tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post5269176229134649060..comments2024-03-28T06:00:18.802-07:00Comments on bionic mosquito: Thick and Thinbionic mosquitohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-49435628021079449362015-09-03T07:11:14.677-07:002015-09-03T07:11:14.677-07:00That's reasonable. I just need to see the evi...That's reasonable. I just need to see the evidence make the case. Same way the extensive evidence of their actual behaviors is what damns the presidents.<br /><br />Even our standard-bearing friend Walter Block has employed the term "The Cause" in his comments elsewhere on the question of accepting state money and using state infrastructure, commenting that libertarianism is not a suicide pact requiring us to live as hermits or kill ourselves in service of "The Cause."AA8noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-47812537599497419052015-09-03T06:49:19.720-07:002015-09-03T06:49:19.720-07:00"Relent" has nothing to do with it. I h..."Relent" has nothing to do with it. I hear and read his words also.<br /><br />Every president swears an oath to uphold the constitution. Yet subsequent actions, let's just say, call their commitment into question.<br /><br />Richman has all but said it directly. His use of "The Cause" and the context in which he uses it "seems" to strongly suggest that his leftism conquers his libertarianism.bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-72339235449630368972015-09-03T05:54:03.050-07:002015-09-03T05:54:03.050-07:00"Richman seems to place 'left' as a h..."Richman seems to place 'left' as a higher priority than 'libertarian'; in other words, he would sacrifice liberty ('The Cause') to bring on his version of justice."<br /><br />I'm glad you relent to say "seems" to. Because does he actually? Therein lies the crux of the issue. If he does, indeed Richman is not a libertarian and is corruptive to claim to be. But otherwise there is nothing to see here.<br /><br />From beginning to end of this video Richman tied all his left-libertarian positions back to the NAP, thus explaining why they are included and relevant to a libertarian belief system. Moreover, I didn't once hear him prioritize anything above the NAP. Hmmm. Why are we upset with Richman again?<br /><br />It's fine to criticize one group of libertarians hanging certain ornaments on its tree vs. another group hanging different ornaments on its tree vs. another group hanging no ornaments on its tree. As long as with all libertarian groups the tree is the NAP and nothing but the NAP, and the tree always comes first before any ornaments, I don't see what all the fuss is about.AA8noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-76726738929970719312015-09-02T18:51:10.682-07:002015-09-02T18:51:10.682-07:00That right there. That right there. gpondhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01013837189187920036noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-42669740675865450442015-09-02T12:36:34.946-07:002015-09-02T12:36:34.946-07:00Nice fallacy of origins, Dr. Weezil.Nice fallacy of origins, Dr. Weezil.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-42959373721443041192015-09-02T09:30:35.619-07:002015-09-02T09:30:35.619-07:00The leftist vision of the "new man" (or ...The leftist vision of the "new man" (or "new science fiction man of the future") is right on. The NAP is for the same old schmucks we have now and their offspring. Bob Roddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17263804608074597937noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-73690467841442276932015-09-02T08:23:01.391-07:002015-09-02T08:23:01.391-07:00Agreed. But has leftist “help” already caused the...Agreed. But has leftist “help” already caused the masses to retrogress to a dependent feudal serf dependency? If self-reliance is not exercised it withers.<br /><br /> TomO<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-18792998194832916312015-09-02T07:59:26.201-07:002015-09-02T07:59:26.201-07:00The last place I'm going for logical refutatio...The last place I'm going for logical refutations is C4SS.Dr. Weezilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08100872384842284034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-38485703406026206732015-09-02T06:55:32.094-07:002015-09-02T06:55:32.094-07:00I still reject the necessity for any “NAP +” type ...I still reject the necessity for any “NAP +” type position. Of course we should give examples of how differing people of differing values and cultures could/would establish voluntary communities. However, under an actual NAP regime, those roles will most likely be taken by experts from the “hospitality industry” and there will be as many types of communities as there are types of deodorant or musical styles (OH DEAR, can we afford to have 23 types of deodorant when children are starving?). <br /><br />Are these thick-ists trying to gain favor with actual leftists? Why would any libertarian bother with that because those people will always hate us. The thing that motivates leftists is their underlying hatred for average working people, poor people and minorities. In fact, they are the true “racists” because they do not believe that average people and minorities can manage their lives without the compulsory help of the anointed leftist. In fact, this is behind the leftist instantaneous call for gun control in response to every shooting, among all of the other controls they demand.<br /><br />On the other hand, libertarians believe that average people and minorities will do just fine under the NAP because they and their property will be safe in the present and over time as they accumulate wealth and we trust their judgment and ablities. Further, I believe that the source of the hatred of Austrian School analysis by the left is that we insist the solution to our problems is to simply allow the populace to go at it and create the necessary prices and exchange ratios which will guide economic calculation. There is no role whatsoever for the anointed control freak leftist under that scenario who certainly does not want his fragile self-image destroyed with the notion that his controls are the cause (and the not the cure) of most of society’s ills. Ever met a Keynesian who grasped the notion that his “cures” were the cause of the problem?<br /><br />Are left libertarians suffering from that same control freak state of mind because they do not seem to trust that average people have the ability to do the right thing under the NAP?<br />Bob Roddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17263804608074597937noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-64612711357367598862015-09-01T23:06:27.156-07:002015-09-01T23:06:27.156-07:00Jason Lee Byas points out that thin libertarianism...Jason Lee Byas points out that thin libertarianism is a logical contradiction:<br /><br />http://c4ss.org/content/25908Ed Ucationhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15375062362847706272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-30538554517938258492015-09-01T22:22:35.271-07:002015-09-01T22:22:35.271-07:00Let there be many libertarian societies, and let u...Let there be many libertarian societies, and let us benefit from competition. <br />Why bother designing the perfect libertarian society, when we know that societies design themselves?<br /><br />And if some community does not like the NAP or the idea of property rights, let them have it their way. The people there will either succeed or run away asking to be admitted in a NAP-property rights community. No problem, unless the commies want the slave to be returned.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-73822739023106090872015-09-01T22:12:01.999-07:002015-09-01T22:12:01.999-07:00I see left-thick libertarianism as a form of legal...I see left-thick libertarianism as a form of legalism (as in "religious legalism").<br />Imagine we live in a free society, with complete free association. There is a group of bleeding-hearts who say: "inside our group, it is forbidden to pay women less than men. The reason for this is that we consider it unjust and it hurts our feelings." Then there is a group of very religious people who say "inside our group we have forbidden pornography, liquor, music and wearing green hats. The reason for this is that we consider all those things to be sinful and are offenses to God." Probably, in the BH group it is allowed everything that is forbidden in the Religious group, and perhaps in the religious group it is not allowed for women to even have a salary, let alone to have an equal salary. I can see that the BH group will criticize and avoid association with the religious group, and that the religious group will do the same. And I can see a group of thin-libertarians saying to both groups "we don't really care either for your religion or the salary of your women. We can do business, if you so please." Therefore, in the eyes of those who do not believe in the particular god (or concept of justice, feelings, worldview) of a particular group, it is possible still to cooperate, but they have to be wary of possible problems stemming from legalism.<br /><br /><br />____________<br /><br />The thin libertarianism of Walter Block is more encompassing, tolerant, consistent and capable of surviving.<br />Being a principled yet kind person does get you far, like Ron Paul.<br />Being a jerk, even a polite jerk, does not get you far. And I better don't give examples.<br /><br /><br />____________<br /><br /><br />With respect to Sheldon Richman, I think he is great. He's too well read to fall for Zwolinski's traps. Here's a Tom Wood's show with Richman: http://tomwoods.com/podcast/ep-62-separating-school-and-state/<br /><br />I think he is wrong about the "left" thing. He argues that capitalism is a loaded word that should not be used. It is loaded for those who hate that word, but "left" and "feminism" and "social justice" are also tainted words for other people. <br /><br />But he is a wonderful teacher of libertarian thought.<br /><br />As happens with Szasz, many libertarians can disagree completely over his main point, but they have to agree with almost everything else, because they say the same things.<br /><br /><br />____________<br /><br /><br />Block also did a debate with Bryan Caplan. It was refreshing.<br />Caplan is not a BHL. And I wouldn't be surprised to see Caplan picking a fight with the BHLs someday. He is a professor, not a social justice warrior, not one for playing politics. So even if he is not an Austrian, he can become an ally at some point. Sort of.<br /><br />Block is like the knight in the chessboard.<br /><br />____________<br /><br /><br />Lastly, the rightism and the leftism may be heartwarming for some, but are divisive. Which is good because we are not fascists or communists. And moderates, will bring to anger both right and left. <br /><br />Libertarians will always find a way to feel letdown by each other.<br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-69964135885754949542015-09-01T10:47:59.941-07:002015-09-01T10:47:59.941-07:00My belief with the left-libs is that when the vast...My belief with the left-libs is that when the vast majority of them get to the end of their lives and their leftism and high time preference leads to less favorable outcomes they'll stick with the leftism and jettison the libertarianism. In other words, for many of them libertarianism is a convenient tool and not much more. I put the many of the conservo-libertarians in the same position, except that I'm of the belief that conservo-libertarians culture tends towards lower time preference and therefore is less likely to necessitate the flip.VirtualAlaskanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15669445908177529235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-4154357855142700872015-09-01T09:50:15.906-07:002015-09-01T09:50:15.906-07:00"strawmanism (is that a word?)"
Googled..."strawmanism (is that a word?)"<br /><br />Googled it; has been used before but I don't think it's in any dictionary.Brutushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06885083535036422093noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-5242756498609613772015-09-01T09:26:09.916-07:002015-09-01T09:26:09.916-07:00“From Sheldon's own arguments, it seems that h...“From Sheldon's own arguments, it seems that he, and perhaps all left libertarians (?) are viewing the NAP as a mere means to some greater end.”<br /><br />This is exactly the feeling I had. I am glad you introduced this into this post.<br /><br />“I would enjoy any thoughts you have surrounding the question of whether and how the NAP is a means, or an end, to whom.”<br /><br />I think you have answered this: Can it be an end for society in order to achieve a means for the individual?<br /><br />An end for answering the societal (political) question of when the use of force is justified. A means for individuals to thereafter be free to pursue whatever further ends they desire…desires not in violation of the NAP, of course.<br /><br />There is no such thing as a societal end beyond the NAP for a libertarian as a libertarian, it seems to me. As a human being, the number of ends thereafter is limitless – we are all different, with different values, etc.<br /><br />So, how to distinguish left from right in this? I have written, and still believe, that Hoppe’s cultural construct is more conducive to maintaining a libertarian society. But who knows? It doesn’t really matter what I believe. I go back to the ten-thousand communities. There need be no issue as long as libertarianism is defined as nothing more than the NAP grounded in property rights.<br />bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-85120255649888750072015-09-01T08:06:47.919-07:002015-09-01T08:06:47.919-07:00I, too watched the debate from the anointed timefr...I, too watched the debate from the anointed timeframe forward. From Sheldon's own arguments, it seems that he, and perhaps all left libertarians(?) are viewing the NAP as a mere means to some greater end. This seems to be what he is saying when he argues that we come to the NAP through some basis. Allow me to imagine that this basis might be some concept such as Social Justice, whatever that means. Therefore the end is Social Justice (or some similar view of a 'just' world), and the NAP is simply a means to achieve that. The higher goal would always be the envisioned end state. <br /><br />This brings up an interesting question. What of the right libertarians? And what of the plumb-line libertarians? Do they see the NAP as a means to some end, and what end would that be? Or do they see the NAP as an end unto itself? It seems a fair question. One I'm not qualified to really answer. <br /><br />Looking on the bright side of what is possible, when using your fine example of the ten thousand different libertarian communities we can see that the NAP supports many many different ultimate ends. Through adherence to the NAP and property rights, there could be a kaleidoscope of different outcomes (ends) at the local levels, all enabled by the NAP. This is why NAP and libertarianism should remain thin. To place specific ends above the NAP is to inch (or march?) towards totalitarianism. <br /><br />I would enjoy any thoughts you have surrounding the question of whether and how the NAP is a means, or an end, to whom. gpondhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01013837189187920036noreply@blogger.com