Dying for an idea can very well inspire others to take that idea more seriously; almost any ideology that has survived has its martyrs that it takes as role-models. Becoming a martyr is often one of the most powerful gestures in the toolbox of human action.
It is the random, and chaotic events, not those that we can easilly anticipate, that test an individual’s ideals.
You claimed you would kill rather then be killed, but now want to dodge any reductio of that stance. These illustrate how silly your position of life over liberty or morality really is. You either admit to might making right, or you admit that Lam is right that some things are worth dying for but instead to choose to evade and obfuscate.
This is why it is hard to take ethical objectivists seriously. They don’t even believe what they say.
So can writing a book.
Tell that to Karl Menger, Bohm-Bawerk, Mises, Rothbard. They helped establish a whole school of thought based on scholarly intellect.
Right because we just sit around waiting for confirmation of our theories by some obtruse event that is unlikely to transpire again. You want a real test? Try the constant events that are likely to transpire on a day by day basis. If you can live up to libertarianism on a constant level and not when its ‘random’ then that is when I think you are truly testing yourself for it is easy to be a radical for 30 seconds but much harder to be a radical for 30 years.
Killed or be killed is different from kill, watch someone die or be killed yourself. So it is obviously not a reductio stance.
Well existence is necessary for liberty or morality.
I deny that might makes right is a valid moral theory and I say onto Lam that dying for a cause is a useless gesture. Propounding one through life isn’t. I have not evaded nor befuddled the debate.
A collectivist statement and a objective value statement.
I think I would do it… but i sure wouldn’t be happy about it.
Most books aren’t remebered in a generation.
You cite a single, relatively unpowerful movement in history, and you think that it even puts a dent in my argument?
Its easy to live out an ideology on an everyday basis where there is not much at stake - it is when everyday life breaks down, when habit, and convention can no longer be a guiding force, that is the acid-test of a philosophy. Indeed, it is much easier to be a radical in everyday life for thirty years when it barely matters than in a thirty second moment where it is the difference between triumph, and utter disaster. It is easier to proclaim an ideology when there are no consequences, during those thirty years, than when it has serious consequences, during those thirty seconds.
More evasion. I won’t waste any more of my time with this.
Right…Plato and Aristotle Who? The fact that there are bad authors in the world doesn’t mean there aren’t timeless books.
Take a look at the letterhead and ask yourself what you are doing here.
That’s innane. Living out the NAP all your life is easier then saying ‘Well I think I will follow the NAP today and we will see what tomorrow looks like’? Consistency is the basis for a solid foundation. That is why we have something like the NAP which is applicable in all cases and events. It is not said…‘Well you can punch someone in the face once but not twice, and it can’t be hard either, like a soft tap and we would define a soft tap as something like a peck [ Well what about kicking? ] Clearly kicking is a violation of rights’. And you presume to determine that living 30 years of radical libertarianism ‘barely matters’, I would disagree.
Those are valid statements. They are direct answers to your question. I feel you are the one evading because you know the situation you setup is invalid.
you wouldn’t? I would. I’d gladly do it. I wouldn’t blame my wife or child. I wouldn’t look at them with hate or remorse or regret that I did it. I would do it out of love. I would regret that I had to die by such a non-sensical act. I would hate that. I wouldn’t be happy about that. But I would be happy thinking maybe I just saved their lives.
Speak for yourself. Can’t you follow even your own code of honor.
You just named three authors representing two centuries of Greek philosophy, I believe that proves my point: most books die, only a very few survive.
Its a historical fact.
It seems you have yet to comprehend what I’ve said.
I could name more timeless writers throughout the age. And I think you are completely misrepresenting your argument. You say that matyrdom is perhaps the most powerful tool to human action. I postulate that human ideas through scholarly intellect is more powerful and you say ‘Ah HA! I was right!’…because books die? [ Great personification by the way, the fact that you give life to books implies that they have effects on our ideas and guide us through our lives ] I would ask this. How does a matyr become a matyr? Is it not through scholarly intellect through some degree? Give me a matyr and I can certainly tell you how books affected his development. I’d much rather write a book in the hope that it changes the world rather then die and hope it changes the world. You seem to want the latter, which is your choice.
No I would consider it an inane falsehood in which you use simply to try and win a argument on the very website of the institiute which you claim is powerless.
Praytell, what don’t I comprehend?
Yes, you can name more “timeless” authors but you won’t even scratch the surface of the names of all authors throughout the age.
The most influential philosopher in the world was able to recieve such status by becoming a martyr - martrydom inspires others to take up the torch, its a fact about the human condition.
Its a historical fact that the Austrian school of economics is probably the least influential upon history. But, of course, you’re going to bring politics into the situation because you cannot prove your point otherwise.
To use N.N. Taleb’s terminology, the anatomy of a black swan.
Nice.
I addressed this statement already. Just because there are bad authors doesn’t mean intellectual power is irrelevant.
And this philosopher would be?
Yes yes, that is why all new revisionist pieces are disproving false myths concerning historical events like economic panics.
So, you are going to make a platitude..ok.
Bad authors? Great authors have been forgotten by history; just being a great author does not mean one will be an acclaimed author.
Socrates.
You didn’t even address my point.
Do you even know what a “black swan” is?
Which ones have?
So you posulate that Socrates was famous simply because he died?
No I actually did. You said that the Austrian school has little influence on history yet revisionist historians are now disproving myths about the Great Depression, presidencies, state institutions.
Well when I am talking with you, then english language usually devolves into a nihilist dreamworld. Humor me with a definition so we don’t spend a half an hour disputing what it is and isn’t.
Lam, why are you even asking such a silly question? [:P] Surely, in order to have an objective ethical position, built on an understanding of nature, one must not only know what a black swan is, but account for them, prior to being aware of their existence!
Thales.
No, I postulate that., without his martrydom, Socrates would not have been as influential, nor remebered as he is today.
And Austrian ideas are definately the driving force of today’s institutions… You see, you blatantly misunderstood my point.
Do some research because I’m not debating with someone who cannot understand such ideas.