liberty student:they couldn't grasp the idea that if organizing is ultimately futile, then organizing isn't preferable market behaviour.
And would you apply that to say collectivist thought?
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Laughing Man: liberty student:they couldn't grasp the idea that if organizing is ultimately futile, then organizing isn't preferable market behaviour. And would you apply that to say collectivist thought?
What I think about unions, -isms, and collectivism is all tied together. ladyattis had a quote of something I rambled about in his/her sig. (paraphrased) The revolutionary power going forward is in decentralization. That doesn't mean that people won't collaborate or cooperate, but that relationships will not be as static as they are now. People will move more, change careers more, and they will change jobs more. You will have a broader experience, when the boundaries and restrictions of the state (and institutional coercion in general) fall away.
Solidarity is about avoiding competition. It is unhealthy to the market. There may be times when you and I ally to accomplish a goal, but if you swear fealty to me, and maintain it, even when it is not in your best interest, or when I have become obviously parasitic, that is irrational behaviour. I have a hard time understanding how some libertarians can oppose slave contracts, and then turn around and insist upon worker solidarity. What is wrong with a slave contract (as Block puts it) is that you can't leave. Well, solidarity is a similar attempt to form permanent arrangements in a fluid and temporary world.
The weakness in collectivism, is not enough individualism, and hence a decrease in rationality. The only way that collectivism can work, is if we are all truly and fundamentally the same. Same in size, shape, lifespan, race, outlook, capacity, desire, motivation etc etc etc. We're not. We are all unique individuals, and because we are, we cannot have the same ends, and agenda at all times. Hell, maybe not even part of the time.
liberty student:Solidarity is about avoiding competition.
What about in a libertarian sense? Working together against the State?
liberty student:We are all unique individuals, and because we are, we cannot have the same ends, and agenda at all times. Hell, maybe not even part of the time.
Is this why you deny natural rights?
Laughing Man: liberty student:Solidarity is about avoiding competition. What about in a libertarian sense? Working together against the State?
I explained this in my post. We can ally in a common objective, but the real power in anarcho-capitalist/libertarian philosophy is in decentralized action. The Ron Paul campaign was a fantastic example of decentralization in action. Those who were on RPF during that time know what I am talking about. People just picked a project, and worked on it. Some people dissented, some people joined in, some spun it off as their own. For every successful idea, 10 failed, but people kept trying and innovating. We're not going to defeat the state and the statist mentality, if we have a single point of failure in organization, ideology or strategy.
Laughing Man: liberty student:We are all unique individuals, and because we are, we cannot have the same ends, and agenda at all times. Hell, maybe not even part of the time. Is this why you deny natural rights?
No. I don't deny natural rights, but I am leaning away from them. I can't understand and rationalize them, and so I think it is dishonest to build my philosophy on them as a given. That could change, but the more I understand about natural rights philosophy, the less rational it seems.
liberty student: For every successful idea, 10 failed, but people kept trying and innovating. We're not going to defeat the state and the statist mentality, if we have a single point of failure in organization, ideology or strategy.
Like the Ron Paul blimp...haha
liberty student:No. I don't deny natural rights, but I am leaning away from them. I can't understand and rationalize them, and so I think it is dishonest to build my philosophy on them as a given. That could change, but the more I understand about natural rights philosophy, the less rational it seems.
Well what/who have you read on the subject?
NR are understanding what "thine and mine is" as Spooner would put it. It gets mischaracterized into complexities beyond reason at times, but need not be more complicated than that premise. But of course what is "thine and mine" in a market economy can get complex, but not beyond reason. What is fraud, what is stealing, what is murder, what is rape, etc... it sounds like a good Sherlock Holmes investigation to me and forensics and other such sciences can take lots more time to comprehend, but justice has various fields with various kinds of pursuits that no one person need to absorb it all. Yet "thine and mine" is usually a natural development of children.
Well I see it as thus:
If an individual believes in 'ethical subjectivism' then even the NAP is not applicable to all cases. I would have to ask in which case is it not a universal objective good.
good question Laughing Man i wonder what the "ethical subjectivists" have discovered about the NAP that makes it not applicable - in what case that might be?
wilderness: good question Laughing Man i wonder what the "ethical subjectivists" have discovered about the NAP that makes it not applicable - in what case that might be?
And if the NAP is objective then why do we think the NAP is correct? Because behind it there is a concept of property...and liberty.
Natural rights established.
Laughing Man:Like the Ron Paul blimp...haha
We can laugh about that now, but it was an impressive and ballsy PR stunt that generated tons of publicity and excitement about the Ron Paul grassroots, which bred the next generation of activism.
Laughing Man: liberty student:No. I don't deny natural rights, but I am leaning away from them. I can't understand and rationalize them, and so I think it is dishonest to build my philosophy on them as a given. That could change, but the more I understand about natural rights philosophy, the less rational it seems. Well what/who have you read on the subject?
I am not going to discuss natural rights with you. I think you guys (Wilderness, zefreak, Juan, yourself, a-mercantilist, aj among others) have hijacked enough discussions on this forum to discuss natural rights already.
I'm here to talk about unions.
liberty student: I'm here to talk about unions.
and Ron Paul blimps, but I guess that is traceable to unions. It would have been better to say this earlier possibly, but you're correct. maybe a new thread Laughing Man?
liberty student:We can laugh about that now, but it was an impressive and ballsy PR stunt that generated tons of publicity and excitement about the Ron Paul grassroots, which bred the next generation of activism.
Ron Paul did do much to increase activism in libertarian, however some of the followers were...exuberate in their dedication. At first the blimp seemed interesting however if one were to say 'Hey I think those funds would be better for a campaign ad' then such an individual was decried as an anti-paul supporter. Then there was the whole Constitutional utopianism.
liberty student: I am not going to discuss natural rights with you. I think you guys (Wilderness, zefreak, Juan, yourself, a-mercantilist, aj among others) have hijacked enough discussions on this forum to discuss natural rights already.
You make it sound like I am a thief