That seem like a contradictory statement. You have taken a group of individuals you deem worthy of inclusion, then lumped them into an artifical group, for which you have regard, the others, you lump into a different artifical group, for which you have no regard. How is this any different than a communist differentiating between “proletarieat” and “bourgeoisie”?
I thought that Libertarians by definition (since Rothbard first defined them) believed in natural rights.
What I have said is not contradictory. I have not categorised individuals into two classes. i will not answer your ridiculous question.
No.
The sentient (individuals worthy of rights, since truly human), and the non-sentient (individuals not worthy of rights, since unhuman). I think that’s what you were saying, right?
When the going gets tough, the faithful (religious, humanistic) get indignant.
Well, then what is the definition of a libertarian? Does that mean we can start calling the natty rights “humanist libertarians”?
There isn’t A definition, there are multiple. Natural rights libertarians would be… well, natural rights libertarians or deontological libertarians, to be contrasted with consequentialist libertarians.
Well, my next question would be “why not just be called anarchists then?” , but then I read your sig., so I think i know what you’re going to say.
Even Stirner knew well enough not to be called an “anarchist.”
Hell, Stirner was probably pissed he even had to call himself an egoist!