Political Theory

Re: The Compatibility of Rothbardian and Friedmanite Anarchism

wilderness — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 05:16:56 GMT

Libertyandlife:
This thread seems to have gone a bit off topic....

yeah

Re: The Compatibility of Rothbardian and Friedmanite Anarchism

Sage — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 04:08:28 GMT

Sage:
Then why not at least investigate Long's praxeological ethics?

Whoops. This was also addressed to one J. Grayson Lilburne, who wrote:

J. Grayson Lilburne:
I believe in praxeology.

Re: The Compatibility of Rothbardian and Friedmanite Anarchism

liberty student — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 01:15:30 GMT

Sage:
Then why not at least investigate Long's praxeological ethics?

Did you not understand my answer when you and I discussed this 10 days ago on page one of this thread, or was this just another promote Long post?

Re: The Compatibility of Rothbardian and Friedmanite Anarchism

Libertyandlife — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 00:42:34 GMT

This thread seems to have gone a bit off topic....

Re: The Compatibility of Rothbardian and Friedmanite Anarchism

Sage — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 00:39:30 GMT

liberty student:
It would spare me a lot of frustration if libertarianism could be proven to be ethically right objectively.

Then why not at least investigate Long's praxeological ethics?

Re: The Compatibility of Rothbardian and Friedmanite Anarchism

liberty student — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 00:37:28 GMT

ladyattis:
I'm a moral realist, but being objective/real doesn't mean it's (ethics) a static quasi-positivist science to be turned over to dry as bones syllogism.

OK, that makes good sense to me. Thanks.

Re: The Compatibility of Rothbardian and Friedmanite Anarchism

wilderness — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 00:03:59 GMT

right. and you know this ladyattis. meaning it's a science, ie. episteme, that recognizes that to be human isn't about being strictly an exclusive animal of reason. humans have hearts and feel. that is within the science of human nature, meaning, to know what a human is. well said.

I hold an original definition of science which simply means knowledge. Thus why I said you know (episteme, science) this. I had defined science this way already in this thread.

good day

Re: The Compatibility of Rothbardian and Friedmanite Anarchism

ladyattis — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 23:58:27 GMT

liberty student:
That's interesting, because if I read that right, you're closer to a subjective ethicist (as I explain it up thread) than the objective ethicists with their appeal to absolute ethics (ethical science). Is that correct?

I'm a moral realist, but being objective/real doesn't mean it's (ethics) a static quasi-positivist science to be turned over to dry as bones syllogism. For example, Rand noted emotions seem to be tied to how something is good/evil for a person, such a reference to emotion (perhaps as emotivism) means ethics being a science is a logical impossibility as emotions in this case are rooted in a pre-cognitive function which we as a species inherited from ancestor species (and so forth), outside of the realm of human choice and quite literally outside of the realm of the exacting nature of a purely deductive science.

Re: The Compatibility of Rothbardian and Friedmanite Anarchism

wilderness — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 23:48:49 GMT

i don't appreciate you associating my quote with your argument in the other thread, so, take out my quote in the other thread. It's a strawman and currently intellectually dishonest. I await your timely removal.

Re: The Compatibility of Rothbardian and Friedmanite Anarchism

Daniel James Sanchez — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 23:46:30 GMT

wilderness:
Ethics is a science.

I've responded to this in a new thread: The Ancient Chimera of Universal, Absolute, Objective Value.

Re: The Compatibility of Rothbardian and Friedmanite Anarchism

liberty student — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 23:25:15 GMT

wilderness:
lol... always thinking you know something when you don't. cause you don't know me. and that's a fact.

wilderness:
That's really the heart of subjectivists.

wilderness:
lol... always thinking you know something when you don't. cause you don't know me. and that's a fact.

wilderness:
They pretend they are above the fray, some kind of uncorrupted diety letting others be saved by their grace.

wilderness:
lol... always thinking you know something when you don't. cause you don't know me. and that's a fact.

Re: The Compatibility of Rothbardian and Friedmanite Anarchism

Daniel James Sanchez — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 22:54:33 GMT

DD5:

J. Grayson Lilburne:
He's making the praxeological observation that all men, from business tycoons to missionaries, from philosophers to joe six-pack, from fratboy hedonists to ascetic monks, and from Rothbardian libertarians to Hegelian etatists, by definition, seek to maximize utility.

It is not clear how one can make the distinction between the objective view and the subjective view.

By "seek to maximize utility" I'm sure you are referring to self-interest. We know that if man does not "seek to maximize utility" he is no longer a human being. If he is deprived of "seeking his maximum utility", he cannot survive on his own behalf. We know all this by applying objective reasoning and not subjective reasoning. Therefore, doesn't this imply that the goals of libertarianism are in fact grounded on objectivity and not subjectivity?

"A non-acting thing is not a man" and "If a man's actions are circumscribed enough, he cannot survive" are objective statements of fact.

"All men SHOULD not be circumscribed so that they may survive on their own" is a subjective statement of value.

Re: The Compatibility of Rothbardian and Friedmanite Anarchism

wilderness — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 22:29:27 GMT

Juan:
wilderness:
subjectivists are tryannts. cause they don't even pretend to base their absolutness on 'the public good' or some kind of reason. They get a stamp from some god-like belief system that declares what's law.
Egoism and Anarchy

"The natural-rights proponents argued that respect for the inviolability of other people's rights is a sine qua non of anarchism. Even if the egoist respects anarchist boundaries in practice ' something of which the natural-rightsers felt none too confident ' she must nonetheless reserve in principle an entitlement to impose her will on others should she judge doing so to be in her own interest. Hence the egoist must regard others' freedom as a revocable gift from herself to them, rather than an inherent right; but this is to take the attitude of a ruler to her subjects, not of an anarchist to her peers. The consistent anarchist, the natural-rightsers argued, must reject egoism in favour of a universal and binding moral law."

good quote Juan. That's really the heart of subjectivists. They pretend they are above the fray, some kind of uncorrupted diety letting others be saved by their grace. please

Re: The Compatibility of Rothbardian and Friedmanite Anarchism

wilderness — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 22:25:43 GMT

J. Grayson Lilburne:
...

yeah. it made me upset. i don't hide that fact. I went to bed saying, "we're cool" and woke up with him saying I'm mocking him. So I do ask, 'What the hell happened? really what the hell?

lol... always thinking you know something when you don't. cause you don't know me. and that's a fact.

Re: The Compatibility of Rothbardian and Friedmanite Anarchism

Juan — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 22:25:41 GMT

wilderness:
subjectivists are tryannts. cause they don't even pretend to base their absolutness on 'the public good' or some kind of reason. They get a stamp from some god-like belief system that declares what's law.

Egoism and Anarchy

"The natural-rights proponents argued that respect for the inviolability of other people's rights is a sine qua non of anarchism. Even if the egoist respects anarchist boundaries in practice ' something of which the natural-rightsers felt none too confident ' she must nonetheless reserve in principle an entitlement to impose her will on others should she judge doing so to be in her own interest. Hence the egoist must regard others' freedom as a revocable gift from herself to them, rather than an inherent right; but this is to take the attitude of a ruler to her subjects, not of an anarchist to her peers. The consistent anarchist, the natural-rightsers argued, must reject egoism in favour of a universal and binding moral law."