What Libertarianism Is

[Conza88]

No, it doesn't. Self-ownership could be the a priori assumption in all of our reasoning and action, but it still does not imply that it is right.

When it is properly logically deduced, it is. You cannot deny it, without affirming it... as such it reaches the status of an axiom.

Thanks for the continued bumps.

 

[Sola_Fide]

When it is properly logically deduced, it is. You cannot deny it, without affirming it... as such it reaches the status of an axiom.

Thanks for the continued bumps.

Okay, let's try to connect the dots here:

It is impossible to deny self-ownership without affirming it--------------------->therefore, it is wrong to aggress against others?

Why? Where do you get the prescription from the premise? You don't.

As I said, it is possible that self-ownership could be axiomatic, but that in no way implies, from the premises, that it is unethical to inhibit other's ownership. The mere presupposition of something does not make it ethical.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Conza,

Do you realize how absurd it is to say engaging in argumentation proves people's self ownership? Do slaves engage in argumentation?

There is no ontological (what is) proof of libertarianism because libertarianism is in no way an ontological fact. Look around you man.

I'm sorry, but this argumentation is not sound.

 

[Conza88]

Okay, let's try to connect the dots here:

It is impossible to deny self-ownership without affirming it--------------------->therefore, it is wrong to aggress against others?

Why? Where do you get the prescription from the premise? You don't.

As I said, it is possible that self-ownership could be axiomatic, but that in no way implies, from the premises, that it is unethical to inhibit other's ownership. The mere presupposition of something does not make it ethical.

Let's connect the dots... THAT IS NOT WHAT THE ARGUMENT ENTAILS.

IF YOU HAD ACTUALLY READ THE CHIEF SOURCE / ORIGINAL ARTICLE WHICH PUTS FORWARD THE ARGUMENT YOU WOULD KNOW THIS...

And yet you continue to bask in all your ignorant 'glory'. Pathetic. I address your delusions here...here (again).

 

[Revolution9]

Libertarianism is the belief that the initiation of force is immoral. Full Stop. That's it. Everything else follows from that, including liberty, etc.

It is important to keep a very clear definition of what libertarianism is so that we have a common basis for discussion. The definition I just gave is not my definition, it is not a made up one, it is the one given by the founders of the modern libertarian movement who cooped that word to mean what was previously known as "liberal" or "classical liberal" or "reason".

A pledge in this belief-- that the initiation of force against the innocent is immoral-- was required of all members of the Libertarian Party for many years.

It is the definition of libertarianism . IF you reject it, that's fine, just don't call yourself a libertarian.

Conza and that crew are full of hot air and slippery definitions. This is the correct definition.

Rev9

 

[Conza88]

Conza and that crew are full of hot air and slippery definitions. This is the correct definition.

... do you actually want to read the OP, especially the first few paragraphs.. and tell me what is wrong with it? Aye?

I accept in the liberty movement anyone who supports the NAP, i.e a big tent. War is not part of that tent. You can call yourself a libertarian, but if you're a consequentalist, utilitarian etc... you're wrong and your 'philosophy' is not grounded properly. That however, generally doesn't mean you can't help bring people into the fold..

 

[robert68]

No, it doesn't. Self-ownership could be the a priori assumption in all of our reasoning and action, but it still does not imply that it is right.

If one doesn't have ownership (the right to control) their body, who or what does?

 

[Sola_Fide]

If one shouldn’t have ownership of their body, who or what should?

I have made a case for ownership in other threads, and it would be along the lines of how Hans Sennholz made it.

I am just not insane enough to say that a slave has ontological self-ownership by the fact that he engages in argumentation. AE has a huge problem with the naturalistic fallacy. The refutations to AE have been out there for a long time.

 

[robert68]

I have made a case for ownership in other threads, and it would be along the lines of how Hans Sennholz made it.

Self ownership or just ownership of external scarce resources?

 

[Sola_Fide]

Self ownership or just ownership of external scarce resources?

Both.

"The market order or capitalism finds its answers in the Judeo-Christian code of morality. Private ownership in production is squarely based on the Ten Commandments. It obviously rests on the Eighth Commandment: Thou shalt not steal. The private- ownership system also builds on the solid foundation of the Sixth Commandment: Thou shalt not kill, which includes every form of coercion and violence....

To freely exchange goods and services, the contracting parties must not deceive each other. They must not bear false witness, which is the Ninth Commandment of the Decalogue."

-Hans Sennholz

Christianity has a self-contained theory of temporal self-ownership and non-aggression. It has everything needed for a voluntary society that is free.

 

[Conza88]

I have made a case for ownership in other threads, and it would be along the lines of how Hans Sennholz made it.

And how is that, spell it out thanks.

I am just not insane enough to say that a slave has ontological self-ownership by the fact that he engages in argumentation. AE has a huge problem with the naturalistic fallacy. The refutations to AE have been out there for a long time.

Failing to read the actual chief source which makes the argument, yet thinking you know what you are talking about.. results in this as being accurate:

 

[Conza88]

 

[ClayTrainor]

Libertarianism is the belief that the initiation of force is immoral. Full Stop. That's it. Everything else follows from that, including liberty, etc.

It is important to keep a very clear definition of what libertarianism is so that we have a common basis for discussion. The definition I just gave is not my definition, it is not a made up one, it is the one given by the founders of the modern libertarian movement who cooped that word to mean what was previously known as "liberal" or "classical liberal" or "reason".

Right. To be a libertarian, is to simply believe in liberty. Liberty can only exist in the absence of coercion and force, so to be a libertarian is to be against the initiation of coercion and force as a solution to social problems.

A pledge in this belief-- that the initiation of force against the innocent is immoral-- was required of all members of the Libertarian Party for many years.

That should be a message that all libertarian oriented organizations insist that their members pledge to!

It is the definition of libertarianism . IF you reject it, that's fine, just don't call yourself a libertarian.

Yup.

 

[ClayTrainor]

... do you actually want to read the OP, especially the first few paragraphs.. and tell me what is wrong with it? Aye?

I accept in the liberty movement anyone who supports the NAP, i.e a big tent. War is not part of that tent. You can call yourself a libertarian, but if you're a consequentalist, utilitarian etc... you're wrong and your 'philosophy' is not grounded properly. That however, generally doesn't mean you can't help bring people into the fold..

It's funny because Rev9 seems to think that Abolitionist wrote something that challenges the OP, lol

Comprehension fail!

 

[Lisle16]

Reflecting back on what Libertarianism is, I came up with this definition:

"The conservation and defense of individual liberty in all spheres of social life."

Think about it. The political and economic systems are social systems. Yet Libertarianism is not for the benefit of one group over another, or the benefit of the many at the expense of the few (or the few at the expense of the many), but for the benefits of people as individuals and for the protection of every individual's right to life, liberty, and property.

Individually, people can benefit society much better than if the collective keeps everyone at the same level. That always cause stagnation and regression, while the expansion of liberty and individual freedom, always causes progress.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Self-ownership does not imply any political theory.

It seems to me that it does. If we accept that one owns himself, a political theory flows from that. For example, my self-ownership implies my right to own property as well as the right to resist aggression (as well as many other things, of course). If I didn't own myself, I wouldn't be at liberty to do this-my owner(s) would "pull my strings", as it were.

 

[Conza88]

lol

 

[Czolgosz]

Libertarian is freedom.


Libertarians are apparently people mired in arguing symantic and perspective about freedumb.

 

[Conza88]

For the article. For the new era.