19 Oct 2011 @ 1:37 PM 

I have recently taken to reading a lot about the philosophical underpinnings of Libertarianism. Like many unsuspecting saps, my first discussion with a Libertarian was initiated when one made some off-handed comment about the government robbing them of their money at gunpoint. I am not one to shy away from discussions on politics. Upon hearing what I thought to be an absurd claim which I thought was likely based on poor logic, I asked for them to back up their claim. The Libertarian in question was thrilled to be able to explain the concept to me and carefully laid their argument as most do:

Libertarian: Do you agree that the initiation of force is immoral?
Me: Well I guess.
Libertarian: The government takes our money by force.
Me: How do you figure?
Libertarian: What happens if you don’t pay your taxes? The government will throw you in jail. They are initiating  force against you.


So something is up with this. I dug a little deeper, acquiring a copy of For A New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto by Murray Rothbard. Rothbard describes three types of Libertarians, two of which are straw men he easily burns:
1. Emotivist Libertarian
2. Utilitarian Libertarian
3. Natural Rights Libertarian
Rothbard describes the Emotivist Libertarian as someone who asserts that “they take liberty or nonaggression as their premise purely on subjective, emotional grounds.” This straw man is easily dispatched: “By ultimately taking themselves outside the realm of rational discourse, the emotivists thereby insure the lack of general success of their own cherished doctrine.” He takes utilitarianism to its logical and extremist conclusion in which the benefit of the many outweighs that of the one unilaterally; an obvious irrational, even if logical, result. With 1 and 2 easily burned to the ground, the 3rd option is the convenient winner.
Natural Rights, says Rothbard, come from Natural Law which is described by the philosopher John Locke. The Natural Law of the self are defined as Life, Liberty, and Property. Rothbard posits three possible arguments for self-ownership: the individual owns…
A. their whole self
B. part of their self
C. none of their self
Rothbard goes on to argue that A is the only possible answer. He argues that B is not possible because if you do not own your whole self, then you cannot convince anyone of it since you own part of them and they own part of you. All owners of your “self” would have to agree… this degrades to absurdity quickly. For C, he argues that if you owned none of yourself then you would have no control at all.

I feel like Rothbard is ignoring a key component of the definition of Natural Rights on purpose. If the self is made up of Life, Liberty, and Property, then self ownership must be applied to each, not all three unilaterally. Applying the idea of self-ownership to Life, Liberty, and Property, I posit the following:


The Libertarian claims A (ownership of the whole self) for each. To a Libertarian who believes this, please tell me:

  • LIBERTY: How can I as an individual have full ownership of my own liberty in a pluralistic society?
  • PROPERTY: How can I as an individual have full ownership of my property?**

* I do not believe in absolutes. I think that both A and C are absolutes. I still have to come to terms with the idea of absolute ownership of LIFE. I think in this case, it means that I own my personal body (even though that concept doesn’t really make sense to me). I choose A in this case for the sake of argument.
** Property as described by Rothbard in Chapter 2 of For A New Liberty.

OK! First post is up. I will have to revisit this quite a few times in order to really get my understanding all nailed down.

Posted By: admin
Last Edit: 19 Oct 2011 @ 01:37 PM

EmailPermalinkComments (0)
Categories: Philosohpy, Politics, Rambling
 29 Sep 2010 @ 7:46 AM 

My Dad recently e-mailed me his results on a US Religious Knowledge quiz. I went ahead and took the quiz and got 10 out of 15 questions correct. Fun conclusions can be drawn from all the statistics available from the full survey. For one, Atheists are more better informed about world religion in general than many religious people.

Quiz: http://features.pewforum.org/quiz/us-religious-knowledge/
Full Article: http://pewforum.org/Other-Beliefs-and-Practices/U-S-Religious-Knowledge-Survey.aspx

Posted By: admin
Last Edit: 29 Sep 2010 @ 07:46 AM

EmailPermalinkComments (0)
Categories: Politics, Rambling
 09 Oct 2009 @ 8:25 AM 
I’ve enjoyed reading various posts for and against the award – the pro-award and anti-award camps.

One thing this award has done is to cast in stark relief those that do not understand the moment.

We have the two extremes:
– the pro-award crowd who think it’s great but don’t really think about why.
– the anti-award crowd who think it’s a farce but fail to produce any arguments that would garner higher than a C grade in 9th grade English.

Then we have the two middle groups:
– the anti-award crowd who have valid arguments. Sometimes they still stoop to insult tossing.
– the pro-award crowd that have valid arguments. Sometimes they still stoop to glassy-eyed dreaminess.

I fall into the last category and attempt to remain steadfast (i.e. still thinking without the glassy-eyed bit). This is a fantastic development. Obama has worked hard to bring hundreds of thousands of new people into politics who before couldn’t have cared less – they didn’t vote at all. A voting populace is not necessarily and informed populace but it’s a start.

The US is one of (if not THE) most power nation in the world and we set precedents left and right. The fact that a majority our populace had stopped participating in the leadership of the country went mostly unnoticed (because they weren’t participating… lol) until the leadership began warmongering, ignoring fact, ignoring science, and ignoring world peace protests. Suddenly the populace seemed to wake up. Unfortunately, they lacked a cohesive force. Obama is that glue that allowed Americans to hold hands once more.

He uses logical arguments. He uses technology instead of fearing it. He talks to everyone. He uses Youtube instead of the radio. Talk about getting with the times! When criticized, he explains his thinking instead of cowardly reversing his opinion. It is amazing to me that we have a President with the will to do what needs to get done and the courage to back up his viewpoints with pointed arguments. It’s fantastic!

And the Peace Prize folks seem to understand this as well. Obama has gone to great lengths to encourage the US government to talk with its enemies. His use of diplomacy instead of just threatening everyone is so beyond high-school that part of me thinks the country might be starting to grow up.

Now, I would be willing to agree that it may be a little premature but – think of the encouragement it gives the Obama Presidency! It is incredibly difficult to push on against tons of people trying to pull you down. This prize is like a beam of light from on high shining on Obama and encouraging him to push onward.

May the willfully ignorant discover their close-minded ways and weep.
Posted By: admin
Last Edit: 09 Oct 2009 @ 08:26 AM

EmailPermalinkComments (0)
Categories: Politics, Rambling

 Last 50 Posts
Change Theme...
  • Users » 1
  • Posts/Pages » 61
  • Comments » 24
Change Theme...
  • VoidVoid « Default
  • LifeLife
  • EarthEarth
  • WindWind
  • WaterWater
  • FireFire
  • LightLight


    No Child Pages.


    No Child Pages.


    No Child Pages.

Climate Change

    No Child Pages.