Hence the persuasion and not the moral obligation to tolerate racism and sexism. I cannot coerce an individual to stop being a racist or a sexist but that doesn’t mean that I can’t engage in argument as to why they are heinous. As I said, I have a clearly defined line as to what is or isn’t coercion.
How would racism occur in a voluntary society? How would I sexually discriminate against someone in a voluntary society?
Why would anyone tolerate either -ism in a voluntary society? If they did tolerate it, doesn’t that make it a voluntary relationship?
How can you prove racism? How can you prove harm without aggression?
This is just progressivism dressed up as libertarianism IMO.
What is meant by racism or sexism isn’t just idiosyncratic instances of racial or sexual discrimination; it is the spontaneous order created by a number of such events. And they don’t necessarily rely on the state; if racism or sexism or bossism is valued by people as a consumption good, then lost monetary profit alone won’t be enough to eliminate these orders. It becomes just another accepted cost. This is where mainstream Austrian analysis, IMO, smuggles in assumptions from neoclassical economics, specifically the myth of “Homo economicus”.
Do you mean non-state wrongs?
But these don’t necessarily involve aggression. And the “voluntariness” (SP?) of an act doesn’t just depend on whether or not it isn’t coerced; there is a wide range of work, especially within the Aristotelian tradition that I find myself in, that holds that there are other factors than coercion in determining whether or not an act is truly voluntary.
But anarcho-capitalism doesn’t systematically oppose social injustice; that’s the whole reason we’re having this argument.
Off of the top of my head. I could mine the forums for quotes, but I don’t really think I need to; the thin libertarian position is that the NAP + Lockean homesteading is libertarianism and everything else is just personal preference, and there are a number of thin libertarians.
Racism, sexism, heterosexism, “bossism” (horrible word, I know), although they can all be reduced to manifestations of collectivism.
Much like it continues now, though I will concede it will be beaten back to some degree by the inability to utilize the state’s propaganda.
Perhaps they are like myself and want harmony amongst all individuals. Its idealist I know but I am committed to such endeavours. Perhaps I am some hybrid Libertarian hippe [:P]
It is of course always their choice to tolerate sexism and racism. And yes it would be voluntary, however I would still persuade them that it is an error to think in such collectivist terms. We are all each unique individuals and I believe we should quest towards that outlook. I will gladly accept any others who concur with this statement and argue with, not coerce, those who do not.
Usually self-admission. Though I think linguistically there is perhaps an argument that can be made as to the speech and words utilized by a racist and/or sexist.
As you and I have discussed elsewhere, how do YOU determine who is a victim of these orders, when they are accepted voluntarily by the actors within them, PARTICULARLY in a freed [sic] market where if they did not accept these circumstances and relationships, they have EVERY opportunity to change it?
Yeah. I’m tired.
But only an individual can determine that for themselves. You can’t determine that for someone else. That was my point on the LF when I called out victimology. Seeing victims where the so-called victims themselves don’t see themselves as victimized. It would be like telling people they can’t make an economic exchange because YOU don’t think they are getting a fair deal, when they believe they are. It’s paternalistic and disingenuous IMO.
You and your comrades ascribe a form of prescience to yourselves that is overbearing at best, and dangerously authoritarian at its worst.
I want to blog post the response to his, but you are wrong. If you believe the market fails individuals, then you are not really a market anarchist.
This is why I reject “thin” & “thick”; I also find these two marketing (more or less, imo) terms are often used in a similar manner as “left” & “right”.
Left & Right are/were variants on statism, & the attempt transfer this type of dichotomy to libertarianism makes little sense to me.
Free pass on this. Because you have stayed to argue this out.
I’ve addressed this later and with Cain. I don’t think any of those qualify, and I think you badly misunderstand collectivism. Progressivism is collectivism. You guys (LLs) are carrying the torch for progressive values which require a collectivistic society to enforce.
Don’t go soft on me. More importantly, don’t go soft on yourself.
But do you genuinely see free choice among individuals and how they conduct their relationships as a social problem? If I pay some guy to beat and rape me, is that a social problem? Is it your place to determine what I should and should not do voluntarily?
Self-admission? Is that the instigator or the target?
I have a new spin on this. I think the terms are fine to use, but as currently defined, they are useless (big surprise there).
So as usual, you and I are pretty close on this. [:D]
But they may not have every oppurtunity to change it; that’s the whole point. Aggression isn’t the only thing standing in the way of people. “Voluntary” social orders can be just as stratified and unsatisfying.
There is a fine line between honest prescription and paternalism. But I don’t think I’ve crossed that line. Fundamentally, what I want to do is open up people’s options. I am not focusing so much on the victims (although I am for solidarity and mutual aid with the victims of racism and patriarchy), but on the victimizers. The most important thing we can do to eliminate non-aggressive social evils is education; teaching that it is wrong to engage in such behaviors. This may seem paternalistic, but it really isn’t, anymore than the NAP is paternalistic. I see it as being part of the universal aspect of ethics, that applies to everyone at all times.
We are the market. If there are people to whom racial or sexual discrimination is an economic good that they enjoy and consume, there is going to be racial or sexual discrimination. The whole thing is about changing people’s values, or rather showing them that they are better off by changing their values.
How can you know that for someone else?
Then why would someone choose them voluntarily?
You’re not actually a bad guy, which is why I keep talking to you.
How will you monetize that?
People who engage in bad behaviors will suffer in the marketplace. You seem to think that the market is not 100% compatible with eudaimonia.
Utopian for sure.
But this is nurture vs. nature. You’re still insisting that man is not sufficient when given his own freedom and a mandate of non-aggression. You’re still saying that the market cannot provide outs from unhealthy situations on its own, and where a behavior we think is unhealthy is perpetuated, this might be an evolution of values or circumstances beyond our paternalitic attempt to homogenize the species.
You are definitely claiming that some people have better values than others, and should be teaching and moving people towards those values, without accepting the test of the market. In fact, you’re almost insisting that regardless of what the market shows, your values remain unchanged.
This to me, is completely unacceptable and confirms what I have suspected about so-called market anarchism and leftish libertarianism for some time. Homage to the market is simply moving lips, there is no genuine understanding or belief in voluntarism as being capable of improving man, and evolving civil relations. Instead of an unseen hand, there seems to be an orientation towards a forceful and deliberate intervention.
I’m not going soft. Perhaps to me being a libertarian hippe is the new evolution of libertarianism. [:O] Quake in fear over my superior deductive skills.
I think it is an individual problem that manifests itself on a societial level. Society doesn’t treat women like trash for society is not an entity capable of feelings or action. However, there is a portion of individuals who make up ‘society’ who are such individuals and I see that as a individual flaw on their part. Again, I am not determining what individuals are to do. I believe in free will and if they hear my argument and decide that ‘well I still think women are trash’ then the line is drawn there and I will continue to only use words against them, not force.
Self-admission in the sense of a sexist openly claiming that women should be confined to domestic duties. There are such people who claims such statements openly. For those who do not openly claim such ‘platforms’ then I turn to my linguistic deduction in the words they utilize or the statements they make. This of course can only be a prediction that can be only confirmed by such a person admitting it if asked.
So you oppose free speech? Or that people discriminate between the sexes? I’ve got bad news AC, men and women are not the same, and depending on the circumstance, there is nothing wrong with favouring the company/advice/assistance/touch/perspective/aesthetic of one sex over the other.
Seems to me you need some Walter Block in your diet.
Free speech is non existent in the private property sphere and since Ancap works towards the privatization of the world then I guess you can say I am against free speech unless one requistes the right to speak on someone’s property [ perhaps a stage etc. ]
People obviously discriminate against the sex’s [ hence why we are talking about sexism ] and yes I realize that men and women aren’t the same…in a biological sense. However, do not confuse the idea that since women don’t have their sexual organs on the outside that they are somehow futile or substandard. Psychology is not simply based on whether you are XX or XY. Men can ‘act’ like women and have feminity and women can ‘act’ like men and have masculinity. There is certainly nothing wrong with this for it is their choice to do and act in such a way for they are under no moral obligation [ apart from natural law ] to act any certain way. And I would also challenge a corporation as to why they would choose one sex over the other and perhaps persuade them to find the benefit in the sex they are not choosing to hire.
I actually have his lectures on the lastest seminar he did. I’ve listened to a few and I am actually going through his Defending the Undefendable right now. I find him rather brutish and untactful. What he says however is very much libertarian.
I actually find him to refreshingly direct & effective, & his blue collar accent makes it easier to digest economics (maybe not for other’s but hey, to each their own).
His seemingly lack of “tact” or other euphemisms for politically correct is a strategy that isn’t utilized enough, imo. His middle name ought to be Walter “The Hammer” Block.
Oh please, it’s not like I am asking him to be politically correct. Walter Block is the type of individual who obviously doesn’t care what some blogger on the Mises.org forums thinks of him. He makes sound arguments just in an outlandish fashion. Like his concept of a ‘death-machine’, something I don’t think should really even be a secondary mission of libertarianism.
I love hearing Block bring up Murder Park. [:P]
I apologize, I know you weren’t asking for political correctness, & in the case of the “death-machine”, I can see what you mean by his delivery. I would think that someone in a lecture or on a podcast somewhere would’ve asked about the possibly controversial nature of the idea, though.
Like I said, He has many sound libertarian ideas, he just lacks tact. However, I think he likes it that way. It’s more shocking and perhaps he thinks it more thought provoking.