Total Posts:22|Showing Posts:1-22
Jump to topic:

Ten Planks of Paleolibertarianism

Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 3:25:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Are you a paleolibertarian? Find out if you agree with Lew Rockwell's ten planks of paleolibertarianism!

I. The leviathan State as the institutional source of evil throughout history.

II. The unhampered free market as a moral and practical imperative.

III. Private property as an economic and moral necessity for a free society.

IV. The garrison State as a preeminent threat to liberty and social well being.

V. The welfare State as organized theft that victimizes producers and eventually
even its "clients."

VI. Civil liberties based on property rights as essential to a just society.

VII. The egalitarian ethic as morally reprehensible and destructive of private
property and social authority.

VIII. Social authority-as embodied in the family, church, community, and other intermediating institutions-as helping protect the individual from the State and as necessary for a free and virtuous society.

IX. Western culture as eminently worthy of preservation and defense.

X. Objective standards of morality, especially as found in the Judeo-Christian
tradition, as essential to the free and civilized social order.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
imabench
Posts: 21,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 3:44:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2012 3:25:41 AM, Reasoning wrote:
Are you a paleolibertarian? Find out if you agree with Lew Rockwell's ten planks of paleolibertarianism!

I. The leviathan State as the institutional source of evil throughout history.
what?

II. The unhampered free market as a moral and practical imperative.
Nope

III. Private property as an economic and moral necessity for a free society.
Actually Yes

IV. The garrison State as a preeminent threat to liberty and social well being.
Not really IMO

V. The welfare State as organized theft that victimizes producers and eventually
even its "clients."
Hell no

VI. Civil liberties based on property rights as essential to a just society.
No idea what this is saying

VII. The egalitarian ethic as morally reprehensible and destructive of private
property and social authority.
Same as #6

VIII. Social authority-as embodied in the family, church, community, and other intermediating institutions-as helping protect the individual from the State and as necessary for a free and virtuous society.
No

IX. Western culture as eminently worthy of preservation and defense.
Defense?
No

X. Objective standards of morality, especially as found in the Judeo-Christian
tradition, as essential to the free and civilized social order.
Nope

I dont think I qualify
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 9:15:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
As previously mentioned, I agree with everything except for 8-10.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 9:53:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Surprisingly, 1-9 are a yes.

10 is a bit iffy.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,246
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 9:57:16 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
for part 9: I think all cultures that promote strength and stability should be able to fend for themselves; they don't need external influences according to survival of the fittest.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 10:49:12 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I disagreed with all of that, except 4 and 9. 8 is ambiguous,...community as a social authority is embodied in the form of government.

7 is nonsense. Equality is an agent of fairness, and fairness is an intuitive moral virtue. Where nature creates unfairness it is still deplorable but unamendable. Where man creates unfairness it is an ethical violation. The unregulated capitalist economy is a human invention designed on the very basis of inequality. What is unreasonable or wrong about setting rules to ensure that all people have at least an equal opportunity to be successful?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 11:36:43 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I disagreed with all of them besides number III.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 1:14:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2012 10:49:12 AM, 000ike wrote:

7 is nonsense. Equality is an agent of fairness, and fairness is an intuitive moral virtue.

Does intuitive mean you have no reasoning behind this being a supposed virtue?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 2:10:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2012 1:14:22 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 3/10/2012 10:49:12 AM, 000ike wrote:

7 is nonsense. Equality is an agent of fairness, and fairness is an intuitive moral virtue.

Does intuitive mean you have no reasoning behind this being a supposed virtue?

That attitude, and you wonder why I prefer to ignore you. No, it means that it is within our very nature to desire fairness. It's also safe to assume that moral inclinations adapted through evolution have a rational justification in helping the prosperity and survival of the human race. Where it is our goal to have a prosperous society, fairness therefore must be enforced.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 2:14:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2012 2:10:22 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 3/10/2012 1:14:22 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 3/10/2012 10:49:12 AM, 000ike wrote:

7 is nonsense. Equality is an agent of fairness, and fairness is an intuitive moral virtue.

Does intuitive mean you have no reasoning behind this being a supposed virtue?

That attitude, and you wonder why I prefer to ignore you. No, it means that it is within our very nature to desire fairness. It's also safe to assume that moral inclinations adapted through evolution have a rational justification in helping the prosperity and survival of the human race. Where it is our goal to have a prosperous society, fairness therefore must be enforced.

To what extent? I presume you dont support a total redistribution of wealth, do you?
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 3:11:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2012 10:49:12 AM, 000ike wrote:
7 is nonsense. Equality is an agent of fairness, and fairness is an intuitive moral virtue.

"Inequality is not wrong, equality is." - Charles zi Britannia

Men were not made equal. The egalitarian wants to make men so and is therefore counter to human nature. Nature does not do equal.

What is unreasonable or wrong about setting rules to ensure that all people have at least an equal opportunity to be successful?

Because people do not have equal opportunity to be successful. IQ and many personality traits are largely determined by genetics which in turn determine economic and marital success. That is the human condition. Those who rebel against it rebel against nature herself.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 3:22:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2012 3:11:57 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 3/10/2012 10:49:12 AM, 000ike wrote:
7 is nonsense. Equality is an agent of fairness, and fairness is an intuitive moral virtue.

"Inequality is not wrong, equality is." - Charles zi Britannia

Men were not made equal. The egalitarian wants to make men so and is therefore counter to human nature. Nature does not do equal.

There are so many things wrong with this. Firstly, its a case of Is-ought fallacy. Second, you assume that nature is the ethical model we ought to follow. Third, you ignore the fact that human beings intuitively value fairness. You likely value fairness yourself,...and would express a negative reaction if your parents bought your siblings everything they wanted and loved them more than you. Fairness is a virtue that is inconsistent with your ideology, but you try and suppress a naturally occurring inclination to make your views consistent. Either the problem is your ideology, or the problem is the valuation of fairness.

Humanity values fairness, and I would bet a million dollars that you do too. Obviously the problem must be your ideology.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 3:28:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2012 3:22:34 PM, 000ike wrote:
There are so many things wrong with this. Firstly, its a case of Is-ought fallacy.

I commit no such error. In fact, you yourself do. From the fact that ignorant people think things should be equal, you conclude that things should be equal.

Second, you assume that nature is the ethical model we ought to follow.

Again, I do no such thing. I claim merely that any attempt to combat such a basic element of nature will prove fruitless and in vain.

Third, you ignore the fact that human beings intuitively value fairness.

Life isn't fair. Many small children have a hard time grasping this concept. Apparently you do as well.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 3:32:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
"What, in fact, is 'equality'? The term has been much invoked but little analyzed. A and B are "equal" if they are identical to each other with respect to a given attribute. Thus, if Smith and Jones are both exactly six feet in height, then they may be said to be 'equal' in height. If two sticks are identical in length, then their lengths are 'equal,' etc. There is one and only one way, then, in which any two people can really be 'equal' in the fullest sense: they must be identical in all of their attributes. This means, of course, that equality of all men – the egalitarian ideal – can only be achieved if all men are precisely uniform, precisely identical with respect to all of their attributes. The egalitarian world would necessarily be a world of horror fiction – a world of faceless and identical creatures, devoid of all individuality, variety, or special creativity." - Murray Rothbard
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 4:19:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2012 3:25:41 AM, Reasoning wrote:
Are you a paleolibertarian? Find out if you agree with Lew Rockwell's ten planks of paleolibertarianism!

I. The leviathan State as the institutional source of evil throughout history.
Dont know.

II. The unhampered free market as a moral and practical imperative.
For the most part.

III. Private property as an economic and moral necessity for a free society.
Agree.

IV. The garrison State as a preeminent threat to liberty and social well being.
Dont know.

V. The welfare State as organized theft that victimizes producers and eventually
even its "clients."
Agree (in a very general sense)

VI. Civil liberties based on property rights as essential to a just society.
Agree

VII. The egalitarian ethic as morally reprehensible and destructive of private
property and social authority.
Depends of egalitarian is defined.

VIII. Social authority-as embodied in the family, church, community, and other intermediating institutions-as helping protect the individual from the State and as necessary for a free and virtuous society.
Agree

IX. Western culture as eminently worthy of preservation and defense.
Agree

X. Objective standards of morality, especially as found in the Judeo-Christian
tradition, as essential to the free and civilized social order.
Bold yes, not Judeo-Christian ethics in particular.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,246
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 4:32:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2012 2:10:22 PM, 000ike wrote:
That attitude, and you wonder why I prefer to ignore you. No, it means that it is within our very nature to desire fairness.

Fairness for yourself, not others...and only when you can decide what is 'fair'...that is the natural human state whether you accept it or not.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 4:55:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2012 4:32:19 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 3/10/2012 2:10:22 PM, 000ike wrote:
That attitude, and you wonder why I prefer to ignore you. No, it means that it is within our very nature to desire fairness.

Fairness for yourself, not others...and only when you can decide what is 'fair'...that is the natural human state whether you accept it or not.

Why are you so confident that you've decided that, that assertion is the "natural human state" whether I like it or not? Do you honestly believe that the moral faculties of the mind only provide for oneself? We have altruistic tendencies alongside the capacity for compassion, where every moral need we project onto ourselves we feel a need to reciprocate to others. Of course this isn't an absolute rule, but speaking generally it's an evolutionary mechanism for the survival of the human race.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 5:21:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2012 2:10:22 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 3/10/2012 1:14:22 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 3/10/2012 10:49:12 AM, 000ike wrote:

7 is nonsense. Equality is an agent of fairness, and fairness is an intuitive moral virtue.

Does intuitive mean you have no reasoning behind this being a supposed virtue?

That attitude, and you wonder why I prefer to ignore you.

Because we don't agree? Intuitive in most instances simply means self evidence or refers to the fact that we just know something. It's usually not something you say of something you can actually prove.

No, it means that it is within our very nature to desire fairness.

Obviously since not everyone desires fairness you are pushing some people's desires on to others. The very fact that there are people who disagree with your view proves it wrong.

It's also safe to assume that moral inclinations adapted through evolution have a rational justification in helping the prosperity and survival of the human race.

So you're a utilitarian but you're just not calling it that. Utilitarianism comes with it's own problems i.e. impossibility of interpersonal utility comparisons, no justification for intrinsic goodness of pleasure, etc.

Where it is our goal to have a prosperous society, fairness therefore must be enforced.

What if our goal is to have a just society instead, regardless of the aesthetic preferability of the outcome? Your entire justification relies on an if/ought. All one needs to do is deny the if part and your theory falls apart.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 5:48:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2012 5:21:30 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 3/10/2012 2:10:22 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 3/10/2012 1:14:22 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 3/10/2012 10:49:12 AM, 000ike wrote:

7 is nonsense. Equality is an agent of fairness, and fairness is an intuitive moral virtue.

Does intuitive mean you have no reasoning behind this being a supposed virtue?

That attitude, and you wonder why I prefer to ignore you.

Because we don't agree?

No, because the way you interrogate me is obnoxious and condescending.

What if our goal is to have a just society instead, regardless of the aesthetic preferability of the outcome? Your entire justification relies on an if/ought. All one needs to do is deny the if part and your theory falls apart.

You're right, all someone has to do is change the if to destroy the ought. You're wrong if you think this collapses my views. Nothing is absolute with biology, but it does work in the form of majorities, tendencies, and inclinations. I can say that the "if" portion of many ought statements is widely agreed upon by the vast majority of people. For example, most people want the prosperity of themselves and others. Therefore, they can create societies with "oughts" or laws that protect that end.

Minority individuals who do not agree with the "if" portion have no obligation to obey the "ought"....however society compensates this disagreement with punishment. So, the new "if" is: If you don't want to go to jail, you ought not X.

Also, without getting entangled in semantics, a just society is a fair society. Justice and fairness are nearly synonymous terms :p. You can't escape the necessity to protect both.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 6:12:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2012 5:48:14 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 3/10/2012 5:21:30 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 3/10/2012 2:10:22 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 3/10/2012 1:14:22 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 3/10/2012 10:49:12 AM, 000ike wrote:

7 is nonsense. Equality is an agent of fairness, and fairness is an intuitive moral virtue.

Does intuitive mean you have no reasoning behind this being a supposed virtue?

That attitude, and you wonder why I prefer to ignore you.

Because we don't agree?

No, because the way you interrogate me is obnoxious and condescending.

You're misinterpreting my initial post. Intuitive usually means self evidence except it's in no way clear to many how it actually is.

What if our goal is to have a just society instead, regardless of the aesthetic preferability of the outcome? Your entire justification relies on an if/ought. All one needs to do is deny the if part and your theory falls apart.

You're right, all someone has to do is change the if to destroy the ought. You're wrong if you think this collapses my views. Nothing is absolute with biology, but it does work in the form of majorities, tendencies, and inclinations. I can say that the "if" portion of many ought statements is widely agreed upon by the vast majority of people. For example, most people want the prosperity of themselves and others. Therefore, they can create societies with "oughts" or laws that protect that end.

If society or the majority opinion dictates the ought, how does that translate into foreign relations. If say Uganda creates an ought about killing homosexuals or Nazi Germany creates an ought about killing non-"Aryans", for what reason could you find to disagree? I've seen you mention previously that the U.S. Had an obligation to intervene to stop the Holocaust, but if it was a social majority that created the ought, aren't you going against your aforementioned ethical system?

Minority individuals who do not agree with the "if" portion have no obligation to obey the "ought"....however society compensates this disagreement with punishment. So, the new "if" is: If you don't want to go to jail, you ought not X.

So then you admit that the majority is in this case forcing it's mere preferences (whether rational or irrational) on to a non-aggressive minority for simply having different inclinations?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.