Political Theory

Re: A Left Libertarian Manifesto.

Autolykos — Fri, 28 Jan 2011 15:23:48 GMT

liberty student:
I'm a voluntaryist. You can't make me answer questions.

You're right, I can't. But I'm actually not trying to, either.

liberty student:
Sure, you can ask question after question as you are wont to do, and then when people tire of answering you, accuse them of intellectual dishonesty, but I don't think that's a social way to operate.

Then I suppose debates aren't "social" in your view. That's fine. On the other hand, plenty of distasteful things (like dishonesty) happen all too often in social interactions.

liberty student:
The debate is over when one person doesn't want to participate, and I can't see how it is in anyone's best interest to try to force debates with people who simply do not want to talk to you, or have lost interest in the topic.

You're right, it takes (at least) two to tango in a debate. Again, I haven't been trying to force you to answer my questions. But I did (and do) feel obliged to make my judgement of your non-response known.

liberty student:
You're welcome to try to shame and attack me, but I feel pretty secure in my relationships around here that no one who matters is going to question my willingness to debate sincerely and passionately.

Are you insinuating that I have been trying to shame and attack you? From what I can tell, I haven't been. You seem to be trying to shame and attack me, however.

liberty student:
Ultimately, you're going to fail at making me look bad, and like anyone who tries to force involuntary behavior, end up hurting your own standing.

As I've hopefully made clear above, you misunderstand my motives. I'm not trying to force you to answer my questions. I accept that you are refusing to answer them, and have given no good reasons for that refusal. There's nothing I can do about that. What I can do is state for the record what I feel that refusal means.

So I can't fail at making you look bad when I'm not trying to in the first place.

liberty student:
You really need to stop for a minute and ask yourself if I deserve to be treated the way you think it is ok to treat me, because you are unable to get what you want voluntarily. Does your inability to negotiate for something mean it is ok for you to bully and harass? If you feel it is, then the problem is out of my hands anyway, because you'll end up losing the opportunity to post by being deliberately anti-social.

Well, as I've noted above, I'm not trying to get what I want involuntarily instead of voluntarily. That said, however, I do feel that you deserve to be treated with less respect by me. This is based entirely on your actions.

Since I don't think I'm bullying or harrassing you, that question is meaningless in this context.

Are you now threatening to ban me? Or to have me banned?

liberty student:
I had 2 stalkers here before. They both had a sense of self-righteousness and entitlement, both a little more developed than yours. We don't have a community that operates that way anymore. I suspect Danny doesn't want to see it run that way again.

Excuse me, but I really can't see how you could consider me to be "stalking" you here. If I may be so bold, it seems that you're deliberately engaging in hyperbolic personal attacks to try to shame me into doing what you want.

And is that another threat of banning?

liberty student:
As I said earlier, I am done with this discussion. I am also done with the other discussion. You're welcome to keep bringing this up, but until you're willing to accept my decisions to participate or not participate, you and I won't be interacting at all.

I accept your decisions. I just don't like them at all. I hope you can see the difference.

Re: A Left Libertarian Manifesto.

Angurse — Fri, 28 Jan 2011 00:27:26 GMT

If you all have differing conceptions of morality doesn't this entire discussion just look like meaningless babble, (kind of like an artist statement)? Because thats pretty much all I've seen. Maybe its just me though.

Re: A Left Libertarian Manifesto.

AdrianHealey — Fri, 28 Jan 2011 00:16:59 GMT

To be honest; Liberty Student does give a prime example of the sort of situations I was referring too and, as far as I understood his opinion, he was flat out denying the possibility of such. Now this could mean he didn't explain his take on it very well or maybe he did and I just didn't understand what he was saying. But what Liberty Student is saying is that something is treating him in a way that he deems inappropriate, but can hardly be considered 'coercive'. He appeals to - again: my interpretation - Autolykos sense of social/moral feelings and he asks him to stop being such a jerk.

That's what I tried to argue for and, as far as I took it, LS disagreed.

Re: A Left Libertarian Manifesto.

nirgrahamUK — Thu, 27 Jan 2011 20:18:16 GMT

.... at this time and on this thread; probably not the best time to misunderstand LS

Re: A Left Libertarian Manifesto.

AnonLLF — Thu, 27 Jan 2011 20:15:11 GMT

liberty student:

I'm a voluntaryist. You can't make me answer questions. Sure, you can ask question after question as you are wont to do, and then when people tire of answering you, accuse them of intellectual dishonesty, but I don't think that's a social way to operate. The debate is over when one person doesn't want to participate, and I can't see how it is in anyone's best interest to try to force debates with people who simply do not want to talk to you, or have lost interest in the topic.

You're welcome to try to shame and attack me, but I feel pretty secure in my relationships around here that no one who matters is going to question my willingness to debate sincerely and passionately. Ultimately, you're going to fail at making me look bad, and like anyone who tries to force involuntary behavior, end up hurting your own standing.

You really need to stop for a minute and ask yourself if I deserve to be treated the way you think it is ok to treat me, because you are unable to get what you want voluntarily. Does your inability to negotiate for something mean it is ok for you to bully and harass? If you feel it is, then the problem is out of my hands anyway, because you'll end up losing the opportunity to post by being deliberately anti-social.

I had 2 stalkers here before. They both had a sense of self-righteousness and entitlement, both a little more developed than yours. We don't have a community that operates that way anymore. I suspect Danny doesn't want to see it run that way again.

As I said earlier, I am done with this discussion. I am also done with the other discussion. You're welcome to keep bringing this up, but until you're willing to accept my decisions to participate or not participate, you and I won't be interacting at all.

OH MY GOD! Did LS just admit voluntary relations can be immoral? I think he did!

Vindicated!

Re: A Left Libertarian Manifesto.

liberty student — Thu, 27 Jan 2011 18:54:46 GMT

I'm a voluntaryist. You can't make me answer questions. Sure, you can ask question after question as you are wont to do, and then when people tire of answering you, accuse them of intellectual dishonesty, but I don't think that's a social way to operate. The debate is over when one person doesn't want to participate, and I can't see how it is in anyone's best interest to try to force debates with people who simply do not want to talk to you, or have lost interest in the topic.

You're welcome to try to shame and attack me, but I feel pretty secure in my relationships around here that no one who matters is going to question my willingness to debate sincerely and passionately. Ultimately, you're going to fail at making me look bad, and like anyone who tries to force involuntary behavior, end up hurting your own standing.

You really need to stop for a minute and ask yourself if I deserve to be treated the way you think it is ok to treat me, because you are unable to get what you want voluntarily. Does your inability to negotiate for something mean it is ok for you to bully and harass? If you feel it is, then the problem is out of my hands anyway, because you'll end up losing the opportunity to post by being deliberately anti-social.

I had 2 stalkers here before. They both had a sense of self-righteousness and entitlement, both a little more developed than yours. We don't have a community that operates that way anymore. I suspect Danny doesn't want to see it run that way again.

As I said earlier, I am done with this discussion. I am also done with the other discussion. You're welcome to keep bringing this up, but until you're willing to accept my decisions to participate or not participate, you and I won't be interacting at all.

Re: A Left Libertarian Manifesto.

Autolykos — Thu, 27 Jan 2011 18:38:42 GMT

liberty student:
You can assume anything you like. You seem to assume a sense of entitlement that people are getting tired of being demanded to fulfill.

It's not a matter of entitlement, as far as I'm concerned. It's a matter of intellectual honesty. Of course, I can't make people be or stay intellectually honest. What I can do is let them know what I think of their behavior.

liberty student:
And if you have to ask why in a social group you have to be concerned about being irritating, well then perhaps its not other people who are having a problem arguing in good faith.

I wasn't really asking -- the question was rhetorical. Your implication is interesting though. It seems you think it's okay for me to feel irritated by others, but not vice-versa.

What do you mean by "good faith"?

Re: A Left Libertarian Manifesto.

liberty student — Thu, 27 Jan 2011 18:22:02 GMT

Autolykos:
So, to be perfectly blunt, I don't care whether it's irritating. If I ask questions in a respectful manner, and they're not answered, I'm going to assume they were deliberately ignored. At that point, I'm irritated. Why should I then care whether the other person becomes irritated as well?

You can assume anything you like. You seem to assume a sense of entitlement that people are getting tired of being demanded to fulfill.

And if you have to ask why in a social group you have to be concerned about being irritating, well then perhaps its not other people who are having a problem arguing in good faith.

Re: A Left Libertarian Manifesto.

Autolykos — Thu, 27 Jan 2011 14:48:57 GMT

Danny Sanchez:
Autolykos, no means no.

In this case, I think "no" also means "I'm deliberately evading your questions".

Danny Sanchez:
You've done this with me, too.

When and where?

Danny Sanchez:
When someone says clearly they'd prefer not to go further into a topic in a given thread, and yet you still continue to ask them about it, it can only serve to irritate. I know you don't mean anything by it; just letting you know how it comes off.

Thanks for that. I already figured it can serve to irritate. That's not my intention, but I can't always help how the other person takes it. My point here was to imply that, as far as I'm concerned, Liberty Student is deliberately evading my questions for no good reason (IMO). Furthermore, he repeatedly asked others in this thread for the definition of "moral", yet he won't provide his own definition when respectfully asked.

So, to be perfectly blunt, I don't care whether it's irritating. If I ask questions in a respectful manner, and they're not answered, I'm going to assume they were deliberately ignored. At that point, I'm irritated. Why should I then care whether the other person becomes irritated as well?

Re: A Left Libertarian Manifesto.

AdrianHealey — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 23:58:49 GMT

liberty student:

Autolykos:
Liberty Student, can you please respond to these two posts?

I will not. I'm done with this disussion, in particular, Scott, Adrian and semantics. I apologize in advance if this doesn't satisfy you.

I think you got exposed on praxeology and refused to define your terms. By refusing to define your terms, you guaranteed the argument couldn't resolve itself.

Re: A Left Libertarian Manifesto.

Daniel James Sanchez — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 23:48:26 GMT

Autolykos:

liberty student:
I will not. I'm done with this disussion, in particular, Scott, Adrian and semantics. I apologize in advance if this doesn't satisfy you.

All I'm really looking for is your definition of "moral". I'd also like to know how you think I was being "lazy" earlier. Of course, I can't make you honor these two requests, but I see no good reason as to why you wouldn't. They seem simple enough, don't they?

Autolykos, no means no. You've done this with me, too. When someone says clearly they'd prefer not to go further into a topic in a given thread, and yet you still continue to ask them about it, it can only serve to irritate. I know you don't mean anything by it; just letting you know how it comes off.

Re: A Left Libertarian Manifesto.

Autolykos — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 22:17:29 GMT

liberty student:
I will not. I'm done with this disussion, in particular, Scott, Adrian and semantics. I apologize in advance if this doesn't satisfy you.

All I'm really looking for is your definition of "moral". I'd also like to know how you think I was being "lazy" earlier. Of course, I can't make you honor these two requests, but I see no good reason as to why you wouldn't. They seem simple enough, don't they?

Re: A Left Libertarian Manifesto.

liberty student — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 22:12:38 GMT

Autolykos:
Liberty Student, can you please respond to these two posts?

I will not. I'm done with this disussion, in particular, Scott, Adrian and semantics. I apologize in advance if this doesn't satisfy you.

Re: A Left Libertarian Manifesto.

Autolykos — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 21:57:58 GMT

Liberty Student, can you please respond to these two posts?

Re: A Left Libertarian Manifesto.

AJ — Sun, 23 Jan 2011 11:37:18 GMT

By "morally wrong" do you mean something other than "an inefficient way for a given person to achieve their goals" (including their goal of not feeling guilty, or of getting warm fuzzies from helping other people)? Hence what is morally wrong would vary from person to person, depending on what they care about? (I.e., this would just be a restatement of Mises.)