henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Mar 31, 2022 3:32 pm
Are you or are you not a Libertarian? Do or do not Libertarians embrace capitalists and their market political economy? Are you or are you not a political idealist?
You understand libertarianism covers a lotta ground, yeah? Anarcho-capitalism, agorism, individualist anarchism, leftist libertarian anarchism, voluntaryism, consequentialist libertarianism, deontological libertarianism, libertarian socialism, and on and on.
Yes, that is exactly my point! Even in regard to Libertarianism itself there are many different "schools of thought". And, again, do people arrive at their own destination here because it is possible to grasp how one ought to construe Libertarianism in the most rational manner? You sit down one day, take in all of the different [often conflicting] understandings of it and then "think it through" to the most reasonable understanding? Is that what Henry did? Or is it more likely that given the life he lived, the experiences he had, the people he met, the things he read etc., he came existentially to one frame of mind rather than another?
henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Mar 31, 2022 3:32 pmSome libertarians embrace capitalism (like the ancaps), others don't (like the agorists). I don't know what you mean by
market political economy.
That revolves around how the capitalist economy produces a social and political "superstructure" that sustains the interest of those who own and operate the economy. Just as in a socialist economy the social and political superstructure would sustain the interests of the working class.
henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Mar 31, 2022 3:32 pmLibertarians of all strains advocate for a
free market (free of state and corporate control) but how to get a free market, well, that differs from strain to strain. I don't know what you mean by
political idealism.
Well, think of it along the lines of Plato's Republic. The philosopher-king "thinks it all through" didactically and comes up with the most rational manner in which men and women should interact. Whereas materialists start with the actual empirical facts that revolve around a particular economy in a particular community at a particular time in history such that the means of production is owned and operated in a particular manner generating particular social and political relationships.
For example, those like Ayn Rand believed the reason nomadic tribes and hunters and gatherers and feudal communities weren't capitalist themselves is that there weren't any John Galts around back then to explain philosophically why capitalism is the most rational economic system.
henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Mar 31, 2022 3:32 pmWhere do I fit? I'm a natural rights libertarian (or anarchist), which, as I reckon it, is a kind of moral realism. I have no love for capitalism (state-fostered or corporatism); I favor Free Enterprise (you understand Capitalism and Free Enterprise are not synonymous, yeah?). And I'm not a member of any political party (especially not the Libertarian party).
In other words, given the life you lived, the experiences you had, etc., this is what you have come to believe. And even under the Libertarian umbrella itself all you can go is to note the assumptions you start out with in order to champion your rendition of it and not another. Just as all the other "schools of thought" can do the same.
You know, given a particular set of circumstances.
Then I tap all of the Libertarians on the shoulder, suggest that "I" here is rooted subjectively/existentially in dasein, and note the assumptions that I commence with.
Only, unlike the objectivists among us, I don't hesitate to acknowledge that given "I" in the vastness of all the there, what are the odds that how I understand things here is really smack dab in the moral and political bullseye.
So, the best legislation is that...
Since the slaver refuses to think exactly like he does about the ideal "human condition" the slaver is necessarily incoherent.
henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Mar 31, 2022 3:32 pmTypical nihilist: arguin'
for,
defendin', the slaver.
Typical objectivist, thinking that only what he defends counts.
What does this have to do with the actual historical relationship between slavery and capitalism as a political economy?
henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Mar 31, 2022 3:32 pmEverything. Is man a commodity? Becuz he is treated as one, is it right? The nihilist sez
I don't know or
it depends on context. Funny, though, put the nihilist's keister up on the auction block and he'll scramble to give
moral reasons why he ought not be there.
Again, completely avoiding my point about how the slavers rationalize slavery as their own "best of all possible worlds" in getting the cotton and the slaves to the market. Some through God, some through race, some through ethnocentric biases. Some as flat-out sociopaths.
As though only what each of us as individuals think is right or wrong counts here. I think abortion is murder. I think I should own a bazooka. I think that slavery is inherently/necessarily wrong in a No God world.
That settles it.
As though what each of us does come to think is right and wrong in a No God world has absolutely nothing at all to do with the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein here:
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296
the best of all possible worlds...
Then straight back up into the general description intellectual contraption clouds he goers...
henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Mar 31, 2022 3:32 pm...is the one where every man recognizes and respects the life, liberty, and property of every other man. There ain't no votin' into that. No amount of
moderation, negotiation and compromise will bring it about.
Now, in regard to abortion, bazookas and slaves, go ahead, dare to suggest that how you construe "life, liberty and property" is at odds with his own.
Now, true, in regard to slavery and other extreme behaviors, there tends to be a large consensus that it is irrational and immoral. But, in a No God world, is that the same as demonstrating deontologically that slavery is in fact beyond all doubt categorically and imperatively irrational and immoral.
Sure, it's possible that this is true. "I" believe that it is wrong.
But how on Earth would one go about demonstrating it definitively in the face of all the reasons those even today give for sustaining it?
The narcissists and the sociopaths can argue that in a No God world they believe that morality revolves around sustaining their own self-gratification. Enslaving other human beings is a part of that.
What then?