Interesting. So, simply quoting David Friedman means I have committed an appeal to authority, while you can suggest that “whatever experts say is what is true.”
In a discussion forum of scholars/experts it is precisely the place for scholars to ‘duke it out’ over what appropriate analysis and appropriate semantics are or should be adopted, for the task the experts set themselves. Mere disagreement amongst prominent members does not eviscerate technical language, particularly not the disagreement of scholars past with scholars present;there is a thing called progress and refinement.
(besides which I could quote Rothbard defining the ‘libertarian’ as “abolitionist”, which is closer to dumping friedman than embracing him, geee I wonder where the /new school/ ways of analysing and discussing political economy might have their roots in…)
Ah, I’ve spotted the problem: you’re a progressive!
I completely agree; but, if our “refinement” simply means cannabilizing the movement even further for the sake moral consistency, then count me out. Too much energy is spent on purity-ring one-upmanship.
wowa, a minute ago you were agreeing with me that the meaning of words shifts with context… no?, and are you also suspicious of ‘appeal to authority fallacies’ ?..yes?
maybe you should do the ground work of resolving whatever paradox you think there is here before having me shoulder your burden
I don’t suggest. If you think I am getting at something, ask and I will answer you as directly and concisely as I can. I don’t run from my ideas, good or bad.
Oh, I didn’t realize you were endorsing that. I totally agree with that.
Oh, I didn’t realize you were endorsing that. I totally agree with that.
So hopefully you will restrict yourself from criticism based on mere mass consensus; and that are not supported by positive reasoned arguments for adopting your preferred position.
The only reason that Rothbard is in this argument at all, is because I made the claim that ancap of the Rothbardian variety (Rothbardianism) was libertarian, and if non-aggression (the core principle of Rothbardianism) is indeed libertarian, then it is contradictory to say that libertarianism with aggression is the same meta concept.
That’s not a controversial statement. I think it is logically consistent. If A = A, then A cannot be = not A.
If libertarianism is about non-aggression (necessary for Rothbardians to be libertarians) then libertarianism cannot also be about aggression, because then it would necessitate excluding Rothbardians.
Now if you want to question Rothbard’s libertarian credentials, that’s another discussion. You can go back and forth with Conza, he’s the best we’ve got for that job.
This ^^ is almost verbatim what I posted (and of course was ignored by my detractors) in the other discussion which lead to this one. No one wants to take on the obvious logic of my statement, and no one wants to challenge that Rothbard was not in fact a libertarian (which would be interesting to say the least). Instead, we have pages of appeals to Wiggenstein, use meaning of words, and the scare tactic of consequences to the space time continuum if we stop applying libertarian (in a technical sense) to Milton Friedman.
Along the way I have asked you for, and told you I would accept, your definition of libertarian. I did this, hoping to prove that any definition of libertarian which has to do with individualism, property rights or self-ownership, has to reduce to an argument for non-aggressive anarchism.
I’m not saying that is the right moral code for everyone to adopt, I am not saying that moral code is an absolute truth founded in natural rights.
Only that a libertarian for aggression (even sometimes) is a contradiction. At best, it makes someone a BAD libertarian.
I don’t think you’re wrong per se, but I think you’re mischaracterizing the limited-government libertarians.
Adherents to the non-aggresion principle who are still minarchistic advocate a limited-government because of the non-aggression principle: rather than deteriorate into a Hobbesian state of nature where violence is prominent, they would rather have a minarchic State to avoid a worse alternative.
Now, you and I will both agree that such minarchists are wrong to doubt the feasibility of anarcho-capitalism, but minarchists aren’t explicitly deviating from the logic of the non-aggression principle: they are maximizing non-aggression as much as they believe is possible.
if you don’t doubt your expertise qua economically literate advocate of anarchy that you are , then from your(expert) perspective they are not maximizing non-aggression as much as they might. do you find this statement unobjectionable?
No. However, I still believe that debate is within the libertarian movement. They’re wrong, but still libertarian.
Stephen Jay Gould might have criticized Daniel Dennett for his pervasive adaptationism, but I don’t believe such a debate disqualifies either one as being an evolutionist.
Well, I agree in so far as I am a big tenter and am willing to call fringe-libertarians, or libertarians that are not consistent and have yet much to learn libertarians, in the context where it is functionally appropriate to be all big-tent.
I do however disagree with you that its always proper to be big-tent. Its precisely when you are sat in the tent with a ‘fringer’, that it may be the right time to have them think about going all the way, etc.
I don’t disagree, actually. When Glenn Beck calls himself a libertarian, it’s outlandish and can only embarass the rest of us. I believe it is helpful for us to encourage quasi-libertarians to be more fully committed to (1) consistently applying the non-aggression principle (2) learning economics to debunk pernicious untruths (3) exploring the technical feasibility of anarcho-capitalism.
That’s all fine and good. And, I am even okay with people that assert Bob Barr and Wayne Allyn Root are faux libertarians.(If only Mary Ruwart won the nomination!)
But I’m not comfortable calling Milton Friedman a statist. That’s when you’re being too exclusive. Of course, none of this can be authoritatively determined by an individual such as myself; there will continue to be philosophic clashes on these issues, and the dust will never completely settle.
I think there’s a good and already-established term to use for phonies: LINO (libertarians in name only).
I see what you did there.
Did you read my explanation that the line of reasoning about being too exclusive about the term libertarian, is precisely what you insist upon doing to the term statist?
You say that libertarian is not absolute in meaning, but that has to imply that statism is absolute if they are opposites. So to then roll out the “use meaning” argument is completely nonsensical. You argue that I misapply statist, but then you argue that you cannot misapply libertarian.
This sort of reasoning (or lack thereof) is incredibly frustrating, particularly when I point it out repeatedly, and you ignore it.
I think it is logically consistent. If A = A, then A cannot be = not A.
I’m not sure the premises are true;
If libertarianism is about non-aggression (necessary for Rothbardians to be libertarians) then libertarianism cannot also be about aggression, because then it would necessitate excluding Rothbardians
Libertarianism has not historically been defined as non-aggression per se. Rothbardianism has, and Rothbardians ally themselves with libertarian thought and movements. In fact, according to your argument, which I disagree with, Rothbardianism would not be libertarianism at all.
I think it is better expressed as; all Rothbardians are libertarians (maybe) but not all libertarians are Rothbardians.
Now if you want to question Rothbard’s libertarian credentials
According to your definition of libertarianism, I do question his libertarian credentials, and I provided evidence early in the thread.
This ^^ is almost verbatim what I posted (and of course was ignored by my detractors) in the other discussion which lead to this one. No one wants to take on the obvious logic of my statement, and no one wants to challenge that Rothbard was not in fact a libertarian (which would be interesting to say the least).
In fact, I did. But only according to your definition of libertarianism.
Right, but you’re appealing to historical definitions that predate Rothbard. Rothbard was Mr. Libertarian at a time when Milton Friedman was operating as a libertarian as well. The historical definition of freedom, or slavery or women or happiness or market, doesn’t mean what it means now either.
Marxists (not saying you are one) are into Hegelian historicism. It doesn’t have a lot of value to a logician.
That is precisely the issue. You’re saying that Rothbardians are equal to libertarians (A = A) but then you turn around and say that not all libertarians are Rothbardians (A is not equal to A). It can be one or it can be the other. It cannot be both at the same time as that would be a contradiction.
I’m not interested in that debate in the least. I don’t feel compelled to discuss Rothbard, Mises, Friedman or any other libertarian’s personal views, writings or actions. As explained above, a Rothbardian is someone who is for ancap rooted in non-aggression, not someone who worships Rothbard or has read all his books, or promises to defend his good name against all comers.
Marxists (not saying you are one) are into Hegelian historicism. It doesn’t have a lot of value to a logician.
Um,
My dialectic method is not only different from the Hegelian, but is its direct opposite. To Hegel, the life-process of the human brain, i.e. the process of thinking, which, under the name of ‘the Idea,’ he even transforms into an independent subject, is the demiurgos of the real world, and the real world is only the external, phenomenal form of ‘the Idea.’ With me, on the contrary, the ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the human mind, and translated into forms of thought. ~Marx
That is precisely the issue. You’re saying that Rothbardians are equal to libertarians (A = A) but then you turn around and say that not all libertarians are Rothbardians (A is not equal to A). It can be one or it can be the other. It cannot be both at the same time as that would be a contradiction.
I don’t equate the two at all. I see Rothbardianism as inspired by libertarianism, but a propertarian take on it. I see (A > A).
Please do not say I lack reasoning when you claim something like this.
You did equate the two. I took my example from what you wrote.
You realize this doesn’t make any sense, right?