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.
I’ve argued with Kinsella before, I know what it’s like.
Please remember this is LvMI and LvMI house rules prevail. Going after LvMI fellows on LvMI’s dime isn’t acceptable. You can take your personal criticisms of LvMIers and post them elsewhere.
Going after LvMI fellows on LvMI’s dime isn’t acceptable.
So we can’t criticize your saints, but crazy people can argue for communism. Somebody’s touchy.
I was always under the impression that right wing libertarians view left wing ones as allies just because of their end goal.
Anyways, most members on here are libertarian conservatives?You talked(2nd poster) mainly about social issues, but I always was under the impression that most people here would agree with the American left on social issues(not the means, but the end goal).
I was always under the impression that right wing libertarians view left wing ones as allies just because of their end goal.
Many left libertarians, however, do not support the end goal. They hate the State because they see it as the source of inequality, patriarchy, corporate investment, the fact that everyone isn’t a transexual drug addict, etc.
Don’t play this game with me, you will lose.
Stephan is not my saint and I have argued with him many times here and elsewhere. However, one of the terms of posting here is that you don’t use the community for making personal attacks on LvMI fellows. That’s not my rule, but I agree with it and intend to enforce it. If you don’t like it, hit the logout button and have a nice day. Anyone who has any further questions about this, start a thread in the member issues forum.
Many left libertarians, however, do not support the end goal. They hate the State because they see it as the source of inequality, patriarchy, corporate investment, the fact that everyone isn’t a transexual drug addict, etc.
Wouldn’t the end goal constitute government getting smaller or going away completely? I know the only good example of this would be in Spain during the 30s and now even the anarchists(left wing) are trying to see it happen it again since their economy is really work right now.
I view left libertarians as allies, and have worked with them before. It seems right libertarians are more tolerant of left libertarians then left libertarians are of right libertarians. So in that sense your probably right. I’m all for working together, anarchism without adjectives etc etc, as long as it follows voluntaryist ethics (non coercion). I don’t see how socialists should be more of allies to left libertarians then to right libertarians (specifically left anarchists), unless they are closet statists.
I can tolerate Rod Long and Sheldon Richman. The rest of them seem more than happy to abrogate what I would consider any sane view of economic science or customary law for their pet hobby horses; like land ownership and so forth.
I already asked you a similar question, but specifically, what is your view on the role of government? Are you for limited government or are you a voluntaryist/anarchist/autarchist?
The state is useless; and customary law is perfectly workable.
Is obedience to the state a customary law?
The description of left-libertarians as “viewing the corporation as becoming the new state if safeguards arent in place (to paraphrase)” is, I believe, correct. At least from my own perspective. I wouldn’t exactly say we are less tolerant tho. People are people; some tolerant, some not. I mean, this thread has plenty of people saying leftists arent libertarians at all, etc, etc… (not to say that is an intolerant statement, just a seperatist statement. Just using it as a minor example).
The state is by definition statuatory. However, compliance with status figures and localized violence may be considered a pretty normal decision in most people. And some limited support, if they perceive something that apparently agrees with their concept of social order.
Self censorship or a moderator? Either way, slick.
You got me wrong. I never said that facts and logical entailment are dependent on moral propositions. I’ve held that all factual claims and all epistemologies depend on norms in general, and hence the position that “all normatives are false” (as you have claimed) would entail complete epistemological nihilism. The view I’ve expressed is that there is no way to disentangle truth-talk from values, I.E. I maintain that all “ises” can be brought down to “oughts” in some way (not “moral propositions” per se, but what might be called “epistemic norms”).
Where I connect this to morality is that I think it undermines attempts to justify moral nihilism by appealing to a bogus absolute demarkation of discourses in which you can distinguish dry “fact talk” from everything else and attack morality for not being within the boundaries of this “objective” zone. All discourses rely on those pesky normatives, unless it isn’t meant to be taken seriously as “truth”. All disciplines depend on evaluative distinctions/favoritism and the establishment of rules. There is no non-normative high ground for some topics over others. Morality is just another domain alongside the rest.
Good summary