The Libertarian Society of TSR. Watch

Kibalchich
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#541
Report 7 years ago
#541
(Original post by Ocassus)
Freedom of suppression. We've been through this...
Yes, we've been through this. The best you lot can come up with is along the lines of "poverty is not unfreedom". I've shown that to be specious amoral crap.
0
reply
Ocassus
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#542
Report 7 years ago
#542
(Original post by Kibalchich)
Yes, we've been through this. The best you lot can come up with is along the lines of "poverty is not unfreedom". I've shown that to be specious amoral crap.
No you haven't - Your argument is 'WAAAH, IT IS ABSTRACTED FROM REAL LIFE!'.
In regards to amorality, logic is amoral, Deal with it. Morality and emotion are not desirable ways to lead society.

If you want to know about society run by logic over emotion, I suggest you look up The Enlightenment.


Two men have potential for ultimate freedom, one man suppresses another, thereby expressing his ultimate freedom but reducing the relative freedom of the other. That is true and proper freedom, the freedom to do anything, including the freedom to suppress another.
0
reply
Gremlins
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#543
Report 7 years ago
#543
(Original post by Kibalchich)
Just think how much better the RNLI could be if it received proper funding.

RNLI has saved 140,000 lives since its foundation and performs 22 rescues a day. It can't be doing much better than it is and tbh it's insulting you think people can only help other people if the government forces them to do it.

Anyhow, that's not really my point. So called "libertarians" talk about freedom - yet that freedom only pertains to people with property. That's a funny sort of freedom.
Well given libertarians believe self-ownership is an unalienable right they clearly *do* think that their freedom extends every person. Now, you can argue (as socialist philosophers like the late G.A. Cohen have) that someone who owns a car is significantly more is more 'free' to travel than someone who doesn't, and I think there might be some truth in that argument but to say that Libertarians only believe in freedom for the rich is, as you put it, "specious crap".
1
reply
Bourgeois
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#544
Report 7 years ago
#544
Completely off-topic (not that you were discussing anything serious) but did a TSR Libertarian die?!?!

From the Nottingham's website:
"The Department of Philosophy is very sad to announce the death of Richard Garner. Richard completed an MPhil with us in 2010, and he worked as a Teaching Assistant for us for several years. He was due to start a PhD with us in September 2011. He will be greatly missed."

Did anybody know him?
2
reply
hunstatham
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#545
Report 7 years ago
#545
(Original post by Gremlins)
RNLI has saved 140,000 lives since its foundation and performs 22 rescues a day. It can't be doing much better than it is and tbh it's insulting you think people can only help other people if the government forces them to do it.



Well given libertarians believe self-ownership is an unalienable right they clearly *do* think that their freedom extends every person. Now, you can argue (as socialist philosophers like the late G.A. Cohen have) that someone who owns a car is significantly more is more 'free' to travel than someone who doesn't, and I think there might be some truth in that argument but to say that Libertarians only believe in freedom for the rich is, as you put it, "specious crap".
lol... which libertarians believe in self-ownership? It cannot even be proven.
0
reply
Gremlins
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#546
Report 7 years ago
#546
(Original post by hunstatham)
lol... which libertarians believe in self-ownership?
Most of them IIRC.

It cannot even be proven.
That's because it's a normative idea, not a positivist one (I should probably point out that I'm *not* a capitalist libertarian and I don't believe in self ownership, btw).
0
reply
jesusandtequila
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#547
Report 7 years ago
#547
(Original post by Gremlins)
RNLI has saved 140,000 lives since its foundation and performs 22 rescues a day. It can't be doing much better than it is and tbh it's insulting you think people can only help other people if the government forces them to do it.



Well given libertarians believe self-ownership is an unalienable right they clearly *do* think that their freedom extends every person. Now, you can argue (as socialist philosophers like the late G.A. Cohen have) that someone who owns a car is significantly more is more 'free' to travel than someone who doesn't, and I think there might be some truth in that argument but to say that Libertarians only believe in freedom for the rich is, as you put it, "specious crap".
Brilliant post.

I think it's entirely unfair to discuss people's motivations for holding a certain set of beliefs, especially when one is generalising for a whole set of beliefs, about individuals they have never met.
0
reply
D.R.E
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#548
Report 7 years ago
#548
(Original post by Bourgeois)
Completely off-topic (not that you were discussing anything serious) but did a TSR Libertarian die?!?!

From the Nottingham's website:
"The Department of Philosophy is very sad to announce the death of Richard Garner. Richard completed an MPhil with us in 2010, and he worked as a Teaching Assistant for us for several years. He was due to start a PhD with us in September 2011. He will be greatly missed."

Did anybody know him?
Never heard of him, sad to hear. RIP.
0
reply
Rhadamanthus
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#549
Report 7 years ago
#549
(Original post by Kibalchich)
Yes, we've been through this. The best you lot can come up with is along the lines of "poverty is not unfreedom". I've shown that to be specious amoral crap.
Perhaps if you think it's 'amoral' you can explain why your system of morality trumps the other guy's and from where you derive yours.
4
reply
hunstatham
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#550
Report 7 years ago
#550
(Original post by Gremlins)
Most of them IIRC.
No they don't.


That's because it's a normative idea, not a positivist one (I should probably point out that I'm *not* a capitalist libertarian and I don't believe in self ownership, btw).
So? I don't give a **** about your views. most libertarians don't believe in self-ownership.

Yes, we've been through this. The best you lot can come up with is along the lines of "poverty is not unfreedom". I've shown that to be specious amoral crap.
lol... yet you cannot state which libertarian has stated this, beyond some deceased man who cannot speak for all libertarians (nor was ever one).
0
reply
hunstatham
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#551
Report 7 years ago
#551
(Original post by J1812)
I'm engaging with a separate argument. My argument is not whether libertarianism leads to bad results or not, it's over whether people can support it without being wicked people.

My reasoning is that just because X supports system Y with bad results, does not mean X is wicked. They instead might be mistaken over the outcome of system of Y.

I mentioned that it works both ways. With many capitalists assuming that because they think statist systems lead to bad results, people who support them must have bad intentions. I think both sides do this erroneously.
what perchance is a wicked person? What makes you the God of morality?

Which human being does not want freedom, or choice? These are central to the human condition. Desiring an economically equal society is not, far from it. I think Marx probably was mistreated in his childhood, as were/are most socialists, since equality is a fools errand.
0
reply
J1812
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#552
Report 7 years ago
#552
(Original post by hunstatham)
what perchance is a wicked person? What makes you the God of morality?
I'm not a god of morality, but most humans are similar enough to agree on many ethical questions. "Wicked" in this context meant:

For capitalists: Wealthy billionaires who want to destroy the planet by exploiting all it's resources for profit, while everyone else grovels in the mud.

For socialists: People who want to trick voters into placing them into power under the name of equality. While secretly diverting the wealth of society towards their own interests, perhaps with a few famines mixed in.

Marx probably was mistreated in his childhood, as were/are most socialists, since equality is a fools errand.
It is probably best to keep that to yourself, it will put them off arguing with you. I don't usually enjoy replying to someone who assumes that my political views are due to childhood abuse rather then logic.
0
reply
Gremlins
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#553
Report 7 years ago
#553
(Original post by hunstatham)
No they don't.
Well what do they believe in then, if you're so up to date on Libertarianism?




lol... yet you cannot state which libertarian has stated this, beyond some deceased man who cannot speak for all libertarians (nor was ever one).
Who're you referring to here? Locke? Nozick? Pretty much the entire Austrian School?
0
reply
hunstatham
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#554
Report 7 years ago
#554
(Original post by J1812)
I'm not a god of morality, but most humans are similar enough to agree on many ethical questions. "Wicked" in this context meant:

For capitalists: Wealthy billionaires who want to destroy the planet by exploiting all it's resources for profit, while everyone else grovels in the mud.

For socialists: People who want to trick voters into placing them into power under the name of equality. While secretly diverting the wealth of society towards their own interests, perhaps with a few famines mixed in.



It is probably best to keep that to yourself, it will put them off arguing with you. I don't usually enjoy replying to someone who assumes that my political views are due to childhood abuse rather then logic.
well, only children believe in equality. I would also say that morality is relative, and evil doesn't exist.
0
reply
J1812
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#555
Report 7 years ago
#555
(Original post by hunstatham)
well, only children believe in equality.
Or the millions of adults who believe in a valid definiton of Egalitarianism

It is defined either as a political doctrine that all people should be treated as equals and have the same political, economic, social, and civil rights[3] or as a social philosophy advocating the removal of economic inequalities among people or the decentralization of power.
0
reply
Lord Hysteria
Badges: 16
#556
Report 7 years ago
#556
(Original post by hunstatham)
No they don't.
Yes, I also don't know many modern libertarian thinkers who really subscribe to self-ownership as an axiom or necessary foundational principle.

It is the mistaken belief that libertarianism rests on the principle of self-ownership (something even Nozick does sadly).

Yet, Locke and Nozick are considered to be the leading advocates of libertarianism, when there are much more substantial political thinkers ...

I suspect that it is precisely because Locke & Nozick advanced the self-ownership principle, that they are held as the leaders of libertarianism ... in other words, a perfect libertarian straw-man.
reply
Duckelf
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#557
Report 7 years ago
#557
(Original post by Lord Hysteria)
Yes, I also don't know many modern libertarian thinkers who really subscribe to self-ownership as an axiom or necessary foundational principle.

It is the mistaken belief that libertarianism rests on the principle of self-ownership (something even Nozick does sadly).

Yet, Locke and Nozick are considered to be the leading advocates of libertarianism, when there are much more substantial political thinkers ...

I suspect that it is precisely because Locke & Nozick advanced the self-ownership principle, that they are held as the leaders of libertarianism ... in other words, a perfect libertarian straw-man.
Locke didn't believe in self-ownership. In fact, his argument rests on the premise that we do not own ourselves.
0
reply
Lord Hysteria
Badges: 16
#558
Report 7 years ago
#558
(Original post by Duckelf)
Locke didn't believe in self-ownership. In fact, his argument rests on the premise that we do not own ourselves.
What?

His entire premise rests on "every man has property in his own person". We have private property right in our person. The difference between Nozick and Locke is whether, for instance, you can sell yourself into slavery. Nozick would disagree when Locke asserts that we are property of God. Self-ownership is understood slightly differently in that Locke believes that, although we are the property of God, we cannot be the property of any power other than God. It reminds me of the phrase of the American constitution "one nation under God". It is not really intended as boisterous piety but as a reminder that the US is not subject to any higher power or law.

What Locke means by the person is a complicated and interesting one that he deals with his essay concerning human understanding ... But Locke certainly asserts that we are the property of our selves. Thus, you own yourself ...
reply
Duckelf
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#559
Report 7 years ago
#559
(Original post by Lord Hysteria)
What?

His entire premise rests on "every man has property in his own person". We have private property right in our person. The difference between Nozick and Locke is whether, for instance, you can sell yourself into slavery. Nozick would disagree when Locke asserts that we are property of God. Self-ownership is understood slightly differently in that Locke believes that, although we are the property of God, we cannot be the property of any power other than God. It reminds me of the phrase of the American constitution "one nation under God". It is not really intended as boisterous piety but as a reminder that the US is not subject to any higher power or law.

What Locke means by the person is a complicated and interesting one that he deals with his essay concerning human understanding ... But Locke certainly asserts that we are the property of our selves. Thus, you own yourself ...
You say here in your own post what Locke really says, namely that we do not own ourselves but that God owns us. This is why he thought that suicide was wrong and that atheists could not be good subjects.
0
reply
Lord Hysteria
Badges: 16
#560
Report 7 years ago
#560
(Original post by Duckelf)
You say here in your own post what Locke really says, namely that we do not own ourselves but that God owns us. This is why he thought that suicide was wrong and that atheists could not be good subjects.
No. You've conveniently ignored my quoting Locke that "every man has property in his own person" ... Clearly, instead of God, man owns his own person ....

Or do you believe that Locke never said that?
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?

Remain (1629)
78.92%
Leave (435)
21.08%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed