You guys are arguing on multiple points, some un-related to each other. I don’t see any real direction in the dispute.
Second off, rights have no real business in this discussion. In so far as rights have anything to do with voluntary exchange. The right to private arbitration is the same right to purchase an apple at the store. These alleged rights extend only so far as other parties are willing to trade with you. So in that regard it’s certainly no positive, or absolute right and really it’s unclear what business rights have to do in any of this.
It’s not unlibertarian for a gangster to purchase legal defense. It’s also not un-libertarian for the service package rendered to gangsters having a different price and qualitative composition then services rendered to honest folk. As legal representatives charge a premium for the added risk in the reputation of thier firm by defending a gangster. Seems like folks are talking past one another, when they very likely agree on some of the points in dispute.
Kalhoun is just a leftoid, I’m done talking to him pretty much forever. I have better ways to waste my goddamn time than bother with these college kids.
But this time the semantics are not coming from my side, Filc. It’s like this;
Either you think every person should be able to represent themselves (even if thru a lawyer) in front of the law or not.
Should I be able to convict you of charges without you defending yourself?
If you answer that question no, then ok. YOu’re not an egalitarian. But neither are you a libertarian, so whaterver.
If you answer it yes, you are. There’s no way around it. There’s no semantics of getting out of it. You can define equality under the law any way you want, it is still equality under the law (basically Im saying screw the semantics and cutting to the deeper issue). Im sorry you have such self-loathing for your egalitarianism, but that’s the bricks. Deal with it.
Proof that the fringe/hipster left cares only about social signaling rhetoric, and little else. Perhaps this group is synonyomous with at least a certain form of such signaling.
Because libertarianism as belief never would lead us to argue "we should think aggression is bad " and “treat each other without aggression”.So your argument is false.Furthermore the sameness thing is only true to an extent.I’ll give you credit though,least you haven’t said egalitarianism= a world of clones.
You want to make people libertarian then make them egoistic, unresponsive to social pressures and extremely greedy bastards; you’ll find statist power structures will collapse without the herd mentality and plebian cultism of the sort you’re promoting here. If people mind their own business and don’t give much of a damn about anyone else they might be surly but they’re sure as Hell not going to be obedient;
If people don’t give a damn about others, why would they mind their own business? Moreover, I can’t see how greed and obedience are necessarily opposites. In my experience, they have a kind of reflexive relationship. Greed seems to provoke obedience punctuated by extreme bouts of disobedience, since everything is a question of calculation and circumstance. To call it obedience would be too kind, actually; it cultivates a cowardly, deceitful grovelling in the many, and a brazen, deceitful arrogance in the few. Especially since people are unequal, wouldn’t there be a natural tendency for large swathes of people to obey while a minority would surreptitiously compete for dominance? And how would that be different from 99% of human history, especially non-Western history? Since we can apparently “make people” one way or another, why not give them dignity? Pound for pound, dignity is far more powerful than greed.
If people don’t give a damn about others, why would they mind their own business?
Most of the busy-bodiness that goes on is over status games and moralizing; and if you think you need some deontic moral myth to make legal systems work then you don’t understand customary law.
If people don’t give a damn about others, why would they mind their own business?
“Most of the busy-bodiness that goes on is over status games and moralizing; and if you think you need some deontic moral myth to make legal systems work then you don’t understand customary law.”
Are you kidding? Am I supposed to unpack that?
If you think that busy-bodiness can be differentiated from hot air by any other means than metaphor, then you don’t understand anything about mythopoesis. Whatcha gotta say about that, Cracker Jack?
You sound like a culturally conservative crank saying leave my bigotries alone in the same way when sometimes you criticize a racist, someone might say they has a ‘right’ to that opinion.In anycase sounds like your still in the randian phase.Give it a few years.
Lol@me being ‘culturally conservative’. I think monogamy is for losers.
In anycase sounds like your still in the randian phase.Give it a few years.
Nice job sounding exactly like all the liberal retards who want to psychologize egoism away. Also, Rand was a moralizer, too. This kind of crap is why I don’t talk to you left wing scum; you’re just a bunch of smarmy idiots.
I don’t think voluntarism promises to vanquish all bad on Earth, but merely seeks a social system where the institutionalization of coercion is rejected. Coercive acts and murder may still occur but these these would be isolated and frowned upon by people.
Even hypothesizing that no physical coercion ever occurs again, this does not mean people will have no self-esteem problems to deal with, or that annoying moralizers won’t exist.
In my opinion, and probably not yours, we are not equal because value is subjective. That doesn’t make anyone an elite, it just allows for people to form their own opinions on rank and use them to make decisions on who they associate themselves with. Because I don’t believe in intrinsic value, it wouldn’t make sense for me to want laws favoring the elite and oppressing the undesirables because those laws would have to be determined by intrinsically valueless beings and would have no intrinsic value themselves. If equality under law is egalitarianism, I am by your definition an egalitarian. But that word would have no value to me because that is not what it means to me.
Voluntaryism is favorable because it allows people to make value-based decisions for themselves and only themselves. If they attempt to do so for others, there are consequences.