starting strength gym
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 62

Thread: Books on Libertarianism - Starting Strength Radio

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Uk
    Posts
    1,468

    Default

    • starting strength seminar april 2024
    • starting strength seminar jume 2024
    • starting strength seminar august 2024
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt James View Post
    Except, that it's not. You can derive private property rights from the concept of self-ownership without declaring that the self is property in its own right, at least not in the sense that a tangible commodity is. A person is not property (at least, not in modern thought). Ownership of property is transferable, whereas the self can only be owned by itself-- not another person, or the state. At least that's my take on the libertarian construct, and I think it's a good one.

    "Derived from" does not mean "homologous to" or even "analogous to."
    No cigar yet. I’m certainly not arguing that a man hasn’t a right to his own life (although we haven’t asked why man requires any rights at all). How are property rights derived from that that right ?

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Garage of GainzZz
    Posts
    3,297

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Matt James View Post
    Except, that it's not. You can derive private property rights from the concept of self-ownership without declaring that the self is property in its own right, at least not in the sense that a tangible commodity is. A person is not property (at least, not in modern thought). Ownership of property is transferable, whereas the self can only be owned by itself-- not another person, or the state. At least that's my take on the libertarian construct, and I think it's a good one.

    "Derived from" does not mean "homologous to" or even "analogous to."
    Yes, this is it. Again, Hoppe,

    To develop the concept of property, it is necessary for goods to be scarce, so that conflicts over the use of these goods can possibly arise. It is the function of property rights to avoid such possible clashes over the use of scarce resources by assigning
    rights of exclusive ownership. Property is thus a normative concept: a concept designed to make a conflict-free interaction possible by stipulating mutually binding rules of conduct (norms) regarding scarce resources.
    The Theory of Socialism and Capitalism, pg. 18

    It's not about the thing being claimed owned, but the claim of ownership itself.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Uk
    Posts
    1,468

    Default

    You have declared that you have a valid syllogism by disagreeing with my assertion that there is a logical error. That seems to be signal the end of the debate.

    So, anyone can decide which thing is theirs and take it ?

    The right to property is that it was earned. The right to property is the right to action, not the right to an object. This is fundamental.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    431

    Default

    Thanks to both Michael and Satch for the recommendations. I'm going to get into Hoppe and the others over the next week. I am guilty of only giving myself a superficial view of libertarianism before i dismissed it because I didn't think it addressed my concerns.

    To be pragmatic about it, we would be demographically replaced (at current rates of immigration and birth/fertility) well before an AnCap or minarchy model could ever realistically happen here.

    Would it be fair to say libertarian theory is not a real proposal for a model of government, but instead a political ideology which is dedicated to exerting pressure to downsize or block expansion of an existing system of government? As stated, there is no libertarian government or libertarian society, but instead there are societies and governments which contain libertarian movements that act against them.

    Asking people in Europe, for example, to think of themselves as individuals will worsen the problem of our demographic replacement here, but that depends if you would define Scotland no longer being the home of the Scottish as a "problem" in the first place.

    There's a practical problem with the ideology's requirement of people to behave, and to think of themselves, as individuals because the immigrants arriving here do not do this and they have a strong group identity. They have their own vital cultural norms, values and ideals and are obviously uninterested in replacing their own traditional beliefs with liberal ideas. This is especially true with immigrants from the Islamic world. I would be very surprised if any of these proposed ideas would go down well with the worshipers at a mosque in England.

    Instead, they think, and act, as a group to further their own ethnic in-group interests, and we now have a society which strongly encourages ethnic minorities to collectivize along lines of race, but (just as the libertarian prescribes) I, as a native, must think and act as an individual.

    An evolutionary strategy like "group identity" has been described here as "unfortunate", and concerns about blood, soil, kith, kin, community, etc. as a "nasty feature". I suppose these concerns are essentially incompatible with the modern ontology in which these libertarian discussions are taking place.

    I do wonder if the real purpose of these post-war libertarian theorists, rather than offer a real proposal for the West, is to A) undermine the idea of the welfare state, and B) teach people of European stock to think as themselves individuals. Together, this has the obvious intended effect of preventing a new national socialism from reappearing in the West in the future.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Uk
    Posts
    1,468

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Jackson View Post
    Thanks to both Michael and Satch for the recommendations. I'm going to get into Hoppe and the others over the next week. I am guilty of only giving myself a superficial view of libertarianism before i dismissed it because I didn't think it addressed my concerns.

    To be pragmatic about it, we would be demographically replaced (at current rates of immigration and birth/fertility) well before an AnCap or minarchy model could ever realistically happen here.

    Would it be fair to say libertarian theory is not a real proposal for a model of government, but instead a political ideology which is dedicated to exerting pressure to downsize or block expansion of an existing system of government? As stated, there is no libertarian government or libertarian society, but instead there are societies and governments which contain libertarian movements that act against them.

    Asking people in Europe, for example, to think of themselves as individuals will worsen the problem of our demographic replacement here, but that depends if you would define Scotland no longer being the home of the Scottish as a "problem" in the first place.

    There's a practical problem with the ideology's requirement of people to behave, and to think of themselves, as individuals because the immigrants arriving here do not do this and they have a strong group identity. They have their own vital cultural norms, values and ideals and are obviously uninterested in replacing their own traditional beliefs with liberal ideas. This is especially true with immigrants from the Islamic world. I would be very surprised if any of these proposed ideas would go down well with the worshipers at a mosque in England.

    Instead, they think, and act, as a group to further their own ethnic in-group interests, and we now have a society which strongly encourages ethnic minorities to collectivize along lines of race, but (just as the libertarian prescribes) I, as a native, must think and act as an individual.

    An evolutionary strategy like "group identity" has been described here as "unfortunate", and concerns about blood, soil, kith, kin, community, etc. as a "nasty feature". I suppose these concerns are essentially incompatible with the modern ontology in which these libertarian discussions are taking place.

    I do wonder if the real purpose of these post-war libertarian theorists, rather than offer a real proposal for the West, is to A) undermine the idea of the welfare state, and B) teach people of European stock to think as themselves individuals. Together, this has the obvious intended effect of preventing a new national socialism from reappearing in the West in the future.
    It isn’t along race lines, but cultural lines. Our Government has encouraged multi-culture, not multi-race. We have abandoned our own Western British culture, not our own race. Does libertarianism address that problem ? Absolutely not. Quite the opposite, it encourages it. Indeed, taken to its ultimate ends the biggest, nastiest, meanest gang would take control. There is a recent example in the Seattle centre take over which was a short experiment in anarchy with a warlord adopting the position of lawmaker. Who defends the rights of the weakest in a libertarian world ? Who decides the law in a libertarian society ?

  6. #26
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Location
    Ayrshire
    Posts
    105

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nockian View Post
    It isn’t along race lines, but cultural lines. Our Government has encouraged multi-culture, not multi-race. We have abandoned our own Western British culture, not our own race. Does libertarianism address that problem ? Absolutely not. Quite the opposite, it encourages it. Indeed, taken to its ultimate ends the biggest, nastiest, meanest gang would take control. There is a recent example in the Seattle centre take over which was a short experiment in anarchy with a warlord adopting the position of lawmaker. Who defends the rights of the weakest in a libertarian world ? Who decides the law in a libertarian society ?
    May I have this dance?

    Forgive my stepping in on this one.

    Culture is an expression of biological race. Race is 'how we're wired', or even 'how we're built'.

    The US government, like all governments of the West in the post-war era, have engaged a society enthused with multi-racialism and anti-culturism. In 1963, whites/European-Americans constituted 90% of the US population. This year, it is 60%. So America hasn't abandoned it's racial integrity? I disagree entirely.

    If Libertarianism is not a worldview capable of addressing this issue of racial replacement, through an understanding that culture (including law, politics, society, language, etc) is the unconscious collective expression of a populations dominant racial identity (something rooted in many, many thousands of years of naturally selective breeding), then Libertarianism is worse than just 'missing something' - it's totally inadequate. I say that, why? Because race has been a part of civilisation in the Americas since very near the beginning. Indians and sub-Saharan Africans have constantly come into contact with Europeans, and so race has been at the very forefront of the American experience. That being said, how can the absolutely critical issue of race be overlooked in an American political creed that declares itself to be the one true faith for it's adherents?

    Either Libertarianism is an ill-thought-out stance of pseudo-intellectual posturing, which cannot be the case, since it has been in existence for such a long time, or it has A) been shown up as impotent in the modern era, as the racial situation in the US has degraded, and B) has been 'subverted' by various new theorists who have succeeded in leading the agreed common doctrine away from it's original centre, for I fail to believe that Libertarianism has always been so blind to the critical issue of race in the USA. From the importation of Negro slaves in the 17th and 18th centuries, the bloodthirsty struggles against the savage Indians, the wars against the Mestizos, being so close to the racial apocalypse that was San Domingo, the wars against the Oriental races (Japanese, Koreans, Vietnamese), the many race riots throughout the last 120 years, the terrorist attacks by Saudis on 9/11 and the current Burn Loot Murder virus spreading across the country, how on earth could ANY genuinely viable ideology that claims to be the vanguard of civilization and liberty in the US possibly ignore the important of race and the clear fact that as Lincoln said,
    I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality ... I will add to this that I have never seen, to my knowledge, a man, woman, or child who was in favor of producing a perfect equality, social and political, between negroes and white men.
    ( Fourth Joint Debate at Charleston. Mr. Lincoln's Speech. Lincoln, Abraham. 1897. Political Debates Between Lincoln and Douglas )

    Liberia was set up by the USA as a West African territory where the blacks could be sent back to their 'muthaland'. Obviously, only a trickle got to return to the dark continent before the idea was torpedoed, but this slice of history indicates that the notion of racial separation was taken extremely seriously.

    The laws of the USA were composed at a time when the population of the nation that was white (80-90%) was almost entirely Anglo-Saxon. Now, when Law is not rooted in the culture of the people whom it is designed to assist, it has to be accompanied either by a constant deluge of propaganda or by providing constant trinkets / panem et circenses. Now you know that culture is the spoken word of the racial heart&soul, you can deduct that law is required LESS when the populace is more homogeneous and in harmony with the nature of the law. Anglo-Saxon law works best for Anglo-Saxons (though that net can include all people of Germanic ethnicity, since biologically they are all essentially the same, which is why their cultures are all so similar). To make foreign races consistently abide by a law that is foreign to the law of their own homelands, many distractions must be provided, and an electronic mass media pumping daily propaganda can be considered essential too.

    Since an unobtrusive government and minimal policing are considered central to the Libertarian doctrine (do correct me if i am wrong there), how do you hope to achieve those ends in an active society that contains many races? Either you have laws that are foreign to ALL, which means you must keep everyone pacified (for the most part) with masses of 'extra' laws not required in a high-trust racially homogeneous society, a well-crafted tapestry of lies to justify it all (complete with all the religious hallmarks and rituals) and easily obtainable, affordable treats (never ending supply of shiny consumer crap, mountains of tasty junk food, oceans of booze, never-ending sports and movies, free pornography) and a generous mountain of nihilism to prevent any meaningful mass dissent, or you have a racially homogeneous society that only needs a relatively small collection of laws crafted by a state that IS the people (albeit, the best, most capable portion of it).

    Libertarians who insist that race is not an issue and some idiotic idea that culture just drops from fairydust are not contributing to America's solution at all.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    53,559

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ayrsson View Post
    I say that, why? Because race has been a part of civilisation in the Americas since very near the beginning.
    But no where else on the planet, of course.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Location
    Ayrshire
    Posts
    105

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    But no where else on the planet, of course.
    I gained the impression that the discussion had moved onto the viability of Libertarianism in it's American homeland.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    53,559

    Default

    You want to talk about, race, or libertarianism?

  10. #30
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Location
    Ayrshire
    Posts
    105

    Default

    starting strength coach development program
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    You want to talk about, race, or libertarianism?
    My point is that the two are not mutually exclusive, Rip.

    A discussion about Libertarianism's relevance in the 20th century in North America is completely sterile without a complementary discussion on the issue of racial tension - a defining characteristic of the socio-political climate across the entire West in the 21st century.

    Without it, it's just a circle jerk.

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •