Meme Thread for Both Posting and Discussing Memes

[Marduk]

This isn't Rothbardian dogma. It not being mutual just means not asking permission to defend yourself. I don't think you understand what mutual means. It means asking. That's it. And libertarians don't need to ask for permission to defend themselves. Again, the comparison to christianity comes in helpful here. Just because the person living next door hates Christians doesn't mean you somehow can't be a Christian, even if they try to kill you for it. It doesn't break some principle of Christianity.

I didn't mean mutual in the libertarian theory sense, but in the common sense and foreign policy context.
As in, applicable only to other entities that subscribe to NAP too.
Otherwise you are vulnerable to other groups using the classic predatory policy of "When we are in a position of weakness, you can't attack us because NAP is your principle, but once we do get into a position of strength while not having to fear your attack, we will attack you, because NAP is not our principle".
One could call NAP a libertarianism flavored non-aggression pact. But it's crazy to follow a pact when the other side didn't even sign it in the first place.

Funny that you bring up Christianity, it too has the full span of controversy regarding when aggression is OK, how much of it is ok, and where the justifications end, from strict pacifists to a crusade NOW wing and lots of positions in between.

It's quite frankly a nonsensical objection.


Oh, but we can make an educated guess.


The Libertarian Party is a specific ideological subdivision, yes. But then even libertarians are defined by belief in the NAP.

I'd again use the Christian comparison here: those that don't actually believe in God or Jesus, but still claim to be Christian, aren't Christian. Yes, many don't follow this. But then they are simply wrong.

Obviously the party can be taken over by a specific ideological camp in it, so let's not beat around the bush, this is what happened.

As for NAP, libertarianism had NAP developed in its early days, without needing it to exist in the first place, and it's something even discussed only by libertarians.
It's more like claiming that Marian dogma is necessary to be a true Christian, even though many were Christians before that was a thing, and even now that would mean Protestants don't count.

The Origin of “Libertarianism” | Mises Institute

Our modern “libertarian” movement is often traced back to the classical liberals and before, and there are of course influences and predecessor ideas, but in my

mises.org

Mises.org has a whole article on origins of libertarianism without mentioning NAP a single time.
And that's written by a guy who subscribes to NAP and leans ancap enough to exclude minarchists from libertarianism wholesale.
I'd say the part about small government, free market and private property is core to libertarianism, the rest is add-ons, post-hoc justifications, customization options and divergent branches.

If you were right, it would be like a Christian church trying to explain the origin of Christianity without mentioning Jesus.

So there aren't actually 'plenty of libertarian critiques of it'. Sure, you managed to find one, good job. I'm sure if you looked you could find maybe a few more. Only that one is one of the main people who tried to add socialism onto libertarianism in his blog bleedingheartlibertarianism, which was 'how do we add a welfare state onto libertarianism' (exactly as dumb as it sounds).

Even wikipedia article on it says so:

Non-aggression principle - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The non-aggression principle is considered by some to be an essential idea of libertarianism, voluntaryism, anarcho-capitalism or minarchism.[9][10][11][12]

"Considered by some" is a qualifier i can agree with as long as i don't have to join them.

Another guy on the site also criticizes it from the pragmatic angle, with better and worse examples.

Loading…

www.libertarianism.org

Now there are a lot of reasons/ways some believe in the NAP. David Friedman believes in it because it's effective, but doesn't declare it as some perfect thing. Others are more like me and take it as the moral value. But this is what Libertarianism means: belief in the NAP.

Only among certain wing of libertarians leaning towards 60's counterculture influence.
For others, like me, libertarianism is about small government, low regulation, personal liberty and low taxes, and libertarians should stick to that, it's ridiculous when libertarians get into passionate arguments about foreign policy interventionism and say it's about core principles of libertarianism when it has nothing to do with these things and only makes them look even more unvotable weirdos than what they should be arguing, do you people expect to get the hippy vote and win with it?

 

[Abhorsen]

I didn't mean mutual in the libertarian theory sense, but in the common sense and foreign policy context.

I'm not talking about libertarian theory. I'm talking basic Eglish definition of the word mutual. It means joint agreement.

Otherwise you are vulnerable to other groups using the classic predatory policy of "When we are in a position of weakness, you can't attack us because NAP is your principle, but once we do get into a position of strength while not having to fear your attack, we will attack you, because NAP is not our principle".

Sure, whatever. Even accepting that, it still doesn't make it a mutual thing. Note that I'm not even defending the principle right here, I'm just saying it isn't mutual.

Also, counter to your point: nukes. Make it too painful to attack. Or just be Finland during the cold war (too much of a PITA to attack again).

One could call NAP a libertarianism flavored non-aggression pact. But it's crazy to follow a pact when the other side didn't even sign it in the first place.

No, you can't. Because it's not a pact. There is no agreement.

You clearly do not understand what mutual means. Mutual means that both sides agree to something or do something, etc.

The NAP does not depend on mutual consent. This is dumb. When X breaks into my house and I kill him, neither side asked for consent. When a country invades the US but gets nuked into oblivion, no one asked for some mutual understanding. There's nothing mutual about it.

Mises.org has a whole article on origins of libertarianism without mentioning NAP a single time.

This article isn't about the origins of libertarianism, this is about the origins of the word "Libertarianism." The movement happened before the word. And the authors he mentioned wrote about the NAP.

"Considered by some" is a qualifier i can agree with as long as i don't have to join them.

If you want to be a libertarian, yeah, you sorta do.

Let's look at your critique, and what he plans to replace libertarianism with:

I begin with an explicit commitment to liberal values: a belief in the moral worth of the individual, and a vision of social progress in which more and more people are flourishing in lives of their own choosing.

This is nice, but there's nothing about government staying out of lives there. In fact, one could follow this moral principle and end up in a very socialist place.

Look, I very much actually agree that the NAP isn't everything to Libertarians. I've even noted that it's not a complete moral code myself (notably it says nothing about the duty to care for children). But it's a crucial uniting step for libertarians, and to my mind the defining statement.

The people who don't, but are similar, I'd consider to be classically liberal (aka European Liberals). A classical liberal is not a libertarian though, despite being very close. Libertarians take the radical step of believing in the NAP.

As for NAP, libertarianism had NAP developed in its early days, without needing it to exist in the first place, and it's something even discussed only by libertarians.
It's more like claiming that Marian dogma is necessary to be a true Christian, even though many were Christians before that was a thing, and even now that would mean Protestants don't count.

I generally disagree with this. It's much more similar to NAP deniers being Arianists: completely different, and generally not considered Libertarian/Christian. Same when it comes to people who claim to be libertarian but don't at least somewhat value the NAP in their own way. I'm not even claiming it needs to be a central axiom (again, David Friedman is a great example). But it is still the core uniting belief.

 

[Marduk]

I'm not talking about libertarian theory. I'm talking basic Eglish definition of the word mutual. It means joint agreement.

Sure, whatever. Even accepting that, it still doesn't make it a mutual thing. Note that I'm not even defending the principle right here, I'm just saying it isn't mutual.

Lemme rephrase it. Technically, you can act on it unilaterally, my point is that acting on it unilaterally will end up with someone noticing, laughing at you, and screwing you over with that, and then laughing at you again.
If you are fine with that, sure, go on, but i'm not interested.

Also, counter to your point: nukes. Make it too painful to attack. Or just be Finland during the cold war (too much of a PITA to attack again).

In some circumstances. Nukes don't equal effective deterrence by themselves, they are just a common component of it.
For what you are thinking nukes do, you need nukes plus at least several state of art SSBNs loaded with state of art SLBMs to put the nukes on, that or some functional equivalent is the bare minimum, and that's not even affordable for smaller countries.

Counterpoint: Look at everything hybrid warfare and strategic warfare alike that Russia, Iran and China do to circumvent that problem while getting their push across despite the threat of nukes.
There are ways to go around that, and they are being advanced further right now.

And Finland during the Cold War was under limited sovereignty due to a shitty deal it had to take with the USSR, so that's a very bad example to bring up, and the defense side of things was just to make a "forced renegotiation" in further favor of the Soviets costly.

No, you can't. Because it's not a pact. There is no agreement.

So what it is then? A demand for a certain level of trust for other... political entities that do not subscribe to NAP, most of them very clearly.
I think the "you won't attack us because NAP is your principle, but..." problem is a reason to not interpret it like that, if at all.

You clearly do not understand what mutual means. Mutual means that both sides agree to something or do something, etc.

Yes. And i'm saying NAP needs to be made mutual to ever have a chance of working properly, the problems of not doing so being the worst once it has to interact with societies and organizations explicitly not based on NAP.

The NAP does not depend on mutual consent. This is dumb. When X breaks into my house and I kill him, neither side asked for consent. When a country invades the US but gets nuked into oblivion, no one asked for some mutual understanding. There's nothing mutual about it.

Your examples are obviously non-unique to NAP followers. Grug the caveman would have acted the same way, so would an average samurai or even a Nazi officer, even though none of them knew what NAP is and wouldn't care if they did.

However even in nuclear warfare doctrine NAP can be a liability.
How would have the Cuban Missile Crisis panned out if USA followed NAP strictly?
And that's without getting into the dilemmas of how to respond to small offenses that are somewhere below or around the line of what one may considered worth risking being nuked over in retaliation, politicians getting cold feet, hybrid warfare, cloak and dagger stuff, and some other problems.

This article isn't about the origins of libertarianism, this is about the origins of the word "Libertarianism." The movement happened before the word. And the authors he mentioned wrote about the NAP.

Did NAP happen to be a concept and central to libertarianism at that even before the word?

If you want to be a libertarian, yeah, you sorta do.

Nope, not really, it's not the Catholic Church.

Let's look at your critique, and what he plans to replace libertarianism with:

This is nice, but there's nothing about government staying out of lives there. In fact, one could follow this moral principle and end up in a very socialist place.

Yes, he's more of the left-libertarian bent. But then again, in other area so are the libertarians who think opposing warmongers is an important part of libertarianism.

Look, I very much actually agree that the NAP isn't everything to Libertarians. I've even noted that it's not a complete moral code myself (notably it says nothing about the duty to care for children). But it's a crucial uniting step for libertarians, and to my mind the defining statement.

The people who don't, but are similar, I'd consider to be classically liberal (aka European Liberals). A classical liberal is not a libertarian though, despite being very close. Libertarians take the radical step of believing in the NAP.

Another bonus of stripping universalism from NAP and applying it only to fellow libertarians would be that it becomes less radical and exploitable for non-libertarian organizations, while also adding an opportunity bonus to joining the libertarians.
In the end, libertarian laws and morals should prioritize serving the interests of libertarians, their societies and their countries, not those of everyone who competes against libertarians in various ways.

I generally disagree with this. It's much more similar to NAP deniers being Arianists: completely different, and generally not considered Libertarian/Christian. Same when it comes to people who claim to be libertarian but don't at least somewhat value the NAP in their own way. I'm not even claiming it needs to be a central axiom (again, David Friedman is a great example). But it is still the core uniting belief.

The more NAP is taken as a loose guideline, an intended spirit of the law formed in a libertarian country and less as a fundamental principle to be applied to everything in absolute terms, the more functional it is.

 

[Abhorsen]

Lemme rephrase it. Technically, you can act on it unilaterally, my point is that acting on it unilaterally will end up with someone noticing, laughing at you, and screwing you over with that, and then laughing at you again.
If you are fine with that, sure, go on, but i'm not interested.

That's fine. My original issue was the concept of the NAP being some mutual arrangement with others, which it very much isn't. I wasn't looking to get into it's effectiveness here.

So what it is then? A demand for a certain level of trust for other... political entities that do not subscribe to NAP, most of them very clearly.
I think the "you won't attack us because NAP is your principle, but..." problem is a reason to not interpret it like that, if at all.

No, the NAP is just a principle. It's in the name: The Non-Aggression Principle. It doesn't matter what others do, you follow the NAP. Sure, your consistent behavior might inspire trust, or it might inspire the idea that you are easy to attack. And note that there are a lot of different interpretations of what the NAP entails when it comes to war as well.

For example, Israel's pre-emptive strikes could be argued to fall within the NAP, as the aggression was already there (you don't have to wait for the person to pull the trigger to fire back).

France's policy of nuking anyone who invades them? Very inline with the NAP.

In fact, I'd say that a non stupid case could be made for a great deal of countries that their foreign military actions in the past 30 years fell within the NAP. The big exceptions are the US and allies who helped in the Iraq war (for the Iraq war at a minimum, but a few others), Russia (Georgia and Ukraine), Azberijistan/Armenia, the various middle east countries funding terrorism, North Korea, and China with the seven dashes (fraud generally violates the NAP). I'm sure there's a few others I'm missing, but there's a large chunk that do fine.

Did NAP happen to be a concept and central to libertarianism at that even before the word?

Yes. Rothbard was writing about it far before the word 'libertarianism' got attached to the ideology (EDIT: the concept of the NAP existed before, but Rothbard specifically postdated the term Libertarianism, though he was a major contributed to the promotion of the term). But even he noted it predated him, citing among other St. Thomas Aquinas. Obviously it wasn't called the NAP then, I'm pretty sure Rothbard might have been the first to use the particular term "aggression" as well. But the idea is plenty old.

Note that it's not the Golden Rule, though it is similar. The golden rule also has a very long history, but it makes a positive claim against you: that you must act in a certain way. The NAP is completely negative: don't do this. Also, the NAP centers around how the other person consents to be treated, and tells you when you can ignore that as well.

As for it being central, yes, it was. Rothbard, who's generally considered it's founder (there's a fair argument for Rand, who also believed this), held it as core. Now yes, all of libertarianism generally flows from Rothbard or touches Rothbard (those predating him tend to be classical liberals more than libertarians).

Nope, not really, it's not the Catholic Church.

I'm comparing it to Christianity as a whole, not just the Catholic Church. And it's just like any other philosophy: if you reject it's core principles, you kinda aren't one. It's like trying to add markets to marxism: I've looked at Markets not Capitalism for an example, and it's basically anarcho-socialists who realized socialism doesn't work, and are now AnCaps, but still want to think of themselves as socialists. They aren't actually socialists anymore, as much as they may protest (and as much as we AnCaps probably don't want them).

If you are similar, but don't believe in the NAP, you are a classical liberal, not a libertarian. Simple as. At somepoint, you simply don't meet the basic definition.

Yes, he's more of the left-libertarian bent. But then again, in other area so are the libertarians who think opposing warmongers is an important part of libertarianism.

He's not a libertarian. As for opposing warmongers, you will get some actual libertarians to sign off on this, as of course, just like Christianity, there's all types of libertarians. I very much disagree with them, but if they are doing it out of some belief in the NAP, I think they are wrong, but they are libertarians.

Another bonus of stripping universalism from NAP and applying it only to fellow libertarians would be that it becomes less radical and exploitable for non-libertarian organizations, while also adding an opportunity bonus to joining the libertarians.
In the end, libertarian laws and morals should prioritize serving the interests of libertarians, their societies and their countries, not those of everyone who competes against libertarians in various ways.

So Libertarians should just randomly attack people on the street and steal stuff then, unless they show their libertarian ID card? I'm sorry, but I'm uninterested in acting like a communist.

Shockingly, Libertarians have a libertarian way to deal with non-libertarians: private property, keepout signs, and mass immigration of libertarians to NH, while making it as hostile as possible to non-libertarians, while still staying within the NAP. For example, open carry, banning trans books in schools, school voucher programs, etc.

Look, libertarians very much don't want to just become neolibs or neo cons. We are different.

The more NAP is taken as a loose guideline, an intended spirit of the law formed in a libertarian country and less as a fundamental principle to be applied to everything in absolute terms, the more functional it is.

If by "functional" you mean "I can replace it with some desire/philosophy" yes. The less you follow a particular moral system (in this case Libertarianism) the easier it is to do what you wanted to do instead, ignoring what the moral system tells you to do.

 

[Marduk]

That's fine. My original issue was the concept of the NAP being some mutual arrangement with others, which it very much isn't. I wasn't looking to get into it's effectiveness here.

Seems like we conceptualize libertarianism on a different level - for you it's a moral principle first, with NAP on top, and the rest being up for negotiation on that basis, while i see it as the political idea for small government with lots of freedom for its citizens, that also has some odd twists, variations and expansions available.

No, the NAP is just a principle. It's in the name: The Non-Aggression Principle. It doesn't matter what others do, you follow the NAP. Sure, your consistent behavior might inspire trust, or it might inspire the idea that you are easy to attack. And note that there are a lot of different interpretations of what the NAP entails when it comes to war as well.

For example, Israel's pre-emptive strikes could be argued to fall within the NAP, as the aggression was already there (you don't have to wait for the person to pull the trigger to fire back).

France's policy of nuking anyone who invades them? Very inline with the NAP.

Well those are easy in the context of modern bleeding edge in terms of international mid level violence category. Then again, neither Israel nor France practice NAP.
Want some more questionable situation, Israel cyberattacking Iran's nuclear program, or France sinking the Greenpeace ship.

In fact, I'd say that a non stupid case could be made for a great deal of countries that their foreign military actions in the past 30 years fell within the NAP. The big exceptions are the US and allies who helped in the Iraq war (for the Iraq war at a minimum, but a few others), Russia (Georgia and Ukraine), Azberijistan/Armenia, the various middle east countries funding terrorism, North Korea, and China with the seven dashes (fraud generally violates the NAP). I'm sure there's a few others I'm missing, but there's a large chunk that do fine.

So it's basically the usual political bickering over whose wars are just and whose aren't, with a dose of US anti-war movement bent - after all, Saddam was not a saint by any measure and neither did anyone else in ME, as you noted, the whole terrorism funding thing and a lot of other activities from under the sign of cloak and dagger are ways for countries attempting to fuck around and get away without finding out that they are fucking with a much more powerful country.

Yes. Rothbard was writing about it far before the word 'libertarianism' got attached to the ideology. But even he noted it predated him, citing among other St. Thomas Aquinas. Obviously it wasn't called the NAP then, I'm pretty sure Rothbard might have been the first to use the particular term "aggression" as well. But the idea is plenty old.

Aquinas gets also tied to the Christian "just war" concept, which is clearly separate from NAP and more appropriate for him, and the other political doctrines built on his views are also distinct from NAP.

Note that it's not the Golden Rule, though it is similar. The golden rule also has a very long history, but it makes a positive claim against you: that you must act in a certain way. The NAP is completely negative: don't do this. Also, the NAP centers around how the other person consents to be treated, and tells you when you can ignore that as well.

Either way, even back in the age when this stuff from Christian side was taken seriously, it was well understood that trying to strictly apply it to foreign policy, especially to non-Christians, is not gonna end well.

As for it being central, yes, it was. Rothbard, who's generally considered it's founder (there's a fair argument for Rand, who also believed this), held it as core. Now yes, all of libertarianism generally flows from Rothbard or touches Rothbard (those predating him tend to be classical liberals more than libertarians).

The history of libertarianism goes a little bit further than Rothbard.
Including the use of self-description as libertarian when Rothbard was still a teenager.

I'm comparing it to Christianity as a whole, not just the Catholic Church. And it's just like any other philosophy: if you reject it's core principles, you kinda aren't one. It's like trying to add markets to marxism: I've looked at Markets not Capitalism for an example, and it's basically anarcho-socialists who realized socialism doesn't work, and are now AnCaps, but still want to think of themselves as socialists. They aren't actually socialists anymore, as much as they may protest (and as much as we AnCaps probably don't want them).

If you are similar, but don't believe in the NAP, you are a classical liberal, not a libertarian. Simple as. At somepoint, you simply don't meet the basic definition.

The term libertarian itself started as the equivalent to "classical liberal" but before that term was cool, but started in the same way, as a reaction to liberalism being co-opted and watered down by other kinds of politics. As such libertarianism in its core is just a more orthodox version of liberalism, that may or may not contain some expansions, but that's like arguing which denominations of Christianity are real Christianity, which also has immense chaos regarding which recognize which.

He's not a libertarian. As for opposing warmongers, you will get some actual libertarians to sign off on this, as of course, just like Christianity, there's all types of libertarians. I very much disagree with them, but if they are doing it out of some belief in the NAP, I think they are wrong, but they are libertarians.

I thought libertarianism is a political philosophy, not a religious one, with NAP being its shahada.

So Libertarians should just randomly attack people on the street and steal stuff then, unless they show their libertarian ID card? I'm sorry, but I'm uninterested in acting like a communist.

As the saying goes, just because you can doesn't mean it's the smart thing to do and you should do it. Besides, trying to project personal level morals onto how states interact and vice versa is an old and classic blunder of people who care more about purity of moral theories than about whether they work in practice, many major religions and communism too had problems with that issue.
I think it was in pre-modern Japan where it was stated most openly, with different social classes with different relations to wealth, power and violence going towards different variations of Buddhism more suitable to their lifestyle even within the same society.

Just like you can probably point out which countries are communist without having a whole bunch of government officials solely dedicated to foreign affairs work on that, which even a small government would have few of, you could point out which countries are libertarian if there were any, so you don't really have that problem on the state level, even if it is a practical one on personal level.

Shockingly, Libertarians have a libertarian way to deal with non-libertarians: private property, keepout signs, and mass immigration of libertarians to NH, while making it as hostile as possible to non-libertarians, while still staying within the NAP. For example, open carry, banning trans books in schools, school voucher programs, etc.

Seems like said libertarians are very stuck in their mindset of frontier or those with more anarchist leaning, some sort of hypothetical post apocalyptic wasteland with no state, but once you start applying it to inter-state relations these ideas get thrown into deeper waters than they are made for.

Look, libertarians very much don't want to just become neolibs or neo cons. We are different.


If by "functional" you mean "I can replace it with some desire/philosophy" yes. The less you follow a particular moral system (in this case Libertarianism) the easier it is to do what you wanted to do instead, ignoring what the moral system tells you to do.

I think at that point we may as well draw a line between small l libertarianism (set of mundane political ideas) and big l Libertarianism (moral philosophy with some sets of politics attached). They sound similar, but arrive at the same point through sometimes different line of thinking, and one cares about the line of thinking more than about where it arrives.

 

[Abhorsen]

Seems like we conceptualize libertarianism on a different level - for you it's a moral principle first, with NAP on top, and the rest being up for negotiation on that basis, while i see it as the political idea for small government with lots of freedom for its citizens, that also has some odd twists, variations and expansions available.

Small government is nice, we agree. But you are a classical liberal, not a libertarian. I'm sorry libertarianism has a definition you don't fit. That's fine, a classical liberal is a fine thing to be. But it's a different thing than libertarianism, which has a definition.

The history of libertarianism goes a little bit further than Rothbard.
Including the use of self-description as libertarian when Rothbard was still a teenager.

Sorta kinda. The philosophy wasn't quite there yet, despite the term being there. I'd really call that the proto-Libertarianism times. At first, it was a simple renaming of liberalism, but that started to change. Eventually, and this was (IMO) mostly Rothbard, it crystalized.

Seems like said libertarians are very stuck in their mindset of frontier or those with more anarchist leaning, some sort of hypothetical post apocalyptic wasteland with no state, but once you start applying it to inter-state relations these ideas get thrown into deeper waters than they are made for.

Sure man. Or they have actual principles that they follow.

I think at that point we may as well draw a line between small l libertarianism (set of mundane political ideas) and big l Libertarianism (moral philosophy with some sets of politics attached). They sound similar, but arrive at the same point through sometimes different line of thinking, and one cares about the line of thinking more than about where it arrives.

Funnily enough, again, you are trying to redefine terms already used. Small l libertarianism? that's believers in the NAP. Big L Libertarians are those in the Libertarian Party.

What you are talking about is a classical liberal.

 

[Marduk]

Small government is nice, we agree. But you are a classical liberal, not a libertarian. I'm sorry libertarianism has a definition you don't fit. That's fine, a classical liberal is a fine thing to be. But it's a different thing than libertarianism, which has a definition.

A definition only some libertarians agree with. Now. And didn't even exist when people started calling themselves libertarian.

Sorta kinda. The philosophy wasn't quite there yet, despite the term being there. I'd really call that the proto-Libertarianism times. At first, it was a simple renaming of liberalism, but that started to change. Eventually, and this was (IMO) mostly Rothbard, it crystalized.

So, you're just Rothbardian, trying to tell everyone else what libertarianism means, "surprisingly" the more ideologically divergent kinds don't count.

Sure man. Or they have actual principles that they follow.

If your principles turn your foreign policy into a legal/moral argument going back to core moral beliefs before the pragmatic geopolitical considerations of whether you can and should do something, nevermind actually try doing it, well that would be one explanation why libertarians don't get to control countries.

We already have a similar problem with the human rights people, even prouder of their much more widely recognized principles, who do the same, and suddenly it turns out countries that listen to them can't effectively deport people from third world if they really don't want to go, because it can be rule lawyered that this is what human rights mean, and they don't care that in practical terms it's something with disastrous implications in long term because doing anything else would violate their principles.
Libertarians can and should learn from mistakes of others.
Start moralizing too much about foreign policy, and a doomed to failure foreign policy is what you're gonna get, wouldn't be the first religion or ideology to trip on that, and probably not the last either.

Funnily enough, again, you are trying to redefine terms already used. Small l libertarianism? that's believers in the NAP. Big L Libertarians are those in the Libertarian Party.

Even the Libertarian Party changes its views and potentially can even more, and besides that's inapplicable to non-US libertarians.

What you are talking about is a classical liberal.

So it's just more of defining libertarianism by own particular wing of it.

 

[Abhorsen]

So, you're just Rothbardian, trying to tell everyone else what libertarianism means, "surprisingly" the more ideologically divergent kinds don't count.

See, I didn't say that. I even included David Friedman, who for the record, I wildly disagree with on a host of topics, including how he treats the NAP. You just don't seem to know what libertarianism is. And you constantly show it with your set of opinions.

If your principles turn your foreign policy into a legal/moral argument going back to core moral beliefs before the pragmatic geopolitical considerations of whether you can and should do something, nevermind actually try doing it, well that would be one explanation why libertarians don't get to control countries.

I'm sorry that you feel that morality is so unimportant that it can be ditched for convenience. I'm also sorry that you are blind to the countless nations that don't flagrantly violate the NAP, like Israel or Switzerland or Finland or Jordan or etc.

Even the Libertarian Party changes its views and potentially can even more, and besides that's inapplicable to non-US libertarians.

I'm sorry words have definitions that you dislike. This appears to be a recurring problem with you.

So it's just more of defining libertarianism by own particular wing of it.

Not a wing buddy. You just aren't a member. There's basic statement of faith. I'm sorry you disagree with it. Have fun as a classical liberal or whatever you are.

 

[Scottty]

"Liberal" is another word with a range of meanings...

 

[Abhorsen]

 

[Marduk]

See, I didn't say that. I even included David Friedman, who for the record, I wildly disagree with on a host of topics, including how he treats the NAP. You just don't seem to know what libertarianism is. And you constantly show it with your set of opinions.

>how he treats the NAP
Implying other libertarians treat it differently, it's not like Friedman is the pope of libertarians.

I'm sorry that you feel that morality is so unimportant that it can be ditched for convenience. I'm also sorry that you are blind to the countless nations that don't flagrantly violate the NAP, like Israel or Switzerland or Finland or Jordan or etc.

Yeah, sure, but it is irrelevant how countries in a calm geopolitical neighborhood act as that's not challenging to it, and even in case of Israel you will get libertarians who argue a lot about it.
And then you get more complicated shit with proxies and non state actors like Houthis and various Hezbollah proxies of Iran.

I'm sorry words have definitions that you dislike. This appears to be a recurring problem with you.

Of i don't have to like it as it's your private definition. It's hard to find in any dictionary or encyclopedia. Here you have 3 quite respectable ones:

Libertarianism | Definition, Philosophy, Examples, History, & Facts

Libertarianism, political philosophy that takes individual liberty to be the primary political value. It may be seen as a form of liberalism, the political philosophy associated with the English philosophers John Locke and John Stuart Mill, the Scottish economist Adam Smith, and the American...

www.britannica.com

Not a single word about NAP, non-aggression principle, anything.

Libertarianism

"Libertarianism" published on by Oxford University Press.

oxfordre.com

As above.

Libertarianism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy/Summer 2020 Edition)

As above.
This one even goes out of its way to point out that different libertarians arrive to libertarian politics through different principles.

[h2][/h2]
Just as Nozick may have seen libertarianism as the best way to express a host of moral considerations in the realm of justice, so too many other libertarians embrace different principles as the foundation of their theories. Such authors seek to honor people as rights-holders or sovereign individuals, whom we need to treat as the primary claimants of their lives and bodies. But they also seek to avoid some of the implausible elements of full self-ownership. Views like this treat self-ownership neither as necessary maximally strong, nor as self-evident or foundational.

Yeah, libertarian politics contain a whole fucking lot of random ass branches, but that's one of things i like about them.

Not a wing buddy. You just aren't a member. There's basic statement of faith. I'm sorry you disagree with it. Have fun as a classical liberal or whatever you are.

Yeah, right, the old meme i posted demonstrates that libertarian problem throughly.

 

[Blasterbot]

girls girls. both your ideal libertarian philosophies are very pretty. please make an arguing the perfect ideal form of libertarianism thread if you want to continue this.

 

[Agent23]

girls girls. both your ideal libertarian philosophies are very pretty. please make an arguing the perfect ideal form of libertarianism thread if you want to continue this.

I didn't look, is this related to more Muh Russian reeing?!?

Anyways, back to our schedules program, I am sure @Abhorsen will enjoy:


Bulgarian cops in action.

 

[mrttao]

I didn't look, is this related to more Muh Russian reeing?!?

They are arguing about who is and isn't a "real libertarian" as well as the True way to implement Non Aggression Principal

 

[Agent23]

They are arguing about who is and isn't a "real libertarian" as well as the True way to implement Non Aggression Principal

Thst is how it is going, I was wondering how it started.
My 2 cents.
Real Libertarianism/Ancap/Free market has never been tried.

 

[mrttao]

Thst is how it is going, I was wondering how it started.
My 2 cents.
Real Libertarianism/Ancap/Free market has never been tried.

Fun fact. it has been tried once. (I mean on a larger scale. not a hunter gatherer tribe)

It was nice for like... IIRC it was 3 year maybe? before someone randomly strolled in and conquered them because they didn't have an army.

 

[Bassoe]

 

[Agent23]

Also smears hotel room walls with fecal matter after being told he can't stay for free anymore and must move to a other, less nice place that is still free.

 

[TheRejectionist]

There's a reason I "Meh" at Uni degrees.

That's because most of them are useless.

I don't think in my case the degree is useless, the people having it are. Like, most degrees...think about it...even in IT happens a lot because you might have the best programmers but they have the comms skills of a gerbil. Even if they have the best know how or whatever,

Oh boy yeah the education industry is fucked, a lot of the higher grades of education (tertiary and up) are men, but with children it's almost all women.

Incompetent, retarded, politically biased and indoctrinating women.

I don't have this degree of things in my country (yet and afaik) but to a degree it is kinda right : one of my former colleagues wants to be an Italian teacher (and we are teaching English), the other one does philosophy (granted both are competent in the field).

The last one talked me about climate change once. I simply said I don't trust politicians that pollute more than an entire city to go talk about climate change. She wasn't angry but did say something that in English "let's not generalize everybody".

 

[Agent23]

Unfortunately 'just following orders' was not a viable excuse at Nuremberg. Chop chop!

Education nowadays is also a field you don't choose as much as you fall into.

That, and the fact that people think male teachers must be pedos leads to it becoming a dumpster for below average intelligence, bellow average work ethic and massively entitled doorknocker nose piercing and purple pageboy haircut bitches that crave power and a jobe where they can laze around and not get fired.

It is not much of a stretch for them to also be some type of pervert, too.

TBH the majority of literature teachers probably failed onto it after they got an <insert language degree here> which they got because they wanted to be writers or, even cringeier, poets.

To that you can add the feminine proclivity for leftoid stupidity and outright hatered of meritocracy and you get a modern day teacher.