What would that political theory be called? Is there one?
To be clear, I’m describing the belief that individuals should be able to do whatever they want, period. There is no principle to limit them. If I want to take that object, I can do it. If I want to kill that person, I can.
Is this libertinism, chaos, or something different?
Nihilism.
Thanks.
Read up on Stirner if you’re curious. I don’t agree with him at all, but he was an interesting character.
That just describes reality. People go out and kill other people all of the time. I call it evil. However, why bother make a difference?
If you are implying a moral code where people all believe that there is nothing morally wrong with killing eachother, then you are just chasing an endless circle because nobody really knows the motives of an other person.
The reason why YOU may respect the freedom of an other person is completely unknown even to yourself. However, if you violate freedoms then you would be wise to expect people to defend themselves which from an objective observers’ perspective looks the same as what you described above.
“That just describes reality.”
The belief that individuals should be able to do whatever they want, period, describes reality? I don’t think so. It may well be the case that each individual has the ability to try to do whatever they want, including killing people, but yeah I’m curious about a moral code that, maybe loosely speaking, is individualism without any sort of limiting principle.
Sorry I’m not very well read when it comes to moral philosophy (or really any philosophy for that matter), so forgive my potentially sloppy terminology; this question came out of considering the NAP. Anarcho-capitalists will tell you something to the effect that an individual should be able to do whatever he wants with his person and property, so long as he does not use aggression or the threat of aggression toward other people. Fair enough. I’m asking about people who say, “no no, there’s no reason to limit it. I agree with your anarchism and individualism, but putting arbitrary limitations on what one may do with his property is just the beginning of the State. You’re all statists in disguise!”
I don’t actually think this is true. Just looking for some feedback on the nature of the NAP.
Well calling people “statists in disguise” seems to suggest that being a statist is something to be avoided. The whole point of being a statist is using coercion, so really this person could be a statist if he supports one party using force against another as an act of “property.” Libertarians are the ones supporting restrictions against coercion, this person would not support a restriction against coercion, so therefore they aren’t really much of a propertarian.
I think “political nihilism” would be an apt description.
I am actually one of those people because from a practical perspective it comes down to the same thing.
I believe the NAP is a morally correct code of conduct but it hinges on property title which is always debatable in practice.
I’m in the same position with Charles Anthony here. This is the natural outgrowth of value subjectivism and what I think is the “more Austrian” approach.
I’ve seen this viewpoint expressed as “panarchism” by people like Adam Knott, I think you can find his articles on it at www.praxeology.com
>>The belief that individuals should be able to do whatever they want, period, describes reality?
This is just a plainly contradictory philosophy since for any person that does ‘restrain a killer from killing’ is only doing what he wants and should be allowed to do it fullstop, but also Mr Abe should be allowed to do what he wants, which is impede the killer restrainer, and Mrs B can do what she wants and stop the killer-restrainer-impeder … and so it goes…