Political Theory

Re: Libertarianism, classical liberalism, liberalism, anarcho-capitalism

Jackson LaRose — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 20:50:25 GMT

Hell, Stirner was probably pissed he even had to call himself an egoist!

Re: Libertarianism, classical liberalism, liberalism, anarcho-capitalism

Angurse — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 20:48:34 GMT

Even Stirner knew well enough not to be called an "anarchist."

Re: Libertarianism, classical liberalism, liberalism, anarcho-capitalism

Jackson LaRose — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 20:32:15 GMT

Well, my next question would be "why not just be called anarchists then?" , but then I read your sig., so I think i know what you're going to say.

Re: Libertarianism, classical liberalism, liberalism, anarcho-capitalism

Angurse — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 20:27:48 GMT

Jackson LaRose:
Well, then what is the definition of a libertarian? Does that mean we can start calling the natty rights "humanist libertarians"?

There isn't A definition, there are multiple. Natural rights libertarians would be... well, natural rights libertarians or deontological libertarians, to be contrasted with consequentialist libertarians.

Re: Libertarianism, classical liberalism, liberalism, anarcho-capitalism

Jackson LaRose — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 20:21:30 GMT

Angurse:

Jackson LaRose:
I thought that Libertarians by definition (since Rothbard first defined them) believed in natural rights.

No.

Well, then what is the definition of a libertarian? Does that mean we can start calling the natty rights "humanist libertarians"?

Re: Libertarianism, classical liberalism, liberalism, anarcho-capitalism

Jackson LaRose — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 20:19:57 GMT

nirgrahamUK:
I have not categorised individuals into two classes.

The sentient (individuals worthy of rights, since truly human), and the non-sentient (individuals not worthy of rights, since unhuman). I think that's what you were saying, right?

nirgrahamUK:
i will not answer your ridiculous question.

When the going gets tough, the faithful (religious, humanistic) get indignant.

Re: Libertarianism, classical liberalism, liberalism, anarcho-capitalism

Angurse — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 20:14:59 GMT

Jackson LaRose:
I thought that Libertarians by definition (since Rothbard first defined them) believed in natural rights.

No.

Re: Libertarianism, classical liberalism, liberalism, anarcho-capitalism

nirgrahamUK — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 20:12:34 GMT

What I have said is not contradictory. I have not categorised individuals into two classes. i will not answer your ridiculous question.

Re: Libertarianism, classical liberalism, liberalism, anarcho-capitalism

Jackson LaRose — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 20:12:31 GMT

Angurse:
Even libertarians who support anarcho-capitalism don't all support, or believe in natural rights.

I thought that Libertarians by definition (since Rothbard first defined them) believed in natural rights.

Re: Libertarianism, classical liberalism, liberalism, anarcho-capitalism

Jackson LaRose — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 20:09:35 GMT

nirgrahamUK:
I don't believe in human rights but sentient rights. and whatever reverence i hold for the class of individuals (sentient-kind) only stems from the class being composed of sentient individuals.

That seem like a contradictory statement. You have taken a group of individuals you deem worthy of inclusion, then lumped them into an artifical group, for which you have regard, the others, you lump into a different artifical group, for which you have no regard. How is this any different than a communist differentiating between "proletarieat" and "bourgeoisie"?

Re: Libertarianism, classical liberalism, liberalism, anarcho-capitalism

Angurse — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 20:05:09 GMT

Jackson LaRose:
AnCaps and LeftAns are about as close to egoist as you can get in the spectrum of Liberalism, but since they are still hung up on promoting ideas above desire (natural rights for the AnCaps, equality for the Left Ans), they haven't quite totally abolished faith in fixed ideals.

Anarcho-capitalism has nothing to do with natural rights, its just institutions. Even libertarians who support anarcho-capitalism don't all support, or believe in natural rights.

Re: Libertarianism, classical liberalism, liberalism, anarcho-capitalism

Jackson LaRose — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 20:04:43 GMT

Brainpolice:
He's correct insofar as libertarians implicitly embrace some form of humanism in their notions of universal human rights. Relative to Stirnerian standards, that's still a "spook", although perhaps milder than others.

Bingo. Made even worse by he fact that the libertarian abrogates themself to the concept, and extepct/demands others do the same.

Re: Libertarianism, classical liberalism, liberalism, anarcho-capitalism

nirgrahamUK — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 20:01:08 GMT

I don't believe in human rights but sentient rights. and whatever reverence i hold for the class of individuals (sentient-kind) only stems from the class being composed of sentient individuals. so what of my hierarchy of concepts?

Re: Libertarianism, classical liberalism, liberalism, anarcho-capitalism

Brainpolice — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 19:56:17 GMT

nirgrahamUK:

only if you want to abuse terms.

He's correct insofar as libertarians implicitly embrace some form of humanism in their notions of universal human rights. Relative to Stirnerian standards, that's still a "spook", although perhaps milder than others.

Re: Libertarianism, classical liberalism, liberalism, anarcho-capitalism

nirgrahamUK — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 19:52:17 GMT

only if you want to abuse terms.