You have to confront LS with a straight argument to get a good response. If your posts have no substance or are poorly thought out, he’ll be dismissive and abrasive. Its probably better this way. I spent time trying to engage these guys thoughtfully and got ignored. LS is just skipping that step.
It’s more like he ignores whatever arguments you do make, or he reacts with a strawman or a non-sequitor, pulls out some personal attacks, and then proclaims victory as you reiterate your arguments. And it’s especially bad if he already dislikes you, going around the forums making sniping remarks at every post you make, remarks that don’t really address the content of what you said. Not a very good standard-bearer of discourse if you ask me.
Geez, guys. I think when people say “the Left”, they mean the individuals in that group or one who associates with the Left or one who describes themselves as a Leftist. It seems to be understood from the get-go. It’s a concept that makes it easier to communicate.
Sure, but I think the concern was that it should be clear that such a group isn’t homogenous and it is epistemically troublesome to make blanket statements about it, especially blanket statements about people’s psychological state and character.
Presumably, the general spirit of this thread is a defense against the prospect of the same thing being perpetuated against libertarians, or more specifically the online community that centers around this website.
^True. I think it’s just a heuristic shortcut that people use and it mostly works, but it can easily be abused into an “us vs. them” mentality.
Just to reiterate and to make it clear, I am the person who originally compiled the quotes. I take full responsibility for it and do not apologize or regret it. The terms “Hoppean” and “Libertarian Conservative” were in the title for a reason, as my purpose was to single out something specific that I find problematic inside of libertarianism. It was in no way a blanket characterization of libertarians or even this website, but I do think it is obvious that this website is more likely to have certain elements (namely, remnants of paleoism and conservative influences) than other places (for an example of contrast, Stefan Molyneux’s website is more likely to have young, secular people, and focus on psychology; FringeElements is more likely to contain moral nihilists and welcome national anarchists; etc.).
Whatever Francios Tremblay and Kevin Carson decided to do with the material I initially compiled, to make some further point, isn’t my responsibility (although I fully endorse the point that Carson was making, and despite Tremblay’s tendency to be over the top I do think that the quotes don’t exactly bode well for the PR of anarcho-capitalists).
Brainpolice, since when is Giles Stratton an anarcho-capitalist?
I never claimed he was or wasn’t, although from what I recall he at least had the pretense of being one a few years ago. I frankly don’t know what the guy believes at this point, as I haven’t been following him for a while. But I don’t see how that negates the general concern that there are elements within this online community that are troublesome, whether we want to grant people status as anarcho-capitalists or not. And, once again, it was Tremblay’s post that focuses on anarcho-capitalism, not my original compilation that much more specifically refers to “Hoppeans” and “Libertarian Conservatives”.
Brainpolice is quite sour, it seems.
Sour in what way? I’m pre-emptively deflecting the charge of strawmanning or making a blanket characterization of everyone here. Or are you thinking more about my “interaction” with LibertyStudent? Well, me and him were always hostile since as far back as I can remember, and I see the guy as perpetually engaging in some pretty immature and invalid tactics (and not just towards me). How he managed to get some special status here is beyond me.
This is a very interesting twist. So brainpolice, out of curiosity, what perspective do you represent?
Libertyandlife: That’s not easy to communicate with a simple label or even a summary. Could you perhaps be more specific or indicate some assumption on your part about what perspectives are at play? Or will “libertarian who thinks that libertarian culture is rife with problems and dubious ideas” suffice?
You have to confront LS with a straight argument to get a good response. If your posts have no substance or are poorly thought out, he’ll be dismissive and abrasive. Its probably better this way. I spent time trying to engage these guys thoughtfully and got ignored. LS is just skipping that step.
I just want to make it clear I don’t dislike him. I think he’s a fervent supporter of his beliefs, and is largely tempered in rationality. I just would prefer if he would have a more substantive rebuttal than “you’re ignorant.” This is a forum, tell me why, or link me to where. I’m not here to blindly join the club, I’m here to learn and discuss economics and political economics.
I mostly only respond when he makes blanket responses like "the left are intellectually dishonest tyrants who want to eat your babies
I like Liberty Student. I think he could be more tolerant. Libertarians have too much in common to not work together, & discuss and enough differences to not become a homogenous blob like all other political ideologies. Any market anarchist who adds the word left or right to their affiliation is wasting their time, though I think this extends to all anarchists. But I’m sure someone here could look at me as too left friendly in some ways.
I’ve heard your name here before, never read any of your posts, and yet you have almost 3,000. You say your libertarian. Do you believe government should exist? Do you endorse free markets? Or are you an anarchist socialist like Epicurus here (if that’s what you identify with Epicurus)? Are you a “left” anarchist in the Chomsky sense, Proudhon sense or Agorist sense? Do your beliefs adhere to the non-aggression principle?
I sense some obvious heat between you and libertystudent, why?
It would seem that 3/4 or more of my posts have been deleted then, because I recall having well over 10,000 dating back to 2007.
No, but I don’t think a simple yes/no to that question disambiguates one’s political philosophy much. In other words, there are some begged questions about the normative positions that would determine what a pro/anti government position amounts to.
Yes, but what people think that entails and the extent to which emphasis on markets is important is a different story. Just like with your prior question, there are some begged questions here.
If I were to peg myself in given those choices, the Proudhon sense. I have some problems with Chomsky, as I see him as functionally taking a state-socialist position. And most agorists aren’t “leftist” enough for my taste.
That opens up a whole discussion for me, as I have a somewhat controversial view on the non-aggression principle and its place in libertarianism. But you certainly won’t see me endorsing initiating physical violence against people.
Something that goes back to past ideological clashes and my status on this forum as a minority viewpoint.
Why is this thread now about LS? And why do some people feel the need to express their opinions of him?
^So your a mutualist? Influence from proudhon? Market anarchists who doesn’t like capitalism, which doesn’t make sense to me. I mean you need profits to run a market. I’m guessing your not anarcho-capitalist or voluntaryist? Do you consider yourself an individualist? Free markets? Capitalism?
If there are questions to be begged, please beg them. I’m always interested in any libertarian thought. I mean if you don’t want to type it out, feel free to link me to something, but considering the number of posts you have…
I’m getting the same vibe I got off Vichy/Liberte, the whole “I hate libertarians but I am one” (obvious exaggeration…sort of). I’m assuming your not Max Stirner type.
I probably most closely identify with the ideas associated with mutualism, although there isn’t really a party line for even that (there are at least roughly three different strands) and I don’t hold Proudhon’s ideas to a tee (and he changed positions over time, like most thinkers who aren’t complete ideologues). As for anarcho-capitalism, it’s a position I used to hold but abandoned over time. As for voluntaryism, I don’t know what it means other than either a different label for the same basic ideas generally found in libertarianism, maybe with a bit more of an air of neutrality to it.
I honestly don’t know where to begin with the begged questions. I have views on a lot of little things.
I don’t “hate libertarians but am one”, I simply think that the ideology of many libertarians has a lot of problems that can be found in it. I always ideological clashed with Vichy about morality and various philosophical points of contention, who’s picture wasn’t her by the way (it was some Korean model; noone knows who Vichy really is). I was briefly attracted to Max Stirner, but I’ve concluded that his philosophy is mostly nonsense dressed up with rhetoric appealing to people’s desire to rebel against anything outside their arbitrary whims, with very little in the way of actual argumentation.
So then how about your differences with anarchocapitalism?
I don’t understand how your not an anarchocapitalist if:
A) You don’t think government should exist.
B)You endorse free markets.
Do you believe in some type of mechanism for controlling the market? A different view of what free markets are?
I’m pretty new to market anarchy (probably about a year in, almost), though I was into socialist anarchism for quite some time, and also a minarchist after that. I still haven’t grasped too much of austrian economics itself, though I’ve understood much of the ethics behind it. I don’t understand a lot of these labels like : “thick libertarianism”. “Left rothbardianism”. Isn’t liberty, liberty? Non coercion?
I’d say to me Voluntaryism is what I think should be the new short label for Anarchist without Adjective. It’s what I identify with.
Mentioning Vichy, this isn’t Vichy: http://www.myspace.com/liberalvichy ?
Or are you an anarchist socialist like Epicurus here (if that’s what you identify with Epicurus)?
I hav e said before, I adhere to the school of my individualism. I am not a market anarchist, anarcho-syndacalist, an-cap… I’m just an anarchist. I don’t see institutionalized heirarchichal structures as necessary, and in fact as detriments to human progress.
Like Brainpolice says above, a lot of these things (free markets, planned economies, government, aggression) are ill-defined imo.
An example I would offer is Social Security (and I may take a lot of heat for this). I see it as existing despite statism, not because of it. History has been clear that there is a strong popular demand for social insurance going all the way back to neolithic times. So is pro social security pro statism? Not in my view, it is perfectly viable as a market phenomenon, because it has so much popular support.