-
Jeff Tucker talks about how Mises had a Hobbesian view that prevented him from becoming a full anarchist, and then says that Hayek was not a Hobbesian, and in that sense Hayek was more anarchistic than Mises. Starts at 12:14... I have not heard this point of view before. I have heard Mises described as a philosophical anarchist and unlimited secessionist
-
RNC Sham 2012 [view: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B39W91O-rUg:640:385] EDIT: Why isn't this video embedding??!!
-
[quote user="gotlucky"]You need to forget about the NAP.[/quote] Hmm. Well I am the one who previously said "the NAP is superfluous". It was you that said "the NAP is... the foundation of libertarianism, and all libertarian concepts can be derived from it". [quote]My argument has been about the ethic of reciprocity. The
-
[quote user="gotlucky"][quote user="Graham Wright"] To quote Kinsella again: "One cannot identify an act of aggression without implicitly assigning a corresponding property right to the victim."[/quote] This is one of those times that I disagree with Kinsella. Libertarians use the definition of aggression that means initiation
-
[quote user="Autolykos"]I think you mean to say that you think it's legitimate for a landlord to do all those things, so long as it's propportionate to the severity of the rule violation. The word "can" implies physical ability to me, which has nothing to do with legitimacy.[/quote] Yes. [quote]With that out of the way, I
-
gotlucky, you keep arguing against arguments I never made and discussing things I never brought up. This started off as a narrow discussion about the logical relationship between the NAP and other libertarian principles, namely homesteading. Is the NAP derived from homesteading, is it the other way round, are they two separate "axioms"...
-
[quote user="Eran"]In the OP I proposed an alternative forumation which I believe combines the calling of the traditional formulation with Rothbardian property-acquisition rules as a consequence. I suggested something along the lines of "It is wrong to use force against another person or his ongoing peaceful projects". Property is
-
[quote user="Minarchist"]Once property rights are established (i.e. once we know what property is, and how one acquires it) the NAP is superfluous. It amounts to "don't violate property rights." I don't think the NAP has a place in the foundation of libertarianism. However, the NAP is extremely useful shorthand to look at
-
[quote user="gotlucky"] The NAP is circular only insofar as it is an axiom. It is not a conclusion but a premise. Rothbard tried to use natural law to reason his way to the NAP, but I do not agree with that, namely for the is-ought problem. I recognize that I accept the NAP as a premise for no other reason than the fact that I do. But it seemed
-
How To Rescue a Child (without The State)