- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Conservatives: what's your beef with libertarianism?
Posted on 8/4/18 at 6:46 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
Posted on 8/4/18 at 6:46 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
Hoppe “creates controversy” everywhere he goes. Yes, he is a bit of a dick. Bright, but ... dismissive of the views of others.
1
Posted on 8/4/18 at 6:50 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Hoppe
quote:
Bright
Understatement of the day brej.
quote:
dismissive of the views of others.
Rothbard said about Hoppe that he drives other academics crazy because of the ruthless precision of his logic and lack of concern about the egos of his peers.
When Hoppe knows he is right about something, then everyone will know it too.
Edit: found the Rothbard quote:
quote:
Although he is an amiable man personally, Hoppe’s written work seems to have the remarkable capacity to send some readers up the wall, blood pressure soaring, muttering and chewing the carpet. It is not impolite attacks on critics that does it. Perhaps the answer is Hoppe’s logical and deductive mode of thought and writing, demonstrating the truth of his propositions and showing that those who differ are often trapped in self-contradiction and self-refutation.
This post was edited on 8/4/18 at 7:00 pm
Posted on 8/4/18 at 6:58 pm to Zach
quote:
Limits are not arbitrary. Libertarian limits can be reduced to...'you are free do to as you wish until it infringes upon the freedom of another.'
I'd like to point out that no libertarian society of any significance or duration has or will be based solely on this idea. There will obviously be covenants far more restrictive than this, as there can never be neighbors so compatible that this will suffice.
quote:
In my book Democracy, The God That Failed I not only defend the right to discrimination as implied in the right to private property, but I also emphasize the necessity of discrimination in maintaining a free society and explain its importance as a civilizing factor. In particular, the book also contains a few sentences about the importance, under clearly stated circumstances, of discriminating against communists, democrats, and habitual advocates of alternative, non-family centered lifestyles, including homosexuals.
For instance, on p. 218, I wrote “in a covenant concluded among proprietors and community tenants for the purpose of protecting their private property, … no one is permitted to advocate ideas contrary to the very purpose of the covenant … such as democracy and communism.” “Likewise, in a covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin, there can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. … (violators) will have to be physically removed from society.”
In its proper context these statements are hardly more offensive than saying that the Catholic Church should excommunicate those violating its fundamental precepts or that a nudist colony should expel those insisting on wearing bathing suits. However, if you take the statements out of context and omit the condition: in a covenant… then they appear to advocate a rights violation.
Hans Hoppe
This post was edited on 8/4/18 at 7:02 pm
Posted on 8/4/18 at 7:04 pm to MrCarton
Baw did I understand you correctly with the proton email address?
Posted on 8/4/18 at 7:34 pm to Houma Sapien
Republicans are not conservative.
Not as a whole.
But, compared to Democrats, look that way and run that way.
I call myself a Libertarian because I don’t associate myself with the
likes of McCain, Graham, Ryan, etc... and I like the premise of VERY
LIMITED government.
Don’t agree with all the Libertarian platforms, as some are silly and unreaasonable in a
country the size of US. But I’ll worry about that once we cross the bridge of two-party rule.
Not as a whole.
But, compared to Democrats, look that way and run that way.
I call myself a Libertarian because I don’t associate myself with the
likes of McCain, Graham, Ryan, etc... and I like the premise of VERY
LIMITED government.
Don’t agree with all the Libertarian platforms, as some are silly and unreaasonable in a
country the size of US. But I’ll worry about that once we cross the bridge of two-party rule.
Posted on 8/4/18 at 8:16 pm to MrCarton
I believe I would agree with many of his conclusions (just digging in surface deep), but they are not intrinsically justified. Atheistically speaking, it turns back into what flavor of government do you want. If you want liberalism go west if you want conservatism go south. There’s no underlying moral truth to any particular view, just this is what I prefer versus others. For instance why ought we favor private property ownership? The only answer is we just should because we feel that way. There is no greater appeal. Someone may just as well insert its negation and have it deemed equally rational. In the Christian world view it’s justifiable. God gave the earth to man to have dominion, subdue, be fruitful, and fill. He even went so far as to write general laws about ownership and the return of ownership to debtors. So to support private property ownership would be to act in a manor that is consistent with the nature of God.
This post was edited on 8/4/18 at 8:19 pm
Posted on 8/4/18 at 8:20 pm to xrockfordf150x
quote:
For instance why ought we favor private property ownership? The only answer is we just should because we feel that way.
I don't disagree in thought but Good Lord this is why I hate subjectivism in regards to political philosophy.
Collectivist economic organization is like Javascript "I'm allowed to be totally wrong and you can't point out exactly why."
Posted on 8/4/18 at 8:34 pm to HempHead
That’s the folly of the argument. Any blind assertion (enter belief here) that is ultimately arbitrary is no more logical than its negation. That’s why logical fallacies of ambiguity are mostly invalid. This is why I stress these political principles have to have extrinsic justification to be rational, otherwise there is no basis to call any form of government good bad or indefferent.
Posted on 8/4/18 at 8:41 pm to Houma Sapien
Libertarianism is the only ideology that can be called conservative by definition.
This post was edited on 8/4/18 at 8:42 pm
Posted on 8/4/18 at 9:03 pm to HempHead
Yessuh. You got it.
Posted on 8/4/18 at 9:16 pm to Houma Sapien
Imo, libertarians seem autistic in their understanding of the world. Much like liberalism, they don’t seem to factor in the realities of human nature and the world into their philosophies. They think the individual is the smallest unit of society when it is really the relationship between two people.
Posted on 8/4/18 at 9:30 pm to RentSeekAndDestroy
quote:
they don’t seem to factor in the realities of human nature and the world into their philosophies.
uhh the realities of human nature are EXACTLY what libertarians understand.
Posted on 8/4/18 at 9:38 pm to RentSeekAndDestroy
quote:It takes a verynspecific type of person to be a true individualist who also fully respects the rights of other individuals. In its pure/dogmatic form, it cannot work on a large scale. In a more-pragmatic form, it could work just fine.
libertarians seem autistic in their understanding of the world. Much like liberalism, they don’t seem to factor in the realities of human nature and the world into their philosophies. They think the individual is the smallest unit of society when it is really the relationship between two people.
Posted on 8/4/18 at 9:40 pm to tiggerthetooth
quote:
Sure it's a nice ideology, just dont see where people would let it happen.
Probably not, but not because they're worried about the ideology. Most couldn't even define it. People are just programmed to support one of two teams
Posted on 8/4/18 at 9:42 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
In its pure/dogmatic form, it cannot work on a large scale.
Well, no ideology has been practiced on a wide scale in its pure form.
Posted on 8/4/18 at 9:48 pm to Houma Sapien
Libertarianism is basically the most ideologically consistent party out there. I don’t think the country should go full on libertarian with borders and what not, but letting that ideology be the basis for laws would be a great thing.
Posted on 8/4/18 at 9:50 pm to Ingloriousbastard
quote:
I don’t think the country should go full on libertarian with borders and what not
Libertarians are the strongest proponents of borders on earth. Fake liberlalatarians are open border butt bumpers.
Posted on 8/4/18 at 9:56 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Well, no ideology has been practiced on a wide scale in its pure form.
Mao's purge was pretty focused. The Aztec were focused as well. The Spartans were definitely in focus. So I guess one has to believe pure can actually be applied to human existence concerning results?
Is such a thing even possible?
Posted on 8/4/18 at 9:56 pm to MrCarton
Fair enough. I’ll have to read more on their policies regarding this. I thought Gary was for open borders.
Posted on 8/4/18 at 10:13 pm to Ingloriousbastard
quote:
I thought Gary was for open borders.
Libertarian Party =/= libertarianism
At root, the idea of a libertarian democratic apparatus is contradictory - there is nothing about democracy in American terms that is consistent with libertarian ideology or thought.
This post was edited on 8/4/18 at 10:14 pm
Page 7 of 19
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News