You still have not explained what these goals are, who came up with them, how they are necessary for libertarianism etc.
And who decides when it is necessary? Who sets this subjective standard? What consequences are there for someone who takes an action in self-defense, when the boundaries of what self-defense is appropriate are not defined?
“We[libertarians] pioneered the ideas that today are associated with the left—class conflict, anti-corporatism, and worker empowerment (as well, incidentally, as feminism, antiracism, antimilitarism, and environmentalism).”
Long is CLEARLY referring to the history of invidiualist anarchism and libertarianism.
Troll harder.
Who are you referring to?
Which is doubleplus bad, no?
Topics generally tend to move from the original focus, in fact, on these forums. They always do, you’ve done the same thing many times so I can only assume that you’re not managing to maintain a straight face whilst typing this.
Now honestly, do you really feel the need to insert the “weak” in their BP? I’m curious to know what that adds to the discussion. Actually, libertarianism means adherence to the NAP, nothing else. You may well have other goals you find desirable, but more than an economic analysis of how likely those goals are to be acheived upon abolition of the state there’s not much you can do as a libertarian.
Of course, as an antiracist you can argue why racism is bad, evil etc. But as a libertarian? No.
This has nothing to do with utilitarianism and everything to do with you enforcing your personal values on to everybody else.
Correct, only, you’re speaking for everybody else here when you talk of negative consequences. I’d be thrilled 'with many of the things you’d be disgusted with. Once again, economic analysis can tell us what will happen, there’s not much more you can do that make that economic analysis. Of course, the fact that you’ve avoided doing so is very telling.
Why is the early anarchist history any more important than recent anarchist history, like when libertarianism is seen as conservative by many. Don’t get me wrong I generally oppose both the libertarians and the conservatives who make such claims and would claim that most of the time they’re neither, or at least confused libertarians/ conservatives at any rate.
But that’s not important.
Poor baby.
Oh, drop the rhetoric. It IS what the discussion is about, and you just trolled the thread.
This thread is about the proper context and consistant application of the non-aggression principle, nothing more. It has nothing to do with the things you brought up, you are simply trolling the thread.
How so? What else do you think these concepts such a the NAP and self-ownership are? They are ethical norms that are part of a libertarian theory of justice. I’m not talking about legal systems, I’m talking about general principles.
I’m not conflating liberty to utopian ideals. I’m trying to provide a consistant context and application of liberty, and you’re devolving into an endless series of antagonisms. Everything that you’re spouting are just strawmen and non-sequitors.
There are no lies here. You have created a strawman of Long’s position out of your own antagonistic motives. Your quote of Long and the source does not confirm to your accusation. Long is not argueing that one must be a feminist to be a libertarian, he’s argueing that feminism can be compatible with libertarianism, that libertarianism has a historical relationship to feminism, and yes, he generally encourages libertarians to get in touch with some of the social causes that used to be more closely associated with it. That doesn’t equate to Long using feminism as a test of one’s libertarianism. You’re just grasping at straws here.
If there is lyeing, it’s you doing the lieing, given that half of what you say with regaurd to be is an overt misrepresentation.
Don’t blame me, I challenged you to a serious debate you’ve ignored every request so far
But actually, I’m not trolling. You really do make statements about what you desire that don’t logically follow from the abolition of the state. As such, you’d best stick to social engineering.
You.
I’ve read most of the debate throughout the various threads, and all you seem to do is misrepresent BP and strawman him, while simultaneously crying, “misrepresentation!” and, “strawman!”
Like I’ve said before, anyways, all of you are just arguing past each other. The only difference I can perceive are what your personal preferences will be in a free society.
Noone specifically decides, I’m talking in terms of normative principles. The context or situation determines if it’s necessary, I.E. wether or not your life is threatened and the degree of cooperation on their part. And the entire point of contention here is wether or not it IS self-defense in these scenarios, scenarios in which there is no real threat to your life and there is general cooperation on the part of the tresspassers.
Nonsense! These ideas were ours first, when we libertarians were the original left. We pioneered the ideas that today are associated with the left—class conflict, anti-corporatism, and worker empowerment (as well, incidentally, as feminism, antiracism, antimilitarism, and environmentalism). We let the statist left steal these ideas and rhetoric from us during our long and unfortunate alliance with the right; but the statist left never had any legitimate claim to them, since left-statist policies are actually inimical to all these goals. (As Rothbard once put it, left-statism is the confused pursuit of libertarian goals by anti-libertarian means.) Left-libertarianism is not a call to dilute libertarianism by introducing alien elements; it’s a call to recover our own distinctive heritage.
I understand that feminism remains a libertarian struggle as long as there is state discrimination of women. Same goes for minorities, conscription/the warfare state and also insufficient property rights enforcement, also known as environmental hazard
However, as soon as those groups gain equal rights before the law / these developments are stopped, what’s the point in combining special interest movements with libertarianism? Yeah, women have the same rights as men, case closed. So do blacks. Conscription is immoral and you have no right to pollute my property just because you run a factory.
I can’t really grasp why this is such a big deal.
Either right-libertarians doubt equality of rights, which they don’t as far as I see, or self-proclaimed left-libertarians are not content with the absence of force in human relations, but also feel the need to purge inequality per se, in which case they cease to be libertarians.
I’m afraid some of our libertarian fellows are currently undergoing a phase in which they try to distance themselves from “reactionary” propertarians to justify the transition to a new ideology, and I’m not so sure it will have much in common with “plumbline libertarianism” once it’s fully unfolded.
No offense intended. Just my perception of the world.
The debate has already taken place ad neuseum. I’ve already won the philosophical arguments, so I don’t know why you insist on having a debate that you already lost.
Ok, let me change the example. Let’s say you’re staying a year in a hotel room in downtown Freetown. Your room is on the end of the hallway, and for the past ten days the rooms in that hall have been broken into and the people inside the room killed, yours is the only room left in the corridor. You have a gun under your pillow and you hear somebody breaking into your room.
Can you shoot?
I have another question but first I’d like to clarify something. You agree the many on the flag pole has the right to break the window, correct? On the grounds that he needs to do that otherwise he would die.
Point out the errors if they exist, I really am curious.
Such as?
Where did I do that to Dilbert?
O Rly? Read it again.
I am not “forcing my values on to everybody else” by trying to flesh out a rational libertarian social theory, which is no different than what Rothbard did. Rothbard was a champion of the idea of a comprehensive libertarian theory of justice. Your continual attempts to act as if any attempt to provide a rational theory of libertarian interpersonal ethics is the same thing as trying to superimpose non-libertarian values onto libertarianism is disingenous.
Actually, your repeated attempts to boil everything down to “economic analysis” only bolsters my contention that you are functioning as a utilitarian. Try giving “The Ethics of Liberty” a read again.
Where? I posted the quote. He’s the one who tried to spin it. I just posted it, clear and obvious as day and wanted everyone to read it just as it lay in the article, hence why I provided the link.
You wrote,
Long is CLEARLY referring to the history of invidiualist anarchism and libertarianism.
I agree. So where is the debate?
Your perception is on target. You deserve a cookie. Obvious man strikes again!
Feminism is commonly the discrimination of women by men. Not the state. While that is a novel definition, I don’t think you will find many so-called feminists claiming to be oppressed by the state, but rather that the state can be their instrument of social justice against discrimination from the male sex.
This.
You are the one who has spun the quote. You are simply reading your own already reached conclusion into the quote. The quote does not establish that Long thinks feminism is a test for libertarianism. That is an outright misrepresentation and you are clearly grasping at straws. Furthermore, you introuced the topic into the thread out of nowhere and that helped devolve the thread away from the original conversation.
Someone has to be threatening your life or at least persistantly refusing to cooperate or leave for a legitimate question of using force on them to arise.
i need you to explain to me , WHY.? this is what im struggling with to understand your position. i recommend maybe a paragraph starting “Because”, or "if. "etc. these would help build your case, which i am very eager to hear. (admittedly its bad form to start with a proposition). ((bad joke))
I will admit this debate is really stretching me. but i think its worthwhile us all having it.
i tihnk you assume a lot. lets say we have a trespasser T, who is the trespasser. and a landowner L, who is being trespassed. why put the obligation on L, and make it L’s responsibilty to find out T’s intentions,goals,desires, capabilities. etc.
perhaps its more reasonable to say that L has the right to apply any kind of force against T, and its up to T to get away and/or explain why he;'s not a threat, its not trespass, or how he will make recompense, .
(thought)>
i think im leaning towards an opinion that says L COULD only be under a greater obligation not to be violent to T during the time of T’s active trespass if T shows some contrition, or something! but this is me wussing out.. lol.
why are we also imagining that being libertarian means the same as being merciful? yes, of course a landowner could be merciful and let the trespass occur without resistance. but why do we insist on it.in an imaginary libertyland, its very likely that part of the Codes Of Conducts that agents would bing themselves to in relation to each other and the law courts and defence agencies they subscribe to, would allow us to oblige ourselves to soften our responses. (our right to violence) but why do we want to artificially graft on a proportionality doctrine that root libertarianism does not need. It is logically consitant ethically theory without Proportionality added it. It seems that the desire to fix-in Proportionality as a core doctrine, is a more ‘pragmatic’ nod, a gesture towards making it a utilitarian , (or more liekly to be adopted, looked upon less frighteningly by outsiders who cant imagine why despite the core rights to violence that individuals through their human nature originally possess, why people would voluntarily commit themselves to shelving them) .
So the challenge is to demonstrate why we need proportionality to make the moral system cogent, (where it is alleged that Proportionality is just snuck in because of our psychological desire to convince ourselves that we want to design a merciful future where everyone is kind)
…
was this a rant?
As Rothbard put it, it’s all about proportionality. When someone violates your rights, they forfeit their rights in proportion to how much they violated yours. If a child takes a quarter out of your wallet, he has not forfeited his life. Likewise, if someone wanders onto your property, he has not forfeited his life. He has only forfeited his life if he threatens yours. I assume it would be up to arbiters in a free society to determine if your life was actually threatened, and if it was not, you’d be forced to reparate.
Because, otherwise, the power of an individual to shoot someone on their property is completely arbitrary, and this begs the question of the application and context of the NAP. If there are zero qualifiers to the use of force on my property, then I could assault and murder whoever I want just on the basis that it’s my property that I assaulted and murdered them on. The fact that you have property doesn’t make other people’s personal sovereignty and right to life suddenly become irrelevant. So the point is, how can one take such an absolutist position on violence in defense of property without undermining libertarian principles and risking an inconsistancy in the application of the NAP?
I never implied that. However, I would argue that a zealous devotion to revenge and too hasty of a preferance to pull the trigger inherently will start to undermine libertarian principles. I also don’t believe in punishment (only restitutional justice).
I’m not really argueing that the landowner has to be a nice guy. I’m argueing that the landowner is not exempt from the NAP’s prohibition on assault and murder just because they have property.