Oh jeez.
I’m cool with that.
Oh, one of the great minds of amoralist ‘thought’ is back. What a…disgusting surprise.
Libertarianism is a school of moral philosophy which deals primarily with politics and political philosophy…So your question doesn’t make much sense.
Well, which book would you recommend to learn more about libertarian public policy then?
There’s no libertarian public policy. If you want to learn about libertarianism, you could try this maybe http://bastiat.org
[:D]
[;)]
Education is the strategy and politics can be used as a method to spread it. I see no contradictions / violations of the NAP. What is politically ethically wrong with entering a political debate, denouncing the state at every turn, supporting secession and abolition…?
Just because I join or put my name on the ballot, does not mean the position will be accepted should the quixotic happen. Should that happen, it isn’t the case that the size of the state would increase [i.e that specific individuals actions (voting) directly increase it]. That position is going to be filled regardless. Yes there is a gun to the head of the voters, and yes there is no real choice.. but it can be defensive - see Spooner and MNR. Anyone would prefer the guy who actually [not just empty rhetoric] doesn’t support increasing your daily number of beatings, as opposed to the guy who would.
What, on the other hand I do not support - is voting (supporting) someone just for the sake of it… where there is NO-ONE who you don’t believe would personally advocate not increasing your daily number of beatings.. then;
Bobb Barr would not get my vote, for he is not principled, radical nor an abolitionist… where there is no viable principled alternative, a no vote / none of the above / write in someone else / invalidate your vote campaign would be perfect.
However, in my country - not enrolling is a crime, not getting your name ticked off the roll is a crime, refusing to cast the ballot is a crime (although virtually impossible to police) and organizing others / protesting / promoting others to not vote is also a crime..
You can nullify your vote (donkey is what it is called), although the state does not count them at election time, nor advertise the number of them.
What they have also done down under is.. raise the number of members needed in a party to make it official, charge a large sum per candidate running at election… and literally tax each vote.
If you get over 4% of the vote, you get all your money refunded. If you do not - you don’t. The system is rigged against the smaller parties.
Voting in what sense? Ron Paul openly acknowledges voting in Congress would change nothing [too many powerful interest groups] and he doesn’t consider that likely at all to happen; (i.e get more principled politicians elected that favor reducing the state.)
The Ron Paul revolution is the culmination of what Rothbard strove for and saw in a political / libertarian movement. These ten principles that reflect that, and have pretty much been followed point by point… and as a result, you saw the success that has so far been achieved! “What success? They haven’t changed anything”
Imo, it’s not Ron’s goal to control the state… as he’s time and time again; as he runs on a platform of “I don’t want to run or control your lives”.
Anyway, just some rambled thoughts.. hope they made sense and are clear.
Strategic centrism is a clever way of saying dishonesty. Campaigning not to win is fraud.
I have a lot more to say on this matter, but now is not the time.
Where is the dishonesty?
And is that the label for what I outlined - “strategic centrism”? Are there any writings on this you could direct me to? How’d you come across the label?
The goal is to win, so the statist candidates lose… but merely running and spreading the message, also constitutes ‘a win’ in my book.
Even if you don’t “win” [get elected to office], you still win - by calling out the emperor & showing he has no clothes. There is no lose, lose.
How I Won In the Election - John Sophocleus
I know you do, and I’d be interested in hearing it. When would be a good time?
It does not constitute immorality in my book, and I’m the one who is the ‘objective-ethicist’ . Immorality would be fraud which is de-facto theft under Rothbardian Title Transfer Theory. (in case you were wondering)
Rothbard talks past Mises throughout the paper, as becomes fully clear in the conclusion:
“What I have been trying to say is that Mises’s utilitarian, relativist approach to ethics is not nearly enough to establish a full case for liberty. It must be supplemented by an absolutist ethic…”
Rothbard is defining “a full case for liberty” as one that includes absolutist ethics. This preaches to the choir, but says nothing to those who don’t adhere to accept [edit for clarity] absolutist ethics.
There will always be irrationalists who devolve into a nihilist world of uncaring. This is true of anything thus the epic question of ‘who cares?’
I don’t think to reject absolutism is to adopt nihilism. Especially, I don’t think simply failing to advocate absolutism necessarily entails adopting nihilism or uncaring in one’s own private moral judgments.
Well you are saying that truth is totally depend on the person at hand and to them truth could be anything thus making it so diffuse that it essentially means nothing. Really though I’ve gotten into these discussions so many times that I would like to avoid them. You can have the last word on the matter.
In the article, absolutism means ethical absolutism.
Edit: thanks for the last word. I think it’s just a lack of clarity how these misconceptions get started.
For instance, refusing to speak for what “ought to” be the ethics of everyone else doesn’t make one nihilistic, nor uncaring. On the contrary, one might have very strong ethical convictions, but be tolerant of the fact that others may believe differently - up until the point where there is an irresolvable conflict.
Likewise, a person who is basically “uncaring” (as you put it) could still be an objective ethicist or moral absolutist, because - according Rothbard, Hoppe, et al. - these ethical “laws” (natural law) are derived purely through logical reasoning. An ethically uncaring (“caring” being a matter of emotions) Rothbardian therefore seems quite possible.
I didn’t know Australia or any country punishes not voting or organizing others to not vote that way. It makes sense that a state would do such, but I had just never heard of this happening. The 4% thing is even more blatantly corrupt than our quasi-governmental “who is allowed to participate in debates” syndicate (whatever it is called, I forget.)
Maybe I am just someone playing my required role by refusing to vote. The Ron Paul movement did get me to go from not caring much to obviously caring a great deal. The libertarian voter pool still has grave errors in their beliefs. I’ve been to C4L meetings and heard the praise for democracy. I’ve seen people ready to toss in money to have a stand at a gun show, and flounder when I ask for support (merely time, bodies, and interest) in an educational venture in my old city.
I’m somewhat optimistic for the long term prospects of liberty, but pessimistic that it will be achieved in the US first, or through electoral politics at all. I might attend events, but I won’t pull the lever any time soon.
It’s one of Rothbard’s planks in his manifesto which you linked to mate. [;)]
Ron Paul never ran to win. We both know that.
That is not what your donors and get out the vote organizers believe. People expected Ron Paul to compete. Remember the backlash over those terrible NH television ads? RON PAUL HE IZ KATCHIN AWN!
When it is a good time, I will put it out there.
Voting is mandatory here in argentina though in practice 30% of the people who should vote don’t vote and nothing happens though in theory you can be fined.
Subjective ethics at work! [;)]
That is debatable.
Oh, so collecting money for cancer research, when there is no intention to attempt to cure cancer, is not fraud? Very interesting!