Why are libertarians quarreling over morals and values? I know it’s fun and all, and it’s a good intellectual exercise on ones own morals and values to test their own validity, but… isn’t libertarianism about coercion or did I miss something? No wonder this thread became a dud and the ideas become a dud. Cause I thought we were actually trying to rid the State and not physically coerce each other. Other than that who the freak cares (in the liberty sense, not heartfelt sense) what somebody does in their own yard.
If you go down the road and get bogged down in social justice issues, then you might forget the first big issue - get rid of the State and physical coercion.
Has these issues become the only turf libertarians have a fight left to possibly win - pot smokin’, gay’s, hmmm…and hmmm, let’s see, oh, pot smokin’ and gay’s.
I do put most of the blame on PopTech for these issues didn’t really pop up, I don’t think, correct me if I’m wrong, until PopTech molded libertarianism into issues that circle pot and gay’s. There’s a lot more to life and being a libertarian than getting bogged down in these moral and value squabbles.
Well, according to thick libertarianism we should care about values other than nonaggression.
And following Roderick Long’s Aristotelean approach, we have the unity of virtues, which means that the content of justice cannot be settled apart from the content of other virtues.
The standard “self-ownership and NAP” libertarianism is pretty weak, IMO.
The problem with thick libertarianism, is that it is counter-productive to the NAP because it conflates non-aggression with value preferences.
It’s not dissimilar to the work being done to synthesize incompatible schools of thought. Ultimately, one spends more time time defining what something is against than what it is for.
The bottom line is, while thick libertarians certainly have a claim to their own values, they cannot claim that the people adhering strictly to the NAP have any less value (ie. pretty weak) than their positions do, because the core moral issue is common, the only difference after that is one of preference.
For example, Rod Long is a feminist. But with non-aggression, what do we need feminists for? What purpose does an anti-state position serve when the state is gone? I believe the answer is none. Thick libertarians are anachronistic, looking backwards instead of forward IMHO.
Here’s the thing though. Some social norms reinforce and are reinforced by respect for private property. In addition, a successful libertarian counter-revolution requires appealing to and reinforcing the natural elite. Some values do this. Others don’t.
Hoppe’s statement is just as valid for single heterosexuals and single bi-sexuals. Life ends with them. I wonder if his statement holds true for people who adopt. I would guess it does not. So sterile heterosexuals and gay couples could theoretically adjust their time preference by expanding their family.
I’m wondering how solid his statement is. There was an article on a discussion list this weekend, some woman in Britain moved her entire house brick by brick, nail by nail over the last half of her lifetime. She was a spinster, never married. Now that was a low time preference project. It wasn’t a child to be reared, but a commitment to protecting her property long after she was dead. Anyway, I digress…
IMO, it’s irrelevant because I will probably live long enough to see test tube babies born. Kids without disease, with beefed up organs, with super strength and x-ray vision, can eat a whole jar of jalepenos in one sitting, capable of the computational capacity of a 486-DX on a 66Mhz bus, built in sonar and radar etc.
Also with developed nations I do think I’m stretching to state that marriage rates are decreasing and people are pushing back marriage to work on their professions.
I don’t have an issue with that. They will reinforce based on non-aggression, if there is a tendency towards them, then they will prevail or be prominent.
What I have an issue with, is when people insist that some social norms that do not naturally reinforce, must naturally be a part of the respect for private property/libertarianism/NAP.
And then the other issue is that, while I admit some social norms will reinforce, there are certain parties who will use this probable outcome, to advance all sorts of social norms for which there is no connection (except in their own minds) as also being valid because they would be reinforced.
A lot of hoppeans tend to do this. It’s annoying. Hoppe, like Rothbard and Long, is just as flawed when it comes to divining what a free society will look like. There are some educated guesses, and there are some completely ridiculous assertions. Generally, I try to stay neutral in the prediction market, happy that if we have non-aggression, I will find niches for my needs in security, entertainment, relationships, employment, food etc.
Which successful libertarian counter-revolutions is this premise based upon?
No, really. What good is a feminist position when every woman falls under the NAP? What value is added by being a feminist? How will the NAP be incomplete for women? Or take Long’s anti-racism. Under the NAP, what is the value of being against racism? I don’t have a problem with people being against racism, but what is the purpose? What function is it serving?
To me, it’s always been about thick libertarians trying to camouflage themselves as progressive liberals ostensibly for the purpose of “conversion”.
It is irrational to believe that there can be a justification for aggression that does not undermine that justification in the very first place. I hope that made sense, I’m running low on rhetoric.
Whether people want to accept it or not Keynes being homosexual had a lot to do with his economic theories. Basic information like this is widely unknown due to our current PC society.
What’s it got to do with them? I’m homosexual yet I certainly don’t buy into the harebrained nonsense he did. Maybe it has more to do with his particular worldview and opportunism…
Before you assign blame please get your facts straight. While I did bring up pot use, it was directly related to the topic as I was trying to explain various image problems the libertarian community has. It has nothing to do with defining libertarianism. However, I did not bring up the gay issue, laughing man did…
That is fine, but unrealistic, especially when one considers that the Christian Contingency in this country is fighting tooth and nail for more laws to restrict the rights of “sinners”…
Maybe we have gotten off on the wrong foot, let me try to explain…
I am for a very limited government, when I say very limited, I mean that the government’s only realistic role should be to provide a boundary where the rest of the world cannot impose their individual rules upon the residents of the particular area governed. I do not think it is realistic to have no government at all, I like the idea, but I do not think it is viable.
With that said, until the point where this limited, or in the optimal case for others nonexistant, government can be established, I believe it is better to work with what we have, and improve it to the point of freedom…
I am not adding a law that restricts the insurance company, this “law” added, which really has a net zero effect on the average individual, just stipulates that any sentient creature (Human Being) can enter into a contract with another, without regard to gender. It really repeals the law that a man and a woman are required for this contract, and therefore alleviates the business claims to not cover these individuals, if as an addition repealing the laws that state insurance companies must cover these contracted individuals was an addition, it would be better, but as the United States is a social democracy (being realistic) I do not see that one selling…
Their period of provision doesn’t extend as far. Therefore, they are less willing to make immediate sacrifice for greater mediate gain, ceteris paribus.