Jon Irenicus:No such thing as a libertine, eh?
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."
Brainpolice:It "converted" just as many libertarians to paleoconservatives and anti-voting anarchists to political libertarians with restored faith in the political process and restored reverance for the constitution, so it's hardly a one way street.
Nonsense, I highly doubt that any market anarchists became constitutionalists upon hearing Ron Paul. Anybody who did become a constitutionalist probably came from a neocon position,which is a step in the right direction. And any anti voting anarchists that have been converted by Paul obviously weren't very sincere if they were converted by the very thing they were again.
Your last point begs the question, you don't show why the political process is bad in the first place.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
That's correct, just like there's no such thing as a witch.
Minus the bit about libertines not having malevolent, supernatural powers... which is what really makes witchery incredible.
dictionary says : libertinism : libertine practices or habits of life; disregard of authority or convention in sexual or religious matters. But it turns out there's no valid authority or valid 'conventions' in sexual or religious matters, so such conventions are purely personal preference. Hence, when A calls B a 'libertine' what A is actually saying is : "what you do is wrong because the mob says it's wrong".
But that definition is abstract in the extreme, and makes no reference to particular habits. So how about fleshing it out, a little?
-Jon
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
John Ess:Because it hits too close to home for you and Giles
Or because it's ridiculous.
What I really like about Molyneux is his passion and emotional commitment to our libertarian cause. Molyneux has dedicated his life to helping the common man to a better, more virtues and free life and he will always have my blessing for doing that.
Libertarians are sometimes very cold and impersonal but Stef isn't, he takes it personal, and I think we can all learn from that even if some of you are Christians or don't like his views on the family (I respect that). And yes, his accent CAN be very irritating!
In some countries during the 19th century, classical liberalism was a mainstream movement welcomed by the majority of productive citizens like workers and buisness men, I want that today! We NEED that today! Stef is trying to organise such a movement (but with an updated version of classical liberalism), and I will always appreciate his confribution for trying to do that, even though I don't always agree with him.
I'm all for a libertarian movement, not so much a Molyneux cult.
GilesStratton: John Ess:Because it hits too close to home for you and Giles] Or because it's ridiculous.
I want to hear you debate Molyneux. Either in video or in audio. Either that or point me towards some of your books or articles. On any subject.
In fact, I'm not going to listen to your replies until you have your shot at trying to embarrass his supposedly ridiculous theories in audio format for all of us to hear. Right now -- as I've said before -- you are talking to the wrong person.
Jon Irenicus:Minus the bit about libertines not having malevolent, supernatural powers... which is what really makes witchery incredible.
But that definition is abstract in the extreme,
and makes no reference to particular habits. So how about fleshing it out, a little?
My point is...both witches and libertines are imaginary creatures...Besides, I seem to recall that the catholic church and protestants did believe in witches ? And today social conservatives seem to believe in 'libertines'...
I caught your point, I'm just curious what substance there is to it.
Uh...Well...I thought that's what definitions are all about, no ? An attempt to capture or abstract general features ?
No, it is too abstract. It offers no specific examples. Is prostitution "libertinism"? Licentiousness? Oral sex or sex with anybody I come into contact with? Drug abuse or just drug use? And so on. Because if your argument is that there are no people with very high time preferences that indulge in activities destructive of their own selves, and damage their credibility toward others... I'm going to have to respond with incredulity. And those are more or less the individuals Hoppe (and perhaps Molyneux) mean by the term "libertinism". It's easy to just paint their view as reactionary conservatism, but Hoppe is making a point about PR here.
John Ess:I want to hear you debate Molyneux. Either in video or in audio. Either that or point me towards some of your books or articles. On any subject.
I've got better things to do than debate your precious idol thanks, no wonder you're an atheist, there's no room for Stefan Molyneux and God in your world.As for my books or articles? In comparison to Molyneux's poor literature I wouldn't have to do much.
[:'(]
GilesStratton: John Ess:I want to hear you debate Molyneux. Either in video or in audio. Either that or point me towards some of your books or articles. On any subject. I've got better things to do than debate your precious idol thanks, no wonder you're an atheist, there's no room for Stefan Molyneux and God in your world.As for my books or articles? In comparison to Molyneux's poor literature I wouldn't have to do much.
:rolls eyes:
"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
Is prostitution "libertinism"?
Because if your argument is that there are no people with very high time preferences that indulge in activities destructive of their own selves, and damage their credibility toward others...
And those are more or less the individuals Hoppe (and perhaps Molyneux) mean by the term "libertinism".
It's easy to just paint their view as reactionary conservatism,
but Hoppe is making a point about PR here.
Juan:Libertinism is a loaded word which implies there's a valid authority in sexual and religious matters. Such belief is a core conservative belief and is, of course, false.
The term libertine by itself does not imply that. Libertine is someone who indulges in activities percieved by his enviroment to be vices. The word itself does not imply that the enviroment is right in its definition of vices or that there is a some sort of final arbiter with authority on deciding what constitutes a vice.
Juan:It's easy because that is what Hoppe's views are. I haven't followed Molyneux close enough to put him in the same bag as Hoppe, though I'll repeat that if he believes in the evil of tattoos he's...confused.
You tell me. I already said that for me the concept(libertinism) is meaningless, so your question can only be a rhetorical question.
No. I want you to answer. You've said it is meaningless. What is meaningless? The definition you provided is, to an extent, meaningless, because it is too broad.
My argument is : the word libertinism has a more or less standard definition, which I provided (by copying and pasting...). Libertinism is a loaded word which implies there's a valid authority in sexual and religious matters. Such belief is a core conservative belief and is, of course, false.
Who cares? The question is what makes a libertine. You've not answered that, and so offered no refutation of the existence of such individuals.
Now, you're claiming that the word libertinism means something else and are conflating unrelated things :
With the definition you offered, I could "conflate" it with just about anything, because it is that vague.
Some people have high time preference -- so what ? Still, libertinism = high time preference is by no means the accepted meaning of the word.
Well considering the activities in question may or may not be linked to things commonly associated with individuals of high TPs...
Some people 'indulge' in activities that, according to you, destroy their own selves ? I suppose that's true for people that commit suicide but I fail to see how things like, say, "oral sex" implies high time preference, or even more ridiculously, self-destruction.
I never said it implies it... as opposed to asking whether it counts as something a libertine would do.
Finally, I'm not even sure what you mean when you say that those actions "damage [libertines'] credibility toward others".
What, exactly, do you think the violation of social conventions entails?
If you're not sure about Molyneux, why bring him ?
To see if I am correct.
It's easy because that is what Hoppe's views are
Not really, considering the point he is making.
PR ?
Duh? Oh right, you probably have no idea what this is all about. As usual.
Marko:In a sense they want their rights to do as they please be respected but would at the same time deny other people their right to form negative opinions of them based on their activities and discriminate against them if they so please.
Juan: I'm only saying that social conservatives are conservatives, not libertarians. Conservatives are free to discriminate based on their narrow minded bigotries and religious superstitions or whatever. But if they do I don't see why they should complain when called bigots. It seems that it is actually conservatives the ones who don't want other people to form opinions about them.
Wait, since when are the two mutually exclusive?
About the title of the thread.
While I think that the term "nerd" is now neutral and thus ok to use, I don't think anyone is a "loser" (or worse that this is terminal). That is not the point about why I am concerned for people who are drug abusers or people who hurt themselves in some other way. I don't care about PR, either. It's more out of empathy that I even offer my opinion about this subject. As I said, if anyone is abusing alcohol or is in some other bad situation... I offer them my condolensces and best wishes. Not that they remove themselves from our "movement", so to speak.
John Ess: About the title of the thread. While I think that the term "nerd" is now neutral and thus ok to use, I don't think anyone is a "loser" (or worse that this is terminal). That is not the point about why I am concerned for people who are drug abusers or people who hurt themselves in some other way. I don't care about PR, either. It's more out of empathy that I even offer my opinion about this subject. As I said, if anyone is abusing alcohol or is in some other bad situation... I offer them my condolensces and best wishes. Not that they remove themselves from our "movement", so to speak.
Why limit it to the movement? Drug addicts should remove themself from society, not just the movement.
GilesStratton: Brainpolice:It "converted" just as many libertarians to paleoconservatives and anti-voting anarchists to political libertarians with restored faith in the political process and restored reverance for the constitution, so it's hardly a one way street. Nonsense, I highly doubt that any market anarchists became constitutionalists upon hearing Ron Paul. Anybody who did become a constitutionalist probably came from a neocon position,which is a step in the right direction. And any anti voting anarchists that have been converted by Paul obviously weren't very sincere if they were converted by the very thing they were again.
I have to agree. This sounds like more of the tripe that BP regularly foists on this forum. I'd like to know one genuine libertarian who was turned to statism by Ron Paul. Just one verifiable example.
Otherwise this is just more strawmen and baiting from the bullshit faction of the movement.
GilesStratton:Why limit it to the movement? Drug addicts should remove themself from society, not just the movement.
Smokers are drug addicts. I don't understand why you hate smokers.
Jon Irenicus:The question is what makes a libertine. You've not answered that, and so offered no refutation of the existence of such individuals.
Jon Irenicus: Juan: If you're not sure about Molyneux, why bring him ? To see if I am correct.
Juan: If you're not sure about Molyneux, why bring him ?
Jon Irenicus: Juan: PR ? Duh? Oh right, you probably have no idea what this is all about. As usual.
Juan: PR ?
GileStratton: Juan: I'm only saying that social conservatives are conservatives, not libertarians. Conservatives are free to discriminate based on their narrow minded bigotries and religious superstitions or whatever. But if they do I don't see why they should complain when called bigots. It seems that it is actually conservatives the ones who don't want other people to form opinions about them. Wait, since when are the two mutually exclusive?
Maybe if you are claiming that they exist, you should prove it ? Oh wait. I'm supposed to prove a negative ? No problem. (Maybe I should also refute the existence of flying pigs...?)
No, I am asking you to flesh your definition out. Not to prove a negative. BTW, it is possible to prove a negative. In fact, that is a proof common in classical logic (--p = p), in addition to simpler things like proving my hair is not blue.
I did answer what makes a libertine according to 'popular wisdom' - Please refer to a dictionary. If the standard definition doesn't suit you, well, too bad.
How can you proceed, on the basis of such vagaries as enunciated by that dictionary, to deny the existence of the libertine?
I provided my own views on the subject : Libertinism is anything social conservatives don't like. As such, it's just an arbitrary category.
It's a convenient way of avoiding saying just what it is Hoppe is conjuring up, here, though.
You then provided a list of actions and here's my comment about them : considering things as drug use (includes wine and beer I suppose ?), prostitution and oral sex as libertinism is laughable. Happy now ?
How about drug abuse? Alcohol abuse? Random sex with strangers? Would these count as libertine? If not, why not?
May or may not ? So your comment may or may not be relevant ? And you may or may not be saying something meaningful ?
No, considering a concrete definition has not been offered, as of yet, it's still an open question as to whether it relates to high TP or not. All you've done really is ranted about the alleged non-existence of a very vaguely defined individual.
How can I answer what an imaginary creature would do ?
Question-begging. You're assuming what you're trying to show.
Entails for whom ? What exactly are you asking ? What exactly are you talking about ? What exactly is a 'social convention' ?
Playing dumb, are we? Entails, for the libertine. A social convention is no less and no more than the mores of a given society, e.g. what it considers acceptable or not, what is likely to result in dissociation with members of this society and so on.
Correct about what ? If you don't know what Molyneux thinks about a given subject maybe you should ask him ? Or google ? Or something ?
Or maybe I should put the idea out on a forum frequented by his followers. Which I did. Nitpicking, as usual.
Haha. I know pretty well what this is all about -- that doesn't mean I've got to waste my time guessing your personal acronyms.
PR is my personal acronym now? It's standard shorthand for "public relations"...
liberty student: GilesStratton:Why limit it to the movement? Drug addicts should remove themself from society, not just the movement. Smokers are drug addicts. I don't understand why you hate smokers.
I don't hate any drug users, I just don't believe they belong in society. As for smokers, there's a huge difference, for one thing tobacco isn't a mind altering substance.
Why does it matter who you want in society?
GilesStratton:I don't hate any drug users, I just don't believe they belong in society. As for smokers, there's a huge difference, for one thing tobacco isn't a mind altering substance.
Try stopping smoking. It does f*** with your mind.
GilesStratton:tobacco isn't a mind altering substance.
John Ess: Why does it matter who you want in society?
Because we don't want any godless homosexuals or smack injectors or rock and roll RPG game players or politicians or people of different colours, or people of mixed breeding, or people who are too smart, and definitely not any people who are super dumb. We don't want to be over run by men, or by women. No enviro-fascists, no liberals, no conservatives. Sick to death of the compassionate, and even more annoyed by Randians.
If there is a way to keep out mouth breathers and people who leave small tips or no tip at all, by all means, let's jettison them too.
Screw the gold bugs and the Keynesians. In fact, if we could just keep a couple hot french maids to look after me, the rest of you can take a long hike off a short pier.
Juan: GilesStratton:tobacco isn't a mind altering substance. So alkaloids such as nicotine are not mind altering ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine
Not in low concentrations, no.
GilesStratton: Juan: GilesStratton: tobacco isn't a mind altering substance. So alkaloids such as nicotine are not mind altering ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine Not in low concentrations, no.
Juan: GilesStratton: tobacco isn't a mind altering substance. So alkaloids such as nicotine are not mind altering ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine
GilesStratton: tobacco isn't a mind altering substance.
I am a carpenter by trade and I read economic books, and history books for fun. I also visit this site regularly but post in the forum sparingly. I enjoy football, beer, women, and politics. I am some what of an outcast at work due to my poor social skills and outright rudeness but I get along just fine. Does any of this qualify my as a nerd?
I thought a nerd was someone who is very passionate to the point of obsessivenesses in one or more pursuits knowledge during life. A marine biologist is a nerd when it comes to fish. Chris Berman is a sports nerd. Rothbard was an economics nerd. I am a carpentry nerd. Or is that called a geek?
I think the main problem in recruiting is we generally spend way too much time debating the accepted definition of words and established theories. It is a contrarian movement and many have a feeling of superiority and smugness towards those who disagree. This is easily seen when listening to the jokes told by Lew or any other contributer to this site and philosophy.
Juan: GilesStratton: Juan: GilesStratton: tobacco isn't a mind altering substance. So alkaloids such as nicotine are not mind altering ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine Not in low concentrations, no. Newsflash : Smokers smoke tobacco because of the alkaloids tobacco contains and the effects those alkaloids produce in the smokers' minds. Tobacco smokers are drug users. Maybe they should be ostracized ?
There's still a large distinction between tobacco and heroin, so no need to ostracize smokers. Homosexuals and drug users will suffice.
GilesStratton:There's still a large distinction between tobacco and heroin, so no need to ostracize smokers. Homosexuals and drug users will suffice.
Juan: GilesStratton:There's still a large distinction between tobacco and heroin, so no need to ostracize smokers. Homosexuals and drug users will suffice. That's quite interesting. Both male and female homosexuals ? Or maybe only male homosexuals will 'suffice'... ?
No, both.
Juan: GilsStratton:There's still a large distinction between tobacco and heroin, so no need to ostracize smokers. Homosexuals and drug users will suffice. That's quite interesting. Both male and female homosexuals ? Or maybe only male homosexuals will 'suffice'... ?
GilsStratton:There's still a large distinction between tobacco and heroin, so no need to ostracize smokers. Homosexuals and drug users will suffice.
Wait. Who cares at all who he wants removed from society?
Obviously, he's just reacting bitterly and not really supposing theory here.
[
liberty student:Because we don't want any godless homosexuals or smack injectors or rock and roll RPG game players or politicians or people of different colours, or people of mixed breeding, or people who are too smart, and definitely not any people who are super dumb. We don't want to be over run by men, or by women. No enviro-fascists, no liberals, no conservatives. Sick to death of the compassionate, and even more annoyed by Randians. If there is a way to keep out mouth breathers and people who leave small tips or no tip at all, by all means, let's jettison them too. Screw the gold bugs and the Keynesians. In fact, if we could just keep a couple hot french maids to look after me, the rest of you can take a long hike off a short pier.
GilesStratton:No, both.
Why do you care? As long as you're free, why do you care how anyone else lives their life? Why do you care what they do in their bedroom?
Homosexuals and drug users will suffice.
Yeah, heaven forbid they make everyone gay, right!? Then what!
Juan: That's putting words in the mouths of 'libertines'...in other words, a straw-man.
That's putting words in the mouths of 'libertines'...in other words, a straw-man.
No it isn't. Having spoken to many self-described libertines, I can tell you that's exactly what it means. They hold as virtuous any act which goes against social norms. They engage in promiscuity because it is reviled by mainstream society. They do drugs for the same reason. And they do it out of spite. They believe that nobody has the right to express disapproval of their activities. They are not anti-aggression, they are anti-assertion. It is an absurd philosophy, and epistimologically baseless. Yet it exists, and there are people who believe in it by name.
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!