It will remain unrealistic as long as people keep believing it’s unrealistic.
Marko: Why couldn’t the Jews living there secede? Are you saying that those Jews didn’t belong there?
It’s called dodging the point. Using “but property rights/anarcho-capitalism… read Rothbard!” as a response to everything ignores the issue at hand. If you really want to debate the creation of Israel then fine, but natural rights arguments won’t convince anyone outside of the libertarian community and are therefore unrealistic to apply in the mean time.
Autolykos: They could have, and should. But land privatisation has nothing to do with this thread, though I believe it will have great benefits in Israel when I look at the condition of the ‘publicly’ owned parks, reserves and rivers.
I’ll let you know I have reported this personal abuse.
I’m not here to mollycoddle you or provide you with emotional support. If aren’t intellectually secure enough to debate without stating that any libertarian who doesn’t have the same views as you isn’t a libertarian, then don’t.
What point is (allegedly) being dodged and who’s (allegedly) dodging it?
I’m guessing you think the issue at hand is whether Zionism is compatible with libertarianism? If so, the only direct answer I can give is that it depends on how one is defining both of those terms.
Nice argument from ignorance.
Perhaps than I misstated my argument. I do not claim that you hijacked the ‘meaning’ of the term, just the term itself. It’s unethical at the very least to claim a term for one’s own position if someone else with a different position was already using that term. So, I’m not discussing whether anarcho-capitalism is or is not nearer to the ‘true’ meaning of libertarianism, just that its unethical to forbid the originators of the term to use it.
Fair enough. If one defines “Zionism” as you seem to (something akin to “Jewish people owning property apart from any state”, if I understand correctly), then I have no problem with it whatsoever, and I’d say it’s perfectly compatible with what I call “libertarianism”. However, such areas of private Jewish-owned land won’t necessarily be (all) contiguous with one another. That may or may not be a problem with you - only you can say for certain.
That is not an argument from ignorance. Please sort out your definitions of logical fallacies before attempting to tarnish me with them. I was stating that the vast majority of people do not accept the Rothbardian idea of property rights, therefore to make arguments applicable in reality, libertarians ought to argue from a purely historical, non-moralised viewpoint.
Refraining from calling someone “rather pathetic” is hardly the same as “mollycoddling” him or providing him with emotional support. Also, personal attacks are against the rules of this forum.
Am I obligated to consider you a libertarian just because you call yourself one?
Ah, so you’re a clairvoyant! Tell me, what’s the secret to your power?
That’s not what I gathered from what you said. You stated that “natural rights arguments won’t convince anyone outside of the libertarian community”. That is a claim of certainty for the future. But the future is inherently uncertain. Hence, since you can’t know whether appeals to natural rights will or will not convince anyone outside of libertarian circles, your argument is implicitly an argument from ignorance.
Apologies, I didn’t know I was dealing with a solipsist. Natural rights arguments don’t convince many people outside of the libertarian community. Better? This is why I happen to think that using moralised concepts of rights ultimately fails for us.
Where in this thread have I demonstrated that I subscribe to the philosophical idea that only my own mind is sure to exist?
I’d add the word “currently” before “don’t”, but otherwise I think it’s good.
This seems to assume that people can never be persuaded of anything in a moral sense. We’re back to the argument from ignorance, in that case.
You affirmed your belief that it was wrong to make any judgement about the future since it was uncertain, thus subscribing to a pseudo-philosophical stance of “only the present exists and we don’t know the sun will rise tomorrow.” There’s no use trying to persuade people of anything in a moral sense if that moral sense fails due to its own logical inconsistencies.
First off, the belief that it’s wrong to make any judgement about the future since it was uncertain, or that “only the present exists and we don’t know the sun will rise tomorrow”, is not the same as believing that only one’s own mind is sure to exist. The latter is what Wikipedia (at least) calls “solipsism”. So I ask again, where have I demonstrated that I’m a solipsist?
Second, I actually didn’t affirm any such belief. What I did affirm is that it’s logically impossible (not wrong) to make any claim of knowledge (not judgement) about the future since the future is (always/inherently) uncertain. Of course, that implies a certain definition of “knowledge”, which you may well not agree with.
What would you say are the logical inconsistences of moral sense? Or are you referring to a particular moral sense?
Fair enough.
I am referring specifically to the idea of natural rights which seems to be pushed around quite a lot on these forums. It entirely begs the question. First of all, you don’t get an ought from an is. This violates the fact-value rule. It is a fact that we have self-ownership, yet to derive that we ought to have the right to property from this is not logical. One doesn’t follow from the other. I’m far more persuaded by Misesian consequentialist theory than Rothbardian natural-rights, and therefore I see no point in arguing the topic of Israel based on natural rights alone, as some people have done above.
Again, you can’t hijack (implying that you can steal it) a term or any other non-tangible non-scarce thing. You can redefine the term or you can misuse it according to a given definition.
So I ask you to define this different “position” or meaning that you think is being used by the miniarchist or by the libertarian of yesterday to see if there is any merit to your claim. How is your claim no more then hot air if you are still unable to define what this different meaning is? You still have not done so (3 exchanges already).
forbid??? who exactly is denying anything from anybody??
Self ownership without property rights is pretty meaningless, isn’t it?
A person owns the labor he produces. If said person didn’t own his own labor, then what differentiates him from a slave, and therefore a person without self ownership?
I think it’s rather convenient to argue for self ownership, but against property rights. Both go hand in hand. Either you’re for both or you’re against both. Or you’re stuck in the goo in between, which doesn’t make for much of an argument.
That’s why I think minarchists struggle so much between absolute freedom and absolute tyranny. It may indeed be a realistic position to hold, but who decides how much freedom or how much tyranny is right? Perhaps I’m just being too damn stubborn.
Very well than, see below.
Why? The minarchist was using the term before we did, and now you hold a somewhat different position form him, and claim the term for this new position and you deny him the validity of the term he himself coined! Where is the tough part here? If anything it’s us who must coin e new term, if we insist that we cannot both be libertarians (as you original post implied).
Don’t you see the difference between minarchy and anarchy? Than take back your original post and we’re set.
If you do se the difference, and still insist on using the term ‘libertarian’ for you position and denying it to the minarchist coiner, than I relaly don’t se how me defining monarchy will help you.
Why? The minarchist was using the term before we did, and now you hold a somewhat different position form him, and claim the term for this new position and you deny him the validity of the term he himself coined! Where is the tough part here? If anything it’s us who must coin e new term, if we insist that we cannot both be libertarians (as you original post implied).
Don’t you see the difference between minarchy and anarchy? Than take back your original post and we’re set.
If you do se the difference, and still insist on using the term ‘libertarian’ for you position and denying it to the minarchist coiner, than I relaly don’t se how me defining minarchy will help you.
Should I quote your original post than?