Sphairon: I'm a German Catholic post-Paulian Hoppean secessionist nonarchist in the Rothbardian tradition. I also like pizza.Will I be purged in anarchy?
I'm a German Catholic post-Paulian Hoppean secessionist nonarchist in the Rothbardian tradition. I also like pizza.Will I be purged in anarchy?
As I said, anarchy simply allows the possibility of escaping being purged. However, if that particular anarchy makes it really hard for you to protect yourself, let's say due to uniform laws, it's not an anarchy anymore.
Again, anarchy implies some degree of panarchism, i.e. the possibility of multiple jurisdictions in the same place and time. Once you rule that out, that's no longer an anarchy, though it may be quite a libertarian society. It's simply a voluntarily-funded government, but still a government, which has a monopoly over laws given by the mob rule. The laws might no longer arise from human action or conflict prevention, but from the whims of those paying for that service.
Of course, any group of people can go and set up their own non-pizza-eating, non-Catholic community. But if that's truly an anarchy, then there are no strong guarantees the moral code they've imposed won't disintegrate over time. Saying otherwise would be just as egalitarian/leftist/<insert derogatory term here> as BP is claimed by others to be.
Juan:at least it's not an idea as absurd as equating conservatism, the historical arch-enemy of freedom, with the freedom movement itself.
You're equivocating, it's clear I'm talking about cultural conservatism instead of political conservatism, as you are.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Jon Irenicus: Women are a historically oppressed group, and continue to be in many places. It makes sense for a group undergoing a similar phenomenon to have a common cause to unite in. So it's misleading to paint feminism as collectivist, as much as it is misleading to paint any group with a common cause as such. Their means tend to be collectivist, but that's just a sign of intellectual confusion.
Women are a historically oppressed group, and continue to be in many places. It makes sense for a group undergoing a similar phenomenon to have a common cause to unite in. So it's misleading to paint feminism as collectivist, as much as it is misleading to paint any group with a common cause as such. Their means tend to be collectivist, but that's just a sign of intellectual confusion.
It's not misleading. You admit that their means tend to be collectivist, and they are organized along collectivist lines. I'm not sure everyone would be willing afford the same leeway of collectivist ideology and intent to white nationalists that they do feminists.
That is exactly why we are libertarians, because we don't advocate for liberty for one group, but for all.
It's the same reason I can't get down with agitating for unions or labour, when I know that capitalists are getting a bad end of the deal as well.
Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu:Saying otherwise would be just as egalitarian/leftist/<insert derogatory term here> as BP is claimed by others to be.
To clarify, BP admits he identifies left, and I believe he may also have identified as egalitarian.
It's not so much a claim, as a statement of fact, like BP has curly hair or BP is male.
Well to be fair, liberty would benefit all groups that do not wish to impose their ends coercively upon others, so if I were trying to convert a WN I would try make my arguments pertinent to their concerns and make them understand why coercive means do not work. Same with feminists. The solution to their problem (i.e. the oppression of women) is the end of the state - and some feminists like Wendy McElroy recognize that.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
liberty student: Jon Irenicus: Women are a historically oppressed group, and continue to be in many places. It makes sense for a group undergoing a similar phenomenon to have a common cause to unite in. So it's misleading to paint feminism as collectivist, as much as it is misleading to paint any group with a common cause as such. Their means tend to be collectivist, but that's just a sign of intellectual confusion. It's not misleading. You admit that their means tend to be collectivist, and they are organized along collectivist lines. I'm not sure everyone would be willing afford the same leeway of collectivist ideology and intent to white nationalists that they do feminists.
BP will insist there can be different interpretations of property rights, different systems, but that doesn't change that property is what it is. You can have your own opinion, but not your own facts. Property is what it is, and within that, we try to deal with it in the most rational manner. Just because a bunch of people band together and decide to create a system, be it Christianity or Marxism, doesn't change the fundamentals of the universe.
Actually my primary argument has been that there can be different forms of organization that are consistant with the same theory of property rights. A worker's coop or union can be consistant with neo-lockean property rights. It is the tendecy of you and some others to dismiss such things out of hand that is mistaken. It is erroneous to conflate neo-lockean property rights with the singular buisiness model that you prefer, to conflate property rights itself with your preferential buisiness model.
Feminism by definition is collectivism along gender lines. To argue otherwise is pretty embarassing for you.
No, feminism is not collectivism along gender lines by definition any more than libertarianism is collectivism along political lines by definition. That is your bias. Gender feminism fits your definition, but not the whole of feminism. Wendy McElroy and Rockerick Long are not collectivists.
Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu: Since I'm getting the impression that some people mix things too much, I'll say this: libertarianism is a goal, anarchism is a means of achieving that goal, although they overlap a lot. Let's have a simple example. Libertarianism may imply that eating pizza is a negative right that should always be there (not that someone should enforce them), while anarchism simply allows the possibility (and to some extent the probability) of protecting that right. So libertarianism is an ideal, not a mechanism. If I got it right, BP might be talking about such ideals and principles and the others dismiss him as being an egalitarianist, believing he wants to enforce that equality in rights somehow. It may be an unintentional straw man from their part.
Since I'm getting the impression that some people mix things too much, I'll say this: libertarianism is a goal, anarchism is a means of achieving that goal, although they overlap a lot. Let's have a simple example. Libertarianism may imply that eating pizza is a negative right that should always be there (not that someone should enforce them), while anarchism simply allows the possibility (and to some extent the probability) of protecting that right. So libertarianism is an ideal, not a mechanism.
If I got it right, BP might be talking about such ideals and principles and the others dismiss him as being an egalitarianist, believing he wants to enforce that equality in rights somehow. It may be an unintentional straw man from their part.
My position has consistantly been that libertarianism as a social theory inherently implies equal negative rights for humam beings. The relavant concepts like the NAP, self-ownership and homesteading apply to a human being, not to a specific group at the exclusion of others. My position has also been that the consistant application of these concepts generally also leads to the things associated with "positive liberty", I.E. increases in oppurtuities and benefits for the masses. Not once have I endorsed the theory of positive rights, however, I have only established negative rights as a context for providing the positive benefits that people desire. All I am doing is logically applying and extending upon the principles.
Right, and this means that there is a historical reason for the existance of feminism beyond a mere irrational collectivism. There is nothing inherently wrong, collectivist or unlibertarian about the social cause of protecting the interests of women in and of itself. I would wager that earlier on, this social movement was more rational, because its reason for existing was much more obvious and it was more focued on removing legal constraints that effected women (and hence a cause perfectly compatible with libertarianism). Unfortunately, in some ways the feminist movement certainly devolved into a collectivist form of identity-politics. But still, this doesn't mean that feminism as a whole is that way, and it doesn't necessarily mean that feminism has no sensibility as a social cause. That loony leftist Herbert Spencer sure wasn't a collectivist, yet he endorsed early feminism.
GilesStratton:It's clear I'm talking about cultural conservatism instead of political conservatism, as you are.
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."
Jon Irenicus:Well to be fair, liberty would benefit all groups that do not wish to impose their ends coercively upon others, so if I were trying to convert a WN I would try make my arguments pertinent to their concerns and make them understand why coercive means do not work. Same with feminists. The solution to their problem (i.e. the oppression of women) is the end of the state - and some feminists like Wendy McElroy recognize that.
Wendy McElroy recognizes it because she is a libertarian/anarchist. Not because she is a feminist. This is the sort of collectivist conflation with libertarianism that really bothers me. I'm not talking about converting anyone. I'm saying that the same rationale (perception or reality of group oppression via the state) applied to WNs as feminists if that is the argument.
And surprisingly, the PC left have neglected to respond to that, because of course, they will support feminism, but not WN even if their rationale (not yours Jon) applies equally to both.
Apparently its fun when we arbitrarily pick and choose our causes and allies, and then claim the moral high ground of radical liberal forward thinking-ness.
liberty student: Jon Irenicus:Well to be fair, liberty would benefit all groups that do not wish to impose their ends coercively upon others, so if I were trying to convert a WN I would try make my arguments pertinent to their concerns and make them understand why coercive means do not work. Same with feminists. The solution to their problem (i.e. the oppression of women) is the end of the state - and some feminists like Wendy McElroy recognize that. Wendy McElroy recognizes it because she is a libertarian/anarchist. Not because she is a feminist. This is the sort of collectivist conflation with libertarianism that really bothers me. I'm not talking about converting anyone. I'm saying that the same rationale (perception or reality of group oppression via the state) applied to WNs as feminists if that is the argument. And surprisingly, the PC left have neglected to respond to that, because of course, they will support feminism, but not WN even if their rationale (not yours Jon) applies equally to both. Apparently its fun when we arbitrarily pick and choose our causes and allies, and then claim the moral high ground of radical liberal forward thinking-ness.
You're still setting up a false dichotomy (in this case, between feminism and libertarianism). Wendy McElroy is both a feminist and a libertarian. If you are unable to conceptualize that, then that's your problem.
Brainpolice:You're still setting up a false dichotomy (in this case, between feminism and libertarianism). Wendy McElroy is both a feminist and a libertarian. If you are unable to conceptualize that, then that's your problem.
If feminism was libertarianism, she would not title herself redundantly (admittedly being a very intelligent person).
I'm curious to know BP, what do you feel feminism provides that libertarianism does not?
Juan:Your elitism and hereditary natural elites are features of political conservatism
Yes, and? I could quite as easily claim that your pro drug stance are features of political liberalism, I would be correct. The sentence would, however, be meaningless to quite a great extent.
Juan:despite the (unfounded) claim that this new conservatism will be 'voluntary'.
Well, the voluntary part makes all the difference. That's a very nice thing you do there Juan, claiming anything you disagree with to be unfounded. Perhaps you don't speak such good English so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, go read the topic over again.
Juan:If there are cultural preferences associated with libertarianism such preferences surely are likely to be in line with free-thinking and trying new things instead of sticking to arbitrary traditionalism and "respect for authority".
"Trying new things", what exactly would that be? Attempting to take as many drugs are possible and jumping off a bridge? That's a very sustainable lifestyles Juan.
GilesStratton:"Trying new things", what exactly would that be? Attempting to take as many drugs are possible and jumping off a bridge? That's a very sustainable lifestyles Juan.
Stop trolling. All you are doing is inflaming discussion and bringing down the quality of the debate.
Charles Anthony:That is an absurd extra-polation of the post you quoted.
How so? Juan has some silly idea of libertarian culture flying in the face of "conservatism" without being able to support it. I fail to see why I can't ridicule this silly position.
GilesStratton:You're equivocating, it's clear I'm talking about cultural conservatism instead of political conservatism, as you are.
GilesStratton:Yes, and ?
GilesStraton:I could quite as easily claim that your pro drug stance are features of political liberalism, I would be correct.
GilesStratton: Juan: ...despite the (unfounded) claim that this new conservatism will be 'voluntary'. Well, the voluntary part makes all the difference.
Juan: ...despite the (unfounded) claim that this new conservatism will be 'voluntary'.
Juan has some silly idea of libertarian culture flying in the face of "conservatism" without being able to support it.
I fail to see why I can't ridicule this silly position.
liberty student: Brainpolice:You're still setting up a false dichotomy (in this case, between feminism and libertarianism). Wendy McElroy is both a feminist and a libertarian. If you are unable to conceptualize that, then that's your problem. If feminism was libertarianism, she would not title herself redundantly (admittedly being a very intelligent person). I'm curious to know BP, what do you feel feminism provides that libertarianism does not?
You're trolling me still and not comprehending my point, so I really should ignore your rhetorical question. But I won't.
The argument was NOT that "feminism is the same thing as libertarianism". The argument was that someone can be both at once, that the two are not absolutely mutually exclusive or inherently contradictary as you seemed to imply they are. So your argument is simply a bad one and a misleading one, since you're not responding to my argument.
Feminism is a more specific social cause. If one has concerns with regaurd to that specific social cause, feminism can possibly provide appeasement of those concerns where libertarianism by itself as a neutral social theory cannot. On the other hand, there is no natural law that libertarianism as a social theory is inherently incompatible with the social cause of feminism, and there is no reason why the social cause of feminism cannot be fitted into a libertarian context.
I for one am not a feminist. It has never particularly been a pet issue of mine. But I am aware of the degree to which the negative rights of women is a perfectly valid cause, I can see the historical reasons why a feminist movement would come about in the first place and I am aware of libertarian feminists as a separate category from PC gender feminists.
Brainpolice:The argument was NOT that "feminism is the same thing as libertarianism".
Ok cool.
Brainpolice:The argument was that someone can be both at once, that the two are not absolutely mutually exclusive or inherently contradictary as you seemed to imply they are.
Well than I was hoping that you would fill me in on the positives of feminism. Maybe I should be a feminist as well.
Brainpolice:If one has concerns with regaurd to that specific social cause, feminism can possibly provide appeasement of those concerns where libertarianism by itself as a neutral social theory cannot.
But I thought you argue that libertarianism is not neutral.
Brainpolice:But I am aware of the degree to which the negative rights of women is a perfectly valid cause, I can see the historical reasons why a feminist movement would come about in the first place and I am aware of libertarian feminists as a separate category from PC gender feminists.
Would you feel the same way about white nationalism? If not, why not? What is the difference between white nationalism and feminism?
In the sense that a feminist argues for the equal freedom (in a state especially equality before the law) for women and men, a libertarian would automatically be a feminist. When feminism gets twisted to mean something else (e.g. equal pay legislation, quotas etc) then it is not strictly feminism; feminism is about equality, and this is essentially raising the status of women above men in the law. Many feminists would accept this distinction.
Equally, insofar as white nationalism advocates equality before the law (in a state) and equal freedom for whites, I would say I am a white nationalist. If it were to go farther and call for the expulsion of blacks, hispanics, asians, africans etc, then WNs would be asking for a higher status than others. As WNs always do want to end free movement of peoples, end free association, then their views are clearly qualitatively different than those of the truest strain of feminism.
To re-state; feminism = equal freedom for women.
The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can't tolerate a libertarian community.
Wouldn't that make the term "libertarian feminist" uneccessarily redundant, then?
One can be a "libertarian feminist/WN" in that one may think libertarianism might be the means most conducive to solving that group's problems, as opposed to means typically proposed. Libertarianism is the means, not necessarily the end, whereas feminism for example has as an end to terminate systematic bias against women. Many feminists think the state is needed for this, whereas those like McElroy or Long think social change effected through voluntary means is sufficient, and that at any rate using violent means would be unjust. So I wouldn't say it's redundant.
Jon Irenicus: One can be a "libertarian feminist/WN" in that one may think libertarianism might be the means most conducive to solving that group's problems, as opposed to means typically proposed. Libertarianism is the means, not necessarily the end, whereas feminism for example has as an end to terminate systematic bias against women. Many feminists think the state is needed for this, whereas those like McElroy or Long think social change effected through voluntary means is sufficient, and that at any rate using violent means would be unjust. So I wouldn't say it's redundant.
True.
But isn't Libertarianism also in a sense an end, in that it's end is liberty?
sirmonty: Wouldn't that make the term "libertarian feminist" uneccessarily redundant, then?
Well it would - but I was speaking of a world in which most people or everyone kept to my definition of what feminism is. If feminism merely meant libertarianism in a very specific way, as I argued, then you are entirely right.
Hey BP, are you up for my proposed debate with Giles? He's expressed his willingness to so if you refuse to debate him formally I believe it will be taken as an admission that your beliefs are false.
The atoms tell the atoms so, for I never was or will but atoms forevermore be.
Yours sincerely,
Physiocrat
Juan:So it turns out I'm not equivocating. Rather, you're trying to paint your political system as if it were just a 'cultural preference', but it is not.
The leftists love to shout abot how libertarianism and socialism have the same ends, they just favour different means. So unless you're claiming that because two things may have similiarities they are identical, yes, you are equivocating.
Juan:You wouldn't. Taking drugs or not is a private, individual decision and has nothing to do with the way society is organized (politics).
You're deluded, the choices people make have everything to do with the consequences they may have. And, without doubt, the way society is organized impacts the consequences of an action.
Juan:The thing is, feudalism, traditionalism, hierarchy and authority were and are maintained at the point of a gun (or a sword).
That's just not the case, actually the opposite is true. What you label traditionalism is being destroyed by the state. The state takes people's children and forces them into public schools, denying that this weakens the family is absurd. I'm going to assume that you've read Nock, he makes the point that as the state grows social power is weakened, in this case the natural, spontaneous hierarchies that exist in a free society are replaced by fake, state sponsored "hierarchies".
You'd better work on giving more power to the central state because you're going to be thoroughly disappointed with a stateless society.
Juan:They are also maintained using more subtle coercive means, such as religious fraud and children manipulation (mislabeled as 'education').
It's a shame that one of the few things Argentina has going for it is that it is one of the most religious countries on this planet, unfortunately you haven't followed the good example of the rest of your country in this regard. And yes, children are manipulated in schools, they're taken away from their parents and their family, who previously would have had the right to choose how they're educated and given to the state who then chooses how to educate them, of course that weakens the family.
Juan:Let's see. You claimed that in a stateless society "land would be more expensive" so renting would be preferable to buying. Did you explain why higher land prices won't lead to higher rents ? I feel tempted to call your economic analysis 'silly'...
It's called time preference, perhaps you've not heard of it.
Yes, it is, but that doesn't mean one can't support additional ends (or ones constitutive of it, as it were.) Primarily it is a means, however.
Thedesolateone:As WNs always do want to end free movement of peoples, end free association, then their views are clearly qualitatively different than those of the truest strain of feminism.
Isn't this a bit of a canard? I'm no expert on WN, but from what I have seen, a lot of them just want to be left alone to do their own thing, certainly outside the state. My understanding is that a key component of white nationalism is the superiority of the race, and thus open competition would render their desired result.
Thedesolateone:Equally, insofar as white nationalism advocates equality before the law (in a state) and equal freedom for whites, I would say I am a white nationalist.
Thedesolateone:In the sense that a feminist argues for the equal freedom (in a state especially equality before the law) for women and men, a libertarian would automatically be a feminist.
But doesn't libertarianism already encompass this? I'm wondering why someone would have to identify as libertarian and feminist/wn-ist. I think it is safe to say that a libertarian by definition has to be for racial and sexual equality. So what additional facets of these collective systems exist outside libertarianism?
Physiocrat: Hey BP, are you up for my proposed debate with Giles? He's expressed his willingness to so if you refuse to debate him formally I believe it will be taken as an admission that your beliefs are false.
I don't know if I added my voice to this, but I think it's a spectacular idea. It could be very entertaining and get people interested and involved.
GilesStratton:What you label traditionalism is being destroyed by the state. The state takes people's children and forces them into public schools, denying that this weakens the family is absurd. I'm going to assume that you've read Nock, he makes the point that as the state grows social power is weakened, in this case the natural, spontaneous hierarchies that exist in a free society are replaced by fake, state sponsored "hierarchies".
This is not directed at Juan, or even the current discussion specifically. I wanted to point out that the elimination of the state, but maintenance or supremacy of the state ideals of zero social cohesiveness really bother me.
I don't want to live in a formless society. I want forms to emerge, so I can choose and participate with the best of them. The issue here is that the debate about family or church, anti-hierarchical relationships etc, undermines the validity of structures in general.
By all means we should stand against coercive structures, but anything voluntary should be treated with the same reverence we all claim to hold for the broader concept of individual liberty. To do otherwise, would be uncivilized.
But, LS, are the conservative ideas of family and church the only forms that are possible? I would think not. This goes with what I was saying about mutual aid societies earlier. The elimination of the state will open up social organization and expression to a degree that has never been seen in human history, rather than restricting it to idealized versions of past social orders. That's not to say that churches or traditional families won't exist; they probably will. However, those will no longer be the only accepted forms of organization, simply because there is no state to punish non-conformers.
Market anarchist, Linux geek, aspiring Perl hacker, and student of the neo-Aristotelians, the classical individualist anarchists, and the Austrian school.
wombatron: But, LS, are the conservative ideas of family and church the only forms that are possible? I would think not. This goes with what I was saying about mutual aid societies earlier. The elimination of the state will open up social organization and expression to a degree that has never been seen in human history, rather than restricting it to idealized versions of past social orders. That's not to say that churches or traditional families won't exist; they probably will. However, those will no longer be the only accepted forms of organization, simply because there is no state to punish non-conformers.
Well that's part of my whole problem with this traditionalist approach to libertarianism - it's about bringing back an idealized vision of past social orders. I see this as irrational because this romanticized vision of the past is utter nonsense and the idea of going back to how things were before makes no sense when the entire purpose of the political philosophy is to tear down the already established power structures. Furthermore, the reality of these past social orders was generally oppresive, not some kind of libertarian ideal. The idea of opposing the state only for the purpose of bringing it back in an older form bothers me.
liberty student: Thedesolateone:As WNs always do want to end free movement of peoples, end free association, then their views are clearly qualitatively different than those of the truest strain of feminism. Isn't this a bit of a canard? I'm no expert on WN, but from what I have seen, a lot of them just want to be left alone to do their own thing, certainly outside the state. My understanding is that a key component of white nationalism is the superiority of the race, and thus open competition would render their desired result. Thedesolateone:Equally, insofar as white nationalism advocates equality before the law (in a state) and equal freedom for whites, I would say I am a white nationalist. Thedesolateone:In the sense that a feminist argues for the equal freedom (in a state especially equality before the law) for women and men, a libertarian would automatically be a feminist. But doesn't libertarianism already encompass this? I'm wondering why someone would have to identify as libertarian and feminist/wn-ist. I think it is safe to say that a libertarian by definition has to be for racial and sexual equality. So what additional facets of these collective systems exist outside libertarianism?
1. Well, I'm not 100% sure what WNs are like "nowadays". But they often lynched, supported anti-immigration government policies, attacked the employment of immigrants etc.
2. You're right of course - and that's why I merely call myself a libertarian. I was merely pointing out that the terms libertarian and feminist are not mutually exclusive.
GilesStratton: Juan:Let's see. You claimed that in a stateless society "land would be more expensive" so renting would be preferable to buying. Did you explain why higher land prices won't lead to higher rents ? I feel tempted to call your economic analysis 'silly'... It's called time preference, perhaps you've not heard of it.
I can see many reasons why the price of land would fall, as well as reasons why the price of land would rise. For example Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac underwrote or directly supported 90% of mortgages last year - surely this would lead to lower house prices, due to lower availability of mortgages (to unsuitable candidates, but the point still stands). While of course, this itself may lead to higher levels of renting (due to the inability to get a mortgage and buy a house), I don't think your points on uncertainty are as important as the ability to actually get a mortgage. Time preference only affects the price relations between renting and mortgage payments, so in order to have as high levels of renting as you predict, I imagine rents would have to be very low, and mortgage availability would have to be very low.
Do you disagree?
GilesStratton:It's a shame that one of the few things Argentina has going for it is that it is one of the most religious countries on this planet, unfortunately you haven't followed the good example of the rest of your country in this regard.
GilesStratton: Juan: You claimed that in a stateless society "land would be more expensive" so renting would be preferable to buying. Did you explain why higher land prices won't lead to higher rents ? I feel tempted to call your economic analysis 'silly'... It's called time preference, perhaps you've not heard of it.
Juan: You claimed that in a stateless society "land would be more expensive" so renting would be preferable to buying. Did you explain why higher land prices won't lead to higher rents ? I feel tempted to call your economic analysis 'silly'...
Brainpolice:Well that's part of my whole problem with this traditionalist approach to libertarianism - it's about bringing back an idealized vision of past social orders.
It's about reaching a social order that we've yet to see, a social order that resembles one that has previously existed. Amusingly, these social orders also existed when the state was considerably smaller.
Brainpolice:I see this as irrational because this romanticized vision of the past is utter nonsense and the idea of going back to how things were before makes no sense when the entire purpose of the political philosophy is to tear down the already established power structures.
No you're wrong, the entire purpose of political philosophy has nothing to do with tearing down anything. How very revealing however.
Brainpolice:Furthermore, the reality of these past social orders was generally oppresive, not some kind of libertarian ideal.
If you feel these social orders are oppresive, you'd best content yourself with the state.
Physiocrat:Hey BP, are you up for my proposed debate with Giles? He's expressed his willingness to so if you refuse to debate him formally I believe it will be taken as an admission that your beliefs are false.