Juan: laminustacitus:Either you accidently didn't include theism, if you edit it to include that I will delete all comments against this statement, or you're dogmatic. Either you didn't understand what I said or else you didn't understand what I said. Look, the only utterly dogmatic belief system here is theism because there is NO proof for it. It's pure DOGMA. Theists admit as much, but instead of talking about dogma they call it faith So, try to understand : more or less rational positions such as deism, agnosticism and atheism can be found by rational inquiry. On the other hand, if you never saw a bible there's no way for you to discover/recreate all the nonsense written there : you can't discover it, because it's all made up. I would love to know what you think is 'dogmatic' about my position except that I don't believe in the lies of thousand different revealed religions, which are themselves, by definition, dogmatic.
laminustacitus:Either you accidently didn't include theism, if you edit it to include that I will delete all comments against this statement, or you're dogmatic.
Is there any proof for any of the "rational positions"? The obvious answer is no and it takes faith to be an atheist as it takes to be theist since neither is truly falsifiable, so by merely raising "deism, agnosticism and atheism" above theism in a false manner you display your dogmatism. Rational inquiry is extremely limited in the discipline of theology and it doesn't even lead to any true conclusions, rather it takes faith, which you wrongly associate with only theism, to come to any conclusion in this field. You pretend that's there's concrete proof for your own beliefs so that you don't have to admit that you have at least some similarities with the faith of the theists, and by that you are incredibly dogmatic.
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
Brainpolice: My critiques of Block and plumb-line libertarianism: "Plumbline Libertarianism" Pro and Con More On The Problems Of A Thin Libertarianism Walter Block: Wrong On Religion
My critiques of Block and plumb-line libertarianism:
"Plumbline Libertarianism" Pro and Con
More On The Problems Of A Thin Libertarianism
Walter Block: Wrong On Religion
Marko: Brainpolice: My critiques of Block and plumb-line libertarianism: "Plumbline Libertarianism" Pro and Con More On The Problems Of A Thin Libertarianism Walter Block: Wrong On Religion The first one is really rather a neutral commentary than a critique. On the second you`re right, it wasn`t the most successful sentance. But on the third you`re wrong big-time. And you actually quote Nietzsche? Yuck!
Yes, the first one is kind of neutral, but I point out possible complications facing anyone trying to be a "plumbline" libertarian. In other words, "the plumbline" is completly vague, and hence Block's attempt to appear neutral is misleading.
I didn't quote Nietzsche, I referenced him in name. I am not a Nietzscheian, but I think it's silly to brush his work off entirely. His observations of religious morality and its evolution are incredibly insightful. I think he's commonly misunderstood.
Brainpolice: I didn't quote Nietzsche, I referenced him in name. I am not a Nietzscheian, but I think it's silly to brush his work off entirely. His observations of religious morality and its evolution are incredibly insightful. I think he's commonly misunderstood.
Nietzsche is very insinghtful as a case of what happens when parents don`t spank their brats nearly enough.
Marko: Brainpolice: I didn't quote Nietzsche, I referenced him in name. I am not a Nietzscheian, but I think it's silly to brush his work off entirely. His observations of religious morality and its evolution are incredibly insightful. I think he's commonly misunderstood. Nietzsche is very useful as an insight of what happens when parents don`t spank their brats nearly enough.
Nietzsche is very useful as an insight of what happens when parents don`t spank their brats nearly enough.
So, in other words, you're going to brush him off entirely by going along with the cultural dogma that he was an evil proto-nazi nihilist? A shame.
Juan: I told you your knowledge of this hell hole, sorry, of 'my country' is...incomplete
I don't know, meat from Argentina is excellent.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Dear BrainPolice, admittedly i have only read about the big N secondhand, (i have read some short extracts of his own work first hand but nothing approaching a whole book). Is it not fair to say that whilst contributing a lot in critique of accepted norms and positions, his positive doctrine left a lot to be desired?. (plus the whole proto-nazi thing )
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
nirgrahamUK: Dear BrainPolice, admittedly i have only read about the big N secondhand, (i have read some short extracts of his own work first hand but nothing approaching a whole book). Is it not fair to say that whilst contributing a lot in critique of accepted norms and positions, his positive doctrine left a lot to be desired?. (plus the whole proto-nazi thing )
Again, I'm not a Neitzchian (there's a big different between drawing influence from someone or engaging in a synthesis that involves their ideas on one hand, and being a total devotee to their entire doctrine on the other hand). And the proto-nazi thing comes from the musings of his sister, not him. An in-depth look reveals that he opposed both judeo-christianity and the anti-semites. He even ended his friendship with Wagner over Wagner's anti-semitism. But all of this is sidetracking from what was originally a sidetrack anyways.
well the OP asked for thoughts on Hoppe and mentioned Neitzchian tone, you seem better placed than most to offer an opinion on that subquestion at least
nirgrahamUK: well the OP asked for thoughts on Hoppe and mentioned Neitzchian tone, you seem better placed than most to offer an opinion on that subquestion at least
Well I see some parralels between his "slave morality" concept and Rand's opposition to altruism. Indeed, his extreme epistemological skepticism aside, one can easily see how Rand was at least indirectly influenced by him. Furthermore, he was extremely hostile to democracy and socialism. Another interesting question is the degree to which Max Stirner influenced him, since Stirner was a german and Stirner's egoism predates his own by a number of decades, and Stirner has been influential on anarchists ranging from Benjamin Tucker to none other than Emma Goldman. Personally, I'm far more intrigued by Stirner than Neitzche. As for his philosophy being lacking, to a degree I agree, although I'd point out that despite his appearance of being nihilistic, he functionally very strongly advocated a particular personal morality that was very much like a Greek view (although his emphasis was on many pre-socratics). This is probably because he was a philologist.
Is there any proof for any of the "rational positions"? The obvious answer is no and it takes faith to be an atheist as it takes to be theist since neither is truly falsifiable, so by merely raising "deism, agnosticism and atheism" above theism in a false manner you display your dogmatism.
Rational inquiry is extremely limited in the discipline of theology
Rational inquiry...doesn't even lead to any true conclusions, rather it takes faith, which you wrongly associate with only theism, to come to any conclusion in this field.
You pretend that's there's concrete proof for your own beliefs
so that you don't have to admit that you have at least some similarities with the faith of the theists, and by that you are incredibly dogmatic.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Juan, you get more shrill with each response. You're doing my work for me. Keep it up.
Juan:Sorry, it looks as if you don't know what agnosticism is. Maybe you should look it up and then see if you can honestly claim that revealed religion/theism has the same epistemological status as agnosticism. Again, theism and a-theism are not the only options.
Alas, I cannot falsify whether there is not any evidence for a deity, ergo it is impossible for me to know for sure. Surely one can decide that, with the massive amount of the knowledge mankind has already gathered, that there is no evidence for a deity and ergo no reason to believe in one and become agnostic. Nevertheless, that action of being an agnostic is still an act of faith, albeit faith in that fact mankind will never know if there is a deity and therefore no reason to believe in one.
Juan:I'm not sure what you mean. You can pretend that any idea is just 'faith'. Do I have 'faith' in mathematics/logic ? Do you ? Do you have proof that a=a ? Or is it faith...? Or ?
You don't need faith if, as in the social sciences or mathematics, a theory can be properly deduced, like either economics og eucidean geometry, or, as in the physical sciences, like physics, it is in accord with experimental data, is economical with its assumptions, and is falsifiabe (though would also add that in the physical sciences, with theories being falsifiable and constantly improved, that the prevailing theories on year can be abandoned for a new theory the next). However, what one needs faith for is propositions that can't either be deduced properly or falsified, and the existence of a deity cannot be absolutely proven through either or those methods beyond doubts (I am personally of the belief falsification is the must here, but that can be challenged). Therefore, each individual, in deciding this problem, must rely on their belief and faith that they are correct; even the proposition "a deity might exist" demands faith.
Juan:You pretend that's there's concrete proof for your own beliefs I didn't say what my beliefs are until this very post nor provided any proof, so...
No, but your bias is painfully evident, and your bias is influenced by your beliefs.
Brainpolice: Marko: Brainpolice: I didn't quote Nietzsche, I referenced him in name. I am not a Nietzscheian, but I think it's silly to brush his work off entirely. His observations of religious morality and its evolution are incredibly insightful. I think he's commonly misunderstood. Nietzsche is very useful as an insight of what happens when parents don`t spank their brats nearly enough. So, in other words, you're going to brush him off entirely by going along with the cultural dogma that he was an evil proto-nazi nihilist? A shame.
In "other" words? I don`t do "other" words. I do the words I do.Nietzsche didn`t have basic ethics straight. He was a hysterical child and an intellectual midget. I have nothing to learn from him.
Brainpolice: Indeed, his extreme epistemological skepticism aside, one can easily see how Rand was at least indirectly influenced by him.
Indeed, his extreme epistemological skepticism aside, one can easily see how Rand was at least indirectly influenced by him.
Marko: Brainpolice: Marko: Brainpolice: I didn't quote Nietzsche, I referenced him in name. I am not a Nietzscheian, but I think it's silly to brush his work off entirely. His observations of religious morality and its evolution are incredibly insightful. I think he's commonly misunderstood. Nietzsche is very useful as an insight of what happens when parents don`t spank their brats nearly enough. So, in other words, you're going to brush him off entirely by going along with the cultural dogma that he was an evil proto-nazi nihilist? A shame. In "other" words? I don`t do "other" words. I do the words I do.Nietzsche didn`t have basic ethics straight. He was a hysterical child and an intellectual midget. I have nothing to learn from him. Brainpolice: Indeed, his extreme epistemological skepticism aside, one can easily see how Rand was at least indirectly influenced by him. Of course it is very easy to see how he influenced her. He got her hoked on the same mushrooms he was doing. The feel-like-your-own-personal-god mushrooms.
Hooked on the same mushrooms? Their philosophies significantly differ. Neitzche's egoism is a pluralist egoism, while Rand's is not, and his views on epistemology and metaphysics are almost in the entire opposite of Rand's.
laminustacitus:Alas, I cannot falsify whether there is not any evidence for a deity, ergo it is impossible for me to know for sure. Surely one can decide that, with the massive amount of the knowledge mankind has already gathered, that there is no evidence for a deity and ergo no reason to believe in one and become agnostic.
Nevertheless, that action of being an agnostic is still an act of faith,
However, what one needs faith for is propositions that can't either be deduced properly or falsified, and the existence of a deity cannot be absolutely proven through either or those methods beyond doubts (I am personally of the belief falsification is the must here, but that can be challenged). Therefore, each individual, in deciding this problem, must rely on their belief and faith that they are correct; even the proposition "a deity might exist" demands faith.
Juan: I'm not sure if you've answered this already, so apologies if you have:
a) Is the following scenario incompatible with libertarianism: An individual, or group of consenting individuals, buy or homestead an area of land and set up a conservative religious community where [group] are excluded and those who voluntarily join the group agree not to [activity/lifestyle choice].
b) If you do think there is something wrong with the scenario in a) then what would you "do about it", if anything?
Base model cars of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but quarter-mile races.
Juan:At first sight, what these people do is rather libertarian no ? They respect property rights and use their freedom to live in a way they think is the 'right' way. Fine. But, it seems to me that the second generation, born in that nice little religious community, will be living under a theocracy they did not choose. Is this in line with the spirit, if not the letter of libertarianism ?
Yes.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Juan: Love it or leave it...?
And yet, the difference is that the state does not own the land it claims to, these individuals would.
GilesStratton: Juan: Love it or leave it...? And yet, the difference is that the state does not own the land it claims to, these individuals would.
And you can always buy the community from its owners. You can't do that with a state.
Byzantine: Stranger: And you can always buy the community from its owners. You can't do that with a state. Underscoring the fact that in anarchy, rights will have a value set by the market process rather than being socialized via the state.
Stranger: And you can always buy the community from its owners. You can't do that with a state.
Underscoring the fact that in anarchy, rights will have a value set by the market process rather than being socialized via the state.
Does your right to not be raped have a value set by the market process?
I am an eklektarchist not an anarchist.
Educational Pamphlet Mises Group
GilesStratton:And yet, the difference is that the state does not own the land it claims to, these individuals would.
I said that such a community may formally comply with libertarian law. On the other hand I would never regard people who are obsessed with suppressing all dissident thought as libertarian people. Rather I'll consider them totalitarians in the realm of ideas.
I think this is fair enough. I mean, a similar scenario would be a voluntary communist enclave or something. We wouldn't consider the people necessarily to be libertarian, but as long as they weren't agressing others then it'd be ok.
Byzantine: ryanpatgray:Does your right to not be raped have a value set by the market process Yes. Guns or men willing to use them on your behalf cost money but you can probably get either for pretty cheap. And protection from rape comes with the territory for female family members. On the other hand, good luck finding someone willing to protect your right to purchase child pornography.
ryanpatgray:Does your right to not be raped have a value set by the market process
Yes. Guns or men willing to use them on your behalf cost money but you can probably get either for pretty cheap. And protection from rape comes with the territory for female family members.
On the other hand, good luck finding someone willing to protect your right to purchase child pornography.
And a child may not have such money. A child may be held captive by the very person raping him or her.
I wonder what is actually under dispute in this thread
FreedomIsYellow:I think this is fair enough. I mean, a similar scenario would be a voluntary communist enclave or something. We wouldn't consider the people necessarily to be libertarian, but as long as they weren't agressing others then it'd be ok.
Byzantine:Underscoring the fact that in anarchy, rights will have a value set by the market process rather than being socialized via the state.
Juan: communism is based on allegedly rational principles
...
nirgrahamUK:I wonder what is actually under dispute in this thread
ryanpatgray: And a child may not have such money. A child may be held captive by the very person raping him or her.
I don't understand what you're trying to say here, that children require the protection of their parents?
GilesStratton: Juan: communism is based on allegedly rational principles ...
Stranger: ryanpatgray:And a child may not have such money. A child may be held captive by the very person raping him or her.I don't understand what you're trying to say here, that children require the protection of their parents?
ryanpatgray:And a child may not have such money. A child may be held captive by the very person raping him or her.
Byzantine:Most adult men worth their salt would kill a child rapist upon detection were it not for the state's ruthless persecution of any enforcement of justice outside its coercive monopoly.
Which is why the best thing that could happen right now is for the state to declare murder legal.