I know your position what “Tom thinks is irrelevant”. There’s that lacking of liberty I discussed with you.
so? Doesn’t mean Tom doesn’t have a say. Tom’s not dead. Let him talk.
Are you capable of not bashing me over and over again? Post after post after post you have constantly bashed me. Your lack of intellectual discourse is self-evident by now as the thread is growing and showing just so you know.
I’ve already given my moral stance. Let’s ask Tom’s his.
I know exactly what I’m talking about.
Klemm bubble
It has nothing to do with “lacking of liberty”, it is a matter of how this kind of discourse works. You must provide a rational argument as to whether or not it is morally permissible for Klemm to break in the cabin - and this doesn’t depend on what either Tom OR Klemm think, and the talk about what they think is a distraction from the argument at hand. Declaring that it doesn’t matter what Tom thinks has nothing to do with liberty - the point is that it doesn’t matter what anything thinks when you’re supposed to be providing arguments. What actors in the scenario think is irrelevant in the context of us discussing the scenario.
What Tom or Klemm have to say is irrelevant to this debate. What matters is the coherancy of OUR arguments.
In an incredibly evasive way. You have yet to provide an argument in the context I am talking about.
“Klem Bubble”. You are either a troll that I’ve been taking too seriously or are horrible at formal debate.
“Klem Bubble”. You are either a troll that I’ve been taking too seriously or are horrible at formal debate.
These are not mutually exclusive positions.
Also, Austrian Economics does not equal libertarianism, you bunch of jackasses.
You’re right, it could concievably be both.
And I agree with you that Austrian economics does not equal libertarianism, since it is a value-free analytical tool while libertarianism is a system of values. This is part of why I find it problematic when certain austrians act as if libertarian values (or their pet libertarian theory of property rights) are inherently derived from praxeology, when a strict Misean position and the context of economic analysis is essentially amoral, and when they act as if one must be an adherant of Austrian economics to be a libertarian. Of course, I have no significant qualms with austrian economics whatsoever, but you’re right - it can’t be conflated with a libertarian political theory in a broad sense.
This thread is a cesspool; Wilderness and Brainpolice are going nowhere fast, Giles is trolling, and I have been strawmanned as both a Rothbardian and an Objectivist within the space of 5 minutes.
lights a joint Want a hit? Everyone’s doing it!
Not for too much longer.
Of course, I have no significant qualms with austrian economics whatsoever, but you’re right - it can’t be conflated with a libertarian political theory in a broad sense.
Yeah, having read HA, MES, and Mises’ works on the epistemology of economic theory I have to say I largely agree with a Misesian or hardcore Austrian analysis. But that’s all it is - analysis. It doesn’t tell you what to think about the conclusions.
Right. To my knowledge, Mises was very rigorous about making such a distinction.
I’m going to risk sounding really snarky here and say that you are not even making an attempt to understand the wilderness’ point of view. You have completely contradicted yourself multiple times. I suspect because you are getting frustrated that we are just not getting it and each time you rephrase, it gets closer to what you actually mean, yet farther from what you originally said. I can provide example if you’d like, but I’d much rather you either acknowledge it or look back though the last five or so pages and see for yourself. wilderness seems to be so frustrated he’s gone sarcastic. LS went that way long ago.
I agree the the question is whether it is morally permissible for Klemm to break Tom’s window to save his own life. wilderness and I are contending that this is not morally permissible without Tom’s consent. I grant that Tom, due to geography, is unable to give his consent. The problem then becomes: what to do in the absence of both consent and denial? I still maintain that it is morally impermissible, due to lack of consent. That is not to say that he shouldn’t do it. Were I Klemm, I would certainly break the window and take shelter in the cabin. But that’ doesn’t mean I believe my actions would be moral, but rather simply the lesser of two evils.
As far as the NAP, or the incompleteness of the NAP, relates to this problem, or shooting the jellybean kid, or torturing party guests, what one may do with one’s property is really not an issue. The NAP does not deal with what one may do; it deals strictly with negative rights, and therefore deals with what one may not do. And it already specifies that: all aggression against person and property is right out. Of course that begs the question(s). So lets ask them, and discuss them. I was really looking forward to that a few pages ago, but you shot me down.
What is property? What is aggression? Where is the line between defence and aggression? Where is the line between using force to seek restitution and aggression? I have opinions on these, of course, but I’d sure like to discuss them.
wilderness has repeatedly asked to discuss the last question, but consistently gets That’s not the point! or That has nothing to do with it! in response. Are you only looking for a complete theory of property, thoroughly spelled out, or are you willing to discuss one point at a time? Personally, I’d much rather discuss them point by point.
This is the most interesting thread I’ve read on these boards.
In my view however, I believe nirgraham, zefreak and liberty student have all provided posts that should have ended this thread a long time ago. Giles doesn’t seem to have an argument, and danny and brainpolice both seem confused. The interesting thing however is that one one of the aforementioned three (n,z,ls) posts something I find fooking interesting and seems to demolish the arguments of the latter three, they seem to be casually ignored.
I agree with n,z,ls because it is the only logical approach. As nir pointed out before the position d,gs,bp hold merely(?) leads us to communism. It’s sad they can’t see it.
My position has nothing to do with communism. I reject communism in the marxist sense of the term (since I don’t buy dialectical materialism, the labor theory of value, the primitive accumulation theory, his class analysis, the to each according to his ability maxim, any part of the platform of the communist manifesto, I reject the idea of a vangaurd state, etc.). I don’t advocate for the abolition of private property or for the entire economy to be monopolized as a singular “commune”. I fully reject communism in the sense of state ownership of the means of production, as well as communism in the sense of the historical viewpoint that communism is an inevitabe future stage of history in which there is a stateless classless society.
I also do not personally advocate or prefer anarcho-communism, and I have critisized various anarcho-communists on the grounds that many of them are defacto vangaurd statists and state-socialists. I think that Kropotkin was incredibly vague - Bakunin (who’s anarcho-collectivism is not communism) is preferable as far as socialist anarchists go. Have you read Kropotkin? As for “council communism”, it was a failed attempt by anarchists to reconcile themselves with the state-communists that devolved into a crude form of municipalism, similar to the position that Murray Bookchin devolved into when he started ranting and raving about how evil “lifestyle anarchism” is and essentially abandoned the anarchist movement for localized communism.
I’m surprised that noone has made what would be a more valid comparison - of comparing me to a Randian or Neitzschian, since I’ve placed a certain emphasis on life. It certainly seems like the basic moral intuition of most people in these kind of life-and-death scenarios would be to save the life that is being threatened, and it makes little sense to cling to an ethical theory that demands that people are obligated to die and defies common sense. It is simply silly to call people communists for thinking that the guy hanging from the flagpole’s life is more important than a window.
I have! But no one wants to talk about Marxism or Socialism. [:(]
brainpolice, how does justifying aggression not justify communism???
If you can explain that in one paragraph then you’ve won the argument.
Noone has justified aggression. It’s a false premise. Furthermore, while it may be true that communism involves aggression, the definition of communism is not “aggression” - that is, it would be fallacious to make an absolute conflation between the two, since there are forms of aggression that do not take the form of communism (and there are possible forms of micro-communism that are at least nominally compatible with libertarianism).
But this is all irrelevant, since I reject communism and don’t consider someone saving their life in a dire situation to be “aggression” in some egregious sense.
Hahahahahahaha, my god man, what is it then if it is not aggression?
What is what? What’s “it”? Klemm breaking into Tom’s house? Well, using a loose definition of “aggression” that includes “aggression” against inanimate objects and non-persons, yes, it is “aggression”. Except what it actually is in the context of common sense is someone doing that which is necessary to save their life in dire circumstances, and it is harmless on a meta level. Furthermore, noone has argued against Klemm being liable for damages after the fact.
You have just conceded your position was wrong.
Thank you.