tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post3804845027647335489..comments2024-03-28T09:59:13.754-07:00Comments on bionic mosquito: The Goal is Libertybionic mosquitohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comBlogger27125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-79760299405684556882019-10-23T18:19:22.228-07:002019-10-23T18:19:22.228-07:00ATL,
Thanks for the explanation. I tend to agree...ATL, <br /><br />Thanks for the explanation. I tend to agree with you on the 'ethical bars', but would add at least one higher bar, namely, <br /><br />"You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart...AND you shall love your neighbor as yourself."--Jesus the Christ, slightly paraphrased. The Apostle Paul boils this down one more step by stating that in loving your neighbor, you are showing your love for God. Now if we could just learn HOW to love our neighbor, which, of course, is what the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount are all about. <br /><br />If society and culture were to grasp this concept and practice it, there would be no need for the NAP, laws, or the State. We would have indeed found liberty. But we're not there yet so we muddle on. <br /><br />I noticed this in your answer. "...but in striving toward these higher bars of ethics we should not violate the lowest." This sounds remarkably like the point that Krash has tried to make numerous times, as can be seen in the note below. <br /><br />"...But, that 'more' can't be anything that violates NAP..."--Krash<br /><br />As far as I can see, the only difference here is in the order of hierarchy which both of you place on this. Your ethical bar of non-aggression is the lowest. Krash's ethical bar of non-aggression is apparently the highest. Is that correct? Krash, feel free to jump in. <br /><br />As far as your mistake goes, I figured it out, but I'm glad you noticed it. Grammatical errors annoy the heck out of me. BTW, my father had a saying: "I don't know what you meant, I only know what you said." I trot that out from time to time. Rogerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08156823478509665137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-18285856367515249582019-10-21T07:52:23.868-07:002019-10-21T07:52:23.868-07:00Roger,
No problem. What I meant is that statist c...Roger,<br /><br />No problem. What I meant is that statist conservatives (mainly) will use this argument to demonstrate the supposed naivete of libertarians and the Utopian nature of our preferred method of governance in order to disparage our ethical code of non-aggression (and to justify their own endorsement of aggression by the state). I don't think you were employing it this way, and perhaps I should have been clear on that; I just wanted to point out that this line of reasoning unjustly weakens the libertarian argument.<br /><br />Some libertarians are indeed pacifists, but not all. We all should prefer peace, but I don't think I'm alone among libertarians in my recognition of the validity of defensive violence.<br /><br />My basic stance is that the NAP is the lowest bar of ethics, but that other higher bars (Decalogue, Sermon on the Mount) are required for the fulfillment of one's life and for the attainment and preservation of a society which can consistently make it over the lowest one, but in striving toward these higher bars of ethics we should not violate the lowest. <br /><br />I should have also been clear that I think the point you were making was sound: that the pacifist mindset will never lead to freedom, because there will always be those willing to aggress upon such people.<br /><br />Also, reading my prior comment, I realized I made an error. The sentence should read:<br /><br />"My argument is that if you could get a population *without a common..."<br /><br />Not "...with without...".A Texas Libertarianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02980539931923054404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-35186694982374329452019-10-21T05:21:22.484-07:002019-10-21T05:21:22.484-07:00ATL,
I concede the point about the confusion bet...ATL, <br /><br />I concede the point about the confusion between non-aggression and non-violence, but I have to admit that I don't understand your statement that this is an unfounded attack on libertarianism. Please explain. Thank you. Rogerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08156823478509665137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-57910016811848348482019-10-17T17:30:25.228-07:002019-10-17T17:30:25.228-07:00krash: "(of course you always need more than ...krash: "(of course you always need more than NAP. But, that 'more' can't be anything that violates NAP)"<br /><br />It may not violate the NAP of those within each individual community, but it may violate the hell out of the NAP of those from neighboring communities.<br /><br />A community living within the NAP will never look like it to those outside of this community.<br /><br />What binds a community will never be the NAP. It will always be something else.bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-59063511703354670782019-10-17T11:48:06.000-07:002019-10-17T11:48:06.000-07:00What all of you are saying is that multiple commun...What all of you are saying is that multiple communities that do not share common values regarding consensual acts will not be able to live together in peace even if all of them passionately support NAP.<br /><br />One of the reasons that is so in practice is because everyone is living under a non-libertarian state. So, wherever there are multiple communities with differing values, they end up in "culture wars" to get control of the state. Losing communities risk getting their culture trampled on. Would that happen in a minimal state committed to non-aggression?<br /><br />Also, if a society is formed that respects NAP and starts out as culturally united, it is inevitable that it will evolve into multiple communities with competing values. As differences arise over generations, they will not be crushed with violence and eventually you will have communities with differing values living side by side and interacting to the degree that is mutually desired.<br /><br />Decentralization is a natural outcome of NAP. Having a common set of values requires a degree of centralization that may not be possible with NAP<br /><br />(of course you always need more than NAP. But, that 'more' can't be anything that violates NAP)krashhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08996666358457064299noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-33450587633069792052019-10-16T23:59:48.512-07:002019-10-16T23:59:48.512-07:00BM, I don't think you're reaching there.
L...BM, I don't think you're reaching there.<br />Libertarianism has a nature that can be quite contradictory on the first look: On one hand is the emphasis on specialisation and division of labor as one of the bedrocks of civilisation, on the other hand these is an autonomist current both on the right side (frontier mentality - "Specialisation is for insects") and on the left side (unrestrained hedonism "Be Who You Are Love Who You Want").<br /><br />Oh and here is another of what i'd call "widespread, unjustified beliefs among libertarians":<br /><br />5. The belief that top-down, widespread behaviourial modification is impossible or will inevitably fail aka "The Soviets couldn't beed the New Man therefore social engineering is impossible".paid shillnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-1690366178845602472019-10-16T05:39:33.228-07:002019-10-16T05:39:33.228-07:00Roger,
Though I agree with your conclusion that &...Roger,<br /><br />Though I agree with your conclusion that "non-aggression by itself will not do the trick", I see that in your argument you are confusing non-aggression with non-violence. This is a common yet unfounded attack on libertarianism.<br /><br />The man whose actions are guided solely by the NAP (if that's even possible) is no pacifist. He believes in the just use of (I would say proportional) violence in self-defense, in defense of others, and in defense of justly acquired property. I'm convinced, with Hans Hoppe and Murray Rothbard, that this is the correct and natural rule of the use of violence in any society and that it is essential to an order of liberty.<br /><br />Though it is not sufficient alone.<br /><br />My argument is that if you could get a population with without a common moral and/or religious framework to abide by the NAP, liberty would result, but that this is highly unlikely given the enormous potential of confusion, conflict and chaos in such a society. <br /><br />The prevalence of undisciplined minds leads to both moral degeneracy (whatever feels good) and to intellectual and political degeneracy (egalitarianism, democracy, socialism, communism, Nazism) and this will lead to crying out for tolerance and inclusion of offensive minority cultures, the redistribution of wealth, and who knows what else. Furthermore, disciplined minds honed on radically different cultural whet stones will most likely (if not inevitably) clash. All this clashing and crying will most certainly result in the formation of a State (as in 'monopoly provider of governance') and the eradication of a state (as in 'condition') of natural liberty.A Texas Libertarianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02980539931923054404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-52485641192649407272019-10-15T19:48:22.582-07:002019-10-15T19:48:22.582-07:00Krash, I have to disagree with you. Non-aggression...Krash, I have to disagree with you. Non-aggression alone does not give you liberty. <br /><br />Consider the Amish. They practice non-aggression and in their own little world, it may work, but they are not free. Once they start interacting with the "English", they can't sell raw, unpasteurized milk. Nor can they travel on public roads with their horses and buggies unless they have a flashing "fanny flag" on the rear of the buggy. Not to mention all the rules, codes, and coercion which are utilized to keep everyone in their place. <br /><br />Consider the Hindus. There are multitudes who are so extreme in their non-aggression that they won't even kill a mosquito or a cockroach out of fear that they might be jeopardizing someone else's chance of re-incarnation. Or perhaps their own. And any form of aggression, including self defense, toward those who are above their caste?<br />Not a chance. <br /><br />Consider the Buddhist. Millions, perhaps hundreds of millions, live a life of (perceived) non-aggression in the hope that they will find nirvana as Buddha supposedly did--finding inner peace in spite of the troubles of the physical world around them. Are those in places like Myanmar or Cambodia living in liberty as we know it? I don't think so. <br /><br />These three groups are pacifist in nature, but they do not exist in a state of liberty in today's world. Put them in a situation with someone who doesn't mind using force and they will wind up on the bottom every time. I don't consider that liberty. <br /><br />Funny thing--all of these are religions seeking fulfillment. They practice non-aggression as part of their religion, but they do not find liberty, except perhaps in a spiritual sense, completely divorced from the world around them. <br /><br />Non-aggression by itself will not do the trick. There must be more. <br /> <br /><br /> Rogerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08156823478509665137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-90395164367567995812019-10-14T16:14:54.874-07:002019-10-14T16:14:54.874-07:00krash, I do not believe that aggression is the ans...krash, I do not believe that aggression is the answer to such issues.bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-84580637246442016772019-10-14T14:19:48.433-07:002019-10-14T14:19:48.433-07:00"Of course, I am also not going to advocate a..."Of course, I am also not going to advocate aggression to stop these."<br /><br />Would you not also oppose if someone else used aggression to stop these?krashhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08996666358457064299noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-80185895065004959602019-10-14T14:17:45.582-07:002019-10-14T14:17:45.582-07:00But, would you suppress it by force or just isolat...But, would you suppress it by force or just isolate it out of sight?krashhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08996666358457064299noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-55358867922097374622019-10-12T06:52:47.108-07:002019-10-12T06:52:47.108-07:00krash
I assure you, I am not interested in spendi...krash<br /><br />I assure you, I am not interested in spending a minute on securing liberty for this:<br /><br />https://reason.com/2019/07/22/be-who-you-are-love-who-you-want/ bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-1938491855046470442019-10-11T19:15:17.083-07:002019-10-11T19:15:17.083-07:00"Libertarians want to secure liberty for all...."Libertarians want to secure liberty for all."<br /><br />Not me, brother. Not if my "want" takes effort. Not if my "want" will afford liberty for lawn sex orgies.<br /><br />I am not going to spend one minute of effort to provide liberty for socially destructive lifestyles. Of course, I am also not going to advocate aggression to stop these.bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-19853474652595570152019-10-10T12:21:06.222-07:002019-10-10T12:21:06.222-07:00Non-aggression gives you liberty, if you could fin...Non-aggression gives you liberty, if you could find a population that could live together based solely on this one principle and not fight about everything else in life (which is so much more meaningful to everyone) so much that eventually that one unifying principle is tossed out the window, at which point they wind up under a state again wherein all fight with each other to gain control of the reins so that they can implement and enforce their vision of 'everything else' on everybody else (if only to prevent someone else from doing the same). <br /><br />Apart from fighting about 'everything else', a society devoid of any common understanding of moral fulfillment would develop large areas of moral degeneration (drugs, porn, prostitution, sexual promiscuity, homosexuality, open marriages, gender fluidity, etc.) which would spread like a sort of social cancer. Eventually the social irresponsibility and resultant chaos of these areas would succumb to the statist mindset and freedom would disintegrate under the birth of a new state.<br /><br />"Truth withers when freedom dies, however righteous the authority that kills it; and free individualism uninformed by moral value rots at its core and soon brings about conditions that pave the way for surrender to tyranny.” - Frank Meyer<br /><br />The non-aggression principle is important, but it is not sufficient alone to bring about or maintain a condition of liberty.A Texas Libertarianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02980539931923054404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-55594491816880905422019-10-10T09:29:05.313-07:002019-10-10T09:29:05.313-07:00I think you are conflating Liberty with Fulfillmen...I think you are conflating Liberty with Fulfillment.<br /><br />Non-aggression gives you liberty. Thomistic Natural law gives you fulfillment. <br /><br />Libertarians want to secure liberty for all. That is ALL.<br />Libertarianism does not tell you WHAT to do with that liberty.<br />It does not tell you how to find fulfillment.<br /><br />Some may become libertines and lead empty lives.<br />Others may seek fulfillment through Thomistic natural law or something else. Both sides may condemn each other's choices non-violently. May even separate from each other.<br />But,they are all libertarians if they support non-aggression.<br /><br />No one is JUST a libertarian because libertarianism is not a philosophy of life. It is just a philosophy of politics (i.e. use of force). <br /><br />A religion is a philosophy of life. It shows you how to seek fulfillment. <br /><br />Libertarianism just seeks that everyone should be free to pursue fulfillment.<br />krashhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08996666358457064299noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-17343089945300708822019-10-10T04:01:50.778-07:002019-10-10T04:01:50.778-07:00paid shill,
I appreciate your observations. I w...paid shill, <br /><br />I appreciate your observations. I would add one - which may also explain the others (but I might be reaching a bit here): the belief that I am sovereign; the disdain for the idea that there might be someone / something sovereign over me.<br /><br />bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-36999181300936998722019-10-10T00:05:02.545-07:002019-10-10T00:05:02.545-07:00BM, I believe I commented on this before but the l...BM, I believe I commented on this before but the libertarian "movement" is almost certainly too broad to end up as anything but dysfunctional.<br />People like Cathy Reisenwitz or Bryan Caplan are called and self-identify as "libertarians" despite their ideological beef with the current system essentially being that it isn't radical enough. <br />I expect large parts of this libertarian "movement" to be absorbed by woked neoliberalism as an ideological adjunct, if it hasn't happend already.<br /><br />Part of this dysfunctionality stems from faulty ideologems which are at odds with observable reality but influence thought processes e.g.<br /><br />1. The belief that there are easily delineated public and private spheres with the former being bad and the latter being good.<br /><br />2. The belief that power and coercion only exist as functions of violence i.e. that power solely grows from the barrel of a gun.<br /><br />3. A tendency to discuss and decide real world behaviour and strategy on the basis of thought experiments under idealized circumstances (Robinson Crusoe except with politics)<br /><br />4. The belief that social policing is unacceptable (unless it involves leftist standards apparently) leading both to libertarianism being filled with weirdos who must be indulged as long as they profess a adherence to minimum standards 8but what if the child consents tho?) and an over reliance on the concept of the "marketplace of ideas" (which is bs for a lot of reasons). paid shillnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-15380350459073647742019-10-08T13:29:03.738-07:002019-10-08T13:29:03.738-07:00Liberty-loving patriots that understand the differ...Liberty-loving patriots that understand the difference are tirelessly working on this as we speak. We must win the culture war and using the free market to do it is just a fantastic bonus: sonsoflibertyso.comSamuel Adamshttp://sonsoflibertyso.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-43558276432251451982019-10-08T10:32:26.439-07:002019-10-08T10:32:26.439-07:00Apparently experts in artificial intelligence are ...Apparently experts in artificial intelligence are figuring out that figuring out how to solve a problem in the real world by a human being - dealing with the combinatorially explosive possible choices and factors - is nigh impossible for a machine, yet it is what humans do.<br /><br />Relevance realization is difficult to program. And of course, the age-old problem: that which is important can't be measured, and that which can be measured is not important.bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-16365681078362156542019-10-08T07:42:35.583-07:002019-10-08T07:42:35.583-07:00There's more in Hoppe's preface but you...There's more in Hoppe's preface but you'll just have to read it yourself.Woody Barretthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07174366266746908252noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-58177735583046813692019-10-08T07:15:46.926-07:002019-10-08T07:15:46.926-07:00Oh! Here's another tidbit from Hoppe's in...Oh! Here's another tidbit from Hoppe's intro (it's a VERY long intro):<br /><br />"... from the 1950's ... until the end of his life, Rothbard did not waver on fundamental matters of economic or political theory. Yet ... a different thematic emphasis became apparent in his later writings, most noticeably in the several hundred articles contributed during the last years of his life. Apart from economic and political concerns, Rothbard increasingly focused his attention on and STRESSED THE IMPORTANCE OF CULTURE as a SOCIOLOGICAL PREREQUISITE OF LIBERTARIANISM."<br /><br />--Hans-Herman Hoppe "Ethics of Liberty" pg xxxviii, emphasis added.<br /><br />It seems that Rothbard (near the end of his life) noticed that western culture was no longer conducive to liberty and was making an effort, either to stem the tide (unlikely, given his lack of real influence) or to warn about and document those aspects of culture that he saw as conducive to liberty.Woody Barretthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07174366266746908252noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-71732653383618998152019-10-08T06:29:11.065-07:002019-10-08T06:29:11.065-07:00I believe that Rothbard was a highly intelligent m...I believe that Rothbard was a highly intelligent man and a genius by any standard. But geniuses have been known to be dead wrong and not infrequently. No matter how smart you may be, garbage in / garbage out is always true.Woody Barretthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07174366266746908252noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-28337840028077321492019-10-08T05:48:20.736-07:002019-10-08T05:48:20.736-07:00There's only one way for us to attain it as in...There's only one way for us to attain it as individuals (John 8:32,36, 2 Corinthians 3:17, etc.) and only way for us to attain it as a society (Psalm 19:7-11, 119:7-11, James 2:12, etc.) That said, liberty is *not* the goal.<br /><br />Nationally, liberty was officially lost in America when the 18th-century Enlightenment founders made liberty a goal (almost a god) instead of a corollary of implementing Yahweh's perfect law of liberty (Psalm 19:7-11, 119:44-45, James 2:12) as the supreme law of the land.<br /><br />"[B]ecause they have ... trespassed against my law ... they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind...." (Hosea 8:1, 7)<br /><br />Today's America is reaping the inevitable ever-intensifying whirlwind resulting from the wind sown by the constitutional framers and fanned by hoodwinked Christians and patriots who have been bamboozled into believing today's whirlwind can be dissipated by appealing to the wind responsible for spawning the whirlwind.<br /><br />For more, see online Chapter 3 "The Preamble: WE THE PEOPLE vs. YAHWEH" of "Bible Law vs, the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective" at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt3.html<br /><br /><br />Ted R. Weilandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01513069258387315741noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-17993733829673517242019-10-08T04:19:02.983-07:002019-10-08T04:19:02.983-07:00Very thought provoking! And true. Rigid adherence...Very thought provoking! And true. Rigid adherence to praxeology, any natural rights basis of ordering society from private property and the non aggression principle, utilitarianism, etc. all far short by themselves to get at all the essentials of human nature. Hayek at his non-prescriptive best offers a defense of liberty that ties negative liberty's survival on understanding how particular strands of Western civilization in law, religion, custom, aspects of science, spontaneously came together, without the knowledge or understanding of any one group much less individual to produce the seeds and preconditions for liberty to develop. Not to mention his emphasis on the knowledge problem as being the fatal flaw with with any attempt to rely on socialist economic calculation to form a more just social order. It just cant work and no quantum computer will ever change that. <br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-33797013110377983542019-10-07T11:44:03.828-07:002019-10-07T11:44:03.828-07:00That's wonderful! I think you'll enjoy it,...That's wonderful! I think you'll enjoy it, but I'm sure that you'll take issue with chapter 14 "Children and Rights". Just try to keep in mind that Rothbard didn't have any kids and got almost everything else right.A Texas Libertarianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02980539931923054404noreply@blogger.com