Order is a prerequisite to freedom, otherwise you’d just go live in the woods.
What the heck are you talking about? Of course liberalism is not against consensual relationship of any kind. But just how are consensual relationships of any kind contrary to equality? Infact attempting to come down on “consensual power relationships” would institute an assault on equality, because to make it happen you would neccesarily need to establish some sort of coercive agency and thus create a class of the privileged and of the underprivileged.
I don`t think we share the viewpoint then. I am very much about natural rights. About the right that no man be put above me.
Well, ideas like “equality before the law”, “equal rights” and “no authority” are certainly not new to libertarianism…Rather those ideas define libertarianism
[i]How does he become subjected to the control of men like himself, who, by nature, had no authority over him; but who command him to do this, and forbid him to do that, as if they were his sovereigns, and he their subject; and as if their wills and their interests were the only standards of his duties and his rights; and who compel him to submission under peril of confiscation, imprisonment, and death?
Clearly all this is the work of force, or fraud, or both.[/i] - No Treason.
Two people in a power relationship are not equals - that’s what power relationship means. Consensual power relationships exist. Consensual relationships are consistent with liberalism.Therefore liberalism is not strictly about the elimination of power relationships.
You had said liberalism “is all about destruction of privilege” and “All political power stems from privilege”.
I disagree. Some political power does not stem from privilege and is perfectly legitimate. Liberalism is about the abatement of non-consensual political power and is not primarily about equality.
Define “order”.
Than why the hell did you say the following:
? You are dissenting against your own freaking term!
“Classical Liberalism was … about the abatement of political power” ,followed by: "Some political power … is perfectly legitimate."
Make up your mind.
I completely agree with you in that libertarianism stands for equal liberty, and I think that the consequences of equal liberty are more beneficial to the masses at large than not. Libertarianism is opposed to any inequality in fundamental rights, noone has any special rights above that of anyone else, and hence libertarianism supports equality in this sense.
I disagree. A child has the same rights as an adult; they just dont have the same privileges.
Yeah, and let’s not forget that freedom is slavery and all that.
The sense of stressing the importance of equality of rights is that a state, by its very nature, claims special rights above everyone else. It is entirely relevant and quite fundamental. The inconsistancy between the rights of an individual and the claimed rights of a state is a certain kind of inequality, and the consistant application of rights inevitably is universalist or equal in this sense. In short, moral consistancy between humans delegitimizes the state.
Why? Because I was more specific as the debate progressed? There is no contradiction between the two statements.
OK then how about this: classical Liberalism was also about the abatement of non-consensual political power, not just the equal application of it.
Happy now?
Yeah but this is the only sense in which equality can ever exist. There is no other equality than this equality. All the other “equalities” are self-defeating and suffer from inner contradictions. Just like you can not apply bogus “intellectual property” without infringing on actual rights of material property, you can not apply bogus equality in the sense that everyone shall own the same sort of government approved toothbrushes without making a mess of actual equality that no man shall be forcefully set above another.
If you disagree with me then kindly say why.
I think “consentual political power” is an oxymoron.
There are many examples of consensual power relationships.
Do you have a job? Is it consensual? Do you have to do what you are told?
Oh, I certainly agree that equality in any other sense is nonsensical if not undesirable.
I would have been happier if you had been more consistent from the beginning. Power relationships? You are reffering to naturaly forming hierarchies? What about them? They are perfectly compatible with equality. Equality just like every other right needs to be recognised as a right, but it does not need to be applied in everything. I have the right to prance around naked in my house, but you are saying because I seldom do it it should be judged to have no such right? I can cede seniority if I want to. But we are all free not to if we so decide, thus we are all equal and no one is set above another. Similarly I am free not to apply the right to my property and not defend it against a burglar if I am for example a pacifist, but no one will claim that means there is no such thing as right to property.
Where have I been inconsistant? I said Liberalism was about the abatement of power relationships and I said some power relationships are legitimate. Those two statements are not in conflict.
Consensual, not just naturally occurring. Your family relationships are naturally occurring, but you were not born into your job relationships.
No. You’re not hearing that or anything like it from me. Different thread maybe?
For starters you switched the terms just now. Initially you were saying Liberalism was about abatement of “political power” not about abatement of “power relationships”.
You are arguing semantics. Artificial hierarchies are those that would not form without coercion of the state. Opposite of artificial is natural thus all hierarchies that would form spontaneously even in a society free of state coercion are naturally forming. People would still get a job in anarchic order.