Libertarianism as the Handmaiden to Socialism

[DocSolarisReich]

Exactly. That's the point. All moral basis rely on base assumptions. It's just that libertarianism has a good one.

At last, a true statement. As far is it goes. Ultimately Libertarianism is founded on the words of the Serpent to Eve. This is the meaning of all those 'state of nature' just so stories.

"1Now the serpent was more subtle than any of the beasts of the earth which the Lord God made. And he said to the woman: Why hath God commanded you, that you should not eat of every tree of paradise? 2And the woman answered him, saying: Of the fruit of the trees that are in paradise we do eat: 3But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of paradise, God hath commanded us that we should not eat; and that we should not touch it, lest perhaps we die. 4And the serpent said to the woman: No, you shall not die the death. 5For God doth know that in what day soever you shall eat thereof, your eyes shall be opened: and you shall be as Gods, knowing good and evil. 6And the woman saw that the tree was good to eat, and fair to the eyes, and delightful to behold: and she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave to her husband who did eat. 7And the eyes of them both were opened: and when they perceived themselves to be naked, they sewed together fig leaves, and made themselves aprons."

 

[Abhorsen]

At last, a true statement. As far is it goes. Ultimately Libertarianism is founded on the words of the Serpent to Eve. This is the meaning of all those 'state of nature' just so stories.

"1Now the serpent was more subtle than any of the beasts of the earth which the Lord God made. And he said to the woman: Why hath God commanded you, that you should not eat of every tree of paradise? 2And the woman answered him, saying: Of the fruit of the trees that are in paradise we do eat: 3But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of paradise, God hath commanded us that we should not eat; and that we should not touch it, lest perhaps we die. 4And the serpent said to the woman: No, you shall not die the death. 5For God doth know that in what day soever you shall eat thereof, your eyes shall be opened: and you shall be as Gods, knowing good and evil. 6And the woman saw that the tree was good to eat, and fair to the eyes, and delightful to behold: and she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave to her husband who did eat. 7And the eyes of them both were opened: and when they perceived themselves to be naked, they sewed together fig leaves, and made themselves aprons."

Now can you acknowledge that libertarianism doesn't depend on homo economicus?

 

[DocSolarisReich]

Now can you acknowledge that libertarianism doesn't depend on homo economicus?

And now we're back to lying to my face.

 

[Abhorsen]

And now we're back to lying to my face.

No, we're back to your idiocy. Where in my chain of logic was homo economicus assumed? Oh right, it wasn't. Your like talking to a brick wall, and half as useful.

 

[DocSolarisReich]

No, we're back to your idiocy. Where in my chain of logic was homo economicus assumed? Oh right, it wasn't. Your like talking to a brick wall, and half as useful.

You chain of logic, so called, has nothing to do with the actual intellectual history or development of libertarianism.

 

[Bear Ribs]

You chain of logic, so called, has nothing to do with the actual intellectual history or development of libertarianism.

But does his chain of logic include homo economicus? If so, where? If not, you need to retract your claim that it does and concede the point.

 

[Abhorsen]

You chain of logic, so called, has nothing to do with the actual intellectual history or development of libertarianism.

So? I fail to see why the history of an idea applies to the usefulness of the idea. In fact, attacking the origin of an idea instead of the idea is a logical fallacy.

I dont give a shit who had the idea. It's a good idea.

 

[DocSolarisReich]

But does his chain of logic include homo economicus? If so, where? If not, you need to retract your claim that it does and concede the point.

I make no claims that his mutilated and incomplete picture of what libertarianism is includes anything explicitly.

 

[Abhorsen]

I make no claims that his mutilated and incomplete picture of what libertarianism is includes anything explicitly.

How is it missing things? You simply don't understand what libertarianism is, apparently, given that you seem to think it relies on utilitarianism.

 

[DocSolarisReich]

How is it missing things? You simply don't understand what libertarianism is, apparently, given that you seem to think it relies on utilitarianism.

I don't even know what to say to that. Go in peace.

 

[Bear Ribs]

Doesn’t matter that there’s prescriptive claim, what matters is that homo economicus is assumed.

The only reason to adopt the NAP in the first place is that we assume Homo economicus is true. First we assume that happiness is dying of old age with the most stuff, then it follows that the NAP is the way to go about it.

And we're back to our homo economicus.

I make no claims that his mutilated and incomplete picture of what libertarianism is includes anything explicitly.

Okay then....

 

[Abhorsen]

I don't even know what to say to that. Go in peace.

No, seriously. Back up your claim that the NAP ideologically relies on utilitarianism, not historically.

 

[DocSolarisReich]

No, seriously. Back up your claim that the NAP ideologically relies on utilitarianism, not historically.

Why should I even accept that libertarianism is based solely on your NAP?

 

[Bear Ribs]

Why should I even accept that libertarianism is based solely on your NAP?

Because I say so?

You've already answered your own question here.

 

[Abhorsen]

Why should I even accept that libertarianism is based solely on your NAP?

Because I made a coherent argument about it before? Because repeated libertarian philosophers have agreed with me? Basic research which you should have done if you at if your claim to once be a libertarian is true?

 

[DocSolarisReich]

You've already answered your own question here.

Yes, I object to attempts to claim some sort of high ground by asserting that some claims need proof and others do not. Which is it?

If he can say that libertarianism, for him, is only the NAP and nothing else.

Ok then. Fine. Whatever.

But that's not what the rest of us mean when we say that 'libertarianism is the handmaiden to socialism'.

 

[S'task]

So? I fail to see why the history of an idea applies to the usefulness of the idea. In fact, attacking the origin of an idea instead of the idea is a logical fallacy.

I dont give a shit who had the idea. It's a good idea.

Strictly speaking, the NAP is just a slight rephrase of a much older axiom that has been repeated throughout multiple cultures throughout the world, but is best known in Western thought as "The Golden Rule": "In everything do unto others what you would have them do unto you..."

As such, one can make a fairly strong case that Libertarianism is founded upon, in this case, Christian morality, and its core axiom is, in point of fact, laid down by God.

That said, I do have to take umbridge with you claiming that "Libertarianism" is where we get the concepts of Free Speech, et all from. It's not, Libertarianism as an ideology clearly post-dates those ideals, forming as an early 20th century response to the challenges of Marxism and Fascism. Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism are related ideologies, I'll grant, but there are significant disconnects between the two when it comes to the level of government influence in society especially in regards to public morality. The 18th and 19th Century Classical Liberals, including those who founded the US and built its institutions around the ideals of Classical Liberalism, had no problems with, say, outlawing sexual behavior they thought caused issues with for society, mandating certain religious values be taught in schools, and any number of things which modern Libertarians would take sever umbrage with.

 

[Abhorsen]

That said, I do have to take umbridge with you claiming that "Libertarianism" is where we get the concepts of Free Speech, et all from.

I agree with this. What I was trying to get at was saying that libertarian ideals still advance, despite not being advanced under the libertarian flag.

Yes, I object to attempts to claim some sort of high ground by asserting that some claims need proof and others do not. Which is it?

If he can say that libertarianism, for him, is only the NAP and nothing else.

Ok then. Fine. Whatever.

But that's not what the rest of us mean when we say that 'libertarianism is the handmaiden to socialism'.

The claim has a lot of proof. Libertarianism in the United States is pro freedom, in both the economic and social sense, and this derives from the NAP, as it states in the NAP wikipesia article I linked earlier. Or this article, which while criticizing the NAP, acknowledges it as the basis for libertarianism.

THE LIBERTARIAN NONAGGRESSION PRINCIPLE | Social Philosophy and Policy | Cambridge Core

THE LIBERTARIAN NONAGGRESSION PRINCIPLE - Volume 32 Issue 2

www.cambridge.org

And I can get more and more citations about the NAP being the foundational principle of Libertarianism.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

Strictly speaking, the NAP is just a slight rephrase of a much older axiom that has been repeated throughout multiple cultures throughout the world, but is best known in Western thought as "The Golden Rule": "In everything do unto others what you would have them do unto you..."

As such, one can make a fairly strong case that Libertarianism is founded upon, in this case, Christian morality, and its core axiom is, in point of fact, laid down by God.

That's probably not going back far enough for the origins of that sentiment. It likely predates Sumer and Akkad.

 

[S'task]

That's probably not going back far enough for the origins of that sentiment. It likely predates Sumer and Akkad.

Oh, I know the Biblical quote by Christ is not the oldest, the Confucian version (phrased as "Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you.") appears in the Analytics which slightly predate the New Testament, for instance, and the number of ways this principle has been laid out across civilizations and time is numerous (see Golden Rule for a brief overview). The NAP is just a modern rephrasing, I was using the Christian version due to the authority it carries with many in this audience (myself included).