tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post4388391228855075342..comments2024-03-28T09:59:13.754-07:00Comments on bionic mosquito: Sheldon Richman Takes Down Walter Block & Lew Rockwell?bionic mosquitohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-80109788926072852662015-05-15T04:38:12.803-07:002015-05-15T04:38:12.803-07:00This thick libertarianism is a nuisance, and who k...This thick libertarianism is a nuisance, and who knows, maybe they will succesfully co-opt the phrase "libertarianism" simply because the mainstream helps them do it.<br />But factually speaking...honestly, how many people do we really think are politically correct, "tolerant", social justice warriors on the one hand, and pro-free market on the other? Surely this would turn their beloved "big tent" pipedream into a thimble sized one. Social justice warriors tend to go hand in hand with socialist economic views. They are redefining libertarianism, yes, but they are also marginalizing themselves into non-existence. There are many more people that simply want to be left alone and live in peace, than there are people who want the state to leave them alone while bothering everyone else with their P.C. culture war.<br /><br />As for Richman:<br />"In my article I defended the proposition that we owe other individuals nonaggression because we owe them respect as ends in themselves."<br /><br />Why do we OWE others respect? What exactly *is* respect? Why do we owe it to others as ends in themselves? <br />Giving respect cannot be an end. It must be a means, or it means nothing and thus would have nothing of value to add.<br /><br />It really is not complex, even though Richman would like it to be. We owe others non-violence, because we feel others owe it to us. The only meaningful morality is one that is universal and consistent, and so one treats another in a way one wants the other to treat them. Non-aggression is a morally consistent *means* of achieving non-aggression towards oneself. And it is non-aggression toward oneself that maximizes the possibility of survival, happiness and prosperity. That ties to the root of the meaning of life itself. Contrary to giving others "respect" as ends in themselves, which has nothing to say about life.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-57278682377117741382014-05-10T17:56:23.668-07:002014-05-10T17:56:23.668-07:00Sorry, I don't know what your point is with th...Sorry, I don't know what your point is with that.Autolykosnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-50697892387219687022014-05-08T15:22:58.181-07:002014-05-08T15:22:58.181-07:00Maybe we can just go with the "Nonaggression ...Maybe we can just go with the "Nonaggression Intimation" to cut to the chase?<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-14015252767918850692014-05-08T12:17:18.577-07:002014-05-08T12:17:18.577-07:00You seem to have misunderstood what I meant by wha...You seem to have misunderstood what I meant by what I wrote. I'll take the blame for that and try to be clearer.<br /><br />I was referring to what "thick libertarians" actually seem to perceive. As far as I can tell, "thick libertarians" honestly perceive racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. as real issues, not only when it comes to recruitment, but in and of themselves as well. Of course, I could be wrong here. It could be the case, as you seem to insinuate, that all "thick libertarians" are being at least <i>intellectually</i> dishonest. But please forgive me for finding that hard to believe.Autolykosnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-11115288827985012182014-05-07T16:16:30.888-07:002014-05-07T16:16:30.888-07:00@Autloykos
None of this has anything to do with ra...@Autloykos<br />None of this has anything to do with racism, sexism, and homophobia, even if you grant that the way in which those words are used endows them with any real meaning.<br />It has to do with political censorship. Period.<br /><br />The state always disguises its coercion in fine sounding words<br />Tucker is making the state's case as a private actor, just as torture was outsourced to private contractors. .Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-42941939769142491072014-05-07T12:21:19.351-07:002014-05-07T12:21:19.351-07:00It seems to me that "thick libertarians"...It seems to me that "thick libertarians" are concerned with libertarianism being associated with attitudes that are frowned upon in modern mainstream culture, such as racism, sexism, and homophobia. Presumably "thick libertarians" think it will be easier to recruit more people if there's no such "guilt by association" - instead of taking the approach of explaining to people that "guilt by association" is a <i>logical fallacy</i> to begin with.Autolykosnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-57182302892684299402014-05-06T08:01:07.231-07:002014-05-06T08:01:07.231-07:00On Richman's assertion that thick libertariani...On Richman's assertion that thick libertarianism will not copy the path of liberalism, as no thick libertarians advocate government action, I can only respond, "Give it time". The Temperance Movement was a good idea, but proponents got impatient at the slow (or no) progress in it, so they started enlisting government in their cause. Why would thick libertarianism be any different? People focus on the the immediate problems (e.g. female genital mutilation, mentioned in the articles as an example) and forget the principles behind everything. The kinds of people libertarianism had at the beginning were clearly more principle-oriented than the adherents likely to attach themselves to it later. Movements get watered down (and even co-opted) as they get popular.<br /><br />Anyway the other problem with the thick libertarian argument is that it involves a lot of arm-waving, which makes me suspicious. I don't see the point in redefining libertarianism, other than perhaps to make it go away. I don't even include property rights in it (mostly because I don't believe in the "rights" meme at all). To me, NAP is all it is.<br /><br />I suppose Richman et al. wish libertarianism were an easier sale, and want to jazz it up a bit. But that is a trap.Paul Bonneauhttp://armednonviolent.blogspot.com/p/my-articles.htmlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-86869524095714727302014-05-06T05:30:24.034-07:002014-05-06T05:30:24.034-07:00Interestingly, this general idea came up once when...Interestingly, this general idea came up once when I had an on line discussion with a Roman Catholic who had described charity as a positive duty for all Christians, according to all Christian teaching. I pointed out to him that this was not the case, since Roman Catholics do now accept that we Anglicans are Christian, and our teaching differs. In support of this, I cited the 38th of the Articles of Religion of the Church of England (http://mb-soft.com/believe/txc/thirtyni.htm):-<br /><br />"Of Christian men's good which are not common<br /><br />"The riches and goods of Christians are not common, as touching the right, title, and possession of the same, as certain Anabaptists do falsely boast; notwithstanding every man ought of such things as he possesseth liberally to give alms to the poor, according to his ability."<br /><br />He then asserted, figuratively telling me to my face that my beliefs were not what I believed them to be, that that "ought" meant "must" - and he continued to do so even after I rebutted him by pointing out that that reading would make the whole article vacuous and pointless since it undercut the whole "right, title, and possession of the same". He simply denied what I told him, that Protestantism reserves a place here for acting according to the informed conscience as might seem fit in all the circumstances and after taking other priorities into account, but no, he would have it that we, too, <i>must</i> do these things as a positive duty, an obligation.P.M.Lawrencehttp://users.beagle.com.au/peterlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-65912815435202298202014-05-05T20:47:39.028-07:002014-05-05T20:47:39.028-07:00bionic mosquito is right. Sheldon Richman is wrong...bionic mosquito is right. Sheldon Richman is wrong. <br /><br />Richman's "thick libertarianism" argues that merely leaving others alone by scrupulously adhering to the NAP is "not good enough." <br /><br />Alas Richman's "thick libertarianism" is at its root, merely a variant on Anatole France's quip: <br /><br />"In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets, and steal loaves of bread."<br /><br />The danger, as bionic mosquito put it so succinctly, is that “Shoulds” have a nasty habit of turning into “musts” <br /><br />As a "minarchist" Ayn Rand needed to "check her premises." But she was right to take a hardline stance against what she termed "altruism." Bevin Chuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03212261042382022326noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-21307042060449953032014-05-05T10:35:23.669-07:002014-05-05T10:35:23.669-07:00When stated in the negative, as you have done, it ...When stated in the negative, as you have done, it is referred to as the Silver Rule.bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-80594138417242630812014-05-05T09:55:06.062-07:002014-05-05T09:55:06.062-07:00Simple and yet not.
As a libertarian who happe...Simple and yet not. <br /><br /> As a libertarian who happens to be a Christian I believe that we are free to do as we will provided that we harm no one's person or property. To paraphrase the scriptures, "do not do to others what you would not have them do to you." Pretty simple if you ask me. Nothing there about prohibition, drug laws, racism or other forms of saving people from themselves. True nonaggression principle.<br /><br />As human creatures we NEED a structure or hierarchy for guidelines, but we rebel against God as the people in the scripture of 1st Samuel who asked for a king to rule over them. They did not want to be ruled by God.<br /><br />I am not trying to proselytize here. This is just my opinion. My take is that we are created beings made by God (absolute, supreme creator) and therefore are subject to His laws and judgements. Man is fallible and so are his laws. When you refuse to be governed by God then you have our situation. The blind leading the blind and both will fall into a ditch. My two cents.<br /><br /> Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com