I don't comprehend libertarian ideas...

[David Floyd]

Whaleboy,

Absolute morality is required for me to be able to say that it is wrong to violate my rights. If morality isn't absolute, then I see no reasonable way to make murder, for example, illegal.

[Az]

The idea of better society is in cultural relativism, which is completely separate to moral relativism, and only has implications for foreign policies, like pacifism etc, not necessarily libertarianism. Retract your strawman!

a) since you're both, my point stands.
b) since culture entails values, and values are morals, this is once again, the same thing.

QED, Homeboy.

Arrian: that's ok. But I feel you're a pragmatic, and that means that you basically quasi-utilitarian, you just don't know it.

[David Floyd]

*I* want a retraction of your argument that we are inconsistent re: reparations

[Whaleboy]

Ah, so the moral absolute, in other words, the subjective view of libertarianism, is that "liberty is good", or "m.relativism is good". Within those viewpoints is the features of lib. that are relativist.

Of course the thing is there you have the classic thing of "which view is better". I will say libertarianism, someone else who disagrees will say something else. As a relativist I will say that objectively, no one view is better than another, but again, like any debate, we fall back to "to each his own".

Nonetheless, we are comparing the merits of either position here, as a libertarian I am purporting mine, a society may choose lib. based on its own predisposition, and that is absolute for it, but within that context, the context of our discussion, relativism exists within lib.

[David Floyd]

Ah, so the moral absolute, in other words, the subjective view of libertarianism, is that "liberty is good", or "m.relativism is good". Within those viewpoints is the features of lib. that are relativist.

Actually, the moral absolute is that violations of my freedom, of my rights, are bad. This can, I suppose, be reversed to say that freedom is good, although this sort of misses part of the point, but in any case, this can't be twisted to say that Libertarianism exists on the basis of moral relativity. If it did, it would not be Libertarianism

[Whaleboy]

a) since you're both, my point stands.
b) since culture entails values, and values are morals, this is once again, the same thing

a) I can be a libertarian and a cultural absolutist. Indeed, I could have quite easily supported the spread of lib. ideas to Iraq if I were not a pacifist and a cultural/cognetive relativist. The two don't necessarily go hand in hand.

b) Values do not need be imposed on people. We are socialised into values via family, school, the media, peers etc etc, we are not obliged to accept them, but most of us do, and we are not living in a particularly libertarian society, at least by my standards.

[Az]

a) I can be a libertarian and a cultural absolutist.

not 'can', 'MUST'. Saying that all views are of the same value, while at the same time sticking to your own, is illogical.

Indeed, I could have quite easily supported the spread of lib. ideas to Iraq if I were not a pacifist and a cultural/cognetive relativist. The two don't necessarily go hand in hand.

nah. that means that you'd have to organize an army of volounteers to liberate Iraq, remember? you cannot tax to raise an army, and cannot conscript.

Nice try, though.

*I* want a retraction of your argument that we are inconsistent re: reparations

prove me wrong.

[Whaleboy]

not 'can', 'MUST'. Saying that all views are of the same value, while at the same time sticking to your own, is illogical.

Not at all, same context. I can say that all is allowed his own view, but certain views that would breach that cannot be implimented. Its easy to say that this applies to another society, whereas I do not as a cultural relativist. As the latter, I have to add extra logic to make that work.

nah. that means that you'd have to organize an army of volounteers to liberate Iraq, remember? you cannot tax to raise an army, and cannot conscript.

If you read my previous posts, you'd see that my version of libertarianism would allow for taxation. I am not a chaoticist.

[Az]

Not at all, same context. I can say that all is allowed his own view, but certain views that would breach that cannot be implimented. Its easy to say that this applies to another society, whereas I do not as a cultural relativist. As the latter, I have to add extra logic to make that work.

all is allowed his own view, but blah blah blah that CANNOT BE IMPLEMENTED. that means that you believe that YOUR view is BETTER than the views of other people. a moral relativist believes that all views on morals are of the same value, and you cannot chose one over the other. Why do you think that THOSE values have to be implemented?

If you read my previous posts, you'd see that my version of libertarianism would allow for taxation. I am not a chaoticist

taxation? you mean "stealing". how else would you call someone taking money from someone else, when he doesn't want to, and threatens to imprison him, if he won't give the money. Hell it's worse than just stealing. it's robbery!

[Ned]

Just a small question on "reparations," it seems to me that the target of reparations is misplaced. For most of history, the instigator and profiteer from black slavery in the New World were Europeans, and in particular, European governments and aristocracy, not the people who fled to the United States from Europe.

After the American Revolution, the instigator and profiteer from American slavery was confined to the Confederacy. This clearly did not involve people from the North or any Europeans that immigrated to the US since 1865.

Given this, the target of reparations should be European governments and the government of the Confederacy. Not so? It should hardly involve peope who had nothing to do with it or their descendants.

Since the government of the Confederacy no longer exists, the sole target of reparations should be Europe.

[yavoon]

hardline libertarians are like hardline communists. both dream of a system doomed to self destruct.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You mean the world won't go to hell if I help moderates steal from others?

It hasn't so far . I wonder if you realize that putting your government in power would lead to a socialist revolutioin within 5 years, which is really anthetical to your believe system. I'd rather have something which has some aspects of what I support rather than having something that has hardly anything I'd support.

Then the Holocaust was moral if German "society" says so? "Society" can't agree on much of anything, so the best you can usually get is a majority of the people. And that means all sorts of evils from genocide to slavery are "moral" if the majority says so...

In a word, yes, at least to them. As you are probably aware slavery was moral for many years. It even says in the Bible that slaves should obey their masters.

Freedom means the absence of coercion or constraint

In one of its definitions yes. You seem to be forgetting all the other definitions of freedom. One being exemption from onerous conditions (freedom from want), and capacity to exercise choice (free will). Btw, those are both in the American Heritage Dictionary, which doesn't have a defintion for freedom being the absense of coercion. It does have a one saying 'free of restraints', which is similar.

murder (your first example) and theft are constraints, therefore when these acts are committed, constraints exist, and that means freedom no longer exists

This is where I get my 'total freedom' phrase from. You define a freedom from restraints to be for everyone. Why can't one person in a society have freedom while others do not? When slavery existed, didn't the white men have any freedom?

Of course they did. They were free to murder their slaves. The slaves had the constraint on them and were not free, doesn't mean the whites were not free either.

Secondly, under your defintion, even libertarian society isn't free. People still have constraints on them, only it is done by other private individuals. For example you have to pay a toll to use the road. That's a constraint.

If these people want equality to supercede freedom

Again with the black/white terminology . What if these people want freedom to supercede equality, but find the need to have some forms of equality. Not total liberty, but more than enough to supercede equality.

[GePap]

Libertarians are loud, opinionated, perhaps consistent, but most importantly of all, by their very ideology utterly irrelavant to political reality and the formation of society: we might as well argue about the politics of bingo, and in fact, old bingo playng ladies have more of an impact on society than liberterians.

So to our libertarian friends: keep on trucking, safe in the knowledge you guys will NEVER really make a difference

[GePap]

"freedom" is a state, not a moral value. A trully free man is free to oppress as well, as long as they are capable of doing it and have the will to. So why don't you guys stop using the incorrect words and stick to Liberty?

[Ramo]

Freedom can definitely be a moral value. As long as you have a well-ordering of various forms of constraints (i.e. the inability to rape is a lesser constraint than being raped), it's use as part of a moral basis is perfectly consistent.