No, not as defined by left libertarians, as defined by conservatives themselves. Conservatives have defined their own ideas well enough for us to make use of the term “conservative” to refer to them. You’re just playing semantics here.
You’d have to show me the specific context in which I called you a conservative, which was probably disagreement over a specific issue in which you were taking what I would call the “conservative” side of.
No, not as defined by me, as defined by their proponents. It’s not about how I define things, it’s about taking how other people define things at face value and evaluating the content of the relevant ideas. Your argument is disingenous here. It’s not as if most of the people I’m dealing with deny being proponents of the ideas I make referance to.
This line of argument is retarded. Anyone can just insert “as defined by you” to dismiss someone’s argument out of hand. You’re just being evasive and rude.
Once again, you are being disingenous. There is a general group of people who favor a fusion between libertarian and conservative ideas - as libertarians and conservatives define those terms. There is a general group of libertarians who favor allying with conservatives. So Please stop playing semantics and making such shoddy arguments.
When/if you become a parent, I am guessing you would not stop your theoritical 11 year old from running away and starting a ‘relationship’ with the neighborhood pervert. Sometimes I don’t think LLs appreicate how bad they make libertarians look when they argue such nonsense.
That’s a straw man argument. Try argueing against my actual position, or Molyneux’s actual position for that matter. Until then, making disingenous referances to neightborhood pervents won’t pass muster.
It is not a “fact” that because someone is an anti-state socialist, they are stupid or ignorant by definition. That is your own bias, not a “fact”. Passing off personal biases as facts does not work, even if those personal biases are partially based on truths.
Yes, it is annoying to be misrepresented.
Due to either your inability to actually comprehend my arguments or your motivation to simply defy me, I am forced to sound like a broken record sometimes. Once again, you need to specifically identify which portion is legitimate and which portion is illegitimate.
The Libertarian Party? They are dying anyways. As much as some here on the forums or outside of the LP may qualify as favoring an alliance with conservatives, The LP Party is the only actually proving such via action (i.e. Bob Barr nomination, pandering to the mainstream, etc.).
I believe it is. Unless you think socialism is compatible with rational economics.
I construct my bias from fact. You still haven’t done anything in this argument to prove I am wrong, you just keep declaring it like that will get it done. And the personal fluff is really weak. Try to stay on topic please.
I don’t misrepresent you. I’m just not interested when you start straw manning, or if you fail to produce proof, or fail to stay on topic. You are what you are, it’s clear to anyone who reads your posts.
You are broken record because you twist any discussion into your own agenda. It’s really lame, which is why your discussion inevitably destroy threads and become epic fails.
I don’t need to do anything. I responded to the original statement about state property, and I have given as clear a response as possible. State recognized private property is not sufficient information on it’s own to determine that validity of such, or the veracity of any private property claims.
I tire of this BP. Not to mention I want to get back to work so I can make a big donation to those vulgar libertarians [sic] at LewRockwell.com. Unsubscribed. Have fun talking to Giles.
Liberty Student: you are using disingenous tactics here, distracting away from the core argument. Why? You very well know what is meant, yet you wish to nitpick over the most irrelevant and non-existant of issues. Don’t just pretend that there is no such thing as conservatism and no such thing as a historical relationship between libertarians and conservatives in America.
I’m talking about among proponents of ideas in general. The fact that Lew Rockwell hails Ron Paul, and Ron Paul hails Goldwater and Reagen, signifies what I mean by libertarian-conservative fusionism pretty well, as does Hans Hoppe, who openly calls for it. Many of the writters at LewRockwell.com are associated with the paleoconservative movement. Hell, Pat Buchannan himself writes for LewRockwell. The attempt of liberty student to deny that there is such thing as libertarian-conservative fusionism at all and the claim that the entire thing is purely a canard made up by left-libertarians is highly disingenous.
My own position a number of years ago (by he very least, when I was still a minarchist) is on some critieria what I would call right-libertarian now. Anyone who has immersed themselves in the American libertarian movement very well knows about the tradition of libertarians ultimately pragmatically siding with the political right, and it extends beyond the LP into the realm of ideology as well. Ideological and tactical emphasis is fundamentally placed on the “old right” and American traditionalism, and the political right is often regaurded as a lesser evil, on the assumption that they at least nominally respect private property and “less government”.
Rothbard’s own early criticisms of libertarian-conservative fusionism (starting around the time that he denounced YAF) is part of what forms the basis for the modern left-libertarian movement. This was also accompanied by Karl Hess’s transformation from a mere Goldwater speechwritter to an anarchist. The left-libertarian movement, as such, is in some sense a reaction to a pre-existing libertarian-conservative fusionism. Some of the people in this thread ignore this out of a pre-existing motivation to purge left-libertarianism.
That is not true; in fact, when Ron Paul was the LP presidential canidate in 1988 he spoke of how unhappy America was following the Reagan administration and I’ve never heard Ron Paul once truly “hail” Reagan- surely he might have praised Reagan for his rhetoric, but he has never once endorsed what Reagan’s policies actually did.
Yes, but did he not also denounce ‘Ultra-leftism’ as well, or in other words, the attempts to promote leftism in a ‘libertarian’ garb? There in lies the conflict, which in my view is irreconcilable. You, and other left libertarians, accuse some of us as doing the same thing for conservative causes. As Liberty Student correctly notes you are the ones who draw a line in the sand between ‘us and them’.
Rothbard did denounce what he called “modal libertarianism”, but I think many right-libertarians tend to use it out of context to mischaracterize left-libertarians, and Rothbard may have exaggerated the extent of the problem. I also agree alot less with Rothbards later views than I do with his earlier views (and the denial that he ever changed his views in any way is disingenous).
Right-libertarians tend to draw their own lines in the sand, viewing anything even remotely associated with socialism as inherently coercive. This leads to endless mischaracterizations of left-libertarians as if they are indistinguishable from the bolsheviks, and a rigid false dichotomy between libertarianism and various non-traditional forms of organization or behaviors.
Which has absolutely no context in this conversation; just because one hires a writter doesn’t mean that you must endorse everything (or anything) that they say and by bringing in writters not just from an orthodox libertarian backround Lew Rockwell is able to bring a greater range of thought to his website than would have otherwise existed. Just because you read something doesn’t mean that you must endorse it; just because you think of something doesn’t mean that you have to believe it.
Exactly. Buchanan is a syndicated columnist, as is Walter Williams and Paul Craig Roberts. If one knew anything about, well, anything at all, then they might know that Buchanan, along with most of the other LRC writers, are published by the article (subject) not by their name or ideology.
I find it laughable that Rockwell, who was a close friend of Rothbard, gets attacked by people who claim to know Rothbard better than him.
You’re using the term socialism as a blanket term. We’ve been through this before, and it reduces to you engaging in semantics.
Not only are you not constructing your bias from fact, it isn’t even possible for you to, because it isn’t possible for you to know the general intelligence levels of people you dont know and it is absurd for you to claim to be able to predict someone’s intelligence level based on their political ideas. There is no absolute causation between one’s ideas and one’s intelligence levels per se.
The problem has been your inability to rationally debate me due to a motivation to be antagonistic.
It is not my initial points that destroys theads, its that you start frothing at the mouth and go into insano mode on me, making all sorts of wild claims about me, when I do express a contrary point of view about something.
That isn’t what the question was about. You’re still avoiding answering the question. The question does not assume that state recognition is the criteria for property validity. The question was, to what degree are stated recognized property titles consistant with your criteria for property validity? And by extension, you must specify which kind of state recognized property titles are consistant and inconsistant with your criteria. The question is asking you which property titles are legitimate or not, and you don’t specify, you just said “some of it is and some of it isn’t”. Well, what is your criteria and precisely which claims are legitimate or illegitimate?
I, for one, certainly believe that. Socialism is a doctrine reeking of meliorism that argues for the use of force to control individual’s property and to mold how they act in order to achieve the metaphysical world-view the socialist endorses. The entire idea of anarchist socialism is an oxymoron, socialism relies on a coercive institution to achieve its ends, whoever does not is not a socialist ( e.g. though monks may live in a communal setting, they arn’t socialists for they do so by their own choice). The idea of socialism as noncoercive is a fallacy and I reject anything that associates itself with socialism as endorsing the coercion socialism does.