Ah, Brainpolice and his unwillingness to commit himself to any actual position. So Sun Tzu. He also claims that facts and logical entailment are dependent on moral positions.
They are unwilling to accept the basic fact of customary law that what is ‘right’ is whatever works for the parties at hand. Someone is always being ‘exploited’.
Actually, I take it back, this is the flat out problem with libertarianism; the “mystique” of ownership, and the knee jerk reaction to actual “power projection”, property as the sacred and the profane.
Actually, I take it back, this is the flat out problem with libertarianism; the “mystique” of ownership, and the knee jerk reaction to actual “power projection”, property as the sacred and the profane.
You’re right; especially among the rank and file. I feel that Narveson, Fuller and de Jasay would not fall under this rubric; however these are all people with a far subtler understanding of social organization than the typical libertarian could ever muster.
For my part i find it hard to criticise those that internalise a positive mental operation so that it becomes ‘instinctive’.
The problem of unsubtle understanding and instinctive worship is (due to consequence) more worthy of disparagement where it occurs on the statist/anti-propertarian side.
Libertarian moral fantasies are no less ridiculous than statist moral fantasies; and usually just as rarely connected to actual understanding of the social sciences (and even less so of human sociobiology). It just happens that they’re less dangerous; but believing in Zeus is less dangerous than worshipping the god of mindless slaughter; that doesn’t make them both absurd.
I’m sure I don’t know what you mean by ‘libertarian moral fantasies’
What exactly is absurd about propounding propertarianism? or do you just mean that the arguments they have marshalled to support their propounding are so poor as to render the propertarianism absurd?
I.e. if we map this debate onto Atheism, would you be saying that even though their are scholars of Atheism there are those who have a blind/unquestioned dogma of Atheism, that is absurd and/or dangerous?
or do you just mean that the arguments they have marshalled to support their propounding are so poor as to render the propertarianism absurd?
The majority of ‘arguments’ in favor if propertarianism are made by people with no understanding of the social sciences, and are just childish fantasies about libertarianism somehow conforming to typical moral norms (which obviously it does not).
Bad arguments for atheism are bad arguments; whether their conclusion is correct is rather beside the point.
I.e. if we map this debate onto Atheism, would you be saying that even though their are scholars of Atheism there are those who have a blind/unquestioned dogma of Atheism, that is absurd and/or dangerous?
Yes if I am an atheist because “The God of the Bible is immoral”, “Religion promotes inegalitarianism”, etc. This kind of atheism is quite prevelent. I don’t know if I would call it a blind “dogma to atheism” as in they just really aren’t atheists.
can you square for me how such folk might be absurd fantasists and yet hold correct conclusions?
are you reserving the term ‘absurd fantasy’ for purely the ‘argumentative’ part and not the conclusive part? or is something else going on that I am missing?
What do we have, four or five Stirnerites and a handful of non-cognitivists on here? We must be driving these Rothbardians nuts.
Bad arguments for atheism are bad arguments; whether their conclusion is correct is rather beside the point.
can you square for me how suchmight be absurd fantasists and yet hold correct conclusions?
Quite simple if you don’t hold to the absurd ‘foundationalist’ fallacy of Rand; or as Wittgenstein would say not all thoughts are inferences.
right…, so you are saying that they argue poorly even if they conclusions are correct. so from this I understand that if you were to only assess their conclusions, those alone would not be ‘absurd fantasies’?
I’m not offering any criticisms, I am trying to understand your position.
Well, if their conclusions are ‘god doesn’t exist’ or ‘the state militates against civil order and economic coordination’ then yes, that’s true. However there are often other elements that they follow from their bad arguments that are absurd and positively counter-productive, such as that politicians are sociopaths or Evangelical Christians secretly rule the world.
I think we are hitting the bottom now which is that every philosophy has adherents which cause the other adherents to roll their eyes.
can you square for me how such folk might be absurd fantasists and yet hold correct conclusions?
Sometimes the conclusion isn’t “correct”, just the word or phrase happens to be, but the definitions are wrong. Sometimes there is no conclusion drawn, I can train a parrot to say E=MC2.
LOL. You think the Rothbardians get pissed, the Hoppelites go ballistic! I was almost the victim of the forum equivalent of mob justice a while back. Luckily, I was spared.
[censored: if you have problem with forum members, or a class of such that follow in the tradition of a leading scholar (Rothbard), then make a scholarly thread, or take it to the issues forum]
Sometimes the conclusion isn’t “correct”, just the word or phrase happens to be. Sometimes there is no conclusion drawn, I can train a parrot to say E=MC2.
An excellent point, a phrase uttered without comprehension is cognitively empty and is neither true nor false; it is meaningless. Like ‘God made the world.’
Thats cool, i get it