Right, I have a conservative bias, is if that's bad, you might as well say I have a bias towards the truth, as if it's bad.
Well yes, it is bad to the extent that it reflects a general close-mindedness that clings to a traditionalist ideal.
And yet there somehow there isn't the opportunity for this educational setting in the few seconds before I child runs into the road, so they must be taught in the only way they understand.
The child who runs into the road is irrelevant to what's in contention.
Haha.
"If I need your opinion, I'll bitch slap it out of you."
No there couldn't possibly be abused children re-enacting mommy and daddy's behavior towards them in the anarchist movement. No way!
Brainpolice:and psychological patterns are linked to one's familial and personal relations.
Prove it.
Brainpolice:Not really, you're just probably dull.
Ad hom. (Although I'm very glad you think so)
Brainpolice:The purpose of the state isn't the abolition of the family, it's the control of the society in general,
Straw man.
Brainpolice: which relies in part on the existance of families to produce people to control.
This is what you're trying to prove as opposed to just asserting
Brainpolice:The state isn't interested in getting rid of "the family" as such,
The Nazis and Soviets sure seemed to be.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Brainpolice:The child who runs into the road is irrelevant to what's in contention.
Because it's convenient?
Brainpolice:Imagine all the people...
That wasn't intended a compliment either.
Prove that one's childhood and one's personal relations has an effect on their psychology? That's simply obvious. This is psych 101 man!
That's not anything I had set out to prove initially, it's a given in this debate to begin with that there must be families for there to be a society and state to begin with. It's simply a building block in the chain, you obviously need to have families in order for there to be a society for a state to control to begin with. This is really an inconsequential given in the discussion.
No, they weren't categorically opposed to "the family" as such. Noone is.
John Ess: Haha. "If I need your opinion, I'll bitch slap it out of you." No there couldn't possibly be abused children re-enacting mommy and daddy's behavior towards them in the anarchist movement. No way!
touché
Brainpolice:No, they weren't categorically opposed to "the family" as such. Noone is.
You, Molyneux and the rest of the cultural marxists sure seem to be. Anyway, it doesn't really matter whether they inteded to get rid of the family for the sake of getting rid of the family or for power. The point is that they proceeded as far as they could to undermine the family because it is constantly in competition with the state.
Not that what you wrote is true anyway, the state desires power, which by definition means it must abolish other institutions that stand in the way of this power, the family is one of these, buisness is another and finally there's the church.
Brainpolice:Prove that one's childhood and one's personal relations has an effect on their psychology? That's simply obvious. This is psych 101 man!
Now prove what I asked you prove, if it's not too difficult (which it is).
Brainpolice:That's not anything I had set out to prove initially, it's a given in this debate to begin with that there must be families for there to be a society and state to begin with. It's simply a building block in the chain, you obviously need to have families in order for there to be a society for a state to control to begin with. This is really an inconsequential given in the discussion.
So you might as well have been saying that people must exist in order for there to be control? Yes the family is necessary for society, beyond that it isn't necessary for the state. The opposite in fact.
You, Molyneux and the rest of the cultural marxists sure seem to be.
We're not cultural marxists and we're not opposed to "the family" as such. I've already pointed out to you that this is a strawman, that you're setting up a false dichotomy.
Anyway, it doesn't really matter whether they inteded to get rid of the family for the sake of getting rid of the family or for power. The point is that they proceeded as far as they could to undermine the family because it is constantly in competition with the state.
I think you're using "the family" as a platonic ideal.
The state never actively attempts to abolish these things, it co-opts them or forms synergetic relationships with them. No state sets out to "abolish the family", they want to produce families that are obedient, that's all. Likewise, no state sets out to "abolish buisiness", it cartelizes buisiness and uses buisiness as an ally. Likewise, no state sets out to "abolish the church", it uses the church as a mechanism for legitimacy and patronage. This is the obvious truth about how the state has historically functioned, not in absolute opposition to these things, but in patronage with them and always attempt to plan a particular model for them.
You obviously don't even understand my position.
GilesStratton:The point is that they proceeded as far as they could to undermine the family because it is constantly in competition with the state.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
I'm curious why people think that the prohibition on the use of force against children would be associated with the libertarian left? It's my understanding that the arguments in favor of this notion come directly from the authors on the libertarian right. I personally am a left-libertarian (in the Roderick Long sense, as opposed to the Steiner/Vallentyne/Otsuka sense), and I don't believe that the use of force against children can never be justified (or that it can only be justified in the same kinds of situations which would justify force towards mature adults).
If rights are construed as reflecting the respect to which others are due, then it would be surprising to me if we arrived at the idea that we ought to treat adults and children the same way. Children -- particularly young children -- are different sorts of beings than adults, and in ways that seem ethically significant. To use a tired example, I would not think it to be disrespectful of my twelve year old daughter if I discovered that she had been seduced by a middle-aged pervert, and I coerced her into staying home instead of going to be molested by him. Perhaps there would be limits on what I could legitimately do to enforce this decision, but it seems unreasonable to suggest that the limit on my legitimate alternatives would come before, for example, standing in the way of the door (which I think would certainly be illegitimately coercive if done to an adult). Or maybe it doesn't seem that way to some of you, but I'll say this: I would not want to have been raised with the kind of free reign which some of you guys apparently want to accord to children.
But that doesn't have anything to do with being on the left or the right, as far as I can tell...
Brainpolice:You obviously don't even understand my position.
No you just obviously has some difficulty "proving" or elaborating upon anything you say, instead you resort to telling me I just don't understand this. I've heard that before, somewhere along the lines of "libertarianism is great in theory, but libertarians just don't understand the real world".
Brainpolice:The state never actively attempts to abolish these things, it co-opts them or forms synergetic relationships with them.
One minute you say the state next wishes to abolish these things, the next you say it just wants power.
Congratulations! You just contradicted yourself. The state has always tried abolishing the family. Inheritance tax, forced "charity", various laws concerning how parents are free to raise their children, forced schooling. Need I continue?
As for the church, In what way is banning Catholicism in China coopting it? Just curious.Although, otherwise you're correct, those Soviets were terribly fond of Christians and tolerant to religion in general.
Brainpolice:I think you're using "the family" as a platonic ideal.
Or simply a reality. One that you would like to ignore and deny but unfortunately can't.
Donny with an A:I'm curious why people think that the prohibition on the use of force against children would be associated with the libertarian left?
As I said earlier in regards to religion, I know I've confused the libertarian left with atheism and in this case the "cultural left" (for lack of a better term). So I'm sorry. However, I think it comes from a poor distinction between left and right libertarianism, with some people claiming the ground of left libertarianism on account of the social beliefs (Roderick Long, who supports the political process for example), whereas others justify adopting the title as a result of their rejection of the political process.
If rights are construed as reflecting the respect to which others are due, then it would be surprising to me if we arrived at the idea that we ought to treat adults and children the same way. Children -- particularly young children -- are different sorts of beings than adults, and in ways that seem ethically significant.
Oh but don't you know, children are fully rational agents.
Giles, what do you mean when you say Long accepts the political process? As far as I can tell he supports various voluntary causes, but not political means per se.
-Jon
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Sorry Giles, I guess I missed that one.
Jon, YOU'RE not a fully rational agent! (SERVED!)
You're not defending libertarianism though, you're defending cultural conservatism.
There's no contradiction. Part of the method of the state maintaining power is by having a synergetic relationship with things like buisiness and church.
None of that aims at abolishing the family so much as co-opting and controling it. The abolition of the family as such, however, doesn't follow.
Why does everything go back to the reds with you, as if that's an example of statism as a whole?
Not really, you're treating "the family" as some kind of ideal detached from reality, and as some kind of bastion of virtue that is always opposed to the state.
(I can't BELIEVE no one has quoted Hitler yet!)
it co-opts them or forms synergetic relationships with them.
Contorting them beyond all recognition and amalgamating them, in the process. It may not quite be "destruction", but preservation it definitely is not.
Jon Irenicus: it co-opts them or forms synergetic relationships with them. Contorting them beyond all recognition and amalgamating them, in the process. It may not quite be "destruction", but preservation it definitely is not. -Jon
In the case of buisiness-state and church-state relations, it's usually a tit for tat in which one is granted special privileges so long as loyalty is maintained to the other. As a consequence of this, religious and economic institutions can effectively be artificially strengthened through patronage with the state. They're never really eliminated, they just become more like states in themselves and become part of a parasitic class. They've hardly been historical enemies of the state at all.
What do all of you think of "military families"?
Jon Irenicus:Giles, what do you mean when you say Long accepts the political process? As far as I can tell he supports various voluntary causes, but not political means per se.
Roderick Long:But first, once the Rothbardian position is correctly distinguished from all-or-nothing perfectionism, it's no longer clear that Rothbardians can't be involved in ordinary politics — voting, running for office, and so forth. Such activities might be regarded as giving impermissible sanction to the state; but if you infiltrate the Death Star in order to blow it up, does that really count as falling to the dark side? To wield political power, admittedly, is to run the risk of being corrupted; but is such corruption inevitable? It seems like a sizeable bloc of Ron Paul clones in Congress could be pretty effective in scaling back the state without sacrificing any libertarian principle.
and
http://praxeology.net/nextelection.htm
Yes, that is what I mean though, the amalgamation is effective destruction.
Brainpolice:Why does everything go back to the reds with you, as if that's an example of statism as a whole?
It's an example nonetheless, albeit one that's all too inconvenient for you.
Brainpolice:some kind of bastion of virtue that is always opposed to the state.
Brainpolice:None of that aims at abolishing the family so much as co-opting and controling it. The abolition of the family as such, however, doesn't follow.
So now you're playing semantic games?
Redundant thread is redundant.
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
The state's purpose is to pursue the agenda of the gay mafia and overthrow the heterosexual male and the inherent virtuosity of heterosexuality.
I do not see why the traditionalists cannot isolate the virtues they see in traditional social forms and defend those, rather than defending tradition qua tradition.
http://aestheticbend.blogspot.com/
GilesStratton:http://praxeology.net/nextelection.htm
Woah, did you read the date on that? Long's opinions haven't changed for over 12 years?
Donny with an A: (I can't BELIEVE no one has quoted Hitler yet!)
"There is a road to freedom. Its milestones are Obedience, Endeavor, Honesty, Order, Cleanliness, Sobriety, Truthfulness, Sacrifice, and love of the Fatherland." -Hitler
"I cannot prove, but am prepared to affirm, that if you take care of clarity in reasoning, most good causes will take care of themselves, while some bad ones are taken care of as a matter of course." -Anthony de Jasay
Solid_Choke:"There is a road to freedom. Its milestones are Obedience, Endeavor, Honesty, Order, Cleanliness, Sobriety, Truthfulness, Sacrifice, and love of the Fatherland." -Hitler
Sounds good.
I had in mind "Universal education is the most corroding and disintegrating poison that liberalism has ever invented for its own destruction"
Giles, Roderick's position is that voting isn't immoral, but it is inefficient and should be minimized as a strategy.
AnalyticalAnarchism.net - The Positive Political Economy of Anarchism
Sorry, I posted this elsewhere without noticing this thread...
As you may know, Freedomain Radio was featured in an article in the British newspaper The Guardian last weekend.
Now, as we all know, the mainstream media is often far from accurate when it comes to representing libertarian, free-market or voluntarist ideas. I think that this article is a very good example of how a source can take a reporter for a ride.
If you would like to read the article, and my response to it, you can click below, I think it is very interesting, please let me know what you think.
http://www.fdrurl.com/guardian
Best wishes,
Stef
I am the host of Freedomain Radio, the most popular philosophy show on the web, and a Top 10 Finalist in the 2007 Podcast Awards. http://www.freedomainradio.com
Sage: Giles, Roderick's position is that voting isn't immoral, but it is inefficient and should be minimized as a strategy.
That is my view as well. From a moral standpoint (depending on your motivation for voting at least) it can be justified as a form of self-defense, its effectiveness is another matter. It could be compared to using a medicine dropper filled with water to try to put out a forest fire.
I am an eklektarchist not an anarchist.
Educational Pamphlet Mises Group
Your reply to the Guardian, is qualitatively about as good as, your UPB:
Links:ANCAPS Discussion ForumMolyneuxCultWatch