Laughing Man:I define racism as a hatred for a class of individuals due to their skin color. I do not see how that does not imply aggression.
Hatred doesn't necessarily imply violence in any way. Just like love doesn't imply sex.
Laughing Man:Exactly, unless you think we should round up gun dealers and haul them in for murder?
Providing a means isn't using a means.
Laughing Man:When was the last time Ron Paul threatened to punch you until you give him money? Or any congressperson for that matter?
I'm not American. But pretty much every April 15th. They can return it, they don't. Thieves.
Laughing Man:Perhaps it was a crazed individual doing it preemptively to achieve your affection? Anyways according to the NAP and that alone, the only aggressor is the individual who committed the murder. Like I keep on saying, the NAP is great but it needs more then just that. You keep on saying "No No No" yet what you are writing implies the very thing I am saying.
Wrong. A crazed individual is just that, unless I had him do it, I'm still not responsible. You keep saying you need more than the NAP, really you just don't know the NAP all that well. Transfer has to be voluntary by both parties. Read more.
Laughing Man:Again they are not the transgressors. So according to the NAP and the NAP alone, they have done nothing wrong.
Incorrect. Congressmen go in to Congress knowing they will receive stolen goods and they know that people are being stolen from guilty knowledge is a given. To not return the money is still theft. They are part of the chain. Read more. A lot more.
Laughing Man:I have read Rothbard and he is anything but a thin libertarian. Concerning Mises it would be a short talk because he basically only had one ethical judgement value and that is the utilitarian premise of 'the maximization of social pleasure'
Who called him a thin libertarian? Rothbard wrote quite a bit about the receivers of stolen goods, you should apparently know this.
Laughing Man:Really? Where have I gone wrong?
You basically said a priori is the same as collectivising...where to begin.
Laughing Man:You seem to have some lapse of amnesia before every retort you give. Have I not constantly said there is only that which people will likely to do because of free will?
Contantly? Definitely not.
Laughing Man:No disagreement where? Because that is a compact version of what I have been arguing the whole time.
No, it isn't. You've said quite a bit, that you failed to include.
IRS. Outlook vs actions. Collectivising. Fusion. Suicide. Just off the top...
Juan:Yes, thanks for admitting that much.
Please, quote where I said otherwise.
Juan:The only other relevant point here is that collectivism and libertarianism are polar opposites.
Sure. Going around treating collectivists in collectivist fashion is exactly the opposite of what a libertarian shouldn't do (by your own definition). Why you called it a joke speaks about you. And individualism is the polar opposite of collectivism.
Juan:Collectivists can be libertarians ? No they can't - unless you redefine "libertarian" to mean anybody who doesn't engage in direct violence.
The NAP is the anchor of libertarianism. People may be as stupid and collectivist as they please, they can still be fine libertarians, just stupid individuals.
If you want to define libertarianism as individualism fine, I'll gladly go by voluntyarism.
Angurse:Hatred doesn't necessarily imply violence in any way. Just like love doesn't imply sex.
I think it is more likely to imply violence rather then coexistence.
Angurse:Providing a means isn't using a means.
Exactly. Those who do such actions are defined by their will, not the will of others.
Angurse:I'm not American. But pretty much every April 15th. They can return it, they don't. Thieves.
There is nothing unlibertarian about it if one only looks at libertarianism solely as the NAP
Angurse:. You keep saying you need more than the NAP, really you just don't know the NAP all that well. Transfer has to be voluntary by both parties. Read more.
And the transfer from the IRS to Congress is such. The transfer from the citizen to the IRS isn't. Therefore we are back to only seeing the IRS as transgressors.
Angurse:Congressmen go in to Congress knowing they will receive stolen goods and they know that people are being stolen from guilty knowledge is a given.
They have not stolen it themselves therefore they are not in violation of the NAP. Its as simple as that. You keep on trying to stay a thin libertarian while reaching out with thick libertarian arguments.
Angurse:To not return the money is still theft. They are part of the chain. Read more. A lot more.
I am a thick libertarian so I see the injustice of taxation as a whole. But it goes beyond basic NAP and into the realm of ethics. I am playing devil's advocate to show the futility of believing that the NAP alone is enough to create a libertarian 'society.'
Angurse:Who called him a thin libertarian? Rothbard wrote quite a bit about the receivers of stolen goods, you should apparently know this.
He also deduced a whole ethical system of what libertarianism is. He is not someone who simply says 'Believe in the NAP? You're a libertarian.' He is someone who said 'Believe in the NAP? Ok that's a start.'
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Angurse:You basically said a priori is the same as collectivising...where to begin.
Apriorism is deducing logical and conceptual truths without necessarily experiencing them. Is stating 'All bacholers are not married' a collectivist statement? And if so do you not realize the ramifications of saying such a thing [ that all Austrians, for the Austrian school is based on apriorism, are collectivist ] Such was your statement, that since I have not meet every racist then I know not whether they are inclined to violence. You are demanding I make my assertions aposteri. That I must experience every racist individual before I can make a conceptual truth. Such is not the way of Austrians, such is the way of empiricists.
Angurse:Contantly? Definitely not.
I have said it enough to grow tired of tell you it.
Angurse: No, it isn't. You've said quite a bit, that you failed to include. IRS. Outlook vs actions. Collectivising. Fusion. Suicide. Just off the top...
Well let me first hear where you had no disagreement with my statement before.
Angurse:Sure. A good libertarian doesn't collectivise people, even collectivists.
The NAP is the anchor of libertarianism.
People may be as stupid and collectivist as they please, they can still be fine libertarians, just stupid individuals.
If you want to define libertarianism as individualism fine, I'll go gladly by voluntarism.
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."
Laughing Man:I think it is more likely to imply violence rather then coexistence.
Think all you like, it doesn't really matter. Voluntary separatism might be another approach.
Laughing Man:Exactly. Those who do such actions are defined by their will, not the will of others.
Yes, so both the tax collectors and recievers are responsible.
Laughing Man:There is nothing unlibertarian about it if one only looks at libertarianism solely as the NAP
Only if you don't fully understand the NAP. You didn't read did you?
Laughing Man:And the transfer from the IRS to Congress is such. The transfer from the citizen to the IRS isn't. Therefore we are back to only seeing the IRS as transgressors.
The IRS and congress are part of the same party.
Laughing Man:They have not stolen it themselves therefore they are not in violation of the NAP. Its as simple as that. You keep on trying to stay a thin libertarian while reaching out with thick libertarian arguments.
Stealing it yourself isn't the end. Its as simple as that. You don't understand the NAP, or what thick and thin really means.
Laughing Man:I am a thick libertarian so I see the injustice of taxation as a whole. But it goes beyond basic NAP and into the realm of ethics. I am playing devil's advocate to show the futility of believing that the NAP alone is enough to create a libertarian 'society.'
No it doesn't, you are just filling in your knowledge void with creamy thick libertarianism, without fully understanding the NAP. Further just using the NAP even by your own misunderstanding would still have the same results, as since the IRS cannot take taxes (as you agree) the chain ends there.
Laughing Man:He also deduce a whole ethical system of what libertarianism is. He is not someone who simply says 'Believe in the NAP? You're a libertarian'
And what? He understood recieving stolend goods and libertarian grounds behind it. Now I am not a Rothbardian, but from a Rothbardian stand point the receiver of stolen goods still has an obligation to return stolen goods. They haven't. Thieves.
Angurse: Only if you don't fully understand the NAP. You didn't read did you?
Did you give him something to read or something and then he didn't read it?
wilderness:Did you give him something to read or something and then he didn't read it?
Who has time to read while people are wrong on the internet!?
Juan:Is that supposed to be irony ? As I already stated, to point out that individuals who are racists belong to the 'racist' category is not collectivism, it's just normal language usage. Calling a spade a spade.
Thats not what was pointed out though. It was the calling of all racists as violent that was collectivising - calling a spade a club - that is what you called a joke.
Juan: No. Individuals as ends, not means, is the anchor of libertarianism.
Your opinion. You are conflating individualism with libertarianism.
Juan:Your opinion. As I said, you've redefined libertarian to mean anyone who hasn't committed a crime yet.
Yes, a crime by libertarian standards though.
Juan: I guess it's a good attempt at obfuscation. In your classification anarcho commies are libertarians as well I suppose...?
They could be, sure. Depends on the means they entail.
I mentioned Rothbard, hes got a great big site with a search function right in front of him though.
Angurse:Think all you like, it doesn't really matter. Voluntary separatism might be another approach.
Well self-imposed separation can only last so long. It is rather illogical to not want to exchange as much as possible in order to improve the standard of living.
Angurse:Yes, so both the tax collectors and recievers are responsible.
No just the tax collectors. Who they give the money to is voluntary in nature. If the receivers said 'give me the money or I will kill you' then both would be in the wrong.
Angurse:Only if you don't fully understand the NAP. You didn't read did you?
NAP is the principle that no one has the right to enact violence or the threat of violence upon you.
Angurse:The IRS and congress are part of the same party.
They are in the same institution but that doesn't mean all of congress has power over the IRS, nor does the IRS have any power over Congress.
Angurse:Stealing it yourself isn't the end. Its as simple as that. You don't understand the NAP, or what thick and thin really means.
Coercing individuals is against the NAP obviously. But if X coerces Y and then X gives the funds to Z, then Z is not violating the NAP.
Angurse:No it doesn't, you are just filling in your knowledge void with creamy thick libertarianism, without fully understanding the NAP. Further just using the NAP even by your own misunderstanding would still have the same results, as since the IRS cannot take taxes (as you agree) the chain ends there.
And you are trying to spin out this theory of property justice which is something more then the NAP. When you start saying something besides the NAP is what makes libertarianism, then you are on the road to the 'creamy thick libertarianism.' I'd be happy to guide you, just no hoopla about personal social preference.
Angurse:He understood recieving stolend goods and libertarian grounds behind it. Now I am not a Rothbardian, but from a Rothbardian stand point the receiver of stolen goods still has an obligation to return stolen goods. They haven't. Thieves.
Well if your not a Rothbardian then why did you tell me to read Rothbard? And from Rothbardian standpoint is a standpoint from 'creamy thick libertarianism'
Laughing Man:Apriorism is deducing logical and conceptual truths without necessarily experiencing them. Is stating 'All bacholers are not married' a collectivist statement?And if so do you not realize the ramifications of saying such a thing [ that all Austrians, for the Austrian school is based on apriorism, are collectivist ] Such was your statement, that since I have not meet every racist then I know not whether they are inclined to violence. You are demanding I make my assertions aposteri. That I must experience every racist individual before I can make a conceptual truth. Such is not the way of Austrians, such is the way of empiricists.
That is the definition of a bachelor. Notice the definition of a racist doesn't include violence, nor imply it. There is absolutely nothing logical or deductive about classifying all racists as violent.
Laughing Man:I have said it enough to grow tired of tell you it.
You say it, and then go and completely contradict later, now you are defending collectivism as an a priori.
Laughing Man:Well let me first hear where you had no disagreement with my statement before.
Re-read the posts then.
Angurse:I mentioned Rothbard, hes got a great big site with a search function right in front of him though
Ask anyone around. Apart from my new interest in Roderick Long, I am at heart a Rothbardian. I am a believer in objective natural rights, I don't believe that economics is a value-free discipline. I have all of his books and no doubt someone is going to criticize some of the things I say with Rothbard's Egalitarianism as a Revolt against Nature. Perhaps I am what they call a Left Rothbardian. I will have to research that claim.
Angurse:Thats not what was pointed out though. It was the calling of all racists as violent that was collectivising
Angurse: Juan: I guess it's a good attempt at obfuscation. In your classification anarcho commies are libertarians as well I suppose...? They could be, sure. Depends on the means they entail.
Angurse: wilderness:Did you give him something to read or something and then he didn't read it? I mentioned Rothbard, hes got a great big site with a search function right in front of him though.
You know you can learn by contemplating too. You don't have to read only. You can think for yourself as well. For me, I find the former and latter to have to occur anyways, even if I do read, if I'm going to really digest and take in what I've read. just so you know....
Angurse:That is the definition of a bachelor. Notice the definition of a racist doesn't include violence, nor imply it. There is absolutely nothing logical or deductive about classifying all racists as violent.
Saying all bacholers aren't married is not necessarily a definition of bacholers. For how are we to define bacholers? Simply as being unmarried? Well then according to that alone, women can be bacholers.
Angurse:You say it, and then go and completely contradict later, now you are defending collectivism as an a priori.
A wonderful strawman. You say I have to experience every racist before I make a conceptual truth about whether they are inclined to violence. I say I can do it apriori then suddenly I'm defending collectivism as component of apriorism.
Angurse:Re-read the posts then
Angurse: Laughing Man:No but it is more likely that you commit aggression against a muslim if you have a 'muslims are evil' poster or a 'muslims are far-out people' poster? It is as if a mass of individuals suddenly saw a state apparatus formulating and one person said "We can't do ANYTHING until it actually aggresses us." I say we can and how we do it is logical persuasion and argumentation. Sure. There is no disagreement there.
Laughing Man:No but it is more likely that you commit aggression against a muslim if you have a 'muslims are evil' poster or a 'muslims are far-out people' poster? It is as if a mass of individuals suddenly saw a state apparatus formulating and one person said "We can't do ANYTHING until it actually aggresses us." I say we can and how we do it is logical persuasion and argumentation.
Sure. There is no disagreement there.
Laughing Man:Well self-imposed separation can only last so long. It is rather illogical to not want to exchange as much as possible in order to improve the standard of living.
Unless they find being separated enough of an improvement itself. Or are still fine with trade. Or... Really, this is of no consequence, and its off topic.
Laughing Man:No just the tax collectors. Who they give the money to is voluntary in nature. If the receivers said 'give me the money or I will kill you' then both would be in the wrong. NAP is the principle that no one has the right to enact violence or the threat of violence upon you.
Read more on time-invarient causal relationships, agent causation, and the distinction between human action and behaviour, its deduction from within the NAP. There really isn't any reason why other actors cannot serve as a means for another. Read Block or Van Dunn for a more thorough explanation.
Laughing Man:They are in the same institution but that doesn't mean all of congress has power over the IRS, nor does the IRS have any power over Congress.
All of Congress has power over the IRS, and all Congressmen can return the money.
Laughing Man:Coercing individuals is against the NAP obviously. But if X coerces Y and then X gives the funds to Z, then Z is not violating the NAP.
Read more on time-invarient causal relationships, agent causation, and the distinction between human action and behaviour. Block, Van Dunn for starters.
Laughing Man:And you are trying to spin out this theory of property justice which is something more then the NAP. When you start saying something besides the NAP is what makes libertarianism, then you are on the road to the 'creamy thick libertarianism.' I'd be happy to guide you, just no hoopla about personal social preference.
The NAP is the entire foundation of property justice though, it isn't more, it's just better understanding.
Laughing Man:Well if your not a Rothbardian then why did you tell me to read Rothbard? And from Rothbardian standpoint is a standpoint from 'creamy thick libertarianism'
But you, by admission, are a proponent of thick libertarianism and a fan of Rothbard so its merely an easier way for you. As Rothbard made good points about the receiver of stolen goods, you should read them.
Juan:And where did I do that ?
Follow.
Laughing Man:An a devout racist is not ultimately for aggression? Or at least the sutble art of imposed hierarchical standing through propaganda and indirect violence.
Angurse:You are collectivising.
...
Juan:What a joke. You seem to be complaining about treating racists in a 'collectivist' fashion ? Except that racism is a conscious individual decision ?
Right there. By your own standards, you shouldn't treat anyone in a collectivist fashion, yet you call my objection to such treatment a joke.
Juan:Okay. It also depends on what the meaning of is is. And what's the meaning of "meaning" by the way ?
Is this really that difficult to understand? I mean, English isn't my first language but I seem to be able to keep up fine.
Juan:To recap, racism is collectivism, and collectivism has nothing to do with libertarianism. You can twist definitions all you want. I'm done.
Excellent refutation. How about we just stop using "libertarian" I'll go with Voluntaryist and you go with "Individualist" fair enough?
Laughing Man:Saying all bacholers aren't married is not necessarily a definition of bacholers. For how are we to define bacholers? Simply as being unmarried? Well then according to that alone, women can be bacholers.
A bachelor is, by definition, an unmarried man. So its an a priori than all bachelors are unmarried. Its also an a priori that all bachelors are men.
Laughing Man:A wonderful strawman. You say I have to experience every racist before I make a conceptual truth about whether they are inclined to violence. I say I can do it apriori then suddenly I'm defending collectivism as component of apriorism.
Thats a strawman? I didn't set up any misrepresentation of your positions of any sorts.
Calling all racists violent is an a posteriori, not an a priori, as its not in the definition, you can only justify calling them violent or inclined toward violence by experience or empirical evidence. Since all racists have not been covered, its ultimately collectivising.
Laughing Man: Angurse: Laughing Man:No but it is more likely that you commit aggression against a muslim if you have a 'muslims are evil' poster or a 'muslims are far-out people' poster? It is as if a mass of individuals suddenly saw a state apparatus formulating and one person said "We can't do ANYTHING until it actually aggresses us." I say we can and how we do it is logical persuasion and argumentation. Sure. There is no disagreement there.
Please, keep on going, you've stopped short.
wilderness:You know you can learn by contemplating too. You don't have to read only. You can think for yourself as well. For me, I find the former and latter to have to occur anyways, even if I do read, if I'm going to really digest and take in what I've read. just so you know....
Certainly. Reading seems to help speed up the thought process from my experience though.
How about we just stop using "libertarian" I'll go with Voluntaryist and you go with "Individualist" fair enough ?
Juan:Angurse, Please show where I said that ALL racists are necessarily violent.
I never claimed you did, please show where I made such a claim? However, you did call my objection to the calling of all racists violent (being for aggression) a joke, did you not?
Juan: I asked if you think that anarcho-commies are libertarians. Then you started to quibble, in my opinion. I had enough quibbling for today, so I asked "what the meaning of is is" - that was sarcasm.
Qibble? I already answered that one.
Angurse:They could be, sure. Depends on the means they entail.
Honestly, I cannot speak for all anarcho-commies, I seriously doubt they all are libertarians, but again, yes, they certainly can be.
Juan:I'll use libertarian and individualist. You can do whatever you please =]
Why would you go with that, it seems to make a distinction which isn't necessary from your definition of libertarian. It works for mine well though. But thats great.
However, you did call my objection to the calling of all racists violent (being for aggression) a joke, did you not?
Why would you go with that, it seems to make a distinction which isn't necessary from your definition of libertarian.
Juan:No I didn't. I commented on something you said in response to Laughing Man - but I admit it was a mistake, since he seems to be saying that racists are more likely to use violence.
What, your comment started with "What a joke"? Perhaps I've just assumed too much and it was a more general comment than I thought. No problem.
Juan: At any rate, *I* wasn't making the generalization "all racists are violent".
Again, I never said otherwise.
Juan: I only said all racists are collectivists - which I think we agree.
Absolutely.
Juan: I don't think so. Communism, even voluntary communism (if there's such a thing) is not libertarianism. Of course, you've redefined libertarianism to mean any system which is allegedly 'voluntary'. I do not consider your definition valid, though.
Fair enough. I think your definition is lacking but I'm not going to bicker over a definition.
Juan: Because it highlights the fact that libertarianism and individualism are closely tied and are different from 'voluntary' collectivism.
Highlights? It really sounds like fusion of ideologies more than a complete one, but define as you please.
Angurse:What, your comment started with "What a joke"? Perhaps I've just assumed too much and it was a more general comment than I thought.
It really sounds like fusion of ideologies more than a complete one, but define as you please.
Juan: My apologies. Given what Laughing Man had said your remark was pertinent.
Again, no problem.
Juan:Actually, what seems to be a fusion is your system in which, if I understand you correctly, anarcho-commies, racists, nationalists, classical liberals, etc, are all considered 'libertarians'.
Well, you are kind of missing it, its not so much a fusion of ideologies as it is an adherence to a principle, the NAP. I think there are other tenets of libertarianism, such as property rights, but they still founded on the NAP. They all can be considered libertarians (with the possible exception of nationalists, I'm not quite sure what that is) if they follow the NAP. This being only on dentological grounds, of course. If you want to hold the term to mean something different that seems fine to me. I generally go with Voluntaryist because libertarian has been used to mean so many different things over the years anyways. So it really doesn't matter.
Angurse: Brainpolice:Whereas a thick libertarian with "leftish" cultural inclinations would say that there are independant reasons from the NAP for why things like nationalism are negative - not as an argument for doing away with the NAP, but as an argument for maintaining broader social goals, because social philosophy does *not* entirely revolve around the purely legalistic question of institutional violence. The "thin" libertarians then tend to respond by making the assumption that the only alternative to taking a neutral stance on such social issues is to be for violating the NAP, which is a non-sequitor, and by acting as if the NAP sums up all of social philosophy. Meanwhile, this serves the function of legitimizing the social goals of groups like ethinic nationalists, who will use "thin" libertarianism as a justification for their (nap-independantly objectionable) goals. I think the dispute lies on some people fusing libertarianism with their own personal social preferences and goals and then saying libertarians who don't share similar goals aren't libertarians. At least from what I've read, the only difference "thin" libertarians and "thick" ones is that the thin tend to avoid mixing in their social goals.
Brainpolice:Whereas a thick libertarian with "leftish" cultural inclinations would say that there are independant reasons from the NAP for why things like nationalism are negative - not as an argument for doing away with the NAP, but as an argument for maintaining broader social goals, because social philosophy does *not* entirely revolve around the purely legalistic question of institutional violence. The "thin" libertarians then tend to respond by making the assumption that the only alternative to taking a neutral stance on such social issues is to be for violating the NAP, which is a non-sequitor, and by acting as if the NAP sums up all of social philosophy. Meanwhile, this serves the function of legitimizing the social goals of groups like ethinic nationalists, who will use "thin" libertarianism as a justification for their (nap-independantly objectionable) goals.
I think the dispute lies on some people fusing libertarianism with their own personal social preferences and goals and then saying libertarians who don't share similar goals aren't libertarians. At least from what I've read, the only difference "thin" libertarians and "thick" ones is that the thin tend to avoid mixing in their social goals.
No, "thickness" does not mean that one has to share one's social goals to be a libertarian, it means that libertarianism is concieved of as a part of a broader social philosophy.
Juan:It's not sociology and psychology. It's something called 'individualism' - a philosophical position upon which libertarianism is built. The NAP is an abstraction justified by the fact that individuals have value as individuals, not as members of a tribe, nation, church, commune or whatever collectivist floating abstraction some ideologues may 'prefer'.
Well, this is part of why I argue against the idea that the NAP is an axoim. Because, as you just stated, it is derived from a more fundamental sense of individualist humanism. It seems to lose a lot of weight in the absence of that.
Angurse: Laughing Man:Libertarianism itself is a social preference. Libertarianism is compatible with any set of cultural values that are peaceful and cultural values are a matter of taste.
Laughing Man:Libertarianism itself is a social preference.
Libertarianism is compatible with any set of cultural values that are peaceful and cultural values are a matter of taste.
It does not follow from this that libertarians qua libertarians are required to be neutral to cultural values, as if they cannot have broader social goals which they treat libertarianism as a part of in a bundle of values.
Laughing Man: Angurse:I believe I said people shouldn't fuse libertarianism with their own personal social preferences Yet getting into libertarianism is one's own personal social preference. You are somehow trying to establish that getting into libertarianism as a personal social preference is ok but anything beyond that isn't? Well why isn't it? Do you not see your are still establishing social preference by saying we shouldn't. It is called the performative contradiction.
Angurse:I believe I said people shouldn't fuse libertarianism with their own personal social preferences
Yet getting into libertarianism is one's own personal social preference. You are somehow trying to establish that getting into libertarianism as a personal social preference is ok but anything beyond that isn't? Well why isn't it? Do you not see your are still establishing social preference by saying we shouldn't. It is called the performative contradiction.
The fact of the matter is that *not a single libertarian* completely alienates their libertarianism from their social preferences (and in this sense, "thin" libertarianism is selective and disingenous, in that it is only used when one is objecting to viewing libertarianism through the lense of social preferences that one doesn't want libertarianism to be associated with while one is often implicitly assuming a certain connection between libertarianism and opposition to "cultural liberalism"). It is always tempered by their cultural and economic outlook, which is precisely why there are so many different manifestations of libertarianism. And, as you point out, libertarianism itself is a social preference for non-aggression.
The point is that the NAP by itself is necessary but not sufficient to create a healthy, flourishing and sustainable free society with the most optimal social outcomes (for example, a society full of people who hold to an ideology of traditionalism and subservience/duty is not a desirable social outcome for reasons *other* than the NAP alone, as well as consequentialist considerations that in all likelyhood will make such a society authoritarian in nature in the long-run). There are reasons *other* than the NAP for desiring social outcomes other than non-aggression. Simply because something is non-violent does not make it inherently a good social practise or outcome, nor does it mean that it becomes completely irrelevant from the standpoint of social philosophy, and hence it is simply stupid to take a neutral stance towards social outcomes "so long as the NAP is respected".
"Thin" libertarianism, viewed from a broader philosophical standpoint, is simply too reductionistic in this sense. Trying to reduce the entirety of social philosophy to nothing but a legal question of violence is just oversimplistic and naive. The values of the people in a society have consequences pertaining to how it turns out, and a free society will not magically arise in a cultural vacuum. Furthermore, even if a given society is nominally free, this does not mean that it inherently will be flourishing or have a particularly good social model. The abolition of a given state, by itself, tells us nothing about what kind of social model(s) will arise, and to take a "who cares?" attitude about whatever happens to "emerge" is naive. This is part of why anarchism has traditionally been about more than just anti-statism, in that anti-statism by itself does not encompass the whole of the solution to social problems - being an anti-statist does not give one a free pass to act as if the problem of politics magically ends or as if social philosophy ends at non-aggression. It doesn't.
This is why I'm for more than liberty alone, I'm also for broader social goals *in the context of liberty*.
Brainpolice:No, "thickness" does not mean that one has to share one's social goals to be a libertarian, it means that libertarianism is concieved of as a part of a broader social philosophy.
Which refers to all libertarians as far as I can tell.
Brainpolice:The fact of the matter is that *not a single libertarian* completely alienates their libertarianism from their social preferences (and in this sense, "thin" libertarianism is selective and disingenous, in that it is only used when one is objecting to viewing libertarianism through the lense of social preferences that one doesn't want libertarianism to be associated with while one is often implicitly assuming a certain connection between libertarianism and opposition to "cultural liberalism"). It is always tempered by their cultural and economic outlook, which is precisely why there are so many different manifestations of libertarianism. And, as you point out, libertarianism itself is a social preference for non-aggression.
It really just looks like you are saying that there is no such thing as a "thin" libertarian, and that referring to people as "thin" is candid, to which I agree. But I doubt you'll disagree that some libertarians who argue "louder" than others (paleos, lefts) often conflate their broader social goals and to tend to play the "more libertarian than thou" card, which is what the dispute (that I referred to) seems to be about (at least, constantly collapse into).
Brainpolice: It does not follow from this that libertarians qua libertarians are required to be neutral to cultural values, as if they cannot have broader social goals which they treat libertarianism as a part of in a bundle of values.
Exactly, they all do, and as long as they follow the NAP they are all still very much libertarians. Their broader social goals are just that.
Brainpolice: The point is that the NAP by itself is necessary but not sufficient to create a healthy, flourishing and sustainable free society with the most optimal social outcomes (for example, a society full of people who hold to an ideology of traditionalism and subservience/duty is not a desirable social outcome for reasons *other* than the NAP alone, as well as consequentialist considerations that in all likelyhood will make such a society authoritarian in nature in the long-run). There are reasons *other* than the NAP for desiring social outcomes other than non-aggression.
And in my opinon what exactly constitutes a healthy, flourishing and sustainable free society with the most optimal social outcomes, really comes down to taste.
Brainpolice: Simply because something is non-violent does not make it inherently a good social practise or outcome, nor does it mean that it becomes completely irrelevant from the standpoint of social philosophy, and hence it is simply stupid to take a neutral stance towards social outcomes "so long as the NAP is respected".
I don't recall stating its inherently good, just still libertarian. I'm taking a neutral stance toward defining what makes a libertarian after adherence to the NAP. It doesn't mean I agree with all libertarians or think that any position with adherence to the NAP is good necessarily.
Brainpolice: "Thin" libertarianism, viewed from a broader philosophical standpoint, is simply too reductionistic in this sense. Trying to reduce the entirety of social philosophy to nothing but a legal question of violence is just oversimplistic and naive. The values of the people in a society have consequences pertaining to how it turns out, and a free society will not magically arise in a cultural vacuum. Furthermore, even if a given society is nominally free, this does not mean that it inherently will be flourishing or have a particularly good social model. The abolition of a given state, by itself, tells us nothing about what kind of social model(s) will arise, and to take a "who cares?" attitude about whatever happens to "emerge" is naive. This is part of why anarchism has traditionally been about more than just anti-statism, in that anti-statism by itself does not encompass the whole of the solution to social problems - being an anti-statist does not give one a free pass to act as if the problem of politics magically ends or as if social philosophy ends at non-aggression. It doesn't.
This is getting beside the question of what make a libertarian to what makes a flourishing society.
Brainpolice: This is why I'm for more than liberty alone, I'm also for broader social goals *in the context of liberty*.
As am I, perhaps our social goals just differ a bit.
And I think that's an unjustifiable relativism.
Angurse:A bachelor is, by definition, an unmarried man. So its an a priori than all bachelors are unmarried. Its also an a priori that all bachelors are men.
Ah but you said that saying 'All bacholers are unmarried' IS the defintion of bacholers.
Angurse:Thats a strawman? I didn't set up any misrepresentation of your positions of any sorts.
This is the strawman part:
Angurse:Calling all racists violent is an a posteriori
As I have told you numerous upon numerous time. I said racists are inclined to violence but due to free will they are not all violent at all times.
Angurse:you can only justify calling them violent or inclined toward violence by experience or empirical evidence.
Actually I can logically deduce that if a racist actually shows hatred towards a select race then they are more likely to mistreat that race and show violence towards it.
Angurse:Please, keep on going, you've stopped short.
Stopped short of where? That was my statement and you said 'No disagreement there.' That must infer that somewhere in the statement I presented, you agreed with something I said. What is it?