|
absolem posted:One of the nicest things about my beliefs are that they are objective. I mean, there is objective-ness in so many other areas, why couldn't I have it here? More than maybe anything else, the idea that there is no rational way to proscribe morality terrifies me. Ancap-ism seems to be pretty ballin', especially since nothing else seems to even remotely work, IRL or in theory. This is so wrong that it's hilarious. Are you so far up your own rear end as to be blind, are you an autist, or is it a different failing of the human brain? Nessus posted:What is objective about property rights? Yeah, property rights has subjective definitions.
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 01:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 02:43 |
|
|
I've been around for more than a few right-libertarian song-and-dance routines and every single one has failed to philosophically prove why property rights are more important than any other right or human construct, especially without coming off as borderline psychopathic.Pohl posted:Morality is probably the easiest thing in the world. Humans have built in empathy pathways, they are built into our biology; that is where our morality comes from. If you have to actually stop and think about whether or not something is moral, then you have some serious issues. Additionally, since the human brain is imperfect and sorta messy, any morality derived from it will be imperfect and messy too. Perhaps the only way to get objective morality out of homo sapiens is to identically genetically rewire every single human brain that exists and will exist. Good loving luck. Corvinus fucked around with this message at 01:32 on May 23, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 01:26
|
|
|
absolem posted:How come we can have objective laws of X, but not objective morality? The sort I've suggested still seems pretty nice... I assume you refer to scientific laws, but note that the definition includes this: "Like theories and hypotheses, laws make predictions (specifically, they predict that new observations will conform to the law), and can be falsified if they are found in contradiction with new data". It's only objective in the narrow situation in which it remains accurate, and is revised or scrapped if new observations prove it wrong. absolem posted:because the hiring of armies to rule by force and taxation involve aggression and are therefore unjustifiable. Only a tiny percentage of people (~7% I think) are straight right-libertarian and would perhaps agree that taxation is aggression and is unjustifiable. The majority, and this thread, does not therefore your assertion is as convincing as claiming 2+2=5.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 01:53
|
|
|
I know everyone saw the word "Hoppeian" and totally went "not this retarded poo poo again", but it bears repeating that Hans-Hermann Hoppe is a racial supremacist that also hates people who are democrats/leftist/communist/non-heteros. And although Argumentation ethics is philosophically broken since the non-aggression principle is actually not a real a priori, even other libertarians were not so enthused with it.
Corvinus fucked around with this message at 02:13 on May 23, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 02:11
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:What do you even call this ideology? Fascist Libertarianism? Feudal capitalism (capitalists are the nobility) with fascist overtones.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 02:34
|
|
|
If I may be so bold as to make a useful comparison for those un-ironically trying out libertarian arguments: Argumentation ethics is to HHH as Lebensraum is to AH; justifications for doing horrible poo poo. Use either one to support a position, you're gonna have a bad time.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 02:48
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 02:43 |
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Ancap philosophy essentially boils down to 'violation of property rights, which essentially means violation of the current status quo of distribution, is the ultimate crime morally and basically anything else is preferable'. They dress it up in pseudointellectual horseshit to distract from the fact that that's sociopathic and gonzo ridiculous on its face. If one was picking a form of libertarianism for batshit insanity value, an-cap is close to the most-est. I mean, it's a literal oxymoron; taking a leftwing/communistic philosophy and going "gently caress lets do a complete 180 and deepthroat the monied elite so hard but barely change the name". Why not pick a fairly sane and humanistic form of libertarianism, like Georgism?
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 03:49
|
|