I can own myself all I want. It does not necessarily logically follow that I own the things I mix my labor with. Where did I get the tools, who protects my right to the property, how did I recieve the knowledge to create whatever it is that I created?
What is the logical conclusion of free will?
Um… free will is? Free will = I have the ability to choose my own path, free from predetermined outcomes (at least to an extent, if I choose path A, I cannot then take path B2, as I would have had to take path B to get to it). You can continue this argument with the “mixing labor” argument. But that conclusion does not neccesarily follow from the premise.
Either Rothbardianism is libertartian or not. If it is, and it’s core tenet is non-aggression, then aggression could not be libertarian. Seems simple enough to me
Just because his reasons for libertarianism are based on the NAP does not mean you are either a NAP libertarian or a statist. One can be anti-state, and still support private aggression. Remember state only means the monopoly of aggression/violence, not just the use of it.
libertarian socialism (which is logically incoherent in my opinion)
Most anarchists in the world would say the same about an-cap, you know?
Can you own your food? What about once it is in your stomach, can you own it then? If so, how do you gain ownership/control of it whether in your pantry, your fridge, your lunchbox or your belly?
You don’t have the ability to choose your own path if I kidnap you. Doesn’t this mean you are against kidnapping?
Also, what predetermined outcomes are you referring to?
What does it mean then?
They might say it, but I don’t think they could prove it. It’s easy to prove that socialism is incoherent.
Again, I am all for people being into whatever they want, but just because they say something, doesn’t make it right ethically or true logically.. That seems to be your persistent issue here. You aren’t separating assertion from fact.
If 99% of the people in an area don’t think you have a right to eat, you’re either moving, or not eating. So.. can you ever really own your food?
You don’t have the ability to choose your own path if I kidnap you. Doesn’t this mean you are against kidnapping?
I most certainly do. Free will (imo) does not end with aggression. You stil have the freedom to kill your kidnapper.
Also, what predetermined outcomes are you referring to?
I actually wasn’t reffering to any in particular, just giving my definition of what free will is. For different people that could be as simple as hindu-like caste systems, or as complex as universal healthcare.
What does it mean then?
It means that Rothbardian libertarianism is founded on the NAP, nothing more or less. It says nothing about other forms of libertarianism.
They might say it, but I don’t think they could prove it
(The following does not necessarily reflect my opinion)
Anarchy means “without rulers.” Capitalism explicitly entails a meritocracy and rule based on purchasing power. This system will inherently continue to have rulers.
I’m not entirely sure where LS is on this position but my stance is always that there is a clear distinction between “Property” and “Rights” or “Property rightS”. Property is a behavioral mechanism innate to human action which cannot be removed. Even if 99% of the people in the area want to pretend it doesn’t exist. Those people still eat don’t they? If not they’d be dead.
In what way is the CEO of walmart a ruler over his customers? AE teaches us that it is the other way around, that the customers are the rulers over the CEO of walmart.
Aside from that your conflating leadership with ruling. Rule implies forced leadership, capitalism, and/or markets, are not compatible with this.
But his own claims are superfluous: even self-professed libertarians (e.g., Ron Paul) don’t count according to your criteria. Furthermore, consequentialist anarcho-capitalists (e.g., David Friedman) don’t qualify. You believe you reign as a language czar, rigidly defining terms in order to sanctify your consistency. If you want to be a “Rothbardian,” then call yourself one; however, be respectful to other allies that don’t share homogenous beliefs.
Additionally, I’ve already stated that Rothbard’s own words disprove your thesis: he included limited-government advocates as libertarians. And, more devastatingly, I cited an article from 1955 that disproved you; what etymology are you using?
If LS is saying that only rothbardians count as libertarians, it does not follow that rothbard gets to define what libertarianism is.
If “libertarian” is allowed to include people only partially opposed to aggression, then everyone is a “libertarian” because every ideology opposes aggression sometimes.
As I demonstrated in the other thread, if you insist that someone who is sometime for the state is still a libertarian, then you are applying my standard to the word statist, since you refuse to call someone who is not a perfect statist a statist. I know logic is hard but please try harder. Attacking me personally without addressing the argument isn’t advancing you in this discussion. In fact, you continue to prove my point by applying my own argument in the inverse.
I’m not a Rothbardian, and you are not my ally. I also never claimed anyone had to have homogenous beliefs. On the contrary, I simply asked for a clear definition of libertarianism, which you have still failed to provide.
I could care less about appeals to authority. Rothbard tried to work with left and right statists through most of his adult life. The results were not very good. I do not consider him a model for how to advance ideas about peace and markets politically.
He defends the State, however minimal; that discounts him as a libertarian by your standards.
For someone who criticizes my “logic,” it seems you have never read Wittgenstein (e.g., he showed that defining “game” demands familiy resemblance). Meaning is use. Quite frankly, you’re attempting a private language: if most other persons don’t use a word like you use it, then you’re neglecting the fact that language is a social phenomenon. We get along quite fine calling Ron Paul libertarian; we don’t suffer confusion; we’re not plagued by inconsistency.
Quoting Wittgenstein, “I can give the concept ‘number’ rigid limits … that is, use the word ‘number’ for a rigidly limited concept, but I can also use it so that the extension of the concept is not closed by a frontier. And this is how we do use the word ‘game’. For how is the concept of a game bounded? What still counts as a game and what no longer does? Can you give the boundary? No. You can draw one; for none has so far been drawn. (But that never troubled you before when you used the word ‘game’.)”
You, likewise, are never actually “troubled” by your alleged problem. We call Ron Paul a libertarian, and we all understand what we mean.
I do believe we consequentialists are libertarians; however, we aren’t deontologically committed to the non-aggression principle (which you defined as a prerequisite for being a libertarian).
You avoided the question. Has Ron Paul ever argued for aggression, yes or no?
I asked you for a definition. I am happy to use your definition, but you refuse to offer it, instead insisting I want my private definition only. Let’s hear the correct definition by use, as shared by you. Is that too much to ask, or will you continue to dodge?
Now that is some grade A bullcrap. You have managed to completely remove logic from discourse, by making it impossible to distinguish between identities. Well done.
No one is denying that the word “libertarian” is used to mean all sorts of different things. Its because this results in confusion that we call for a prescriptive definition… This is unlike the word “game”, which seldom confuses anyone despite being used to refer to all sorts of activities.
A private language is understandable only by a single individual. Since our definition of libertarianism is based on well understood words, it is not an attempt at private language. Scientists do not have private language just because their definition of entropy is more sophisticated than the high school conception of “disorder”.
Some social phenomenons are retarded. If you preface yourself by saying: “I define libertarianism as total opposition to initiation of force”, your meaning should be pretty clear to everyone.
Sometimes we’re fine. Sometimes people think the flag waving war mongering tea partiers are libertarians. Even if people can correctly identify libertarians, they do so under false suppositions. Their conception of the person will be distorted by their muddled preconcieved notions of whatever libertarianism means to them.
Boundedness may or may not cause comprehension problems. In the case of “game”, it empirically does not. But if the word “strawberry” had come to simultaenously mean strawberries and raspberries, i would feel justified in calling for an amendment to that use-definition.