So is Ron Paul a “murderous thug” and “evil collectivist” because he served in the Air Force?
So libertarianism is about left and right?
Yes. By the way, I saw a Ron Paul interview done by Stossel in which Paul claimed that US intervention in WWII was justified (get that) because of pearl harbour. So down with ron paul.
Of course, some ‘libertarians’ explained to me that paul can’t say what he supposedly actually thinks about war because his views might be unpopular. So he’s either the typical lying politician or a supporter of war. Or maybe both - who knows.
edit : Paul could probably have avoided military service. Many people did. I’m not even sure if he was conscripted. Was he ?
Strange, two days ago you asked me [ Laughing Man ] if I was a ‘Left-Libertarian’ or a Blockian clone? Apparently you haven’t learned your own lesson.
People who support murder in the name of ‘private property’ (block clones) are not libertarians. On the other hand, people who usually self-identify as left-libertarians don’t have such deranged views. And I thought you belonged to that last category. I was just using a conventional, but actually rather uncommon label.
At any rate you are sidestepping my point. Right wingers and their love for the military and national defense are not libertarians.
If there are left-libertarians then that naturally assumes there are ‘right’ libertarians [ or else they would just be called libertarians ]
Well, the assumptions is wrong, go figure. It seems you didn’t learn your lesson. Sorry.
So it is wrong to assume there are left and right libertarians?
Yes.
Ok what is ‘unlibertarian’ about Walter Block’s writings?
What about his defense of ‘voluntary’ slavery for starters ? Also, I admit I don’t know if block believes that you can murder any ‘trespasser’ when you feel like it - I’m just guessing that might be the case judging by what some self-described block followers believe.
Well, somebody should tell block that libertarianism is part of ‘moral’ philosophy and ultimately deals with moral problems…
Well to paraphrase Rothbard: The whole of libertarianism can be deduced through the NAP. While I disagree that slavery can be voluntary if it was then it does not violate the NAP.
Well, well. I’d daresay block disagrees with that. You see, the NAP, according to block at least, is defined in terms of private property, not the other way around.
The language is a bit obscure, but it seems he’s saying that private property is a more basic concept than non-aggression.
Not sure what you mean and how can slavery not violate the NAP. This is not about ‘agreement’ at any rate - block is flatly wrong as far as ‘voluntary’ slavery goes.
Actually Block states that there are two coins to libertarianism.
The NAP and property rights.
It is establishing what is/isn’t private property but it is not explicitly stating how that property is to be treated.
Because it is voluntary. I did state that I don’t think slavery can be voluntary but if it were to be then it would not violate NAP because it is welcomed.
What is aggravating is how anarchists try to pretend they are the only libertarians which is total nonsense. If you cannot accept that other types of libertarians exist you are an extremist. This is what happens with social conservatives who try to pretend fiscal conservatives and neo-conservatives don’t exist. Libertarians all believe in personal liberty and economic freedom but can disagree on exactly how this achieved. I acknowledge anarchists have a right to their opinion but am constantly amazed when they refuse to acknowledge limited government Libertarians who support a constitutional republic and an all volunteer military for self-defense have a right to theirs’. So long as this nonsensical infighting continues you are not going to convince anyone. There are clearly left and right leaning Libertarians, I am a right leaning Libertarian.
This sort of nonsense is where extremists who cannot rationalize their behavior have to go.
Oh, they have a right to believe and say whatever they want. But libertarianism is an ethical system deriving from the non-aggression principle, so it is impossible for someone to believe in state aggression and still be a libertarian. You can be “libertarian” on certain issues by supporting the removal of coercion from those issues. But that doesn’t make a person a libertarian. If merely wanting less government than others made one a libertarian, the word would be as meaningless as “conservative” and “liberal”. Words have meanings for a reason, so you’ll just have to put with those of us who don’t tolerate the corruption of those meanings.
The constitution is an insufficient device in combating the size of government when it alone interprets it.
I’ve looked up the definition of Libertarian.
“One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.” (American Heritage Dictionary)
“Advocate of individual responsibility: somebody who believes in the doctrine of free will. Advocate of individual freedom: somebody who believes in the principle that people should have complete freedom of thought and action.” (Encarta)
“An advocate of the doctrine of free will. A person who upholds the principles of individual liberty especially of thought and action.” (Merian-Websters)
They say nothing about anarchism. Which proves to me anarchists are attempting to hijack the definition. As for the difference with Conservatism, there is a huge difference.
“Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.” (American Heritage Dictionary)
“Reluctant to accept change: in favor of preserving the status quo and traditional values and customs, and against abrupt change.” (Encarta)
"Tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions. Marked by moderation or caution. Marked by or relating to traditional norms of taste, elegance, style, or manners*."* (Merian -Websters)
Making up your own meanings is propaganda.
I completely agree, it is clearly not perfect but that does not make me an anarchist.