You’ve come to see absolutely no issue. I don’t agree with everything Rothbard said also, but you obviously misunderstood Rothbard. Rothbard advocated for nothing but the “economic order” of the unhampered free market.
And the absolute norms of property rights, and the NAP. Are there any others I missed?
Without property rights, there is no market. You can’t have a free market without “absolute norm of property rights”. A free market without property rights is a logical contradiction. We are still talking about a free market here, right?
Step 1 - Laugh at 2-color worldview.
Step 2 - Replace with 1-color worldview.
Step 3 - Parade your superiority.
Azure,
I think I’ve increased the colors (3, yes, no, unsure), and the “parading of superiority” is strictly reactionary.
Hoo boy, not this stinker again:
A right to property is not the same as possession. People can exchange stolen goods, right?
Really. It’s hard to respond to you when I have to guess all the time what your argument is.
Your position: “No free market without property rights”
My position: “Free markets possible without property rights”
Right, but, however natural we feel that the “economic order of the unhampered free market” is, it is still a prescribed economic order over a given land area. That’s my only qualm with it. In terms of actual results, I agree with Rothbardianism and think that the absence of a state would result in a Rothbardian-like world. Not just magically, of course, ideology has to change, but that’s another issue. Just FYI, as I’ve mentioned before, I have barely dented the enormous wealth of writings from Rothbard, so I am at least somewhat ignorant as to the details of Rothbardianism.
Step 1 - Laugh at 2-color worldview.
Step 2 - Replace with 1-color worldview.
Step 3 - Parade your superiority
False. It is;
Step 1 - Question 2 color worldview (laugh if you must)
Step 2 - Replace with worldview accepting the full scale of all colors
Step 3 - Wonder why people can’t accept this
Your position is false. You can define the terms however you like, but then we’re not arguing about the same thing.
You can call hotdog a hamburger. But If I am talking about a hot dog, and you show me a hamburger and say: ‘here you’r wrong. hot dogs can look and taste like hamburgers’, then we are both wasting our time here.
No it is not. It is prescribed by nobody. If it is, who is it prescribed by? Show me this person who is doing the “prescribing”. Where does he sit. I want to meet him.
You are right of course. Property isn’t a right, but a liberty. See here for a quick explanation.
Rothbardians do not reject order. With voluntary order everyone wins. With coerced order everyone loses. This is the difference.
This is a great post, and you are the first person in this thread to articulate my position (almost perfectly). Thank you.
Liberty Student just to clarify, when I made my comment about the mods I was specifically referring to you. I was just making an observation
Ok, well, I’m not a Rothbardian when it comes to the origin of ethics. I am pointing out that Rothbardianism is unflinchingly for non-aggression, and Rothbard was clearly a libertarian (Mr. Libertarian btw). He and I arrive at non-aggression through different routes. He was an objective ethicist, I am a subjective ethicist. However, how you derive your ethical stance isn’t the baseline for libertarianism, but what that ethical stance is.
Here’s the difference: When you advocate anti-statism, you are advocating the removal of the state and everything it entails (aggression, coercion, etc.). When you advocate anarcho-capitalism, you are saying, “We will have X economic order in Y geographical area.” Of course, the state as we know it is gone, but this just seems to be a sort of “lower” form of statism.
To Azure:
I think you misunderstood me. I made no commentary on voluntary order or coerced order. My claim was that anarcho-capitalists say that, “We are going to have X economic order in this land.” It is different from statism in that it is extremely decentralized, but it is still presupposed.
I knew you were referring to me. No one ever made an omelette without breaking some eggs.
I probably missed more posts in this thread, but I am not trying to ignore anyone. If I owe a response, let me know.
@ flic
https://forum.freecapitalists.org/t/which-political-philosophy-annoys-you-most-and-why/15194/14