-
[quote user="William"] "He's not suggesting objective value. He means that people get ahead in capitalism based on their merit, based on who they are. And that leads to inequality because we aren't all the same." Not correct.I'm arguing that the belief in meritocracy- that people can rise up in business,society etc based
-
[quote user="Isaac "Izzy" Marmolejo"] " you are attacking libertarianism as a whole by suggesting this." I'm not. An-cap is not the whole of libertarianism.What I'm really attacking is thin libertarianism which is what most non left libertarianism is- especially An-cap.I'm certainly not uncritical of libertarianism
-
[quote user="Physiocrat"] Scott, can you please define equality? [/quote] in basic terms ,an absence of lessers and betters(or treatment of people as such especially in light of the fact that in certain respects it is true ) in a certain respect (what is generally called dehumanization which is involved in hierarchies) as much as is possible
-
[quote user="Autolykos"] "Thanks for starting this thread, Scott F!" No problems.This was an article I wrote for a site I write on now. "I don't know of any non-left-libertarians who would argue that any statist society is a pure meritocracy" Not a pure meritocracy sure but I've seen some here argue as if some element
-
[quote user="Isaac "Izzy" Marmolejo"] "left Libertarians" remind me most of american politicians... American politicians say, "Yes, the constitution is great, but it isn't enough, we must add in more laws along with the constitution." Just like "Left Libertarians" say , " Yes, the NAP is great
-
When anarchists criticize inequality , others –especially non left libertarians- are quick to dismiss these concerns. We are told individuals are free to rise as far as they desire. We live in a meritocracy after all. This is an incredibly disheartening tactic to hear from a libertarian- an alleged champion of freedom and prosperity. It’s
-
[quote user="Stephen Adkins"] This question begs whether lockeanism or say occupancy and use is vitable or maybe none. " What are the limits to my homesteading it?" It depends on the theory but roughly in the broadest terms you must use it. "Could i just, for example, claim the entire continent by fencing it off, or even just
-
[quote user="Charles Anthony"]Libertarians need to aknowledge the assumptions they make. Personally, I think The Mixing nonsense is so silly. [/quote] The mixing or reformulation kind of lockeanism fails in a number of scenarios most prominently 'self ownership'.
-
[quote user="AJ"] "Action is an attempt to substitute a more satisfactory state of affairs for a less satisfactory one." Mises on pg. 97 of Human Action . Claim : All statements are praxeological statements, and all knowledge is praxeological knowledge. It is only possible to interpret a statement - or to apprehend knowledge - insofar
-
[quote user="AdrianHealey"] "Chess is a game." is a statement, but not a praxeological statement. [/quote] If I understand the above description correctly then using his reasoning "chess is a game" is praxeological in the sense that to play chess you must follow rules of games- chess being a subset of games.