Considering the following irrefutable conditions we live in
In what way would you prefer to see these 3 problems dealt with, with the likelihood that the maximum amount of people would benefit and get along without conflict?
That doesn’t seem like a problem central planning (ethics) can solve. I say, let the market decide. This way whatever conclusion is derived will have to be best suited to satisfy the (moral) wants of the most people. It’s the only solution I can come up with. And I also think since these 3 problem seemingly exist, that avoiding all conflict would be impossible, especially when you begin to attach the concept of “righteousness” to action.
None of that follows from your recent comment, something to the effect of: “The whole idea of property is bunk.”
Why is it that you couldn’t have just done PM?
Secondly I don’t understand why this is a problem, Larose seems like a pretty market oriented dude just like the rest of us, so I hardly even see why you believe that the question should be asked, I’m sorry if I’m missing something but if you’re going to make a thread on this you should at least give the background info assuming that there is some.
I am not buying that for a second. He doesn’t outright take a leftist tack, but nothing he says adds up to being “market oriented”. Here he will put on a capitalist guise, then in other threads he cites Emma Goldman. I don’t think he is on a quest for knowledge and genuinely confused. His goal is to stir up controversy and poke holes at arguments, but he doesn’t care when people point out his errors. I like the idea of a containment thread.
I said I don’t believe in it, not that I know it is false. There is a difference.
At the end of this thread, filc, wilderness, and I start to debate about property, its definitions, and its relevance.
LOL, man you must be the angriest SOB on the forums!
“Hey, this guy disagrees about the absolute truth of natural rights - LEFTIST”!!!
I’m not on the left, or the right. I apologize if that is confusing you.
I frequent the forums to have my ideas challenged, that’s it. I’m sorry if some folks get butt-hurt if I “poke holes at (“in”, maybe?) arguments” along the way. That’s the hole (couldn’t help myself) point. If you carefully constructed theories are so flimsy they blow over like a house of cards in the face of some criticism, then I know to avoid them.
Oh of course Jackson, everything you write is your opinion and not a proposition [:^)]
Why do you feel the need to share your “opinions”? Moreover, I wonder why you enjoy posting here when your ridiculous assertions are constantly derided. I just feel sorry for you if you enjoy being willfully ignorant and rousing the hostilities of those who aren’t.
I am not angry or “butt-hurt”. You are just annoying, like a pop-up ad, but you can have your opinions. See, the mods will probably do something if I call you worse than a self-absorbed half-wit. The problem, as I see it, is that any sort of rule about going off-topic (one aspect of your trolling) is not enforced. Plenty of times you keep derailing threads with your ideology and it is just a waste of space.
Libertarianism is not left or right either. You are free to state opinions, but grunting about argumentation ethics being axiomatic is hardly "blowing it over like a house of cards. Perhaps you’ve got teh Höppephobia?
We aren’t here for opinions. Your little disclaimer doesn’t mean crap. If you don’t value consistency, fine, then stop posting. “Letting the market sort it out” doesn’t follow from “there is no such thing as private property”. You can retreat to the realm most people are happy to dwell in, thinking versus knowing, but you can’t coherently deny property rights by making arguments.
I don’t. I write on here to challenge my fixed ideas, in an attempt to discredit them. If you manage to discredit one of them, it forces me to reevaluate my position. Competition leads to innovation in a market, and the market of ideas is no different.
Sometimes they aren’t, believe it or not.
Ignorance is the thing I am trying to dissolve the most. I’m not trying to rouse anyone’s hostilities. Of course, I can’t say I wasn’t warned. Stirner has a bit in his book where he talks about how pissed people get when you touch the sacred.
I though freedom was important to you.
I do regret the multiple thread derailments, but I don’t see a way around it. I put in my two cents (like everyone else here) on an open-ended discussion, and I get into a debate. I assure you, I’m not a troll, I guess I just hold controversial (to some) beliefs, that some folks take issue with. Why is that bad?
So why did you chide me for being a being a closet leftist?
If you want to debate it, I’d be glad to.
I gave Hoppe a fair shake when I was discovering the luminaries of the libertarian movement, and I like some of what he has to say about the state and democracy, but his attempt to deduce ethics praxeologically, just seems like a bunch of hot air to me.
Then what are you here for? Who here is God? I’d like to PM him.
Why not?
Why not?
Skimmed the article. Here’s a passage that I found interesting:
This is one of the big problems I have with Hoppe’s method of reasoning. Deductivism seems to imply that a non-omniscient being is capable of weighing all the factors necessary to come to an absolute conclusion, which I don’t understand the possibility of.
When you constantly berate others as ideologues, you do just that. So if you want to prove this statement true, cease with the silly little provocations, otherwise realise you’ll elicit just this sort of reaction.
I simply don’t have more time for your nonsense now.
Wonderful, a baseless assertion. I will remind you of a comment I already made to you today. There can be a distinction made between the ethical-aesthetical and the moral-legal. I am surprised you haven’t cried semantics yet!
I think taht is an unfair representation of what I do. Sometimes I go a little overboard, but I’m usually on the defensive at that point.
OK, I’ll try.
As a natty right, I’d thought you’d be into that sort of thing.
What is it?
I pretty much agree with ER Olovetto on everything above, and Jon was spot on his point.
Aside from that back to your original response.
That does not follow from your previous comments
How can a market transpire if people have no authority over what they do with the objects in their possession? (IE property)
A market is interpersonal activity via exchange. Please explain to us how a market functions without a concept of property.
Actually, ideas aren’t scarce goods. I can repeat the letter ‘A’ aAaAaAaAaA an infinite amount of times and the concept remains as it was.
My time is scarce, but, luckily for you, some phones were busy, and I have decided to fit you in. I will be out of town this weekend, so I am less likely to respond, but who knows?
This is true, but there is a trend, and I am not convinced that you aren’t still being disingenuous.
I don’t know about the ins and outs of all of Stirner’s ideas. I would be happy to read where he talks about this if you can cite it. I’ve asked you before if you can tell what sets libertarianism apart from other political philosophies. You claimed it is a religion, and no different than socialism, communism, democratic republicanism, or whatever other brands of statism or collectivism. Please read Kinsella’s What Libertarianism Is, especially the section on self-ownership and conflict-avoidance.
Maybe there is something to learn from Stirner, but I think that he can be written off, by and large, from what I have learned. I don’t know how rigorously you even adhere to his ideas.
How a genuinely free market or any semblance of legal order comes from that is beyond me. It sounds more like a Hobbesian Jungle.
Freedom is not exercising your free-will with impunity. As rational agents, acting within a world of scarcity, we must devise a way to resolve disputes. These fora are not my, yours, nor “public” property. What is important to me as a user is that the moderators crack down on the people who constantly derail and commit logical fallacies, in order to allow for more serious and enjoyable discussion. I don’t care if you are a closet leftist, an out of the closet leftist or a confused quasi-Stirnerite who still thinks that he would be sitting at the computer he types on if not for respect of property rights and the division of labor. You need to back up claims you make because most of what I see is…
…
I am here for knowledge, scientia. Whomever’s conception of God is irrelevant to what the knowledge accessible to Man is. Jurisprudence draws on knowledge from other sources than the social sciences. I know that the best developed branch of praxeology, the study of human action, is, as of now, economics. My personal goal is to add to the field of praxeology, specifically as it relates to law. I think that Höppe, Kinsella, and Block all might have books on that due out in the next year or so, and this is rather intimidating to a newbie like me. Most of the time, I keep my opinions and merely things I am not certain of to myself. A lot of what I write here is just regurgitating other writers’ ideas.
Don’t be obtuse. This is your thread to figure it out and show us, as it is your claim.
Read Höppe. The law of non-contradiction, logical deduction, and the use of axioms all seem pretty solid to me. Your moaning and poking hasn’t changed my mind.
What do you mean, have no authority? If you possess an object, you have authority over it. I don’t know why you need a concept of property (which as I went over in the other thread, I understand as rights-based) for that to be the case.
Oooh, flame war! Perhaps I shall cook marshmallows. 
So far all that’s happened on this thread is that Olovetto has been angry for little apparent reason other than the fact that Jackson spreads his opinions and enjoys discussion whenever one is challenged… Isn’t that what we all do here?
Also, objective ethics is a load of crap… Just trying to make my hot dogs to cook a little faster.
your theory of property in bringing up ethics when it’s an economic question is beyond me, but you are repetitive, so nothing unique.
edit: I reread filc’s post, maybe he did bring up ethics. I find ethics to be inescapable, but that doesn’t necessarily mean a topic has to be ethically deducted at the moment. So ignore this post as filc might have asked you an ethics question. As I told you in the other thread I was refraining from an ethical discussion so I find no need to contribute at the moment in this thread any further.