|
Oh hey, Hoppe was the guy who invented "argumentation ethics," in which anything that contradicts libertarianism in any way is assumed to be logically incoherent. That's not how rational human beings debate things in good faith. Ever. "Let's play tic-tac-toe. But I get to go first and make three moves. It's only logical." absolem posted:How come we can have objective laws of X, but not objective morality? The sort I've suggested still seems pretty nice... Of course, when we look at what the kind of unregulated society libertarians propose has actually done in real life, we find that it turns out pretty awful for non-rich people. Libertarianism seems to be weirdly naive about how human beings actually behave, and in some cases insanely hyper-cynical about how governments behave, even though they're equally made of people. Whenever people point out what has actually happened when these beliefs get practiced, you write it off as a violation of those beliefs (which doesn't at all address the fact that those beliefs can have have caused those things to happen) or just say "welp, if that happened you'd be hosed," and when a proponent of something says something like that, that's pretty damning. absolem posted:except that my proof of my ethics is still looking pretty ok even after a couple of you had a go at it, and your proof of the double down is obviously awful
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 02:06
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 15:21 |
|