Why do your posts when I go to respond to them, all the sentences bunch up? It takes time to sort it out.
hint: I’m not talking about an ant town.
It’s not antithesis of the individuals in the town.
If they try to educate others about changing their ways, set up an alternative school that’s teaches non-racism, and teach their children differently this is how people in general becoming educated about anything.
By the way Juan, individuals are potentially anything and not actually anything unless you can say more about such individuals to provide something actual about them.
do i need to justify points with which my interlocuter agrees ? [:P]
I hear you saying that being rude to people of a granfalloon is collectivist and not individualist. well you are right in a manner of speaking. but this is only because individualism has two meanings, that are partially inconflict. the thin libertarians acknowledge the conflict and eject the weaker sense, whilst thick libertarians try to have them both, even though the task is impossible.
explanation:
the tradition of individualism and libertarianism is a long one. as a historical fact many individualist authors and texts not only displayed the core beliefs about legitimate uses of violence that we currently hold but also had other sentiments (aesthetics). the sentiments are commonly consistent with the core beliefs, but sometimes clearly oppose it in particulars.
prime example. freedom of speech paradox. the tradition is that ‘freedom of speech’ is a right, its what individualist and libertarians clamoured for, and in general this is fine and noble, as the historical trend was for political elites to subjvert the private printing presses and the rights of property owners to have likeminded people congregate on their grounds. Put in this historical light we see that ‘freedom of speech’ was often compatable with property rights and the restrictions on violence.
but of course, an act of speech (free as it is) can contradict the fundamental moral truth of voluntary interaction and be a crime against property owners. i.e. when a loudmouth racist decides to orate from your lawn. I do believe you have considered such thought experiments, but i must admit i am befuddled and curious about why you still feel a primal commitment to individualist tenets that in the history of tradition were often advocated for, even without reference to private property rights. Surely with the advent of Rothbard, we are all freed from such confusions and can demote historical coincidental aesthetic arguments of an individualist tradition to their rightful place as historical cultural touchstones that we owe our development to. but that we dont confuse with what makes us individualist.
Because I’m using the forum’s plain text editor and there is a bug in it. I type my messages in wordpad and it seems some of the line breaks are deleted when I paste the text into the forum’s editor.
Doesn’t change a thing. You are saying that “a town wants X” - it makes no sense.
Not sure what you mean. I’d only point out that people are not ants, so the idea that ALL inhabitants are going to be ‘voluntary’ racists is not plausible.
Not sure what that means.
I asked because Rasmussen and Den Uyl might not even be aware of the thick/thin debate and certainly don’t use that terminology. They also aren’t left-libertarians. Veatch died before the thick/thin debate and wasn’t a left-libertarian. I don’t think Sciabarra is very left. I don’t consider myself to be predominantly either left or right on the cultural/socio-economic continuum.
Why don’t you hit the reply button and type? Why a different route?
Individuals of people make up a town.
Well we are not talking about “all people”. I’m thinking this town started from scratch, no buildings - nothing. Or some unnumbered people established a school and neighborhood that became what is called a town. If it would ever actually flourish or not is questionable, but this whole discussion about town-X is fictional abstract to begin with unless you know of such a town somewhere?
An individual is potential. By stating individual you are talking about any one of the six billion or more people that are alive today on this planet earth. So what actual individual are you referring to?
Ok, so I definitely do not mean the Aristotelians at large then. Thanks for clearing that up!
They are thick libertarians, though, unless I am very, very mistaken. And the point that I am trying to make is about thick libertarianism broadly conceived, not just left-libertarianism.
Okay, so you have the term “social ethics” to characterize your doctrines. Must you also take “politics” as well? There is an enormous body of work that is concerned solely with matters of the state and jurisprudence. Despite what you might like to believe, THAT is what is traditionally referred to as “politics”. If you’re going to take two names for your field of study, what does that leave for the study of matters of the state and jurisprudence?
The widespread failure to see that dichotomy may be the chief historical cause of state encroachments. From that view, you can so easily see libertarianism as so thick that it bulges over the bounds of liberty altogether.
Yeah. Humans should live a good life; following the NAP is only a part, and not the entirety, of living a good life.
Regarding the question of whether one person’s eudaimonia can conflict with another’s, see Long’s discussion of agent relative vs. agent neutral values: “Happiness in Austro-Athenian Perspective” and “The Moral Standpoint.”
But my problem isn’t with thick libertarians per se. For example, GAP doesn’t have the repulsive left culturalism that gets conflated with libertarianism. Perhaps I didn’t make clear, that it is the conflation with left or right cultural norms and then claiming those are universal values, that I have trouble with.
I can’t speak for others.
But what does the content of the values matter to your argument?
It’s what originally set off my spidey-sense. It is not the content that is the issue, it is that any set of values should be considered universal, even if they contradict market choices and individual preferences. It set off my spidey-sense, because leftists have this latent collectivist thing going on, that instinctively makes me want to tunnel under the wall. The left claims moral superiority, the right claims spiritual superiority. Both are ridiculous.
No, but you don’t need to sell the idea of property rights to me because I already bought it. And the discussion is not about the validity of property rights but about the reason for them to exist.
Actually I’m saying that granfalloons are collectivistic and likely to be based on lies - a form of fraud.
False. You are trying to dismiss core positions as aesthetics but the issue is not aesthetics at all, it is morals.
Paradox is code name for faulty reasoning.
The idea that you can coerce me into saying things I don’t want to say is false. You have no right to control my speech, so I do have a right to free speech.
I’m afraid you have it backwards…
Let me see if I’m getting this right. According to you, saying some words in a lawn may be a crime ? Where is the damage caused ?
Because I am a libertarian. You see, the philosophy is called classical liberalism or libertarianism. It is not called propertarianism.
Not really. Who says Rothbard is infallible anyway ?
Nice attempt at subverting the meaning of individualism and liberalism (proper) but I think you fail =]
well, I am a libertarian, that too is a granfalloon. I think you have too low a tolerance for collectives if you distinguished between voluntary collectives and involuntary collectives you would realize that collectives are bad to the extent that they are involuntary, i.e. to the extent that an individual is (through property analysis) coerced by the collective. in so far as the individual is voluntarily part of the collective , his ‘collectivism’ is just a word to denote his voluntary association, and does not denote quite the same thing (just similar) as when we say collectivism about nations, states and socialists which are distinguished by involuntary assosciations. Surely you can distinguish between collectives that are fully compatible with individualism, i.e. two human beings that live together and consider themselves a family, andthose that arent, like: master and slave.
again with" lies - are a form of fraud". are they really? if they arent implicit theft then I think not. is it immoral to say that i like your haircut when i dont.?
your interpretation if it is the best way to understand the libertarian tradition on the subject, adds nothing that simply advocating for property rights achieves. so what of it? why did individualists waste pages going beyond writing about property, given that when they did extend themselves, they added no value.
the damage of trespass. the damage of determining how anothers property is to be used.
are you supposing that a loudmouth has a right to orate on your lawn the speech that you hate?
mores the pity, it would solve needless confusion if it was.
not me [:P]
Why? Violence is, in all situtations but self-defense, a moral wrong. B is immoral if B punches A in the face to get the snow cone machine.
Apparently American blacks have a higher intelligence simply because they have ‘white genes.’ Wonderful science. You would forgive me if I don’t believe this man.
No, not a shrink. Just perceptive.
Ah so your argument concerning how should be in power is merely who makes the most money. Strange, I wonder if we were to apply this society what events would transpire? The rich are in power because they are rich. Could the woman not be the ultimate decision maker then if she made more money then the male? Your only qualification for decision maker is who makes more.
So there must be a ruler and a ruled…I’m sorry but are you even a libertarian? Do you not see the contradiction in your argument? That individuals cannot live in harmony without someone telling them what to do.
Right that’s why I don’t see viagra commercials almost every 5 minutes on tv. It’s all those women not being able to stimulate themselves.
Why must it be the man who accumulates wealth?
Again why must it be the male? You are not giving reasons. You are simply stating ‘This is how it should be’
Sounds like your rearing up for a good relationship. If you are not dominating her, then she is dominating you. One has to ask how you could ever survive in a libertarian society without actually dominating your friends, family and interactions with other traders. And what are these biological reasons? Merely because we are bigger?
This is not celebration of divisersity so don’t pull that sham. Men and women are different, however to take those differences and say ‘well because you are this, that means you have to do this’ or ‘because you are this, and I am that, that means I control you/ am better then you.’
AC, domination and exploitation are code for people fulfilling a more productive role in the divison of labour. I don’t agree across the board with Stephen Forde and like many Hoppeans, he’s not exactly the warmest when making his case, but his case does have merit.
Many LLs dismiss the division of labour as hierarchy, hence the aversion to large firms and bosses.
Dr. Block’s recent diversity scandal allowed him to illustrate that men and women earn similarly except that women are the sex biologically capable of bringing a baby to the world and best suited to that child’s early care. Childless women generally earn as much as men. The wage gap as a sign of gender discrimination is mostly a progressive myth.
If domination means better productivity then why are we fighting the state?
I accept the division of labour but one based on merit and intelligence. Not because one has either a penis or vagina, or white skin and black skin.
Yes women bring children into the world but that does not infer that a woman must be a homemaker or a husband cannot take leave from his position to care for his newborn while his wife works. If women choose to do it then it is of course their choice.
It doesn’t. There is a BS conflation between the term domination and productivity. It has its roots in notions like the LTV and economics as a zero sum game.
I accept the division of labour as a rational way to allocate labour productively. Merit has a lot of shades, but it is a good standard.
Absolutely. But it’s important to remember that as it pertains to child bearing and perhaps rearing, women and men have dramatically different roles within the family, both in proximity to domestic issues, and capacity to earn. These are physical realities of existence.
Personally, I am ok with Mr. Moms. Some people may not be. But the notion that men and women being on an equal plane in the household, can only be promoted by people who are single IMO. They can have different roles, but they cannot share everything right down the middle because they simply are not the same in so many regards.
I’m sorry but you were stating that domaination and exploition is code for increasing productivity therefore implying that domination is a necesscity for a productive economy or are you stating that other individuals imply this and they are wrong?
All deserve their just desserts.
These roles are only the dying spasms of the nuclear family myth.
I’ve had girlfriends who are completely inept at cooking, while I myself can cook. Social roles are not gender depedent. A man could be a cook, a carer for young children etc.