The Official Libertarian/Anarcho-Capitalist Thread

#76
#76
therealUT said:
I understand that this is the point they are trying to make. I find it problematic, at best, and, at first glance, it strikes me as an absurd notion. It is as absurd of a notion as Hegel's definition of property as an extension of the self or Locke's assertion that since one gains property by laboring, that one's life is in property. Yet, the easiest rebuttal to such claims is to demonstrate that if I torch the house your built or the field you have cultivated (these entities which somehow possess a part of your life), I have not in any way actually harmed your life. Property as a natural human right is a problematic notion each and every time it is encountered (Kant thinks that first claim constitutes property and that one's property can extend as far as one can mechanically defend it; a sensational claim considering modern drone technology).

Non-problematically, property is at least a good, and a social right, depending upon the society in which one lives. For American's, then, the right to property is one established through the Constitution. Whether the right to property reaches beyond that is contentious.

I have not read too many modern economists. I enjoy Adam Smith and I enjoy Milton Friedman. I think Keynes is an intelligent idiot. I have heard that Hayek has some great stuff; maybe he has an argument as to why property is a natural human right that does not depend on the philosophy of identity and existence. If he does, then I am going to find it highly problematic (where most non-philosophically educated individuals might accept the basic premises based on life and time).
Click to expand...

By "life" you simply mean my physical existence right? I would argue that you have hurt my life, meaning my life experience. The distinction is important to me.

Hayek was actually Friedman's mentor (which is funny, because Friedman differed in his support for central banking). He was a libertarian, but not as rigid as Hayek. Ironically, Milton's son (who wrote Machinery of Freedom, that I mentioned) went more the Hayek route.

Von Mises was Hayek's mentor, and Rothbard is their greatest protege. I've read Hayek's Road to Serfdom (nothing like Daniel Hannan's New Road to Serfdom). It's difficult material if you aren't into it. My Father is a Phd economist and he didn't get through it (too much theory, and not enough math). I read it, myself, but it's been 5 years, and I was an intellectual noob so I didn't retain enough to remember if he addressed that. This is the kind of stuff I took away from it:

The principle that the end justifies the means in individualist ethics is regarded as the denial of all morals. In collectivist ethics it becomes necessarily the supreme rule; there is nothing which the consistent collectivist must not be prepared to do if it serves 'the good of the whole';
Click to expand...

The state ceases to be a piece of utilitarian machinery intended to help individuals in the fullest development of their individual personality and becomes a 'moral' institution - where 'moral' is not used in contrast to immoral but describes an institution which imposes on its members its views on all moral questions, whether these views be moral or highly immoral. In this sense the Nazi or any other collectivist state is 'moral', while the liberal state is not.
Click to expand...

Do you have any good reads for a novice to philosophy?
 
#77
#77
n_huffhines said:
By "life" you simply mean my physical existence right? I would argue that you have hurt my life, meaning my life experience. The distinction is important to me.
Click to expand...

What constitutes a good life experience is highly subjective, though. If it were not, moral theory would be easy. I think I may know what is important to my own life; however, for me to decide what is important for others is much more complex and difficult problem (of course, Rawls and Dworkin think they have that worked out...)

n_huffhines said:
Do you have any good reads for a novice to philosophy?
Click to expand...

My advice would be just to dive right in; more than likely, the first handful of thorough philosophical texts you read you will find mostly incomprehensible. Do not let that discourage you; the vocabulary and the arguments are quite different at first (or, they were for me). Just keep reading (and skip the footnotes, or you will never get in a rhythm). At some point, you will feel as though you are actually engaging with the authors; at that point, you will be hooked and your life will change forever and for the worst.

I, too, started as a novice (I did not study philosophy in an academic setting until this year). I think my progression went as follows:

St. Augustine: City of God and the Confessions
Aquinas: The Summa Theologica
Thomas More
Plato: The Republic
Aristotle: Nicomachaean Ethics and Politics
Machiavelli: The Prince

I think after that I went to Hobbes, Locke, and Kant. I think these started to become coherent for me around the second half of the Republic.

Of course, if you are highly interested in ethics (and politics), I might suggest that you begin with Sidgwick's The Method of Ethics. He presents a very detailed, and highly readable, survey of different moral theories before he leaps into Utilitarianism.
 
#78
#78
I read the Prince, but wasn't that into it. Maybe I wasn't ready for it. I liked a lot of the concepts, but it also bored me severely at times.
 
#79
#79
530181_412453148772500_192214550796362_1527091_1738475546_n.jpg
 
#82
#82
therealUT said:
I understand that this is the point they are trying to make. I find it problematic, at best, and, at first glance, it strikes me as an absurd notion. It is as absurd of a notion as Hegel's definition of property as an extension of the self or Locke's assertion that since one gains property by laboring, that one's life is in property. Yet, the easiest rebuttal to such claims is to demonstrate that if I torch the house your built or the field you have cultivated (these entities which somehow possess a part of your life), I have not in any way actually harmed your life. Property as a natural human right is a problematic notion each and every time it is encountered (Kant thinks that first claim constitutes property and that one's property can extend as far as one can mechanically defend it; a sensational claim considering modern drone technology).

Non-problematically, property is at least a good, and a social right, depending upon the society in which one lives. For American's, then, the right to property is one established through the Constitution. Whether the right to property reaches beyond that is contentious.



I have not read too many modern economists. I enjoy Adam Smith and I enjoy Milton Friedman. I think Keynes is an intelligent idiot. I have heard that Hayek has some great stuff; maybe he has an argument as to why property is a natural human right that does not depend on the philosophy of identity and existence. If he does, then I am going to find it highly problematic (where most non-philosophically educated individuals might accept the basic premises based on life and time).
Click to expand...

Can I butt in?

I take the position that all rights are inherently property rights. I am sure you are familiar with the theory, so I won't rehash it. What do you think of that concept?
 
#83
#83
RespectTradition said:
Can I butt in?

I take the position that all rights are inherently property rights. I am sure you are familiar with the theory, so I won't rehash it. What do you think of that concept?
Click to expand...

I am familiar with it; I am not sure that it is correct, though. Unfortunately, many modern rights theorists concede that there is no philosophical grounding of rights; that is, the term "rights" is just leftover from the times when philosophy was intermixed with theology and rights were granted by the divinity. So, I am not completely sold on the entire concept of "rights" as a natural concept (as opposed to an artificial concept). If they are artificial, then they are defined as whatever the convention that defines them defines them as.

Personally, I do think there is hope in that "rights" can be philosophically grounded, as natural, without having to presuppose a divinity; however, I also think that if and when I explore this problem, the concept of "rights" will be very weak and very limited. Basically, the only right that will exist on its own will be the right to life. Liberty and property will simply be things that are essential to a life worth living (which, I fear, will simply place liberty and property in the category of "goods").
 
#84
#84
See, I would argue that the right to life encompasses the right of liberty.

If we define coercion as the opposite of liberty, then to coerce someone is to ultimately threaten one's life. The only way to deprive someone of liberty, without that person's consent, is to threaten/take that person's life. Would you agree?

How do you define right?

I define rights as prerogatives possessed by an entity that it is illegitimate to deprive one of without the entity's consent.
 
#85
#85
RespectTradition said:
See, I would argue that the right to life encompasses the right of liberty.

If we define coercion as the opposite of liberty, then to coerce someone is to ultimately threaten one's life. The only way to deprive someone of liberty, without that person's consent, is to threaten/take that person's life. Would you agree?

How do you define right?

I define rights as prerogatives possessed by an entity that it is illegitimate to deprive one of without the entity's consent.
Click to expand...

I define natural human rights (as opposed to legal rights or rights based upon a societal convention) as that which one is entitled to simply by being a human. When one uses the word right, they mean by it claim or entitlement. I have a (legal) right to my car because I have a claim to my car, which is encompassed in the deed or title.

What can we say that we are naturally entitled to simply by being born human? I would argue that simply by being born, I have a claim to my life; in fact, if someone took that away, I would cease to be human. Many argue that liberty, i.e., the right of choice, is essential to human life and we can expect that one who would take away our liberty would also take away our life. To me, property seems to be qualitatively different from both life and liberty: (1) it is absurd to speak of scarcity in talking of life and liberty, what would a scarcity of life even look like? Yet, when speaking of property, scarcity is and should be spoken of; this is a very large gap. (2) It seems as though I could live a satisfying life without ever having a claim to property; simply upon the goodness of others. While it is rare, it has been done; most notably by Francis of Assissi and many Indian ascetics. I do not see the same possibility to live a satisfying life if I have no claim to make my own decisions, i.e. liberty. (3) It is very easy, in fact it is self-evident, to see that human beings have a claim to their life and their choices; the times these are taken away are times in which the victims are actually dehumanized by their assailants and/or masters. Yet, property claims are very problematic. Do I have a claim to property because I labor on it and cultivate it (thus, as Locke and Hegel state, putting his self into the land)? Or, do I have a claim simply because I assert before any others, "this land is mine"? If it is cultivation, then what of the individual who decides to retire and stop cultivating his land? What claim does this individual now possess? If it is simply that one sees land, blazes a few trees, and calls it his, then this seems to completely disassociate property from life; hence, it would be an artificial right, only recognized by certain communities and conventions.
 
#86
#86
RespectTradition said:
See, I would argue that the right to life encompasses the right of liberty.

If we define coercion as the opposite of liberty, then to coerce someone is to ultimately threaten one's life. The only way to deprive someone of liberty, without that person's consent, is to threaten/take that person's life. Would you agree?

How do you define right?

I define rights as prerogatives possessed by an entity that it is illegitimate to deprive one of without the entity's consent.
Click to expand...

That's exactly how I see it.
 
#92
#92
Someone used the same site earlier:

Libertarian Purity Test

Your score is...

87

Some of those questions were genuinely perplexing...

How would we be more free if we let the legislative process be decided by courts/judges who under our current system are completely unelected?

Also what does privatize the law even mean?

I absolutely believe government needs to be as minimal as possible (at least 75% smaller than it is now), but I do believe there are some services that need to be under the public sector at large (LE, Fire, etc.) but they absolutely need to be as localized as possible for accountability. (No federal agencies).

Very interesting and I definitely think we could use a huge dose of libertarianism in this country, I'm not sure I'd ever be "all in."
 
#93
#93
OrangeYankee said:
Someone used the same site earlier:

Libertarian Purity Test

Your score is...

87

Some of those questions were genuinely perplexing...

How would we be more free if we let the legislative process be decided by courts/judges who under our current system are completely unelected?

Also what does privatize the law even mean?

I absolutely believe government needs to be as minimal as possible (at least 75% smaller than it is now), but I do believe there are some services that need to be under the public sector at large (LE, Fire, etc.) but they absolutely need to be as localized as possible for accountability. (No federal agencies).

Very interesting and I definitely think we could use a huge dose of libertarianism in this country, I'm not sure I'd ever be "all in."
Click to expand...


My score..
Your Libertarian Purity Score


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Your score is...

145


Nice test. :)
 
#99
#99
65

51-90 points: You are a medium-core libertarian, probably self-consciously so. Your friends probably encourage you to quit talking about your views so much.
Click to expand...

lulz
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top