I am. This isn’t hypocritical, either, since I’m not a propertarian. I’m a mutualist.
I am. This isn’t hypocritical, either, since I’m not a propertarian. I’m a mutualist.
Mutualists still believe in rulership over property (or possessions), only different standards for establishment therein.
What is cultural authoritarianism?
Authoritarian forms of religion, family structure, and education, along with discrimination such as racism, sexism, and homophobia.
Good to know your subjective preferences. Personally, I’m anti-stinky-diapers, and pro-chocolate.
Z.
pro-chocolate.
what, even when brushing your teeth ?
Well, OK, I’m pro-chocolate most of the time except when I’m brushing my teeth and when I’m drowning in a deep pool of hot chocolate in which case I turn staunchly anti-chocolate. Pretty consistently anti-stinky-diapers, though.
Z.
But not economically, right? So it’s ok to be a boss, but not a dad, priest or teacher?
I think we already demonstrated that you’re discriminating against discrimination …
-
I didn’t say dads, priests and teachers are innately bad. I said authoritarian forms of religion, family structure, and education, not religion, families, and education in and of themselves.
-
I think wage labor won’t be particularly common in the society I advocate, though some form of wages will probably still exist.
-
“Discrimination” isn’t a group of people.
Good to know your subjective preferences. Personally, I’m anti-stinky-diapers, and pro-chocolate.
That is why we we can never get a long. You see despite my support of free markets I am ant-chocolate, unless it has peanut butter on it. That is why I insist on calling my self an anti-chocolate, unless it has peanut butter-libertarian. I would turn that to a Greek term, but I don’t know how to say peanut butter or chocolate in Classic Greek
I didn’t say dads, priests and teachers are innately bad. I said authoritarian forms of religion, family structure, and education, not religion, families, and education in and of themselves
If you’re going to be throwing contextless words around, everything is authoritarian. All that matters is if the authority is subsidized or not, as far as markets and wealth maximization is concerned.
1. I didn’t say dads, priests and teachers are innately bad. I said authoritarian forms of religion, family structure, and education, not religion, families, and education in and of themselves.
I do think it shows the form of good character to have a distaste for brutal acts. That is to say, I find no reason to associate myself with people who favor obvious barbarism (persecution based off of sexual orientation, religion, political affiliation, or whatever) as it is a very disgusting and ugly action to me.
That said, there really isn’t much that can be said or done about this other than maybe to stress the importance of radical defederalization (as far as legal theory is concerned) and how subsidies corrupt incentives. It is also best to make political language as clear as possible (see that George Orwell article linked on this page), so we don’t get apologists for genocide, imperialism, etc. Or if we do get apologists, they will look wonky as hell. One must also always be on guard trendy “good language” as a socially manipulating device. Being “for feminism” or whatever doesn’t mean much other than a “guideline”, every individual and situation is unique.
And that is the very nature of politics, that is what it does. It is a gardener who takes the seeds of an individual’s unique ideas and expressions, waters it down, and grows a garden of identitarians to serve the gardener’s purpose, turning would be fruit into weeds that wish to spread like a cancer. I would go so far as to assert that leftism is the the chief gardener at growing such things. One must be very careful with political words and stances they are merely a shovel and a spade toplant one’s seed to grow and bear your fruit.
To worry about about one libertarian predicting with his crystal ball one aesthetic over the other is probably not good for much.
EDIT
The point people are trying to make is that you cannot remove yourself from some level and/or type of discrimination. Preference is a praxeological function that is beyond the humans capability of avoiding. The sooner we get past this the better. You won’t win at least in that regard.
This doesn’t somehow equate to racism or bigotry of any sort. The drive for preference is what keeps society full of unique gems in cultures and individuals across the globe.
Wage labor is a consequence of time preference. I would encourage you to have some knowledge of that first, prior to developing a prudent or naive theory of wage labor.