Why are you quoting LS in order to object to what I said about you. That makes no sense.
LS makes the claim “with or against.” John says “I am not totally Libertarian. Am I libertarian?” I say “according to LS, no.” You say “that was not your position regarding LS.” I quote LS to show that it, in fact, was my position that “no, according to LS you would not be.”
Ok well expand on that. You havn’t once asked what his definition of libertarianism is. In fact you haven’t even addressed the definition of Libertarianism at all, even though you say “I am”. Thus far you’ve critiqued his opinion, but not the underlying tenants which support it.
So again I maintain, you haven’t really brought forth an argument.
No its not. Your asking me to explain why there can be no compromise. Why something cannot be absolutely black, or absolutely white at the same time. Why an object that is gray, can be neither be considered black or white. Why one simply cannot eat their cake and have it to. I don’t know why, the universe wasn’t made that way. Where is the ad hominem?
Please consider the actual point of the metaphore before dismissing it. It has everything to do with the discussion at hand.
Your quarrel with LS was not about you just not refusing a government job.
Why would not refusing a government job be dishonest?
Where is the ad hominem?
Here; "I’m sorry this bothers you so much"
Please consider the actual point of the metaphore before dismissing it. It has everything to do with the discussion at hand
I did. And my original argument that the world is not so black and white still holds for your metaphors too. Rarely is anything binary in the real world, nuance is life.
Ok well expand on that. You havn’t once asked what his definition of libertarianism is. In fact you haven’t even addressed the definition of Libertarianism at all, even though you say “I am”. Thus far you’ve critiqued his opinion, but not the underlying tenants which support it
If he wants to change his mind on what Libertarian is, that is fine. The point of my post was that he provided a definition of libertarianism so narrow it precludes everyone but himself (seemingly) from being a libertarian, even one I assume to be, in his opinion, a champion of liberty.
So again I maintain, you haven’t really brought forth an argument.
Ok. How is this. Libertarian is best defined as a strong belief in liberty; the ability of man to choose his own path, or practice free-will.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+libertarianism
The tenants of Libertarianism actually have their start in free will, rather than property rights explicitly (Rothbardian libertarianism; propertarianism) and the NAP
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cl_qwo2VIlU&feature=player_embedded#
LS has posited that you are “either Rothbardian libertarian, not libertarian, or Rothbardian libertarianism is not libertarian.”
This is a faulty view that clumps people into groups and does not allow for the many nuanced positions within the libertarian and anarchist movements. It is an “us vs them” mentality. We would all be better served to avoid such extremist positions.
The world is not so black and white, blah blah blah. This is the excuse given when someone wants markets in areas that suit them, and equally coercion in areas that suit them. Its used because the individual does not know why he chooses markets in some areas, and not in others. So in order to hide the inconsistency he must use the “Its not so black and white” line.
Quite frankly it’s a copout, and that line doesn’t explain to us why markets are bad in some areas(And coercive governance is required), and not in others.
The whole, Eat your cake and have it to, is a perfect metaphore for this. As the issue of whats black and white does not play into it. There is no fuzzy ground, you can’t eat your whole cake, but yet some how magically have a part of it remain. There is no gray area.
How bold of you, what is LS’s definition of libertarianism? Can you reference a quote from him?
Great, I’m glad I was able to help you formulate an argument. You’ll have to wait to see if LS chooses to respond.
So in order to hide the inconsistency he must use the “Its not so black and white” line.
Quite frankly it’s a copout
All businessmen are crooks. You can see that most businesses go under, or are caught for some type of fraud or exploitation. Therefore we should abolish business.
That is the kind of simple-minded, black and white issues I am referencing (to put it in a perspective you wouldn’t agree with).
There is no fuzzy ground, you can’t eat your whole cake, but yet some how magically have a part of it remain. There is no gray area.
There sure is; self-replicating cake. I can eat the whole cake that was there initially, and it just continues replicating.
You’ll have to wait to see if LS chooses to respond
That I will.
I consider myself a Friedman ancap moreso than a Rothbardian one. This is what I mean about the OP not being able to capture or dissect my opinion.
liberty student, in no manner does David Friedman endorse the non-aggression principle as a deontological commitment. Doesn’t that undermine your argument?
This is an inadequate comparison and critique of the position.
The position is do you believe in markets, or not. And is your position consistent. Our argument is that if you believe in markets in s ome areas, and not in others, you are being inconsistent.
What your doing right is weaseling out of that argument which is presented. Take business men. If a business man only steals from people on friday, but no on any other day of the week, he is a thief. If he is a fraud only 1 day out of the week, and honest the other 6, he is still a fraud. Or if a man only murders on saturdays, but does not murder on any other day of the week, he is no less of a murderer. There is no gray area. It just sounds like desperately wish there was.
The way you deduced the “abolish all business” is not what we are doing here. Let me requote your passage to match our position.
The difference between your pathetic attempt at discrediting our argument, and our actual argument is as follows.
Not all business men are crooks, but all States are. There is no logic behind the argument that all businessmen are crooks, and even if some businessmen were crooks, that doesn’t make them all fraudulent. On the flipside, the inherent mechanism of government is to act fraudulently. So you see your not making an apples to apples comparison, and just making a weak attempt at mis-characterizing and over-simplifying the argument.
If anyone is being simple-minded it would be your attempted attack on our position.
When you can demonstrate that you’ve eliminated scarcity I may concede the point. But even if you did, that doesn’t eliminate the underlying meaning of the metaphore. Tell you what, when you’ve eliminated scarcity of all types. Both time, and physical objects being super-abundant, then we’ll talk about whether or not there is a gray area.
Until then your still ignoring the point of the metaphore.
Because Rothbardianism is about aggression
Rothbardianism summed simply is that aggression is wrong
Rothbard’s position on libertarianism was defined by aggression and non-aggression.
strangeloop wants to define libertarian as encompassing positions not Rothbardian. If he accepts that Rothbardianism is libertarian, then it seems that positions in conflict with Rothbardianism cannot be libertarian. If he denies Rothbardianism as libertarian, then that’s an entire issue altogether
If you accept Rothbardianism as libertarianism, then you have to accept non-aggression as libertarianism. If you reject Rothbardianism as libertarianism, well then let’s have that debate
You can see where I made my mistake?
So if I talked about Ford cars, would I be appealing to Henry Ford?
Both statements are unprovable. I am sympathetic to the former, I think the latter assumes that everyone else is a homogenous group equally affected by my stance.
Rothbard was for non-aggression. He may not have applied it the same way as others, wrt to children/fetuses, or intellectual property etc. but his goal was always to find the solution which did not involve the initiation of force. The “market means”.
So we’re back to my definition of libertarianism and rothbardianism. What are the definitions? I argue they are the same. Non-aggression. That without non-aggression, there is no meaningful difference between a conservative and a libertarian or a progressive and a libertarian.
You’re arguing by assertion. The burden of proof is on you, not me. I don’t have to disprove you, you have to prove your position.
Pin me down. Please. But just be accurate.
It’s not that my views are the only correct ones. My preferences are unique, and no one else can be expected to agree with my ends. That’s a fundamental insight of praxeology. However, when we discuss logic, which is objective and not the realm of the subjective, yes, I do believe that illogical understandings are wrong, and if my understandings are logical, then they must be right.
Look, either A = A, or A = not A. It can’t be both at the same time. And that is the problem in this and the other debate. People refuse to define anything clearly, and when questioned directly, they obfuscate and avoid. If we can’t define libertarianism, then aren’t we all just wasting time?
I have given a definition. I have asked for one in return that is not some bullcrap copy paste from Wikipedia. I want you, my opposite (or perhaps ally) in debate to either agree with my definition, or articulate a better one. And to prove I’m not debating Wikipedia but you, please put it in your own words.
and our actual argument
I didnt’ realize the position was yours (plural). Either way, black and white statements do not help the situation, as they only seek to alienate people who may disagree with you on some minor issue.
The position is do you believe in markets, or not. And is your position consistent. Our argument is that if you believe in markets in s ome areas, and not in others, you are being inconsistent
No, the position was that black and white statements are rarely true.
If a business man only steals from people on friday, but no on any other day of the week, he is a thief. If he is a fraud only 1 day out of the week, and honest the other 6, he is still a fraud. Or if a man only murders on saturdays, but does not murder on any other day of the week, he is no less of a murderer
What if he defrauded somebody to protect himself (say, the State on taxes)? Is he still a fraud? Does it make you a fraud to defraud a fraud, or otherwise illegitimate entity trying to take from you?
I get it, he’s your comerade, and you have to protect him. Nothing you have stated has detracted from my position that “blanket statements and generalizations, like the definition of libertariansim propounded by LS, only alienate potential allies. They provide no room for the many nuanced positions amongst the libertarian movement, even from before LS, you, or Rothbard even lived.”
More people would call Ron Paul libertarian than not; more people would call Milton Friedman a libertarian than not; etc. You cannot personally re-define terms by your purist criteria.
In a 1955 article by Dean Russell, he states, “While a libertarian expects the government to render equal protection to all persons against outright fraud and misrepresentation, he doesn’t expect the government to protect anyone from the consequences of his own free choices.” He adds, “A Libertarian favors a strictly limited form of government with many checks and balances—and divisions of authority—to foil the abuses of the fearful power of government.”
P.S. In Strictly Confidential, Rothbard calls minarchists libertarians.
Epicurus, you’re entitled to your opinion of me and my tactics, attitudes and preferences. No one is questioning that. But it’s not a debate topic. It’s your own subjective determination.
I would say I disagree with you because I think my work has born a lot of fruit by my own reckoning. I assure you, there is a audience for straight talk, and uncompromising pro-market rhetoric (else why would anyone read or donate $100k to LRC?).
PS, Matt Welch is a pro-war social democrat. He is precisely the sort of squishy libertarian that I think adds nothing to a movement, and perhaps even takes away from its intellectual energy much like Republicans co-opting the Tea Parties.
liberty student, what have you accomplished? I honestly don’t know. Are you published or something?
So if I talked about Ford cars, would I be appealing to Henry Ford?
If you are talking about Ford cars in the context of “Fordian” business practices, yes.
So we’re back to my definition of libertarianism and rothbardianism. What are the definitions? I argue they are the same. Non-aggression. That without non-aggression, there is no meaningful difference between a conservative and a libertarian or a progressive and a libertarian
Actually, your original assertion was that anyone who supports state action at any time cannot be a libertarian. I pointed out that this nixes Rothbard as libertarian as well, as he was more than willing to use the state to beat up young blacks.
they are not entitled to, is to be pro-state, then turn around and claim to be pro-market - You
Again: unleash the cops to clear the streets of bums and vagrants - Rothbard
Pin me down. Please. But just be accurate
I am trying. As I said, it would be much easier if you would just clarify it yourself. I have made numerous assertions as to what your position appears to be on its face, but it is apparently more nuanced than that
I do believe that illogical understandings are wrong, and if my understandings are logical, then they must be right
I would disagree there (logically sound != neccesarily correct), but it is irrelevant to the discussion (I think)
I have asked for one in return that is not some bullcrap copy paste from Wikipedia
Nothing in this thread is a copy of Wikipedia. Nor is it unrepresentative of the history of libertarianism
I have posited a definition in my own words; libertarian is best defined as one who holds free will as the basis of society. Various schools have developed from there including; Rothbardian, libertarian-socialists, etc.
And I’d like to keep it that way.
No one is questioning that. But it’s not a debate topic
I was asked to open a new topic with more than just WIki, so I did. It was a position against you, but it was not meant as a personal attack. Just a disagreement with your methodology.
I would say I disagree with you because I think my work has born a lot of fruit by my own reckoning. I assure you, there is a audience for straight talk, and uncompromising pro-market rhetoric
Call me a masochist, but that is why I like you lol. Your views are largely anti-thetical to mine (excpet regarding the state and other things of that nature), and your “uncompromising rhetoric” invites one such as myself to criticize it.