Considering the following irrefutable conditions we live in
In what way would you prefer to see these 3 problems dealt with, with the likelihood that the maximum amount of people would benefit and get along without conflict?
filc:In what way would you prefer to see these 3 problems dealt with, with the likelihood that the maximum amount of people would benefit and get along without conflict?
That doesn't seem like a problem central planning (ethics) can solve. I say, let the market decide. This way whatever conclusion is derived will have to be best suited to satisfy the (moral) wants of the most people. It's the only solution I can come up with. And I also think since these 3 problem seemingly exist, that avoiding all conflict would be impossible, especially when you begin to attach the concept of "righteousness" to action.
None of that follows from your recent comment, something to the effect of: "The whole idea of property is bunk."
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
Why is it that you couldn't have just done PM?
Secondly I don't understand why this is a problem, Larose seems like a pretty market oriented dude just like the rest of us, so I hardly even see why you believe that the question should be asked, I'm sorry if I'm missing something but if you're going to make a thread on this you should at least give the background info assuming that there is some.
The Late Andrew Ryan: Why is it that you couldn't have just done PM? Secondly I don't understand why this is a problem, Larose seems like a pretty market oriented dude just like the rest of us, so I hardly even see why you believe that the question should be asked, I'm sorry if I'm missing something but if you're going to make a thread on this you should at least give the background info assuming that there is some.
I am not buying that for a second. He doesn't outright take a leftist tack, but nothing he says adds up to being "market oriented". Here he will put on a capitalist guise, then in other threads he cites Emma Goldman. I don't think he is on a quest for knowledge and genuinely confused. His goal is to stir up controversy and poke holes at arguments, but he doesn't care when people point out his errors. I like the idea of a containment thread.
E. R. Olovetto:None of that follows from your recent comment, something to the effect of: "The whole idea of property is bunk."
I said I don't believe in it, not that I know it is false. There is a difference.
The Late Andrew Ryan:I'm sorry if I'm missing something but if you're going to make a thread on this you should at least give the background info assuming that there is some.
At the end of this thread, filc, wilderness, and I start to debate about property, its definitions, and its relevance.
E. R. Olovetto:I am not buying that for a second. He doesn't outright take a leftist tack, but nothing he says adds up to being "market oriented". Here he will put on a capitalist guise, then in other threads he cites Emma Goldman. I don't think he is on a quest for knowledge and genuinely confused. His goal is to stir up controversy and poke holes at arguments, but he doesn't care when people point out his errors. I like the idea of a containment thread.
LOL, man you must be the angriest SOB on the forums!
"Hey, this guy disagrees about the absolute truth of natural rights - LEFTIST"!!!!!!!!
I'm not on the left, or the right. I apologize if that is confusing you.
I frequent the forums to have my ideas challenged, that's it. I'm sorry if some folks get butt-hurt if I "poke holes at ("in", maybe?) arguments" along the way. That's the hole (couldn't help myself) point. If you carefully constructed theories are so flimsy they blow over like a house of cards in the face of some criticism, then I know to avoid them.
Jackson LaRose: E. R. Olovetto:None of that follows from your recent comment, something to the effect of: "The whole idea of property is bunk." I said I don't believe in it, not that I know it is false. There is a difference.
Oh of course Jackson, everything you write is your opinion and not a proposition
Why do you feel the need to share your "opinions"? Moreover, I wonder why you enjoy posting here when your ridiculous assertions are constantly derided. I just feel sorry for you if you enjoy being willfully ignorant and rousing the hostilities of those who aren't.
Jackson LaRose: E. R. Olovetto:I am not buying that for a second. He doesn't outright take a leftist tack, but nothing he says adds up to being "market oriented". Here he will put on a capitalist guise, then in other threads he cites Emma Goldman. I don't think he is on a quest for knowledge and genuinely confused. His goal is to stir up controversy and poke holes at arguments, but he doesn't care when people point out his errors. I like the idea of a containment thread. LOL, man you must be the angriest SOB on the forums! "Hey, this guy disagrees about the absolute truth of natural rights - LEFTIST"!!!!!!!! I'm not on the left, or the right. I apologize if that is confusing you. I frequent the forums to have my ideas challenged, that's it. I'm sorry if some folks get butt-hurt if I "poke holes at ("in", maybe?) arguments" along the way. That's the hole (couldn't help myself) point. If you carefully constructed theories are so flimsy they blow over like a house of cards in the face of some criticism, then I know to avoid them.
I am not angry or "butt-hurt". You are just annoying, like a pop-up ad, but you can have your opinions. See, the mods will probably do something if I call you worse than a self-absorbed half-wit. The problem, as I see it, is that any sort of rule about going off-topic (one aspect of your trolling) is not enforced. Plenty of times you keep derailing threads with your ideology and it is just a waste of space.
Libertarianism is not left or right either. You are free to state opinions, but grunting about argumentation ethics being axiomatic is hardly "blowing it over like a house of cards. Perhaps you've got teh Höppephobia?
We aren't here for opinions. Your little disclaimer doesn't mean crap. If you don't value consistency, fine, then stop posting. "Letting the market sort it out" doesn't follow from "there is no such thing as private property". You can retreat to the realm most people are happy to dwell in, thinking versus knowing, but you can't coherently deny property rights by making arguments.
E. R. Olovetto:Why do you feel the need to share your "opinions"?
I don't. I write on here to challenge my fixed ideas, in an attempt to discredit them. If you manage to discredit one of them, it forces me to reevaluate my position. Competition leads to innovation in a market, and the market of ideas is no different.
E. R. Olovetto:Moreover, I wonder why you enjoy posting here when your ridiculous assertions are constantly derided.
Sometimes they aren't, believe it or not.
E. R. Olovetto:I just feel sorry for you if you enjoy being willfully ignorant and rousing the hostilities of those who aren't.
Ignorance is the thing I am trying to dissolve the most. I'm not trying to rouse anyone's hostilities. Of course, I can't say I wasn't warned. Stirner has a bit in his book where he talks about how pissed people get when you touch the sacred.
E. R. Olovetto:The problem, as I see it, is that any sort of rule about going off-topic (one aspect of your trolling) is not enforced.
I though freedom was important to you.
E. R. Olovetto:Plenty of times you keep derailing threads with your ideology and it is just a waste of space.
I do regret the multiple thread derailments, but I don't see a way around it. I put in my two cents (like everyone else here) on an open-ended discussion, and I get into a debate. I assure you, I'm not a troll, I guess I just hold controversial (to some) beliefs, that some folks take issue with. Why is that bad?
E. R. Olovetto:Libertarianism is not left or right either.
So why did you chide me for being a being a closet leftist?
E. R. Olovetto:but grunting about argumentation ethics being axiomatic is hardly "blowing it over like a house of cards.
If you want to debate it, I'd be glad to.
E. R. Olovetto:Perhaps you've got teh Höppephobia?
I gave Hoppe a fair shake when I was discovering the luminaries of the libertarian movement, and I like some of what he has to say about the state and democracy, but his attempt to deduce ethics praxeologically, just seems like a bunch of hot air to me.
E. R. Olovetto:We aren't here for opinions.
Then what are you here for? Who here is God? I'd like to PM him.
E. R. Olovetto:"Letting the market sort it out" doesn't follow from "there is no such thing as private property".
Why not?
E. R. Olovetto:you can't coherently deny property rights by making arguments.
Skimmed the article. Here's a passage that I found interesting:
Murray Rothbard:The Lomasky review is an interesting example of what is getting to be a fairly common phenomenon:Hoppephobia. Although he is an amiable man personally, Hoppe's written work seems to have the remarkable capacityto send some readers up the wall, blood pressure soaring, muttering and chewing the carpet. It is not impolite attacks oncritics that does it. Perhaps the answer is Hoppe's logical and deductive mode of thought and writing, demonstrating thetruth of his propositions and showing that those who differ are often trapped in self-contradiction and self-refutation.In the good old days, this was a common style in philosophy, employed by Kantians, Thomists, Misesians andRandians alike. In the modern age, however, this method of thought and writing has gone severely out of fashion inphilosophy, where truth is almost never arrived at—and certainly never argued for in a deductive fashion. The modernmode is utilitarian, positivist, tangential, puzzle-oriented, and pseudo-empiricist. As a result, modern positivist typeshave gone flabby and complacent, and reading hard-core deductivists—to say nothing of hard-core libertarians!—hitsthese people with the force of a blow to the gut.Well, shape up, guys! In argument as in politics, those who can’t stand deductivist heat should get out of thephilosophic or economic kitchen.--MNR
This is one of the big problems I have with Hoppe's method of reasoning. Deductivism seems to imply that a non-omniscient being is capable of weighing all the factors necessary to come to an absolute conclusion, which I don't understand the possibility of.
Ignorance is the thing I am trying to dissolve the most. I'm not trying to rouse anyone's hostilities. Of course, I can't say I wasn't warned.
When you constantly berate others as ideologues, you do just that. So if you want to prove this statement true, cease with the silly little provocations, otherwise realise you'll elicit just this sort of reaction.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
I simply don't have more time for your nonsense now.
but his attempt to deduce ethics praxeologically, just seems like a bunch of hot air to me.
Wonderful, a baseless assertion. I will remind you of a comment I already made to you today. There can be a distinction made between the ethical-aesthetical and the moral-legal. I am surprised you haven't cried semantics yet!
Jon Irenicus:When you constantly berate others as ideologues, you do just that
I think taht is an unfair representation of what I do. Sometimes I go a little overboard, but I'm usually on the defensive at that point.
Jon Irenicus: So if you want to prove this statement true, cease with the silly little provocations,
OK, I'll try.
E. R. Olovetto:Wonderful, a baseless assertion.
As a natty right, I'd thought you'd be into that sort of thing.
E. R. Olovetto:There can be a distinction made between the ethical-aesthetical and the moral-legal.
What is it?