GilesStratton:No, I've said that perhaps you'd be better off over at Cato.
Weak.
revolutionist:I'd like to add that I think reformism is the only way to acheive a large-scale libertarian society. Seasteading and Microsecession are things that I totally support for those who wish to pursue those options, but that will only create small pockets of libertarian societies throughout the world. It is great for libertarians who want liberty right now but this high time preference comes at a cost: you can no longer work to bring liberty to the rest of the world. Maybe some of you don't want to. . Maybe you just want liberty for yourself (That is a perfectly honorable position to hold.), but I want more. I want liberty for everyone.
I suggest you reread the original post on microsecession. Microsecession is not anarcho-zionism, i.e. running away to liberty land. It is not a high TP strategy. It is not even necessarily for libertarians: Since the project is rooted in economic incentives, it would most likely be businessmen who would move there, turning it into a trading hub free of taxes, government regulations, and trade barriers.
In fact, microsecession is probably the most efficient way to bring about universal libertarianism. To quote Hulsmann again:
Clearly, secession avoids all these fatal long-run consequences of “imposing liberty.” It might take a long time before the conditions for successful local secession are given, and secession might then leave many dark (politically unenlightened) spots on the political map. However, at least these reforms would be genuine accomplishments that do not already contain the seeds of their own destruction."
Once secession movements succeed and break off the hegemonic bonds of their government, the door would be opened for other secession movements. As secession becomes legitimized, it would open a Pandora's Box of secessionist claims that no State could reject. Thus, secession starts off with "small pockets of libertarian societies," but it leads to a wildfire of secession movements spreading across the globe, and ultimately worldwide liberty.
Moreover, reformism is plagued by the paradox of imperialism: as the State becomes more limited, the economy becomes more robust, creating more resources for the State to parasitically leech off of and use to expand. Hence, the more you limit government, the harder it becomes to limit it, and the harder it becomes to abolish it altogether. The incentive structure of government militates against reformism. Mises talked about the "exhaustion of the reserve fund" under socialism. This is the exact opposite. Successful reformism would create a bigger pie for the government to feed off of, creating stronger incentives for the State to grow.
Secession avoids this problem by killing the parasite, i.e. abolishing the State entirely. Of course, there is the possibility that governments might try to take over a super-wealthy microstate, but this can be prevented. For instance, the microstates might hold off on becoming tax havens until a critical mass is achieved. At that point, they could organize a massive capital drain and simultaneously bankrupt all the governments in the world!
AnalyticalAnarchism.net - The Positive Political Economy of Anarchism
Conza88:If by common, you mean the mass man. Sure... Mencken's quotes come to mind.
Let's hear it and see if I accept it as a reflection of what I think I am
Conza88:You don't feel a need to point out to someone, make it clear for them, with your choice of words - what is actually in their self interest? That was exactly my point.
No because that assumes I know what is in their self-interest setting me up as some pseudo-lord of their future actions. Frankly I see very much in common with someone who assumes to know the best for a stranger and the government official.
Conza88: I'm implying anyone, is a fool when it comes to tactics and strategy, if they completely rule out choosing phrases that help make clearer the immoral actions of the state.
I'd rather use ration and logic then hoodwinking. Perhaps that is our difference.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Alright, I've updated the original list:
Comments?
What a great job. You have Rothbard, Hoppe and Long arguably the 3 most important libertarian thinkers of the last 25 years, and each has two pieces.
If we were to rank them in importance, I would say #9 is really #10. If something good can be found, that might be the first one to bump off the list.
If we are to rank them in order of exposure, I might rank the first few like this
The order someone is exposed to this is important. Their attention has to be captured early. In the first couple documents if not the very first document.
I have to check out Hoppe. Perhaps I should not judge him by his batshit insane followers for they maybe different from what he expouses.
liberty student:If we were to rank them in importance, I would say #9 is really #10. If something good can be found, that might be the first one to bump off the list.
Yeah, it would be one of the first to go. But I think it's pretty important; the insight that anarchy is omnipresent had a pretty big impact on me. Although, Cuzan only notes that the members of government are in anarchic relationships, while this is also true of citizens of different countries (international anarchy), and governments and their own citizens (as argued, e.g. here and here.)
liberty student:The order someone is exposed to this is important. Their attention has to be captured early. In the first couple documents if not the very first document.
True. I think starting with Spooner is good, because as Laughing Man noted, the Constitution is the minarchists' sacred cow. "Anatomy" goes second to establish what the State is; laying the groundwork. Rothbard and Molinari go third and fourth to show how minarchists' own principles (free competition) compel them to accept nonmonopoly police and courts. Murphy extends this analysis in elaborating on the role of insurance companies.
Once they've come this far, they're ready to tackle public goods theory. Then Hoppe again for is insights on the Constitution, monarchy>democracy, insurance companies, and secession as a strategy. Long has a ton of insights, especially showing how market competition is a better constitution than a piece of paper. Then Cuzan for the omnipresent anarchy argument. And finally, "Ten Objections" goes last as a fun-filled romp designed to reinforce and fortify their understanding of market anarchist philosophy.
Sage:Yeah, it would be one of the first to go. But I think it's pretty important; the insight that anarchy is omnipresent had a pretty big impact on me.
Right. It's just important to remember that if we're going to be successful in any marketing endeavour, we have to put our "customers" first. That's why I think most of the ancap material is too long, too sophisticated for primary arguments. You might value it, but you are not the customer. You are much better read than many people.
Sage:"Anatomy" goes second to establish what the State is; laying the groundwork.
The downside is, it is 60 pages. That's beyond the attention span of 80% of the adult population. We're the exceptions, not the norm. I read a couple hundred pages a day, I imagine most of my fellow libertarians the same. Most adults barely read the newspaper or magazines anymore, let alone full length books.
I'll make this the last time I say this because I am definitely sounding like a nag, but remember to put your audience first. Successful marketing plays on what they want not what we like or how we want to tell them things, or what things we value. You're getting a lot of feedback from anarchists here. But the real market test would be to see if this list has any actual value to minarchists.
We're just product researchers, validation via profit (or failure) will come in the market place. That's the only test that matters.
GilesStratton:the only way you're going to get this is to lobby the state for it. As Hayek and Nisbet have pointed out, there are various institutions that have their position between the state and the individual, if you want to get rid of the state these institutions are essential
Opinions are a wonderful thing...
GilesStratton:It's man nature to need leaders
I do not need a leader...
GilesStratton:Well, I'd rather have a theocracy than modern democracy to begin with
At least you concede that point...
GilesStratton:The state has done everything it has to either coopt religion or outcompete it, neither of which is difficult considering the funding the state has access to. Nonetheless, the Church has not fared too badly.
Nothing to do with the entire thought it was left in reply to...
It sounds like the ocean, smells like fresh mountain air, and tastes like the union of peanut butter and chocolate. ~Liberty Student
GilesStratton:As I've said before, if you want to bash religion, tradition and culture in the name of individualism/ libertarianism, that's fine. I just don't think that the Mises Institute is the best place to do it, since its populated by religious, traditionalist scholars.
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."
Juan: Reactionary conservatives like you are on the losing side of history. You better get used to it.
We will bury you!
So much for "pluralism".
Peace
Juan: Yes, tradition, revealed religion and 'culture' will all be wiped out sooner or later. Reactionary conservatives like you are on the losing side of history. You better get used to it.
Our dear Juan, always spouting the Jacobintarian line.
wilderness:My apologizes. I wasn't saying you are Catholic. I'm pointing out the theocracy bit.
And it was entirely pointless, since I can point out atrocities of a much greater scale by the secular state.
wilderness:And a murderer that kills only one is somehow off the hook now cause Mussolini, Franco, and Salazar killed more than the lone murderer? I'm not sure of your point here.
I'm not attempting to vindicate any of those, rather, my point is that if you want a comparison of the a number of dictators with similar regimes, except for the religion, but with huge differences in their death tolls, the aforementioned dictators are particularly apt.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
sicsempertyrannis:You know how wildly exaggerated the whole Inquisition is, don't you?
Of course it is. Just like all "atrocities" commited by religion are. The leftists (including many people here) are furious that one can't go around with tattoos and piercings over in Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, they'll probably not shed a tear for the man who gets arrested for wearing a Nazi shirt in Germany or Austria. Freedom of speech is very important when they want to tell people that their religion is a joke, it's not all that OK when I want to tell people that race can account for differences between people. Likewise, people should be free to do as they please without hurting anybody else, with the minor caveat that religion is not included in that list. Of course, I say religion, but what I really mean is Christianity, Islam and Judaism. If one wants to worship the devil or the earth, the leftists will be more than willing to tell you that you're "a brave man" and that "you're fighting a worthy cause", anything to challenge the major religion and the bourgeoisie.
See, the cultural Marxists will be only too quick to forget the enormous deaths of the secular state (of which the US is one), on the other hand they'll quickly condemn any religious state for crimes that don't even compare. Which is why you won't often see them complaining about the murder of religious people anywhere in the world, but you'll have to suffer their usual whining if an atheist anywhere gets into trouble for being obnoxious about their "belief" (which truly, it is)
Moreover, they seem to forget all their antistate rhetoric and blame Iraq on Christians. As if the religious beliefs of leaders has any bearing on what the state commits. But as long as they can somehow pin it on Christianity, that's OK. In fact, to the modal libertarian atheist, all evil can be traced back to religion. It's funny really, because, they almost sound "fanatical", imagine that. All of this is fine by me, I find it quite amusing that those who preach tolerance and open mindedness have the same conviction in their belief system as I do, only, they're far more dogmatic and for some reason most often feel the need to convince the poor "misguided" religious folk. Dawkins etc. give the same powers to cells are Christians do to God, because they can't explain anything otherwise. All this in the name of science and reason (faith should be banished, of course, how they manage to believe in the outside world without faith is quite beyond me, but there we go).
As I've said before, Cato is better suited to these folk. Using the state to abolish religion is probably not off limits for the modal libertarian, they're just going to be quite annoyed with the Leviathan they'll consequently be stuck with. Of course, it won't be the state per se they'll be pissed off at, just the fact that as usual they're at the bottom of the social hierarchy. That's what egalitarianism is all about: bringing the rest of society down to their level.
GilesStratton: wilderness:My apologizes. I wasn't saying you are Catholic. I'm pointing out the theocracy bit. And it was entirely pointless, since I can point out atrocities of a much greater scale by the secular state.
That is the point. No matter who has the territory monopoly atrocities are committed.
GilesStratton: wilderness:And a murderer that kills only one is somehow off the hook now cause Mussolini, Franco, and Salazar killed more than the lone murderer? I'm not sure of your point here. I'm not attempting to vindicate any of those, rather, my point is that if you want a comparison of the a number of dictators with similar regimes, except for the religion, but with huge differences in their death tolls, the aforementioned dictators are particularly apt.
I'm really not trying to go down that road. I'm focused on the State aspect. That's what a theocracy is, a coercive government by another name. As I've said, I have no problems with religion. It's when the religious want to play king of the hill with the secular politicians, that's what I have a problem with.
GilesStratton: Dawkins etc. give the same powers to cells are Christians do to God, because they can't explain anything otherwise. All this in the name of science and reason (faith should be banished, of course, how they manage to believe in the outside world without faith is quite beyond me, but there we go).
Dawkins etc. give the same powers to cells are Christians do to God, because they can't explain anything otherwise. All this in the name of science and reason (faith should be banished, of course, how they manage to believe in the outside world without faith is quite beyond me, but there we go).
Don't you think this is getting a little over the top? The functioning of cells can be observed and, to a certain extent, even reproduced. It's a mechanism that does not require faith to be explained since it behaves on a purely chemical basis.As far as we know, of course. But at least science is making an effort to further our knowledge. Religion (and revealed religion in particular) is disturbingly content with a fixed amount of information put down thousands of years ago and at the same time, fiercely hostile towards fundamental criticism.I'm certainly not interested in weakening bourgeois culture. To the contrary, bourgeois culture, as we know it today, could not emerge until the dominant influence of the church-state had been crushed for good. Or do you know of any examples of bourgeois culture before the era of enlightenment?
Sphairon: But at least science is making an effort to further our knowledge.
No, scientists are just as dogmatic as religion is meant to be. Dawkins himself said that unless a theory is in line with evolution we shouldn't even look at it, of course, that sounds a lot like what religious folk are chastised for by atheists.
Sphairon:is disturbingly content with a fixed amount of information put down thousands of years ago and at the same time, fiercely hostile towards fundamental criticism.
Not really, I see plenty of Christian philosophers (Feser, Plantinga) and even Christian scientists (Behe).
Sphairon:I'm certainly not interested in weakening bourgeois culture.
You, perhaps not. On the other hand, look at some of the trash being spilled by BP, Juan et al.
Sphairon:Don't you think this is getting a little over the top? The functioning of cells can be observed and, to a certain extent, even reproduced.
That's quite besides the point, atheists are wont to attribute to cells features that theists attribute to their God.
wilderness:That is the point. No matter who has the territory monopoly atrocities are committed.
Only, when you appeal to God for legitimacy, killing millions of your own people isn't going to do you a great amount of God in the eyes of your subjects. On the other hand, when you appeal to egalitarianism for legitimacy the stakes are entirely different. No amount of people is too much to acheive it.
wilderness:I'm really not trying to go down that road. I'm focused on the State aspect. That's what a theocracy is, a coercive government by another name. As I've said, I have no problems with religion. It's when the religious want to play king of the hill with the secular politicians, that's what I have a problem with.
I don't advocate theocracy. My point is not difficult to grasp: the attrocities of the USSR, Mao, Hitler and Pol Pot are incomparible to those commited by Salazar, Mussolini and Franco.
GilesStratton: No, scientists are just as dogmatic as religion is meant to be. Dawkins himself said that unless a theory is in line with evolution we shouldn't even look at it, of course, that sounds a lot like what religious folk are chastised for by atheists.
That sounds very loosely paraphrased, especially for Dawkins' standards. How can a theory in the realm of physics or mathematics be "in line with evolution"?Anyway, even if he did say it, he's not a representative of all science and most certainly not all scientists. There is a genuine interest to further human knowledge within the largest part of the scientific community, and I think this should be appreciated.Not really, I see plenty of Christian philosophers (Feser, Plantinga) and even Christian scientists (Behe).But doesn't the Bible say in Jeremiah 23,16:Thus saith the LORD of hosts, Hearken not unto the words of the prophets that prophesy unto you: they make you vain: they speak a vision of their own heart, and not out of the mouth of the LORD.By being a Christian philosopher, can you really still be a Christian if your philosophy is not exactly equal to the literal meaning of the Bible? By being a Christian scientist, can you "legally" inquire phenomena for which the BIble already has an explanation, e.g. the origin of the world, or do you have to limit yourself to proving the Biblical theory?That's quite besides the point, atheists are wont to attribute to cells features that theists attribute to their God.That's hard to believe. Can you give specific examples?
GilesStratton:Of course it is. Just like all "atrocities" commited by religion are. The leftists (including many people here) are furious that one can't go around with tattoos and piercings over in Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, they'll probably not shed a tear for the man who gets arrested for wearing a Nazi shirt in Germany or Austria.
::Rolls Eyes::
I do not care about either case...
I have said it before here, I am sure you missed it, the fact is that no one can "save the world" from government, some people are not going to choose to live without it, regardless of the tyranny they put up with for it, some people are just afraid of the loss of a safety net that government is in their eyes....
GilesStratton:Freedom of speech is very important when they want to tell people that their religion is a joke, it's not all that OK when I want to tell people that race can account for differences between people. Likewise, people should be free to do as they please without hurting anybody else, with the minor caveat that religion is not included in that list. Of course, I say religion, but what I really mean is Christianity, Islam and Judaism. If one wants to worship the devil or the earth, the leftists will be more than willing to tell you that you're "a brave man" and that "you're fighting a worthy cause", anything to challenge the major religion and the bourgeoisie.
I did not say being "Christian" was bad, I said dragging your religious dogma (as it is a personal choice) into the day to day life of the individual who does not choose to follow your religion is replacing a tyranny with a tyranny....
It is the formula for a government of freedom, so long as you do not violate the morality set by the authority...
GilesStratton:See, the cultural Marxists will be only too quick to forget the enormous deaths of the secular state (of which the US is one), on the other hand they'll quickly condemn any religious state for crimes that don't even compare. Which is why you won't often see them complaining about the murder of religious people anywhere in the world, but you'll have to suffer their usual whining if an atheist anywhere gets into trouble for being obnoxious about their "belief" (which truly, it is)
Again a case of replacement, not to mention that people, secular and religious alike have a tendency to take a single case (the inquisition) rather than the death toll of the entire reign of the particular organized religion, or the population percentage, as historically we have had less people in the affected areas than we do in the 20th century.
GilesStratton:Moreover, they seem to forget all their antistate rhetoric and blame Iraq on Christians. As if the religious beliefs of leaders has any bearing on what the state commits. But as long as they can somehow pin it on Christianity, that's OK. In fact, to the modal libertarian atheist, all evil can be traced back to religion. It's funny really, because, they almost sound "fanatical", imagine that.
Never mentioned or thought that, but that is OK, you seem to think that if one does not want a theocracy that they must think that.
Of course this line of thought of yours shows a massive lack of knowledge on how the state works here in the US, IAPAC is a lobby, based on the religious belief that the Jewish people are chosen by God and their platform here is that the United States, as a "Christian Nation", should spare no expense at the defense of Israel. Maybe it is just coincidence that there are more Evangelical Christians that belong to IAPAC in the US than there are Jews?
GilesStratton:All this in the name of science and reason (faith should be banished, of course, how they manage to believe in the outside world without faith is quite beyond me, but there we go).
Where did I say this? I said faith is a personal choice, if you wish to believe that there is a mysterious ghost who is omnipotent and omniscient, by all means, but it does not make for less of a tyranny than any other athority based monopoly...
I am not going to pretend to know what ulta left wing commie spoke to you about religion and made such a convincing argument to the extent of anyone that does not want a religious state organization to mean the same as abolishing religion, in the end what it comes down to is property rights, a religious state organization would be as bad as a secular state organization in regard to violating the right to live as one pleases in the confines of one's property...
GilesStratton:Moreover, they seem to forget all their antistate rhetoric and blame Iraq on Christians.
IOW: stop being so butthurt about your silly little death-cult being picked on. People who believe silly things shouldn't get upset when the silly thing is made fun of. And you might want to kill your strawmen and projections about atheists and "attributing god" to cells and whatnot. That just makes you look so far beyond ignorant that you're up there in Kent Hovind land. Because while you do have the right to your opinion, of course, the fallacious garbage in your opinions will not help you in any discussion. Just a gold nugget's worth of free advice, Giles. And you should heed it.
GilesStratton: wilderness:That is the point. No matter who has the territory monopoly atrocities are committed. Only, when you appeal to God for legitimacy, killing millions of your own people isn't going to do you a great amount of God in the eyes of your subjects. On the other hand, when you appeal to egalitarianism for legitimacy the stakes are entirely different. No amount of people is too much to acheive it.
Was this supposed to make sense or maybe I'm being thick-headed, which I admittedly can be. So a theocracy can kill millions of people as long as they don't appeal to God while doing it?
GilesStratton: wilderness:I'm really not trying to go down that road. I'm focused on the State aspect. That's what a theocracy is, a coercive government by another name. As I've said, I have no problems with religion. It's when the religious want to play king of the hill with the secular politicians, that's what I have a problem with. I don't advocate theocracy. My point is not difficult to grasp: the attrocities of the USSR, Mao, Hitler and Pol Pot are incomparible to those commited by Salazar, Mussolini and Franco.
ok and? They killed more than they did? If you don't advocate theocracy, then why did you advocate theocracy? as follows:
GilesStratton: Well, I'd rather have a theocracy than modern democracy to begin with, so if we do abolish the state only to see the rise of religious states, we've seen a step foward.
Well, I'd rather have a theocracy than modern democracy to begin with, so if we do abolish the state only to see the rise of religious states, we've seen a step foward.
sicsempertyrannis:Our dear Juan, always spouting the Jacobintarian line.
Hoppe - Socialism & Capitalism:Finally, as outward expressions of this changed state of affairs in public opinion, the Glorious Revolution of 1688 in England, the American Revolution of 1776, and the French Revolution of 1789 came along; and nothing was the same after these revolutions had occurred. They proved, once and for all, that the old order was not invincible, and they sparked new hope for further progress on the road toward freedom and prosperity.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Maybe because the theo-cons have stated as such that they want the heathen muslims killed. You know, it might just be FACTS like that, Giles.
I could barely have asked for a apt demonstration of my previous point: you'll not believe anything a politician says except when they're using religion to further their own goals.
Knight_of_BAAWA:IOW: stop being so butthurt about your silly little death-cult being picked on. People who believe silly things shouldn't get upset when the silly thing is made fun of. And you might want to kill your strawmen and projections about atheists and "attributing god" to cells and whatnot. That just makes you look so far beyond ignorant that you're up there in Kent Hovind land. Because while you do have the right to your opinion, of course, the fallacious garbage in your opinions will not help you in any discussion. Just a gold nugget's worth of free advice, Giles. And you should heed it.
Spoken like a true believer. Funny that.
Sphairon:That sounds very loosely paraphrased, especially for Dawkins' standards. How can a theory in the realm of physics or mathematics be "in line with evolution"?Anyway, even if he did say it, he's not a representative of all science and most certainly not all scientists. There is a genuine interest to further human knowledge within the largest part of the scientific community, and I think this should be appreciated.
No, there is a genuine interest in furthering scienticism. I read that second hand and I'm not sure of the exact wording, nonetheless, I wouldn't expect any different from somebody as dogmatic as Dawkins.
Sphairon:That's hard to believe. Can you give specific examples?
No, debating religion is tiresome. I was on the other side of this debate 2 years ago calling theists all sorts of names, I know how boring it is.
Harry Felker: I do not care about either case... I have said it before here, I am sure you missed it, the fact is that no one can "save the world" from government, some people are not going to choose to live without it, regardless of the tyranny they put up with for it, some people are just afraid of the loss of a safety net that government is in their eyes....
Harry Felker: I did not say being "Christian" was bad, I said dragging your religious dogma (as it is a personal choice) into the day to day life of the individual who does not choose to follow your religion is replacing a tyranny with a tyranny.... It is the formula for a government of freedom, so long as you do not violate the morality set by the authority...
Are you purposefully missing the point?
Harry Felker:Again a case of replacement, not to mention that people, secular and religious alike have a tendency to take a single case (the inquisition) rather than the death toll of the entire reign of the particular organized religion, or the population percentage, as historically we have had less people in the affected areas than we do in the 20th century.
I'll issue my challenge again, what's the difference between Hitler, Mussolini, Franco and Salazar?
Harry Felker:Of course this line of thought of yours shows a massive lack of knowledge on how the state works here in the US, IAPAC is a lobby, based on the religious belief that the Jewish people are chosen by God and their platform here is that the United States, as a "Christian Nation", should spare no expense at the defense of Israel. Maybe it is just coincidence that there are more Evangelical Christians that belong to IAPAC in the US than there are Jews?
Because we should really judge religion by the acts of religious people that violate the acts of their faith. That sounds fair.
Harry Felker:I am not going to pretend to know what ulta left wing commie spoke to you about religion and made such a convincing argument to the extent of anyone that does not want a religious state organization to mean the same as abolishing religion, in the end what it comes down to is property rights, a religious state organization would be as bad as a secular state organization in regard to violating the right to live as one pleases in the confines of one's property...
Juan, BP, Bawaa and every other ML Randroid on these forums.
I seriously have to stop calling myself a libertarian, you hippy folk piss me off.
GilesStratton:I could barely have asked for a apt demonstration of my previous point: you'll not believe anything a politician says
GilesStratton:Spoken like a true believer. Funny that.
Kid, grow up. Being butthurt because people don't like your belief system and because you LIE about what others believe just makes you look immature.
Knight_of_BAAWA: You REALLY need to not be butthurt.
You're using words like "butthurt" are telling me to grow up? What are you 5?
Knight_of_BAAWA:Pat Robertson isn't a politician, Giles. Nor are the rest of that bunch. Nor was the US Army General who said that "Our god is bigger than their god".
Oh there you go shifting them goalposts again...
Let's get this thread back on track.
GilesStratton:I wouldn't expect any different from somebody as dogmatic as Dawkins.
I was on the other side of this debate 2 years ago calling theists all sorts of names, I know how boring it is.
Giles:I seriously have to stop calling myself a libertarian, you hippy folk piss me off.
Juan:That's interesting. How did you change your mind ?
Gradual process, from atheism through agnosticism and "I believe in something, I just don't know what" to Christianity. For most of my life I'd only ever really heard the atheist side of the debate, then I began looking elsewhere.
Knight_of_BAAWA: IOW: stop being so butthurt about your silly little death-cult being picked on. People who believe silly things shouldn't get upset when the silly thing is made fun of.
IOW: stop being so butthurt about your silly little death-cult being picked on. People who believe silly things shouldn't get upset when the silly thing is made fun of.
I always wondered if those here (a mod no less) who believe this would say things like this to Lew Rockwell.
GilesStratton:You're using words like "butthurt"
GilesStratton:Oh there you go shifting them goalposts again...
sicsempertyrannis:I always wondered if those here (a mod no less) who believe this would say things like this to Lew Rockwell.
GilesStratton:Gradual process, from atheism through agnosticism and "I believe in something, I just don't know what" to Christianity. For most of my life I'd only ever really heard the atheist side of the debate, then I began looking elsewhere.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Yes, I am. Now either do the research about the topic or be silent. Your lack of knowledge here is not my problem, nor anyone else's except yours. Get used to it.
I'm in the process of doing it actually.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Except not. I simply annihilated your strawman. Now learn to not create them, ok?
No, you're shifting the goalposts.
Knight_of_BAAWA:I would if it came up in conversation--and especially if he had the chip that Giles clearly does. You see: I don't believe that all beliefs are worthy of respect.
No, you wouldn't. Nor would you to the likes of Feser or Plantinga, fact is you feel quite confident here (a forum with little to no knowledge of the subject) with a moderator team of social leftists and atheists to back you up.
GilesStratton:I'm in the process of doing it actually.
GilesStratton:No, you wouldn't.
Anyway, did you happen to read the Smith essay I linked to several pages back?
its sad to see a person like giles getting confused by a thing like religion. it really is like being a marxist.
liberty student:That's why I think most of the ancap material is too long, too sophisticated for primary arguments. ... The downside is, it is 60 pages. That's beyond the attention span of 80% of the adult population. We're the exceptions, not the norm. I read a couple hundred pages a day, I imagine most of my fellow libertarians the same. Most adults barely read the newspaper or magazines anymore, let alone full length books.
It's important to remember the audience I'm going after here: minarchists. These are people who already accept that competition is more efficient than monopoly, aggression is wrong, socialism doesn't work, etc. They just need to be shown the logical conclusion of their arguments. (For that matter, anarchism is the logical conclusion of even a presumption in favor of self-determination.)
I'm aiming this at people who already have some exposure to political philosophy. If the audience was total beginners, then I would definitely go with a simpler and more dumbed-down approach.
Moreover, I think people need to realize that political philosophy is not easy; it's actually a lot of hard work. This list is ~250 pages, but it's only an introduction to market anarchism. If someone is unfamiliar with these or similar writings, it's irresponsible for them to be holding strong opinions. Minarchists who claim that "anarchy is chaos" but haven't read anything are just wasting everyone's time.
liberty student:We're just product researchers, validation via profit (or failure) will come in the market place. That's the only test that matters.
True that. The list isn't set in stone; it could always be changed to be more effective.
GilesStratton:You'll have to suffer their usual whining if an atheist anywhere gets into trouble for being obnoxious about their "belief" (which truly, it is)
Come on. Atheism is a lack of belief. You can't color all atheists the same way, they don't even have to hold similar values.
GilesStratton: As if the religious beliefs of leaders has any bearing on what the state commits.
As if the religious beliefs of leaders has any bearing on what the state commits.
Um how about Bush saying something along the lines of "God told me to invade Iraq" (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/bush-god-told-me-to-invade-iraq-509925.html)
And Sage, thanks for the list. I accept that aggression is wrong, and I know that, followed to it's logical end, it means the government violates this. For some reason though, I still have this idea in my mind of a very small government committed to only protecting it's citizens from violence. Hopefully this will help.