Juan, as you define it, who here (at the community forums) qualifies as a libertarian? Could you name names please?
I don’t know what you understand about epistemology right now. Do you understand the concept of known knowns, unknown knowns, unknown unknowns and known unknowns?
I am not a very good actor.
But that’s a given that it is either right or wrong within the context of my subjective morality. Is and ought are not the same thing. I can’t speak for your morality, or anyone elses. When I know the answers to questions I have about abortion, I will be able make a moral determination. Right now, I cannot. I don’t have enough knowledge to make a call on the rightness or wrongness of it.
As to your criticisms of what panarchy is, all I can say is that I understand panarchy to be a market for politics, preferably with the same voluntary nature we like to speak about wrt free markets. I know that utopia is not possible (or perhaps even desirable) but I think markets in politics, including a market for anarchy is a significant step in the right direction. It might not be the perfect Utopia that some people insist upon, but then, nothing is.
That’s my shed and if they broke it or stole anything they are claiming dominion over what is mine. Someone who punches me is trying to dictate my actions, assuming I’m not wanting to be in the fight. They are trying to rule over my actions. That’s all a ruler does.
that really isn’t thought provoking. it should be obvious that a picture is worth a thousand words, but a thousand words will describe the picture. But the words are not the picture and the picture is not the words. A tree isn’t a bird either.
Again, you’re conflating natural rights with justice. They aren’t the same thing. Justice is not exclusive to natural rights. Other theories of the origin of rights can have identical practical conceptions of justice.
I don’t understand this. You assigned a value to the cause. What is that value based on? When property is violated. But what if I think it is in my best interest not to seek justice? Does this mean I have mis-valued justice? That I have acted in bad cause?
Well, you did, because natural rights can be in a system of subjective ethics, but it does not tolerate other conceptions of ethics. It is objective. In that regard, it is like socialism in a free market. You can voluntarily choose socialism in a free market, but you cannot choose a free market in socialism.
A subjective ethicist can tell a natural rights libertarian, “I don’t get down with NR, but I am cool that you do.” Juan calls this moral relativism. I call this tolerance and civility. A natural right libertarian might say, “You don’t see that life and justice and liberty are all the same thing, part of this system of natural rights, therefore any conception you have is incomplete” (or as Juan might put it, "You are amoral, a relativist, not a libertarian, a statist etc etc).
I think this may be a non sequitur.
Anyway, I have plans tonight. So I’ll catch up tomorrow. I hope we’re still cool.
I didn’t say justice is NR. I know they are not the same thing. Justice is a result of NR.
Justice is a result and not a natural right in name. But where there is liberty there is justice. What other theories denote justice but exclude the presence of liberty?
yes, when property is violated
if that’s what you want
No. Why would it?
I don’t know. Did you?
No. I didn’t. Look at my post. I never said “objective”.
It depends on what context the “tolerance” is. If somebody tries to murder me, I’m going to defend myself and that’s well within my natural right.
See. Now you’re labeling me. [imagine a finger shaking back in forth in a ‘no-no’ gesture]
“In that regard…” No.
So could I. And if somebody advocates murder and you say, ‘You are down with that’, that leads into what I called not being passionate about what an individual believes in. Lack of motive (motivation).
Look at what Juan advocates. Juan says murder, rape, and stealing is wrong. Are you trying to tell me you are “down with” murder, rape, and stealing?
But it’s not. You said you don’t ‘label’ (or some form of that) or maybe it was “impose” your values on others, but you do. And you did it in this post. You labeled me as an ‘objectivist’, which is wrong. And you gave value and named justice as not being a NR - and I agree with that value of yours. Then you went on to determine how Juan will act and think, so, you found what Juan values and thinks to be something you are ‘not down with’ - which is fine.
Actually I think it is terrific to impose some values I have on others. Such as imposing peace on others. Or love with an occasional imposing of love in the form of a hug upon my wife. I think these are great values to impose on others.
we’re cool. the only thing that gets my goat is when people stop dialoguing and keep on assuming what is incorrect. That’s why I keep on dialoguing so I don’t assume what I might think about somebody else. And this doesn’t mean you’re bailing on the dialogue. You have plans and appropiately ended the discussion like anybody else that I know would do if we were sitting here simply bullshitting. It’s when we’re talking and then the person suddenly gets up and leaves without saying anything that I find particularly rude.
Rule what? That seems like a good question cause I don’t readily know what you mean by that.
If you mean in a republic, then yes my neighbor that votes is ruling over me and I really don’t like that. And I would blame him or her on the woes that the gov’t enacts cause he’s not only letting it happen but encouraging it.
true. and there’s nothing wrong with that. we can still find out what the other person means if necessary by going to it and pointing at it. I don’t know what this supposed to tell me. I mean for me, and I know you’re an atheist so bare with me, God is a mystery. It’s something in my life that, damn,[:)] I’ll never be able to fully explain. And you’re an atheist so how in the world are you going to understand those words. beats me.shrugs
Anyone who consistently ‘believes’ in common sense morality is a libertarian. Name names ? What for ? Are you making a blacklist or something ?
And it looks as if you ignored my question. What ‘false morality’ are you talking about ?
Look LS, I understand that you’ve gone from being a ‘student’ to being someone who fancies that he knows ‘philosophy’, when he actually doesn’t. So don’t bother playing skeptic games with me.
By the way, are you talking about panarchy without having read de Puydt ? You are like a marxist who doesn’t know marx and didn’t read the manifesto ?
Again, you said nothing about your personal and irrelevant subjective morality. You said that abortion was either right or wrong NOT that your personal irrelevant and subjective views considered it right or wrong.
And if you were talking about your personal and irrelevant preferences, out of curiosity, why do you think that people give a damn about your opinions on abortion ? Or your opinions on theft, murder, war, or any other subjective and personal non-crime for that matter ?
But don’t you want to?![6] All the cool kids are doing it…you want to be cool right?
Seriously though, in retaining rights such as non-aggression & self-ownership, you do impose values if you seek to sustain an uncoerced being. Or even if you are a pacifist, to some degree you are still imposing values or at least there is an exchange in values. I think I get what you guys mean though, you don’t want to be unjustly telling people what to do.
Actually, part of me does want to. It’s tempting to pretend that libertarianism can be “proven” ethically right objectively. One more weapon in the arsenal, right? But one must never give in to error, but proceed ever more boldly against it.
You misunderstand. I have no qualms about enforcing some of my values on others. I will readily enforce my own subjective non-aggression axiom on murderers, rapists, burglars, etc. By “I don’t impose my values on others”, I mean specifically that I don’t pretend the value judgments of of burglars, statists (but I repeat myself), etc are somehow objectively, scientifically wrong. I will work to frustrate the execution of their value judgments as a practical matter. I will even say their actions are wrong according to MY subjective judgment. But I don’t pretend my subjective judgment reflects some universal, scientific truth.
No, I am questioning your sincerity. Is there anyone besides yourself, who is the model libertarian you constantly chide me for not being? Who is he/she? Who are they? Name names. Tell me who is the libertarian who lives up to your standard, since you berate me for not being able to.
If you can’t, then your criticism is meaningless to me. It’s a standard which can’t be met, and you propose it knowing full well it can’t be met, which in my book, is dishonest.
So who. Name names.
I’ll answer this when you name names. You have been calling me out as not being your model libertarian for some time now. Let’s get to the bottom of it. Who is the model?
I don’t know much. That is what I have learned. How little I know.
Not a game. I asked you if you considered epistemology. Same with asking you to name names. Same with asking you if you were born a radical libertarian. You point fingers and insult others, you make all sorts of claims about the quality of the character of others, but are these criticisms baseless and hypocrisy? I want to know. Were you ever not a libertarian? Were you born a libertarian? Who besides you, lives up to your conception of perfect libertarianism that you claim all of us amoralists fail?
Attacking me won’t get you off the hook. I’m calling you on your criticisms. Back them up.
So how do see yourself being a libertarian? That is, if everyone can go around enforcing their subjective preferences, and if everyone’s subjective preferences are equally right (or wrong), how do you ground the principled commitment to property rights, NAP, etc. necessary for a libertarian society? Is it some kind of consequentialism, e.g. persuading everyone that libertarianism is the best way to achieve their ends? If so, what about people whose ends are not served by libertarianism, e.g. Nazis? (+1 for Godwin counter)
My problem with libertarian moral subjectivism is that I don’t see how moral subjectivism can ground libertarianism. If it can ground it, then perhaps the objectivism/subjectivism debate is not crucial.
What gets my goat is when it is no longer possible to communicate because it’s boiled down to redefining words, instead of supporting ideas. I think we’ve reached that point.
I did have plans. Pistons over Celtics in the upset.
Well, I am going to do that now. I don’t see us getting any closer in understanding, and I really don’t want to return to the nastiness of before. Time is short, lets spend it smiling instead of scowling.
You’re making the same mistake that had me so bitter and conflicted through the last half of last year.
You can’t ground the subjective as an objective if you’re determined to work in the Aristotelian framework. That’s why I objected to your Rothbard/Friedman synthesis. It’s trying to make two different things equal. It won’t work. It has never worked.
What is the best book for someone looking on how an anarchic society would exist, but from the premise that the anarchic society already exists? Thanks.
First, everyone is a utilitarian. You can’t claim to understand the action axiom, and then deny that utilitarianism isn’t involved in every human action, including those concerning ethics.
Second, why should an individual behave ethically? You tell me. Why do you behave ethically (presuming you do)? Is it because you want to get into heaven? Because you were raised to value ethics highly? Is it because you are informed by your intuition and emotions, like love, compassion, guilt, fear?
Is it because you chose to be? Is it because nature chose it for you?
Is it something you can change, for better or worse? Is it something you have always done?
I’m a subjective ethicist. I try to behave ethically because I value that more highly than any material luxury. My utilitarianism [sic] drives me to be libertarian.
"If no man has moral authority over any other man, then clearly no man has the right to initiate force or fraud over another man, i.e. basic libertarian ethics. One is morally justified in using force for self-defense against initiations of force or fraud. Secondly, retaliatory force for the purpose of restitution, is also justified. If a person didn’t have the right to take my property from me, then it is clearly justified to seek restitution from the thief. This is not forcing a morality on another person, but a reaction to the other person forcing their morality on the victim."
