How do you know if they will or won’t if you don’t have a theory?
Well, I think an inspiring vision is helpful. But, I can see why you would be annoyed. It is a bit open ended. On the other hand, I think Hoppe has a one-up on Long and Rothbard, because he has a value-free economic theory to explain what is the normal structure of society and cultural values, and how the 20th century represents a radical deviation. And his theory also explains why monarchical, decentralized, middle age europe is a somewhat close approximation to what an anarcho-capitalist society would look like.
His thymology is much more praxeologically and empirically grounded. If you have an alternative theory and some data to point to, I’m a fairly open-minded guy.
Any and all religious based laws are unconstitutional.
I too am for limited not no government. I am not an anarchist.
Which is why these state sanctions need to be repealed. I will never accept a solution to be more laws piled on top of old. If you analyze most problems it is due to the existence of a law. All decisions on who should be insured should be between the private parties - the individual and the insurance company. All state laws do is increase the costs of insurance and make it unatainable to others.
In essence you are by increasing the coverage you are forcing the insurance companies to bear. Insurance companies should not be required to do anything accept what is agreed upon between the two private parties. All of these are separate issues that should not be lumped under marriage law. I am always realistic and will never accept exceptions because of “how things are”. Medical insurance is a disaster in this country due to government intervention and socialized programs (medicare and medicaid). The libertarian solution should always be to convince people why medical insurance would be cheaper without government.
Because, taken by itself, it does not ensure positive social outcomes. In theory, an entire society could adhere to the NAP and be piss poor, uneducated, full of cultural strife and have plenty of forms of oppression that are not overtly aggressive. There is also the fact that there is a lot more to morality than questions of violence. To reduce all of morality to nothing more than the NAP is to oversimplify and take a very narrow definition of morality.
You see my problem. I’m all for theories. I’m not too wild about being too attached to them. I’m anti-plan. That’s not to say that plans don’t work, won’t work. It’s that by committing too completely to one path, you risk creating a reinforcing bias.
I’ll try to come back to this and the rest later. It’s not a easy question to answer. If I forget, don’t be shy about nudging me.
Long (and many of his fanboys) could really do with starting a business and try being a boss instead of fantasizing about the plight of the landless labourer class.
Ehrenreich went “undercover” to document the lives of the working poor and the Kafkaesque maze of obstacles they face: the grindingly low wages; the desperate scramble to make ends meet; the perpetual uncertainty; the surreal, pseudo-scientific job application process; the arbitrary and humiliating petty chickenshit tyrannies of employers; the techniques of intimidation and normalisation; the mandatory time-wasting; the indifference to employee health; the unpredictably changing work schedules, making it impossible to hold a second job; etc., etc. None of this was news to me; I’ve lived the life she describes, and she captures it quite well.
Responding to Aeon Skoble’s critique of a Green Party platform, he writes:
So non-Marxists are necessarily for meaningless work, without dignity, at a nonlivable wage? If Aeon really believes that, he’s just given a ringing endorsement of Marxism! But I’m afraid I don’t share Aeon’s apparent enthusiasm for Marxism. I think one can be a libertarian and still favour meaningful work, with dignity, for a living wage. And I would add that the tendency among libertarians to react with knee-jerk aversion to such phrases is a large part of what contributes to the perception on the left that libertarians are cold-hearted shills for the ruling class.
John Stossel would disagree. Man that review from Long is self-damning but to be expected when people engage in “me-too-ism” with the left or the right.
Yes, and one does this in a free market by only taking a job with dignity and a living wage, or selling their labour directly to the end user to gain dignity and a living wage.
Dignity and meaningful work are value concepts that no workplace can hope to satisfy in all of its employees. So we can disregard that tripe.
A living wage is also subjective. I can live on $18,000 CDN a year quite comfortably. People like Barbara Ehrenreich could not. Luckily, I am able to produce significantly more than I need to gain a living wage, because I have taken my wage potential into my own hands, and not left it to the discretion of an employer.
I’m really focused on the Sterba thread (and work) right now, and while it may not be open minded or particularly tolerant, I am extremely tired of the sub 30 year old ne’er do wells that Long attracts who complain about business, bosses and commerce without having any experience to back it up. I had dead end jobs too. I can tell stories about the things I have done that would make people cry. You suck it up, you put your big boy diaper on, and you work hard, consume less and increase your productivity. In a world of scarce resources, nothing should come easy, and thankfully it doesn’t.
Look at Long. He somehow managed to pull himself up. Of course that story doesn’t sell with the crowd that keeps the incense burning on the steps of the C4SS. No, we hear about how Long was oppressed, not how he overcame oppression. His disciples aren’t even sharp enough to ask!
They typically stand for anti-man, anti-reason, pro-violence, anti-freedom positions. And we’re supposed to feel guilty that they think we are cold hearted? Are progressive leftists really occupying the moral high ground here? Why should their opinion matter any more than right wingers who think libertarians are all a bunch of pansy-assed libertines?
Social repercussions do… you’re too used to the State handling everything for you it seems, so no NAP is not alone and it doesn’t need Brainpolice or anybody else claiming they have the true moral value argument. Natural rights are not a strict personal moral value argument. You want to apply your personal opinions and force them on others. Nobody needs Brainpolice and others to apply their morals and values upon others. Next thing you know you’ll force courage on everybody cause they are not standing up for what you believe, shouldn’t happen by coercion is a sad state of affairs sometimes.
In theory aliens can beam me up tomorrow too. Your being emotive about something you know nothing about, which are the if’s, and’s, but’s of what will happen.
Social repercussions will be achieved first hand, instead of people habitually giving up responsibilities to others, which you are doing. Unless you can find a universal, but you don’t have one.
Hmmm, I never reduced morality down to simply NAP. You are.
What’s moderate change? Serious inquiry. Cause I think sometimes people get confused on abolition and gradual. Abolition of slavery was absolute and not moderate.
