Libertarianism
- Thread starter zabu of nΩd
- Start date
Badbird
Never banned
I have never read Reason but have heard nothing but great reviews for it. I just thought you might have read it since you are a libertarian and the magazine learns libertarian. I might have to pick up a copy of Reason if I go to the book store.
supseudonymous
&
Can someone from the GMD libertarian crew provide me with some good reading on the long-term sustainability of laissez-faire markets? I never really bought this, but I'm also really uneducated on the subject. I'd like to change this now.
Badbird
Never banned
Check anything Milton Friedman wrote. Or try Friedrich Hayek. That if you want to learn about laizzez-faire markets.
Cythraul
Active Member
- Dec 10, 2003
- 6,755
- 134
- 63
Speaking of libertarianism, my MA thesis just got approved by my advisor today, which means I'll probably be defending it next month. Basically I'll be arguing that the following two claims are contradictory: (1) Individuals have the right against initiations of force, and (2) Individuals have the right to acquire private ownership over things external to the self. To put it roughly, the reasons are that the truth of (2) legitimizes legal rules for the enforcement of private property claims, which initiates force against individuals. So if (2) is true, then (1) must be false. (2) is supported by the claim that property rights violations are not essentially coercive, at least not according to any definition of "coercion" that the libertarian needs to appeal to. This claim relies on the notion that property rights violations are a separate thing from violations of rights in one's body. And the claim that property rights are assimilable to body rights doesn't look like it will work for the libertarian because it's hard to see how one can hold this view without concluding either that unilateral appropriation is impossible or that what counts as coercion is a function of moral facts. Neither of those options is desirable for a libertarian (at least the sort of libertarian I have in mind). That view is also fucking batshit insane, but even if it weren't it still wouldn't be helpful for libertarianism. And then I have some stuff about the distinction between interfering with and merely preventing activities, which also is not helpful to libertarianism and its endorsement of property rights.
Yeah, it's going to be a blast.
Yeah, it's going to be a blast.
Badbird
Never banned
http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-8.12&soc=-6.15
Any thoughts on the Political Spectrum chart and how it handles both libertarianism and authoritarianism?
Any thoughts on the Political Spectrum chart and how it handles both libertarianism and authoritarianism?
Dak
mentat
You can be right in 100% of arguements when you get to define all terms and definitions.
Dak
mentat
I am not aware of any philosophy where someone can initiate aggression and then be free from reprisal, even on an idealogical standpoint. Assault/theft/etc. (intiations of force) and restitution/defense (reactive force) are two different things. You appear to be combining the two under initiation of force, unless I am mis-understanding your arguement.
Isn't this a fundamental principle of like, any conceivable intellectual effort? You have to establish some basis from which all subsequent propositions are derived.
Cythraul
Active Member
- Dec 10, 2003
- 6,755
- 134
- 63
No, I'm not combining anything. I'm arguing that property rights violations are not essentially coercive, at least not in the sense that libertarians would need them to be. Also, I disagree with your implication that assault and theft are on a par. That's precisely what I'm arguing against. I already understand the distinction between initiatory force and defensive/retaliatory/restitutive force. I just don't think that distinction gets you property rights. I should make it clear that I'm arguing against a specific version of right-libertarianism. There are versions of libertarianism that are immune to my arguments, but I think those versions are problematic for other reasons anyway. A lot of libertarians tend to vacillate between the two different versions because it's rhetorically convenient. It's also intellectually dishonest.
Draehl
Lurker
Cythraul, to not go too deep into the subject I think it comes down to "your rights end where mine begin." If both property rights and the right against initiations of force are part of the social contract then you, by taking my property, are initiating a break in the social contract and opening one's self up to retaliation. You break the contract and basic protections/rights you had, at least in regard to this particular incident are reduced for the purposes of rectifying your breach, but ideally no further than necessary.
Dak
mentat
They are not on par when it comes to what it takes for restitution. They are on par as being a "breach", as Draele puts it.
Saparmurat_Niyazov
Member
What about laws that equate corporations with individuals, thus guaranteeing them essentially the same rights? Aren't you, in a way, arguing against that premise, Cyth?
Der Morgenstern
Trailer Park Bacchus
Dak
mentat
Badbird
Never banned
Cythraul
Active Member
- Dec 10, 2003
- 6,755
- 134
- 63
Of course my rights end where yours begin. But that's consistent with the view that your right to appropriate X ends where my right to have access to X begins, and that alone doesn't tell me whether anybody has the right to appropriate X at all.
But you can't have a right against the initiation of force if you accept property rights and property rights enforcement initiates force. And anyway, if libertarians take the view above, then it's no longer clear how they're uniquely concerned with liberty. Property rights are just tacked on, but libertarian property rights are frequently defended on the grounds that such property rights are uniquely a domain of liberty. But they're not. It's just trading one liberty for another. So what? Every view countenances such trade-offs.
I'm not sure I see the connection between what I said and what you're asking about, but I'm not arguing about what rights people (or corporations) actually have; I'm making an argument about what reasons can't be used to generate certain rights that libertarians think people have.
Would you mind explaining to me why you've decided to act like a dick for no apparent reason? Maybe you can explain to me why you hold this view of yours.
Similar threads
