Surely you mean something else than what I interpret this to mean, which is you are stating you are against a father, mother, and children?
My interpretation of the nuclear family goes beyond the simple titles of father, mother and brother/sister and Scrappy the lovable family dog. A great deal of what Forde was saying before about the male being the ultimate decision maker, accumulator of wealth, must be smarter and older etc. That to me is the myth of the nuclear family.
Recapping: I’m not against mothers/fathers. I against social norms that necessitate servile stratifying. Things such as, ‘you are a women, therefore you are good at homemaking therefore your place is in the home’ If a woman wants to be a homemaker then it is of course her choice but it must be that.
That to me is Forde’s opinion.
My staying at home with my son as my wife ended up with a great job that could provide for all three of us (four including the dog) was hard on her, my mother, for years. Every once in awhile she kept bringing up when I was going to go back to work seeing that my wife had to work, but, “No mom, really, my wife loves her job. She’s doing what she has dreamt of doing since she was about 12. And it’s what we both want for our son. He’s not in day care.” And ladedadah… At one point she thought even if I worked equivalent pay as day care costs was worth it as long as I was working, but that’s nonsense. I work to pay in total my sons day care bill. She completely was only locked on me, the male, working and not the benefit of my son at home and my wife feeling secure that I’m here with him, etc…
Ehhh given 1950’s culture he isn’t saying anything that is specifically anarchnoistic when compared to when the nuclear family operated. Remember the women’s movement is really a 60’s and 70’s movement.
That’s fanastical and I applaud you for helping your wife find her eudaimonia. I hope you can both reside in an environment where you both achieve such a level.
The word granfalloon seems to entail irony and/or mockery - at least judging by wikipedia’s entry (I tried to read Vonnegut once but didn’t like his style) Anyways, as far as I can tell libertarian tennets are not lies…Unlike the tennets of revealed religion, racism, nationalism, and other isms, which are false and some of them explicitly collectivistic…and which I take it you’d consider granfallons ?
I have too low a tolerance for collectivism…
You think lying is morally good ?
Well, I beg to disagree. I think that simply advocating for property rights without saying why is a bad idea. Furthermore it seems rather clear that some people pay lip service to property rights only as far as it lets them advance their un libertarian agendas.
Sorry but you are conflating trespass with [freee] speech.
The speaker is using his body. You think you have a right to control that ? And still - I don’t see any damage.
If somebody is in my lawn, that’s because I let him in. That doesn’t mean I can give orders to him. I can ask him to leave and if he doesn’t, that would be trespass but it has nothing to do with free speech.
Well actually I think that propertarians are destroying value by trying to re write libertarianism. I’m certainly not a Block’s fan =]
granfalloons are silly. my thinking of myself as ‘us libertarians’ against ‘them un-libertarians’ is silly, if i do that. and sometimes i am silly and i do that.
but when i am so collectivist, i am not coercive, i am not anti-voluntarism or anti-property rights. and so its a hollow semantic notion of collectivism. i.e.
collectivism without the teeth, without whats bad about collectivism.
I think that simply ‘lying’ is not immoral, and so yes, it is moral. lying without property aggression is a ‘victimless crime’, i.e. not a crime.
but saying that 'you have a right to free speech (in addition to your property rights)" does not say why property rights are a good idea…
what do they jettison that is valueable? not rights like ‘the right to free speech’ which are rights that you have simply with private property. anyhow.
just what is your positon on voluntary associations? that some are libertarian and some arent?
nirgrahamUK… Are you conflating rights with morality in an inappropriate way? They morality of lying is personal, imo, but then you mention crime in the same breath which had me think you are conflating morality and rights/law inappropriately.
i think i am being appropriate… you disagree :-p
what does that mean?
how so?
typo on my part, underline denotes place of change.
Should read: The morality of lying is personal, imo…
Lying can be a moral issue, but it’s not a natural rights issue. Though all natural rights are moral; not all morals are natural rights.
to be a libertarian must one then believe in things beyond natural rights?
I’ll take the liberty of ridding the word “must” and respond to the rest of what you said so I don’t focus on the lack of choice it denotes.
I think people believe in numerous things beyond natural rights. I like corn and beans. I believe in them.[:P] Are you asking something more specifically?
in order to be a ‘good’ libertarian, is it a necessity to believe in other thing aside from natural rights. or is natural right ‘enough’ , ‘sufficient’ ?
oh.
I think natural rights are enough and sufficient. It’s not necessary to believe in other things since these “other things” are individually oriented, but to learn and be educated in other things does generate a better society. For example, I think an application of Austrian economics in society would be way better for society than Keynesian or any other central planning socialist economic doctrine. Being people natural rights help us do these “other things”. It’s these “other things” natural rights protect and denote. All these other things are what we do when we follow a natural telos called happiness. It’s the pursuit of happiness. And that pursuit is open-ended and not universal in application. Did that answer the question?[:)]
but then it seems you agree with me rather than juan over these subset of issues… unless i am interpreting you too kindly in my favour…
I’ve been agreeing with you on this, yes.
Edit: I was looking for clarification on what I initially brought up, my wonderment on if you were conflating morality with criminality, but I was only wondering and it was going against everything that you had said up to that point. But I think you clarified what you meant. thanks.
Do you think being an a-hole is morally good?
Not sure what you are saying. Actually I think you are trying to avoid admitting that racism, nationalism, theocracy and other anti-individual creeds are not good ideas. And you try to play it down by pretending that as long as nationalists don’t use force, everything is all right. But of course it is not.
The thing is, given their collectivistic premises, there’s no reason for collectivists to respect individual rights and get as many teeth as needed to preserve their ‘groups’ … and stomp out non-conforming individuals.
Ever heard of Jacob it’s-my-people Bloom ?
So, according to you lying is morally good ? That is problematic I think. It seems to me I’ve no reason to assume you were not and are not lying. That is, anything you say may be a lie. That makes communication almost pointless.
But it gets closer than the empty propertarian formula.
That certainly may be the case. Right wingsters/conservatives/socialists are all collectivists, NOT libertarians. Of course they may claim that they are going to set up fully voluntary systems. Well, I’m not buying it.
By the way, it seems you didn’t address your mistaken conflation of trespass + the ‘crime’ of people speaking their minds…
Now that’s an interesting question. If you were to say “I believe in natural rights” - would you be lying ? Or not ? Or ? How can I tell ?
I don’t know. I don’t have a clear definition for “being an asshole” - are you suggesting I am being one ?
but you are assuming what you need to prove, that an association involves the people within it disregarding each others individual rights.
no, i think the term ‘morally good’ is a poor phrase which we have inherited from the ethical philosophy tradition. I see that there is morally permissable and morally impermissable. there is wrong and not wrong. you can call the not wrong ‘right’ but dont mistakenly assume that it is ‘positive’ the only sense in which it is positive is that it is not negative.as such i find ‘morally good’ to be a misnomer, i will say ‘morally fine’. or ‘morally acceptable’
are you using right wingsters/conservatives/socialists to descrive their actions? to describe their poltical ideologies? or to describe their cultural value preferences? the first two cases I agree withyou they by definition cannot be libertarian. but the latter can. as can you , you can be libertarian despite your cultural value preferences. to my mind racism/sexism/nationalism, divorced from aggression initiation is silly mistake (no longer horrible crime). how can it be unlibertarian to be foolishly mistaken? if i am foolishly mistaken about X, then i cant be libertarian? why not? im not hurting anyone…
I ignored it because you missed the point. the point was that property rights are the whole picture. if a person is spouting whatever nonsense from his property and is in noway an aggressor./ that is fine. no problem. (yes, even if he is saying foolish marxian anti-capitalist hatespeech). if he is initating aggression, i.e. stole someones megaphone, or standing on someones lawn. his free speech act, is irrelevent and could not hope to #trump# the property violation. this clearly shows that freespeech as a concept adds nothing that we dont get free from understanding property rights.
you say almost, i think you already anticipate the arguments i can muster to demonstrate that communication is still possible and potentially fruitful. of course if you dont wish to talk with me because you dont trust that i have a moral compulsion to truth talk, you are within your property rights to do so.