Hi,
Long time ago but I just published a quick summary of my current thinking:
http://hubpages.com/_ancap/hub/The-3-Types-Of-Idiots-In-Political-Philosophy
I’d love to hear the feedback from the experts in this forum!
PS Hubpages is a website that can use some ancaps posting there…
As long as it stays on Hubpages…
Seriously, though, calling people idiots alienates a lot of people. Political philosophy is already confused enough; we don’t need more people slinging mud around.
Sorting people into categories does not provide a positive case for ‘Neo-nihilism’.
I didn’t check whether this is against the Hubpages terms, it certainly didn’t appear so when reading the forums
I don’t try make a positive case, just wrote my opinion down after reading some of the stuff in the politics forum at Hubpages
I’m at a point where I don’t care about alienating people politically
Thanks for reply
Anyone who didn’t just read Nietzsche a few days ago is an idiot. Got it…
And again:
“For we are not, in constructing a theory of liberty and property, i.e., a “political” ethic, concerned with all personal moral principles. We are not herewith concerned whether it is moral or immoral for someone to lie, to be a good person, to develop his faculties, or be kind or mean to his neighbors. We are concerned, in this sort of discussion, solely with such “political ethical” questions as the proper role of violence, the sphere of rights, or the definitions of criminality and aggression. Whether or not it is moral or immoral for “Smith” - the fellow excluded by the owner from the plank or the lifeboat - to force someone else out of the lifeboat, or whether he should die heroically instead, is not our concern, and not the proper concern of a theory of political ethics.[5]” - MNR
It’s great you actually get there is a divide between personal ethics and political philosophy, yet your description of what it is - is disastrous.
@John, Nietzsche pretty much kicks everyone’s ass
Nietzsche was also not a nihilist. Something a lot of people fail to realize since he was so closely associated with nihilism. I mean I guess he was something like the description of “neo-nihilist” in that video, but that is different from traditional nihilism.
If you want an interesting view on Nietzsche’s nihilism (or what he proposed as nihilism) read Julius Evola’s Ride The Tiger.
I actually haven’t read Nietzsche. Which book exactly are you referring to?
Hi Conza, yes I agree with that quote, I don’t see how what I wrote contradicts that.
It pains me to see the toxic effects of rothbard’s fundamentalism still present on the forums. I wish we could get over it and learn to live with the reality of perception, instead of nonperceptive axiomatics
If Rothbard were a fundamentalist, do you mind telling us what is wrong with his fundamentals? And how you came to know this?
And if there is no right or wrong, how something can be ‘toxic’? Which I assume means bad.
And is that which pains you preferable to that which does not?
"Political philosophy, on the other hand, is answering the question “Given my opinion on what’s right, how can I transform society to match this worldview?”.
Which is complete bs. It’s task is not answering that question at all.
In other words, personel ethcis [sic] is about the what, political philosophy about the how in transforming society. Most people avoid the how question - and thus political philosophy at all - by relying on one or more out of 3 delusions"
Again, nope. Don’t chuck the baby out with the bathwater.
“Libertarianism, then, is a philosophy seeking a policy. But what else can a libertarian philosophy say about strategy, about “policy”? In the first place, surely-again in Acton’s words-it must say that liberty is the “highest political end,” the overriding goal of libertarian philosophy. Highest political end, of course, does not mean “highest end” for man in general. Indeed, every individual has a variety of personal ends and differing hierarchies of importance for these goals on his personal scale of values. Political philosophy is that subset of ethical philosophy which deals specifically with politics, that is, the proper role of violence in human life (and hence the explication of such concepts as crime and property). Indeed, a libertarian world would beone in which every individual would at last be free to seek and pursue his own ends-to “pursue happiness,” in the felicitous Jeffersonian phrase.” - TEOL, chp 30
It pains me to see the toxic effects of rothbard’s fundamentalism still present on the forums. I wish we could get over it
It pains me to see that you think a baseless assertion counts as a valid argument.