Ye Olde Libertarian Pub

Nilloc · Jun 16, 2012

I feel almost ready to convert after seeing these:

Anarchism Versus Minarchism - Stefan Molyneux & Jan Helfeld - YouTube
Post Debate Review - Anarchism Versus Minarchism - YouTube

zoink · Jun 22, 2012

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.

Nilloc · Jun 22, 2012

zoink said:
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?

zoink · Jun 22, 2012

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."

MacFall · Jun 22, 2012

The phrase "too simplistic", when used in reference to the NAP, generally means there aren't enough loopholes for using immoral means to achieve one's ends.

Nilloc · Jun 23, 2012

What are the chances of Ron Paul passing his bill to audit the Fed? I think it has like 200 co-sponsors so far.

zoink · Jun 23, 2012

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."

MacFall · Jun 23, 2012

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!

MacFall · Jun 23, 2012

Oh. And in response to the question:

I'm pretty sure that if there were a unanimous Congressional vote to audit the Fed Ron Paul style, it still wouldn't happen.

Panzerkamfwagen · Jun 23, 2012

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

zoink · Jun 23, 2012

MacFall said:
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.

*********

Panzerkampfwagen said:
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."

Nilloc · Jun 23, 2012

zoink said:
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.

zoink · Jun 23, 2012

NILLOC said:
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.

SPB1987 · Jun 23, 2012

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.

MacFall · Jun 23, 2012

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.

timur123456789 · Jun 23, 2012

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.

MacFall · Jun 23, 2012

He certainly was no proponent of political bondage, even though he was a spiritual savior rather than a political one. Still, spiritual change has natural consequences...

timur123456789 · Jun 23, 2012

yes. indeed read Rothbard

zoink · Jun 23, 2012

SPB1987 said:
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

Nilloc · Jun 24, 2012

timur123456789 said:
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.

Ye Olde Libertarian Pub

Senior Veteran

:-)

Senior Veteran

:-)

Agorist

Senior Veteran

:-)

Agorist

Agorist

Es braust unser Panzer im Sturmwind dahin.

:-)

Senior Veteran

:-)

Newbie

Agorist

Newbie

Agorist

Newbie

:-)

Senior Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency