Topic: How Libertarianism was created by big business lobbyists - page 8. (Read 24009 times)

I believe that there can be no absolute truths


(Yes, that's supposed to be ironic)

Not this again. It's like you saying sea levels don't rise when heat is absorbed by the ocean because I only asserted it, rather than write a 1,000 page introduction to physics.

Yes, we fail to start shooting people when they start to oppress us. We're only human after all. It's a flaw that could be fixed.

I believe that anything logically consistent cannot possibly be moral.

The NAP does not guide every single action, it merely gives a limit to some actions. It is proscriptive, not prescriptive. The idea that people who hold it as an important principle are some kind of automatons is laughable.

Oh, so you admit that your "free societies" never last because control is wrested from them just when things are getting good. That's a flaw.

Unfounded assertions may be dismissed out-of-hand.

What makes you think that we haven't examined these concepts down to first principles? Granted, some might not have, but I know I have, and found it to be a logically consistent and viable philosophy.

Flaws pointed out need to be shown to not actually be flaws.

Don't you know? A free society just can't succeed. Despite the fact that time and time again, every time a society manages to make itself more free, unprecedented levels of prosperity and advancement ensue (at least until the statists wrest control again).

So... you're not going to be presenting any flaws, because I wouldn't address them? Even after I've specifically requested that you present them so I could address them? And if I do address them, well, that's just circular reasoning. 

He has asserted flaws. Which is apparently all the argument needed.

You've presented no flaw which I or another haven't shot down. Unless you can...?

What makes you think that we haven't examined these concepts down to first principles? Granted, some might not have, but I know I have, and found it to be a logically consistent and viable philosophy.

So... you're not going to be presenting any flaws, because I wouldn't address them? Even after I've specifically requested that you present them so I could address them? And if I do address them, well, that's just circular reasoning.  

Perhaps my example was too simplistic. By 'program' I meant create and then unleash an autonomous system that would not be subsequently changed. This is analogous to AnCap's or Libertarianism's non-aggression principle, which someone once created, but now it always stays the same. To 'run' the NAP program you just follow simple instructions. The 'programmer' would be some philosopher who probably died long ago.

However, you inadvertently allude to another point: the morality of "just following orders" (just like a good, obedient soldier.) Arguably it's actually worse if a human blindly follows someone else's code, than a computer (or human body-part) where at least there's a responsible person in charge. Thus my earlier criticism still stands that these people are wrong in choosing not to think. They are abdicating responsibility for their actions, and couching their actions in terms of "being morally righteous because XYZ philosopher said so, here's the link".

Edit: just to flesh it out a bit more, it's important to distinguish between the morality of the philosopher versus the morality of his disciples. I contend that although the (probably deceased) Libertarian philosophers may have been extremely moral, their disciples might not be. Like I said, blind computer-like idolatry seems amoral.

Didn't I just mention that you willfully ignore the flaws presented to you, and engage in circular argumentation to delude yourself into thinking your arguments are sound?

You've presented no flaw which I or another haven't shot down. Unless you can...?

Except for the countless discussions on the subject here which have exposed a lot of flaws...

What makes you think that we haven't examined these concepts down to first principles? Granted, some might not have, but I know I have, and found it to be a logically consistent and viable philosophy.