Could you link to some articles on LRC that have been unlibertarian. Thanks.
Who are you asking? I can recall one piece by a guy who decried Taiwan’s ‘secession’ from China, calling them ‘quislings’.
Taiwan didn’t secede from anybody. There was talk of ending the One Country, Two Systems policy and creating a Republic of Taiwan, but this is a movement, not an existing reality. Personally, though, I think Mr Chu (or, perhaps, going by Chinese naming structures, Mr Bevin) can speak for himself in this matter:
[quote=“Bevin Chu at [http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/chu4.html]
(http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/chu4.html)”]
A second reader faulted LewRockwell.com for featuring an article that “opposed the right of secession.”
Nothing could be further from the truth. For the record, I don’t oppose the right of secession. As a “market anarchist” I eagerly await the day when any individual who owns a piece of land within any nation is able to declare political independence and stop paying taxes to any government that would claim him as its property.
What I oppose is the discriminatory, cynical, selective application of the right of secession as a strategic weapon in the “Great Game” of nations. A number of governments have censured mainland China for its recent Anti-Secession Law. How many of them permit secession themselves? Specifically, how many of them permit the radical and consistent form of secession I mentioned? How about none?
Secession is either a right for everyone, or a right for no one. It can’t be a right for some and not a right for others. Supporters of Taiwan independence, Tibetan independence, and Xinjiang independence demand secession for themselves, but deny secession to others. Have you ever heard a supporter of Taiwan, Tibetan, or Xinjiang independence insist that others also have the right to secede from Taiwan, Tibet, or Xinjiang? You haven’t, and you won’t. By denying the right of secession to others, they forfeit the right of secession for themselves.
See: Independence for Me but not for Thee
[/quote]
He is arguing against the selective application of secessionism for cynical political reasons by groups like those who want to seperate Tibet or Xinjiang from the rest of China. He himself identifies as a sort of anarchist, so he’d hardly be inclined to argue against secession as a whole. His “quisling” claim is based on the very real fact that the same people (the left wing Pan Greens) in Taiwan who so vehemently oppose the PRC are silent about the territorial demands of the Japanese on islands many on Taiwan consider Chinese territory, which is not at all surprising, given Japanese links to the US (whose CIA funds the Dalai Lama and supports Tibetan independence as a strategic move against the PRC) and their own occupation of what was then Formosa, but 70 years ago, as well as the fact the present ROC government is part of a sort of pro-US Oriental axis consisting of Japan, South Korea and the ROC, principally opposing the PRC and DPRK.
I know that, thats why I put it in quotations. I missed the guys follow up.
Besides that, is there anything else?
I dont know, take a gander through the archives and tell me. Notice I hadnt claimed that LRC is now a non libertarian site.
Ah, k’. I thought you were implying Taiwan was seperate from China and hence was not seceding at all.
I know, I just wanted to see if there were any article I had missed that were non-libertarian. I read about half the articles posted everyday. The why-war-is-wrong don’t really interest me. But I have noticed that a lot of articles nowadays are link to news sites, or links to mises.org. I wonder if lew is trying to make LRC into a lifestyle magazine.
I think its just a ‘whatever-intersted-lew-rockwell-that-day’ website. Buy what do you expect from a website named after him?
Yeah sometimes he posts really dull hippie anti war articles (see Cindy Sheehan archives).
As an atheist I never felt it was atheist bashing/baiting. I think you can substitute the word “fundamentalist” for maybe something like “fantaical”, “highly intolerant”,"militant"or more to the point “those who wish to centralize their beliefs on others”. I think the word “fundamentalist” is meant to be taken in it’s “pop” use of the word. I would imagine most people would interpret it that way.
As far as the function of this site (mises.org look at the posts for which one can select a topic) and libertarianism (in the sense that it is a political philosophy) is concerned I think the only real issue on religion/atheism/spirituality is how it gets centralized and political in non voluntary ways. I don’t see much point in taking the conversation in any other direction.
-
If it is reason and empirical evidence you cherish you ought to realize the type of post you made is “religous argument” baiting, and that these arguments on a website (where theology is tertiary to the sites function) seldom go well. Compound that with the fact that I do not think my OP had anything to really do with religion (nor any of the previous replies to the post). If it came off that way I apologize. I do not mean this in a rude way, but you are comming off as some one highly sensetive to religion. While it is really none of my business, if I am correct, I would suggest you find more appropriate avenues to discuss your problems with it, as this post was not inteded for it.
-
Reason and empiricism do not have to be the only justification for anarchistic views. SImply wanting to live that way for no good reason other than your preference at that moment is fine enough. I think you also assume that one can not obey the reason of their own religion and lead to anarchism, this is also false.
-
Statements like “reason and empiricism are the only justification for anarchistic views” amongst a few other comments you made sound a bit suspicous, are you trying to sell something? Has some one sold you something that you bought hook, line, and sinker? Hopefully I am reading you wrong, but I am almost feeling a “greater good” cause through some of your statements, or a “come join my cause” thing. And if I am right, please tell me it is something called “the cult of reason”, that would be kind of amusing. Reasonable =/= correct, Unreasonable =/= incorrect in any all encompassing objective sense of the word. This is unless of course you are talking about your ONE TRUE ANARCHISM and the ONE TRUE SYSTEM, in which case you may be correct.
Anyway, this has drifited to far from it’s topic. If you want the last word, take it, I doubt I’ll respond back due to my growing distast for thread decay. If you really want a discussion talking about “reason, atheism, lew rockwells view on theism, or the price of tea in china” once again there are probably more appropriate places than this thread. And as far as theology, there are far more appropriate places than this site. If I have misinterpreted your statements, I humbly apologize.
Hmm, I don’t ask too much in wanting reason/empiricism. The fact that you call it a “cult” is a bit strange. If someone is unreasonable, do you tend to still agree with them? To me it seems like a necessary condition to even discuss things. Even if its wrong, it has to be at least reasonable… or/and based on evidence.
I think most of the articles fall under that category. But I think I’m mainly commenting on the fact that some articles do sort of drift off into religious. As if there is some dialogue going on. And can be alienating (and I don’t see why Christians need their arguments against the state when there are plenty of ones that don’t require religion at all). And it sort of ties in with your "trends and “evolution” because I’ve began to notice it more and more. Maybe its the demographic.
I’ve read LRC for a while now and honestly couldn’t say, at all, that the site is ‘more’ sympathetic to the left… Mr Rockwell even once said LRC takes the ‘best of both left and right’ to compliment a core libertarian philosophy. What’s wrong with that? The site does have a wide range of commentators who’ve come from all over the political spectrum, but the consistent message always reflects the byline of “anti-state, anti-war, pro-market”.
I was especially amused by Stephen Kinsella’s recent postings condemning the American Revolution and the responses (certainly over on the Mises blog) he received. LRC occasionally provides these challenges that forces one to ‘check his premises’ – and I believe that is a good thing, too.
Well, it’s simply a matter of personal taste. Most libertarian sites are either centrist or liberal in their cultural outlook, which made LRC something unique. Now that he brought in the ‘best’ of the left, its made it into just another libertarian website. Some of you here might prefer that model, though.
I tend to hate people who bring in the baggage of left or rightism. The best articles are always the ones that just bring the facts and a good analysis. Too, bringing some novel points is always important. As well as some consistency. LR can bring articles of this caliber usually and I tend to read those.
As for radicalness, I think maybe we take for granted how radical it is. It really is quite anti- in a way that is admirable in some respects. And usually reliable.
The fact that you call it a “cult” is a bit strange.
The word “cult” was used to be taken as a whole: “Cult of Reason”, a proper noun (see Robespierre). It was used to illistustrate that even people who base their life on reason or “good principles” can end up doing some truley odd behaviour. It is meant to imply that there is sort of a spectrum of the way people behave when it comes to ANY belief or principle. I admit I am having a hard time defining what I am trying to say here. That is the reason why I use the noun “cult of reason”, I was almost using it in a poetic sense due to me having a hard time articulating my thoughts concisly (I tend to do that). If you are still confused let me know, I will try and explain myself better.
I don’t ask too much in wanting reason/empiricism. If someone is unreasonable, do you tend to still agree with them? To me it seems like a necessary condition to even discuss things.
I can agree with an unreasonable person. Reason =/= right. “Reasonable” is not a necessary condition to discuss things; preferd for some, sure. Trust me I know first hand reason is not necessary (I was a bar owner/manager/tender/bouncer in a fairly rough bar for 5 yrs). If you demand reason in life from people you are simply dening the empirical evidence that putting reason as a prime objective is not necessary nor prefered to every person. Reason is just a tool, it is not necessarily the greatest asset an individual can have. Intuition and emotion: these are usually considerd the opposite of reason and they exist specifically because they are useful, some people thrive better off these mental tools. I think to succesfully deal with life as a whole, one has to recognize that fact.
I don’t see why Christians need their arguments against the state when there are plenty of ones that don’t require religion at all
Why would you expect to understand why Christains need arguments against the state if you are not even spiritual? Why should there be an artistic argument against the state directed at artists, when there are so many other good arguments against the state? Why should there be an environmentalist argument against the state when there are so many other good arguments? I think you are correct, it is the demographic. Since there is a strong Catholic influence there, it does tend to lead to more Catholic based arguments than you would get at Reason for example (which tends to pander more to atheists, due to their demographic). It makes sense.
And it sort of ties in with your "trends and “evolution” because I’ve began to notice it more and more.
I see your point now as to how you thought your post was relevant, I agree it is. I guess I have a knee jerk reaction when people start to bring up religion in threads that aren’t theology based, as I think most people will admit, that topic is a red flag for going nowhere fast.
I actually tend to like “people bringing in their political baggage”. It tends to offer a different perspective that I usually have a knee jerk reaction against and wouldn’t seek anywhere else. In a way it is one of those small things that can help me temper myself and help me engage in a political/philisophical conversation with people in a much more productive matter. For me learning to temper myself better, and understand other viewpoints is always a good thing.
But yeah, I tend to agree the best articles are the ones with good facts and analysis. Either way, without the site I would be a much less happy man.
If someone is unreasonable, do you tend to still agree with them? To me it seems like a necessary condition to even discuss things. Even if its wrong, it has to be at least reasonable… or/and based on evidence
Sorry to triple post on you but once again: But does not the minor god Amore stymie and humiliate mighty Apollo the god of pure reason?
its not reasonable to use myth, fantasy and fiction to disparage reason.
It is myth, fiction, and fantasy to elevate reason to something that should not be disparaged.
How, pray tell, are you going to “disparage” something without argumentation and thus reason?
Throw rocks at it? Pray till they recant? Point a gun?
You can disparage a reasoning. But it makes little sense to disparage reason.