That’s sorta part of the topic of this thread, y’see.
Hate to break it to you–oh wait, I don’t hate to break it to you. I’m happy to do so. Your attempt at re-defining “responsibility” has been noted, and it caters to your odd view, not reality.
Yeah, you might want to actually SUPPORT your definition. You can’t just act all childish and pout; that won’t do. Either learn to support your contentions or stop making contentions. Period.
But why would he have even had a contradiction in the first place? Your claim carries with it the implication (almost a begged question) that Rothbard didn’t actually believe what he wrote; he merely wrote it to avoid contradiction. So I’m waiting for the support of that claim. If that is not your claim, you’d do well to be a little more precise in your writing.
Rothbard didn’t say to go and do this. that’s wrong.
Quite the contrary, youre the one redefining it with your odd view. Libertarians like yourself seem unwilling to accept that there are obligations in life including, yes, not neglecting your children.
I thought the point was that you can’t be legally forced to care for your children if you don’t want to. And that’s why there are things like adoption…
Yes he did. From Ethics of Liberty, chapter 14:
“This rule allows us to solve such vexing questions as: should a parent have the right to allow a deformed baby to die (e.g., by not feeding it)?[6] The answer is of course yes…”
He doesn’t say “go and do this”. so you’re wrong.
Nowhere, but that wasnt the point.
No. Either support your contention or stop making contentions. Period.
Notice how you are incapable of defending your view. Perhaps that should tell you something.
Yes. it IS the point. I said Rothbard doesn’t say “go and do this”. You gave a little devil icon in relation to a quote in his book in which had no relation to what I said. Now here’s what I responded to:
And I said nowhere does Rothbard say you can “go and do this”. Where does Rothbard talk about being “bored (etc..)”? You said this is “Rothbard’s position” - i say you’re wrong. (*edit: due to moving to far ahead of discussion)
Actually, the devil icon was how it came out after a copy/paste from mises.org. Believe it or not it was unintentional (although appropriate).
Anyway, yes, that IS ‘Rothbard’s position’. There are alot of things he thought should be ‘allowable’ that he didnt support per se. He didnt think pornographers should be prosecuted for obscenity, but he probably didnt ‘support porno’. Nevertheless, we could accurately state that ‘Rothbard thought it was OK to watch porno’ just as I said ’ Rothbard’s position that you can get bored of your children and allow them to starve to death’ . Notice I didnt say he thought they ‘should’, but rather that they can.
Yes, I did defend my view. My contention is that a parent allowing their children to starve to death is criminal, and that Rothbard is dead wrong. It is a basic human responsibility, which has only come into doubt since about 1970 when Rothbard dreamed up the rather laughable position.
funny
nowhere does it say Rothbard says it’s ok to watch porn - wrong again. You’re strawmanning Rothbard again and again on issues you have no idea what Rothbard would support or not support.
And I said nowhere does Rothbard say “go and do this”. interesting ain’t it
No, but if I do some digging I bet I can find a Rothbard quote that states something to the affect of ‘people who watch porn shouldnt be arrested’, which is all I meant by that.
Not really, since I never made that assertion and you’re the one becoming sidetracked with it.
ok you’re a positivist, fine. end of story.
No, you merely expanded your contention with more words. That IS NOT supporting; it is simply re-wording. Some people on this board have yet to learn that lesson.
No, more like a negativist with some reservations.
And yet I stated nowhere does Rothbard say “go and do this” - watch porn, commit abortions - nowhere does he say “go and do this”. So who are you really arguing against?
No. You said Rothbard makes these assertions and have now back-stepped by clarifying you are talking about “arrested” which I assume you are talking about the law - and - NOT Rothbard now. So why do you keep bringing up Rothbard into the discussion? Do you want to start all over again and re-clarify your whole position now?
You either are a positivist or a negativist - pick one. I don’t know of any other category’s maybe you could enlighten me, but I never heard of the “some reservations” category.
All I meant by all of that was they were his philosophical opinions about whats OK in a libertarian world. I didnt think I needed to ‘clarify’ what should be obvious.
I keep bringing him up because the thread is about him and his positions, perhaps?