Total Posts:30|Showing Posts:1-30
Jump to topic:

Why Libertarians Shouldn't Hate Gov

Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2010 6:28:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
http://reason.com...

For the record, I don't hate government.

I'm probably more of a classical liberal than a libertarian though. If I am a libertarian, I'm a consequentialist libertarian.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2010 6:46:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/4/2010 6:28:02 PM, Nags wrote:
http://reason.com...

For the record, I don't hate government.

I'm probably more of a classical liberal than a libertarian though. If I am a libertarian, I'm a consequentialist libertarian.

"Classical liberalism holds that individual rights are natural, inherent, or inalienable, and exist independently of government." - Wikipedia[1]

Last I checked you didn't believe in natural rights.

"In political philosophy, Libertarianism is a position that advocates the maximization of individual liberty and the minimization or even abolition of the state." - Wikipedia[2]

You do want to minimize the state, right? Then you are a libertarian.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
"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
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2010 6:52:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/4/2010 6:46:55 PM, Reasoning wrote:
"Classical liberalism holds that individual rights are natural, inherent, or inalienable, and exist independently of government." - Wikipedia[1]

Last I checked you didn't believe in natural rights.

Last time I checked that's not a prerequisite for being a classical liberal.

"In political philosophy, Libertarianism is a position that advocates the maximization of individual liberty and the minimization or even abolition of the state." - Wikipedia[2]

You do want to minimize the state, right? Then you are a libertarian.

What is this fallacy called? There are many political philosophies that advocate the minimization of the state, libertarian is just one.

You're saying that since I don't match up to one attribute of classical liberalism, then I'm not a classical liberal. You're also saying that since I match up to one attribute of libertarianism, then I'm a libertarian.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2010 7:00:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/4/2010 6:52:56 PM, Nags wrote:
At 2/4/2010 6:46:55 PM, Reasoning wrote:
"Classical liberalism holds that individual rights are natural, inherent, or inalienable, and exist independently of government." - Wikipedia[1]

Last I checked you didn't believe in natural rights.

Last time I checked that's not a prerequisite for being a classical liberal

Last I checked it was.

"In political philosophy, Libertarianism is a position that advocates the maximization of individual liberty and the minimization or even abolition of the state." - Wikipedia[2]

You do want to minimize the state, right? Then you are a libertarian.

What is this fallacy called? There are many political philosophies that advocate the minimization of the state, libertarian is just one.

You're saying that since I don't match up to one attribute of classical liberalism, then I'm not a classical liberal. You're also saying that since I match up to one attribute of libertarianism, then I'm a libertarian.

You misunderstand. The definition of a libertarian is who wishes to maximize individual liberty and abolish or minimize the state. That is it and nothing more. If you do so then you are a libertarian.
"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
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2010 7:07:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/4/2010 7:00:52 PM, Reasoning wrote:
Last I checked it was.

Then you're wrong. Please tell me where this is a pre-requisite.

You misunderstand. The definition of a libertarian is who wishes to maximize individual liberty and abolish or minimize the state. That is it and nothing more. If you do so then you are a libertarian.

"Milton Friedman, David D. Friedman, Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek are consequentalist libertarians, who use utilitarian consequentialist arguments to justify libertarian philosophies." [1]

"Ludwig Heinrich Edler von Mises [...] was an Austrian economist, philosopher, author and classical liberal who had a significant influence on the modern libertarian movement and the Austrian School." [2]

"Friedrich August von Hayek CH [...], was an Austrian-born economist and philosopher known for his defense of classical liberalism and free-market capitalism against socialist and collectivist thought." [3]

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...

In other words, you can be both.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2010 7:13:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/4/2010 7:07:09 PM, Nags wrote:
At 2/4/2010 7:00:52 PM, Reasoning wrote:
Last I checked it was.

Then you're wrong. Please tell me where this is a pre-requisite.

Classical Liberals believe in Natural Rights (see the wikipedia quoite
Nags does not believe in Natural Rights
Therefore Nags is not a classical liberal

"Milton Friedman, David D. Friedman, Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek are consequentalist libertarians, who use utilitarian consequentialist arguments to justify libertarian philosophies." [1]

Absolutely they were all libertarians, but Mises and Hayek referred to themselves as liberals and Hayek later had sme quote about being a Burkean Whig.

"Ludwig Heinrich Edler von Mises [...] was an Austrian economist, philosopher, author and classical liberal who had a significant influence on the modern libertarian movement and the Austrian School." [2]

Absolutely.

"Friedrich August von Hayek CH [...], was an Austrian-born economist and philosopher known for his defense of classical liberalism and free-market capitalism against socialist and collectivist thought." [3]

Absolutely.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...

In other words, you can be both.

I never said that you couldn't. You just happen not to be both.
"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
2/4/2010 7:16:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
"There runs through For a New Liberty (and most of the rest of my work as well) a deep and pervasive hatred of the State and all of its works, based on the conviction that the State is the enemy of mankind. In contrast, it is evident that David [Friedman] does not hate the State at all; that he has merely arrived at the conviction that anarchism and competing private police forces are a better social and economic system than any other alternative. Or, more fully, that anarchism would be better than laissez-faire which in turn is better than the current system. Amidst the entire spectrum of political alternatives, David Friedman has decided that anarcho-capitalism is superior. But superior to an existing political structure which is pretty good too. In short, there is no sign that David Friedman in any sense hates the existing American State or the State per se, hates it deep in his belly as a predatory gang of robbers, enslavers, and murderers." - 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
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2010 7:20:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/4/2010 7:13:02 PM, Reasoning wrote:
Classical Liberals believe in Natural Rights (see the wikipedia quoite
Nags does not believe in Natural Rights
Therefore Nags is not a classical liberal

Just because one doesn't believe in one attribute of a certain subject, doesn't mean one has to reject that subject as a whole. One doesn't need to believe in natural rights to be a classical liberal.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2010 7:23:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/4/2010 7:20:37 PM, Nags wrote:
At 2/4/2010 7:13:02 PM, Reasoning wrote:
Classical Liberals believe in Natural Rights (see the wikipedia quoite
Nags does not believe in Natural Rights
Therefore Nags is not a classical liberal

Just because one doesn't believe in one attribute of a certain subject, doesn't mean one has to reject that subject as a whole. One doesn't need to believe in natural rights to be a classical liberal.

If the page on libertarianism read:
"Libertarians believe that the state should be abolished." Then you wouldn't be a libertarian because you do not agree.

In the same way the page for classical liberalism specifically says that classical liberalism includes a belief in natural rights.
"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
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2010 7:25:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/4/2010 7:23:47 PM, Reasoning wrote:
If the page on libertarianism read:
"Libertarians believe that the state should be abolished." Then you wouldn't be a libertarian because you do not agree.

In the same way the page for classical liberalism specifically says that classical liberalism includes a belief in natural rights.

That's simply not true.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2010 7:28:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/4/2010 7:25:24 PM, Nags wrote:
That's simply not true.

"Classical liberalism holds that individual rights are natural, inherent, or inalienable, and exist independently of government." - Wikipedia

as compared to something like

"Libertarianism holds that the state should be abolished."
"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
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2010 7:37:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Come on guys, can't you get along?

As I understand it, classical liberalism does indeed consider the idea of natural rights, though I think Reasoning is being much to strict in his application of a Wikipedia article's sentence.

So, in the interest of fairness: Nags, what is your view on natural rights, or anything that can be considered "universal rights"?
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2010 7:43:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/4/2010 7:37:55 PM, Volkov wrote:
So, in the interest of fairness: Nags, what is your view on natural rights, or anything that can be considered "universal rights"?

Obviously not from God.

I believe in most of the natural rights in the US Constitution anyway. Life, liberty, and property. Pursuit of happiness is broad, but sure.

I never said I reject the validity of natural rights; but I did say it's not a pre-req for being a classical liberal.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2010 7:49:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/4/2010 7:43:53 PM, Nags wrote:
Obviously not from God.

I believe in most of the natural rights in the US Constitution anyway. Life, liberty, and property. Pursuit of happiness is broad, but sure.

Alright, see, Reasoning? He believes in natural rights, and just so you're aware Nags, there is ample opposition from classical liberals on the idea that natural rights derive from natural or Divine law. Case closed.

I never said I reject the validity of natural rights; but I did say it's not a pre-req for being a classical liberal.

Well, maybe not quite. I'm not completely knowledgeable in this field, but I do know that liberalism itself is based on the view and respect of rights. And seeing as how classical liberalism is the application of mostly negative rights, in order for that application to work, rights must exist outside of government. That, usually, implies natural rights. So, in a way, it can be considered a pre-requisite.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2010 8:17:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/4/2010 6:28:02 PM, Nags wrote:
http://reason.com...

For the record, I don't hate government.

I'm probably more of a classical liberal than a libertarian though. If I am a libertarian, I'm a consequentialist libertarian.

No one should not hate government!
That is wrong!
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2010 8:35:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Is wikipedia the free market anarchist version of Official Party Line, their definitions being absolute?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2010 8:37:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/4/2010 8:17:12 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 2/4/2010 6:28:02 PM, Nags wrote:
http://reason.com...

For the record, I don't hate government.

I'm probably more of a classical liberal than a libertarian though. If I am a libertarian, I'm a consequentialist libertarian.

No one should not hate government!
That is wrong!

I thought you WEREN'T an anarchist.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2010 7:51:42 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/4/2010 8:37:05 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 2/4/2010 8:17:12 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 2/4/2010 6:28:02 PM, Nags wrote:
http://reason.com...

For the record, I don't hate government.

I'm probably more of a classical liberal than a libertarian though. If I am a libertarian, I'm a consequentialist libertarian.

No one should not hate government!
That is wrong!

I thought you WEREN'T an anarchist.

?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2010 11:10:20 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/5/2010 7:51:42 AM, comoncents wrote:
At 2/4/2010 8:37:05 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 2/4/2010 8:17:12 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 2/4/2010 6:28:02 PM, Nags wrote:
http://reason.com...

For the record, I don't hate government.

I'm probably more of a classical liberal than a libertarian though. If I am a libertarian, I'm a consequentialist libertarian.

No one should not hate government!
That is wrong!

I thought you WEREN'T an anarchist.

?

Was the double negative accidental or?

"No one should not hate government!"
is equivalent in meaning to "Everyone should hate government"
which only makes sense if an anarchist says it, since it doesn't speak of a specific government but government in the abstract.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2010 11:13:18 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/5/2010 11:10:20 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 2/5/2010 7:51:42 AM, comoncents wrote:
At 2/4/2010 8:37:05 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 2/4/2010 8:17:12 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 2/4/2010 6:28:02 PM, Nags wrote:
http://reason.com...

For the record, I don't hate government.

I'm probably more of a classical liberal than a libertarian though. If I am a libertarian, I'm a consequentialist libertarian.

No one should not hate government!
That is wrong!

I thought you WEREN'T an anarchist.

?

Was the double negative accidental or?

"No one should not hate government!"
is equivalent in meaning to "Everyone should hate government"
which only makes sense if an anarchist says it, since it doesn't speak of a specific government but government in the abstract.

Oh snap, did not see the "not"

meant to say!!!!
No one should completely hate government!
That is wrong!
Discipulus
Posts: 36
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2010 2:37:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I use the word "government" as a cuss word, so I suppose you could say that I hate it. However, I hate existing governments, rather than the concept of government. I believe that government, however detestable it may be at times, is still necessary.

Thank you for the article, Nags.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2010 2:15:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/7/2010 2:04:26 PM, theLwerd wrote:
These "libertarians" crack me up... just to name a few.

http://www.debate.org...

Let's all become friends with this girl even though she might be a little slow just cuz she's straight! w00t!
President of DDO
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2010 2:19:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/7/2010 2:15:36 PM, theLwerd wrote:
At 2/7/2010 2:04:26 PM, theLwerd wrote:
These "libertarians" crack me up... just to name a few.

http://www.debate.org...

Let's all become friends with this girl even though she might be a little slow just cuz she's straight! w00t!

Hellz yes!
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2010 3:04:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/7/2010 3:01:26 PM, theLwerd wrote:
At 2/7/2010 2:19:47 PM, Nags wrote:
Hellz yes!

... Good point lol go 4 it.

Haha. She's not hot though. She has pics, is a teenager, is decent-looking, is a girl, and is straight. So what do you expect?
HazelMystic
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2010 1:14:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I think the state should be as minimal as possible to protect it's citizens, and that the most amount of personal freedom should be granted.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2010 1:28:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
And what do you mean by possible?

I'm sure there are Nazis who want the "most amount of freedom possible"-- they just think a very small amount is "possible."
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.