefine our premises.
What you know and what you don’t know is crucial. Particularly when one proposes to have universal knowledge.
If an individual is thin then isn’t that a properly grounded individualism for them? I’m thin. Do you feel I am not grounded?
Politics, as I’ve mentioned in this forum some time ago, can happen in the barber shop or in the grocery store in a civil society - the State need not be around for politics to take place. Politics is a joint venture of equals with or without the business dealings. It doesn’t mean a joint venture can’t happen without an exchange of economic goods, but sometimes in society people get together agree on something in their community or neighborhood and it didn’t need to involve economics trading, the state, and/or votes that may exclude others. Politics occurs between people in dialogue and sometimes it’s simple persuasion or logic that gets the social agreement - that’s politics.
That ethic being Individualism maybe ? So unreasonable. Funny, if there’s something wrong with the left libertarians is their small-town, anti-industrial collectivism. However it seems they are being criticized by the things they get right…
On the other hand, small-town collectivism is something that the right-wing ‘anarcho’ theocrats of this site site are rather comfortable with…so it’s no wonder that doesn’t get mentioned.
It’s not individualism. The thin libertarians already have that covered.
It’s fun watching you continue to bait the hook when the lake is out of stock. When you finally get a new schtick, I will be the first one to fall out of my chair in amazement.
Well maybe you have a better intellectual grasp on their position due to experience of discussion with them when it comes to this aspect, but wombatron said, “pluralism”. I’ll wait for wombatron to declare here in this thread what such a universal ethics would be, and since law is not involved in their pursuit of such a universal ethics, I really have no problem with it cause aside from law such pursuits are persuasions on a better life that either logic, whims, or economic concerns might convince people of. There is a difference between Zen and Hindu and they each advocate a unique thread of universal understanding.
the kinds of non-aggressive sexism and racism that LL’s want to create a consensus against, are just particular instances of a more general concept. ‘rudeness’. LL’s are engaged in promoting voluntarism and non-aggression as well as forming a mutual support group for mutual encouragement to be polite and to form a united front of mutual exhortations to the wider public to not just be moral (non-aggressive) but to be ‘polite’ as well.
but being polite is merely an aesthetic or lifestyle choice. It makes no more sense to me to be a Left Libertarian of this kind than to be a Space Libertarian, or Vegeterian Libertarian, or Rock-n-Roll Libertarian. I say seperate out your aestheticism and your life-styleism from your moral and political philosophy.
be a libertarian who is also into space travel, or also into not eating meat, or also into listening to Rock’n’Roll. but I dont see that it does any favours to blur the lines between any of these pairs of conjunctions. not to the holder of the position, nor to people who are not yet knowledgable of libertarianism.
If I was going to go to witchraft voodoo land to teach people the scientific method, I would call myself a scientist and teach them the ways of sound experimentation and theorizing. I would like to think that I would not call myself a PoetryReadingScientist. I would be a scientist . I might also read poetry.
Which is why I’ve never understood this decay of definitional libertarianism into categories that struggle over the primary definition: libertarianism - by finding the need to add adjectives: right, left, thin, thick, fat, long, hairy, or short. If the adjectives are to denote a sect of libertarianism to clarify a secondary definition and thereby the integrity that we are libertarians is kept intact I see no problem.
I actually think it poses a possible problem, in that it creates collectivism along the lines of aesthetics & preferences, unintentionally (or intentionally) ensuring that differences between those that do not mix preferences & aesthetics into their libertarianism vs. those who do are never quite resolved.
either the differences are significant and troubling to libertarians qua libertarians, i.e. they are injustices by light of Private Property and Non aggression, or they arent. isnt it a case of they arent?
I think it is a mistake to think that there can be ‘injustices’ even where no one is aggressed against in their property, because the hall mark of injustice is ones right to defend against it with appropriate violence, and so it would seem that a non-aggressive act could rightfully be met with aggression, which seems like turning libertarianism into a nonsense to me
Do you ever actually formulate arguements or do you always resort to sarcasm? You merely imply a proposition to be unsound without giving any reason whatsoever.
I see the potential problem too. I guess one need not provide if they like Aristotle, Block, or Long as adjectives before libertarianism. Those adjectives would be better suited as preferences within libertarianism and therefore to denote what kind of libertarianism a person is talking about “Thin Libertarianism” is to decay the meaning of libertarianism. If somebody likes Block, for instance, and they are a libertarian they need not say they are a Block Libertarian. It probably would be more meaningful and clear to say, “As a libertarian I like Block.” The adjectives do create problems. I agree.
I’m using the term loosely to address a group of individuals who consider themselves left liberatarians. It is absolutely impossible (and brain damaging) to keep track of all of the labels and accroutements people use to identify themselves PARTICULARLY on the thick end of the spectrum.