• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Ye Olde Libertarian Pub

Status
Not open for further replies.

zoink

:-)
Apr 13, 2004
932
62
West of the rockies
✟1,969.00
Faith
Nazarene
Marital Status
Single
I just had a very odd conversation. The original assertion was:
the principle [non-aggression principle] is too simplistic and subjective
So I started asking the guy questions. I wanted to know if there was a more objective thing (principle, axiom, morality, etc) that he advocated the NAP be replaced with.

The response was:
I think there are dozens of moral frameworks that are more thought-out, from deontology to consequentialism.
I don't even know what to say. I just burst out laughing. No one else seems to get why I thought that was hilarious. One of us has a horrific understanding of the subject.
 
Upvote 0

Nilloc

Senior Veteran
Mar 6, 2007
4,155
886
✟43,888.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
I just had a very odd conversation. The original assertion was:So I started asking the guy questions. I wanted to know if there was a more objective thing (principle, axiom, morality, etc) that he advocated the NAP be replaced with.

The response was:I don't even know what to say. I just burst out laughing. No one else seems to get why I thought that was hilarious. One of us has a horrific understanding of the subject.
Sounds like someone who shouldn't be arguing against the NAP. Out of curiosity, do you know what his political views are?
 
Upvote 0

zoink

:-)
Apr 13, 2004
932
62
West of the rockies
✟1,969.00
Faith
Nazarene
Marital Status
Single
I'm guessing social democrat. I do know that he mostly agrees with Schopenhauer's compassionate morality but he doesn't not believe it to be more objective then the NAP.

I've been trying to think of an analogy for what he's saying.

Him: "Wolfdogs are not the superior animal."
Me: What animal do you consider to be superior to the wolfdog?
Him: "I can think of dozens from dogs to wolves."
Me: Dogs and wolves are examples of animals superior to wolfdogs?
Him: "Yes, here's and a link on dogs."
 
Upvote 0

zoink

:-)
Apr 13, 2004
932
62
West of the rockies
✟1,969.00
Faith
Nazarene
Marital Status
Single
I have no idea. My gut says not very good.

*******

So have some hounding and even though "we're talking about extensive bodies of intellectual reasoning that accumulated over centuries. Each one has hundreds if not thousands of nuances" my interlocuter has presented what he believes to be the most objective moral framework: "keep your promises."
 
Upvote 0

zoink

:-)
Apr 13, 2004
932
62
West of the rockies
✟1,969.00
Faith
Nazarene
Marital Status
Single
So that way, as long as he doesn't promise not to rape and torture to death everyone you love, it's okay for him to do so. Fun times!
The question had to morph to get him to answer so it went from:

"Is there a more objective thing (principle, axiom, morality, etc) that you advocate the NAP be replaced with?"

To:

"just tell me the most objective one."

I think "keep your promises" could be argued to be more objective. Superior -for the reasons you state - not so much.

*********
What's the problem with the non-aggression principle?

O I was just complaining about an interaction I was having in a discussion on Reddit. Overall probably not that interesting.

The asertion was basically: "the principle [NAP] is too simplistic and subjective. We need a far more advanced moral framework to formalize society and therein lies the unsolvable problem for the supporters of anarchism."
 
Upvote 0

Nilloc

Senior Veteran
Mar 6, 2007
4,155
886
✟43,888.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
I think "keep your promises" could be argued to be more objective. Superior -for the reasons you state - not so much.
If he is a social democrat, how could he justify taxation with that? I never promised to pay taxes.
 
Upvote 0

zoink

:-)
Apr 13, 2004
932
62
West of the rockies
✟1,969.00
Faith
Nazarene
Marital Status
Single
If he is a social democrat, how could he justify taxation with that? I never promised to pay taxes.
It was a very narrow criteria. So narrow that he didn't even have to believe it to be the superior one, only the most objective by the end of my questions. He was unwilling to answer anything at a higher level.

I finally said: "something like Rawls's fundamental principles of justice would be one possible framework" that the NAP should be relplaced with. Which is basically what statists almost have to assert. If one is not a moral nihilist I'm not sure what other theory one is going to use other than social contract. I probably should actually read A Theory of Justice and Leviathan sometime.

The guy doesn't actually know what he is saying. He's better read than many statists but he hasn't been able to put that all into one cohesive framework and then assert its superiority. Which isn't all that surprising. He is kind of right about one thing; the NAP is simpler than any other axiom or framework I have come across. I think deontological libertarians have it much easier than many of the other philosophies.

I believe social contract theory demonstrates how powerful the NAP is. Very few people are willing to justify force against someone "just because." In order to overcome the NAP statists require this complex, convoluted theory in order to justify using threats of violence to force others to follow things that have no more authority than simply being the opinion inside the statist's head.
 
Upvote 0

MacFall

Agorist
Nov 24, 2007
12,726
1,171
Western Pennsylvania, USA
✟40,698.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
A libertarian would not support someone being coerced into something they do not wish to be a part of. Especially something with which they disagree morally. I suppose it is *theoretically* possible for a voluntary national health care plan to exist, but I can't imagine how it would work.
 
Upvote 0

zoink

:-)
Apr 13, 2004
932
62
West of the rockies
✟1,969.00
Faith
Nazarene
Marital Status
Single
Is it possible to be a libertarian and support a national or universal health care plan? I am still exploring libertarianism a bit and am a little confused by all of the contrasting viewpoints.
Depends on how you define "libertarian." If you define libertarianism as adherence to the non-aggression principle (NAP) then probably not. If you believe libertarian is a term for people who want some subjective amount of government less than the average then maybe. You will find many people who have taken on the libertarian moniker who believe government can legitimately do certain things. More common ones that I have observed would be roads, military, justice, law enforcement, and NASA. Health care does not appear to be nearly as common but at a moral level I do not see the difference between say NASA and health care. So if someone can call themselves a libertarian and support NASA I don't see why the same can't be declared by someone who supports healthcare.

I just can't bring myself to advocate initiating force against others.

George Ought to Help - YouTube
 
Upvote 0

Nilloc

Senior Veteran
Mar 6, 2007
4,155
886
✟43,888.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
I think Jesus was liberitarina in a WAY.
Since he promoted FREEDOM.

8:32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
I'd be careful about using John 8:32 and like passages as a biblical defense for libertarianism. The freedom being referred to in John 8:32 isn't talking about freedom from government, but freedom from sin. Many other passages I could think of (Paul talks about freedom several times) probably are talking about something else as well.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.