First of all, flic doesn’t have to protect me, and I don’t think he feels he does. Second of all, this is a cowardly way to attack his response. You question his motives, instead of challenging his ideas.
Look, you’ve been humored plenty here, and if anything, you should probably realize now that you don’t actually have an argument that isn’t based on assertion or logical fallacy.
You could have written this in klingon and it would make as much sense. Your position isn’t debatable. It’s simply a preference. You can’t prove it, and even if you could, you haven’t.
I can only respond to one person at a time. I have been responding pretty quickly considering I am in the middle of my working day and trying to get dinner together. I know you think you’re entitled to things as long as you keep blowing kisses at Lilburne, but he’s not going to command me to indulge you, and I think your piling on is something of a joke, so you can either wait, complain or pout. Either way, you’ll get an answer when you get an answer and not a moment sooner.
First of all, flic doesn’t have to protect me, and I don’t think he feels he does
I should have said it is natural for him to desire to come to your aid.
blanket statements and generalizations (ones that are accusatory or hostile in nature) only alienate potential allies.
This is not true? Can you name one time that an accusatory generalization garnered you an ally? I am considered by many to be a socialist (social-anarchist, somewhat left-libertarian [I would have to start a new topic to describe my beliefs, I follow no specific school] to be more specific). And I do not ally with, and actually reject, Stalinists because of blanket “us v them” statements that they make.
They provide no room for the many nuanced positions amongst the libertarian movement, even from before LS, you, or Rothbard even lived
Nor is this? I have provided evidence that libertarian != anarchist neccesarily, even some consider minarchists to be libertarian. Some consider libertarian-socialists to be libertarian as well.
Why on earth do you assume this is the case? And lets say for the sake of argument that I am here at LS’s aid(Which I assure I don’t need to be), why is that relevant to the actual discussion? Does it lend any credibility to your argument?
Because you characterized his position as “our position.”
And lets say for the sake of argument that I am here at LS’s aid(Which I assure I don’t need to be), why is that relevant to the actual discussion? Does it lend any credibility to your argument?
Nope. And I never said it did. Merely that I understand the desire.
Don’t know. Just pointing out that free will did not originally entail property rights.
And is not exclusive control over physical matter in fact property rights?
Yes, but that is not necessarily the logical conclusion of free-will. It is the Rothbardian concept, but libertarian-socialists, and some left-libertarians reject private ownership of resources and land.
Quotation marks indicate it is a direct quote.
And how do you convey paraphrasing (without saying “to paraphrase..”)? Either way…
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
We do not conspire, and have been out of contact for a time. Ofcoarse I have always respected and admired LS. Still thats beside the point. It just so happens to be, perhaps out of coincidence, that he comes to conclusions on many things in the exact same manner as me. It’s still entirely irrelevent. Whether LS and I agree or disagree neither proves nor disproves LS’s position, nor does it prove or disprove yours.
What exactly? You said,
“What if he defrauded somebody to protect himself (say, the State on taxes)? Is he still a fraud?”
I don’t understand the statement.
If you do not understand why this is relevant then you will never understand why we argue that there is no gray area. IMHO the only way you could ever really engage us on a plane that is actually threatening to us is by exploring the logic we employ and critiquing it. That tactic however is not what you aim to do, instead you wish to criticize our consistency, or perhaps the fact that we both just happen to agree on many things. Which ofcourse is entirely irrelevant.
Were things not black before man invented the word “Black”? Was the sky not blue before man fabricated the means to describe it? How did property not exist prior to invented literary term?
I am asking you how that is possible. Don’t tell me that is the answer, if you don’t understand it. C’mon now. What a waste of both of our time.
What is the logical conclusion of free will?
You should say, “paraphrasing”. I’m a stickler for quoting. If I post something dumb, I will own up to it. But it is impossible to debate stuff that other people rewrite on my behalf.
I think that statement is pretty clear. Either Rothbardianism is libertartian or not. If it is, and its core tenet is non-aggression, then aggression could not be libertarian. Seems simple enough to me. If you reject that Rothbard was a libertarian, embracing left libertarianism (some of whom are with Rothbard) or libertarian socialism (which is logically incoherent in my opinion) then that is a completely different discussion, and you will have to argue with Conza, the resident Rothbard expert, about MNR’s libertarian credentials.
Ha, filc, I did not invite you into the argument at all anyway. My point was not to characterize your position, nor to mischaracterize it. Nor did I wish to derail the thread over whether your tag team has any basis on my initial position that “LS’s blanket statements do not accurately characterize the libertarian movement as a whole, and only alienate potential allies (like minarchists for example).”