It’s a socio-economic ideology! [:P]
On the topic of Rod Long and socialism (leftism) I think he is very wrong. I have pointed out some of the ridiculous and obviously fallacious ideas from the left that he has absorbed and repeated. I’d like to like him all around, because on political analysis he is great, but on left cultural values and market analysis, his positions are woefully inadequate.
Leftist ideas are just as lousy as right wing ideas. For some reason, there is a libertarian anarchist strain that seems obsessed with finding value that is not there, in something that has been fundamentally empty headed since its inception.
Explain these ideas because Long has become my favorite lecturer after Rothbard. Woods is my third.
I agree with Rothbard that state agents and apologists are more accurately called a caste (or several castes) rather than a class.
I don’t have enough time to do it here and now. And while I have several upcoming blog posts about Dr. Long, I am trying to get away from criticizing characters, thinkers and (bad) ideas, and provide the market analysis that is woefully inadequate in online libertarian discussion.
Explain what you have learned from socialists? We can learn a lot from various sources, but that wouldn’t mean those ideas are exclusive to any particular source, as in this instance socialists.
Well whenever you have the time. You know where I am.
Proposing an end to non-state domination.
He who pays the piper calls the tune.
Welcome back, Giles.
I really, really, really like you.
Never stop questioning the premises of the people you regard as an authority (any of them). If historical materialism is bunk, then people who subscribe to positions rooted in historical materialism, should also be subject to scrutiny. And likewise, we know most progressive liberalism is just populist collectivism. So when left anarchists and left libertarians adopt progressive ideals ostensibly with voluntarism, there must be a disconnect, in that either the ideal is wrong, or the ability to carry through on it voluntarily is wrong.
Bossism, racism and sexism should be non-concepts to a market anarchist.
So keep your eyes open. I’m done.
[Y][:D][D]
Well I think there is nothing wrong with persuasion and have a defined boundry of what is and isnt coercion
Isn’t that what libertarians do?
Not necessarily, no. There is an unfortunate tendency on the part of many libertarians to ignore social evils that don’t directly involve the state.
I think we are somewhat ambilivent to racism and sexism.
Can you name some of these many libertarians? Who are they?
That’s what “thin libertarianism” is all about; if it isn’t aggression, it isn’t a concern for libertarian politics. Walter Block would be the epitome of this; Rothbard and Kinsella also, although more inconsistently. And I’m sure I could dig up examples of such an attitude searching on the forums.
I did misstate my case, though; I meant if said social problems don’t directly involve aggression. That would be a more accurate statement.
In a voluntary society, no one is obligated to tolerate racism or sexism if they do not want to. Which is why they are anti-concepts, just like bossism.
Wombie is promoting a strawman that some don’t acknowledge anti-state wrongs, but he is in fact furthering a falsehood I thought he had long ago been disabused of.
Plumbline and ancap libertarians oppose all coercion, and support and recognize only voluntary relationships as legitimate. LLs like to spin that as being narrowly anti-state (thin) when in fact it is pervasive and a foundation block of libertarian ideology applicable to each and every relationship. Because it is the foundation for ancap, necessarily an ancap would oppose bossism, sexism, racism, ageism, employeeism, and any and all isms that have disappeared and not yet emerged in social evolution.
The one thing you can count on LLs for, is that they will strawman their opponents, maliciously or ignorantly, but they are guaranteed to mischaracterize someone else’s position in order to create some differentiation for their own brand of nonsense. They are the ones with narrow focus on particular injustices and issues, while I have found ancaps have a simpler and more consistent all encompassing market oriented view of a free society.
You said many. You got Block. Rothbard and Kinsella sometimes.
This is your many?
What is a social problem that doesn’t directly involve aggression?