Not at all. You have progressive values, which today are considered culturally left values. It’s the same brother’s keeper mentality that you promote, that was used as cause to engage in WWI. In Vietnam. To create social welfare schemes.
This may be a slippery slope fallacy, and missing the point. BP’s values are not important here, only the way in wich he chooses to use his values.
It’s one thing to talk a good game about individualism, it is another thing to insist that individuals must function collectively under universally objective values.
Once again, I don’t think anyone is talking about forcing individuals to function collectively. This is not legal theory, it is not a theory of rights, etc. None of the words being used are being used in any legal sense of the word. Things can be wrong outside of the libertarian framework. And there can be negative consequences for dumb actions even within the libertarian framework, sometimes severe.
Also, I think a big part of this is where individualism and libertarianism may make a split, at least for the framework of this argument. Collectivism has nothing to do with anybodies argument or position.
I’m not the one who has made the argument that libertarianism is left wing (politically) and that libertarianism has more in common with leftists than centrists or rightists.
If you cared about poverty, you would be producing jobs or goods for poor people. That is what people do in a free market where they have a social cause. they don’t wear it like an armband and march around protesting. They go out and create solutions.
Which brings me back to my question about what YOU PRODUCE. What do you do to address these causes, and don’t tell me “create awareness on Youtube”. Youtube never fed anyone except Google’s employees and shareholders which I am sure we can agree are not in a state of poverty.
As far as racism, again, in a voluntary market, no one is entitled to anything, and so if race is used as a discriminating factor, and it is done without violence, but by simple exclusion (which is the market mechanism, as opposed to privilege via the state) then there is nothing wrong with it. You’ve failed to make a case otherwise.
So you’re saying that strong rationality is the motivation behind hate and war?
Et tu?
But it is logical to make that conflation with thin libertarians like Nitro and I?
The concepts are nonsense. I think that is well understood. You’re defending positions built on sand. I at least have the good sense to occasionally admit, “I don’t know” but such humility is below someone who can’t even own up to insisting that positive obligations are consistent with libertarianism.
When the Rat Pack was about to do their famous “Summit at the Sands”, Sammy Davis, Jr. was denied a room at the Sands. The group didn’t resort to violence. Sinatra didn’t ask his mob buddies to take care of it. He simply told the manager that if Davis didn’t get a suite, the show would be cancelled.
Correct, there are many ways people can act. But I would think that the more hungry and desperate people would be more prone to violence than a probably not so hungry Rat Pack. The situation would probably compound itself even more if there were a significant number of hungry and desperate people if they were being deliberatly targeted for some arbitrary reason (in this case racism).
Also, was the owner of The Sands wrong, provocotive, evil? Most people would probably thinks so. My argument is not a legal one.
I also want to point out, I doubt the likley hood of massive racism causing massive in a more free market, and my point is certainly not to attack the free market.
Most people want to use force to control others. Most people will violate the rights of another for some cause they hold dear. Most people, in my opinion, are wrong. It boils down to only a few questions:
Should people be allowed to exclusively control their property so long as they do not harm others?
Should people be able to refuse to associate with another, regardless of the reason?
Is it possible to harm another by refusing to associate with him?
My personal answers are, yes, yes, no. The first two are pretty much tenets of libertarianism, and lots of others disagree. The last, though… I don’t see how it’s even debatable. The answer is no. You cannot cause something to happen by inaction. Ever.
This is what I don’t understand. How do you “target” someone for avoidance? How is walking away ever legitimate justification for attack?
Should people be allowed to exclusively control their property so long as they do not harm others?
· Should people be able to refuse to associate with another, regardless of the reason?
· Is it possible to harm another by refusing to associate with him?
Yes
Yes, but stupid actions increase the chances of dramatic results
I think so, when Mary Sue refused to go with me to Prom I was crushed
Look at these motives and actions:
Sociopath Joe buys a piece of property for no other reason than F*ing over St. Bob, who desperately needs that piece of property to prosper. I think most people’s sympathies would be with St. Bob, and I also think most people would think of Sociopath Joe as an SOB.
If a group of wealthy Right-Handed farmers advertised that they would no longer be selling to Left-Hander’s (who in this scenario are universally poor), for the sole reason that they hate lefties; I would find that to be a provocative action. I think most would find the right hander’s actions bad, I think most people would care more about the motive than the action. I also think that the Right Hander’s are simply asking for violence, some type of revolt, or some other unpleasantly. The chances of violence and social upheaval in that situation are increased, probably dramatically.
In short: this is not a legal theory, most people care about motive, and stupid actions cause a probability increase in negatively dramatic consequences
LS, I hope you didn’t quote me the way you did in order to make me sound as if I had a problem with ‘rednecks’ - I was replying to Jack Cuyler who was talking about a hypothetical person which he designated as a ‘redneck’.
And racism is collectivism - I explained why. The ‘xxxxxxxx’ hermit is a collectivist idiot and an outright criminal if he shoots.
Forgive me, I don’t follow this line of reasoning. If anything I would think my more postivistic tendencies would make me say “It is absolutly impossible to tell what would happen in an absolutly free market” or, I could go through the empirical evidence in history and show how more free markets tend to curb violence, racism, poverty, etc.
If you think you are showing that my position with respect to racists is similar to the position racists have with respect to people they don’t like, I think you fail.
I have rational arguments against racists whereas racists have no rational arguments against ‘darkies’ or more generally bigots have no rational arguments to justify their bigotry.
I would add that bigotry and collectivism are completely at odds with the philosophical foundations required by a free society.
She oppressed you! And those of us, who stood idly by and remained neutral while she oppressed you, are clearly enablers. We should have shunned her.
And we’re (perhaps not all, but most) aware of that. However, motive just doesn’t matter. If Mary Sue refused you because you were a different race, shes an oppressor, what if she already had a date, or was a lesbian, or hated proms? The results are all the same, why shes an “oppressor” or cause of woe, for some non-action yet not another non-action, seems like arbitrary line drawing.
Perhaps I should be more thick and try and educate more people so they don’t look put much emphasis on motives.
He’s most likely right. Do you think there would be rampant racism in a free market? I think that there would be pockets here and there, but nothing nearly as severe as the institutionalized racism we see today. Racism is simply not good for business, and people like Frank Sinatra (in my example above) make it even less so.
Then I missed it, I repeatedly said something along the lines of “I don’t think you meant what you said.”
That wasn’t my intention at all, just that saying racism entails the rationalisation of violence is as incorrect as saying various left-ish sensabilites entail the rationalisation of violence. Both certainly could, that doesn’t mean they all do, or will.
Good, this isn’t about arguments against racism at all though.
Any society made up of a large enough number of individuals will include people who are irrational or hold beliefs that range from absurd to demonstrably wrong. This is just a fact, and to deny it is to prove it. [:D] The thing is, unless they are using violence or the threat of violence, they aren’t really hurting anyone. Your claim that bigots have no rational arguments to justify their bigotry is correct. I’m not sure why anyone would have to justify their beliefs in a free society, though. Further, what is your rational argument? That they’re wrong? So what? They’re not hurting anyone. People who believe the moon is made of cheese are wrong, and also not hurting anyone. Are you just against being wrong?
To some extent I can see your point, but mostly I disagree. Lack of the threat and innitiation of violence, and the means to defend against it, are the foundations required by a free society. If one is not free to hold stupid beliefs, or to be wrong, or to form voluntary collectives with other like minded individuals, and not hurt anyone else, then it’s not really a free society.