pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @021da48107 11 Mar \ on: My questions for libertarians libertarian
How can political ideology do this? This is a loaded question that assumes utilitarian morality is what moral framework followed. IMO utilitarian morality is immoral. With utilitarian morality whomever has the bigger gun is the one who gets to call the shots.
This all depends on what your definitions are. e.g. In the US "conservatives" pound their chest about freedom, yet will gleefully vote on laws that put people in jail who smoke plants. If you asked a "conservative" this they would say that throwing said people in jail is "human flourishing".
What the hell are you talking about? The legitimacy of principles does not change based on a certain group of people agreeing on something or not. Throwing a baby into the ocean is against the NAP, only fools argue that is not true.
Live their lives, stack sats, be a good person. Actions speak louder than words, stop arguing with others about why "libertarian-ism" works and show it.
This is a loaded question that assumes utilitarian morality is what moral framework followed.
I don't know if I agree with this, but you might be right. I was thinking more around pragmatism. If I am an average guy who is happy with my life, why should I risk "letting the market solve national defense?" At best, I pay less in taxes. At worst, my country gets invaded by China.
This all depends on what your definitions are.
Fair. Under your definitions, can you imagine a scenario in which this is the case? If not, why not?
What the hell are you talking about?
This was listed in the post I linked as one of the hard questions libertarians need to answer.
Please note - the questions I posed are what I think libertarians need to answer if they ever want to have a legitimate voice in the direction of their country (at least from my perspective in the US). I am already opposed to most regulations. I also think there are some that probably do more good than harm, but those are very limited and I can't think of any examples off the top of my head.
reply
I was thinking more around pragmatism.
Pragmatism isn't a moral framework. You can argue if killing someone is pragmatic, but most won't care about that, they care if it's moral.
If I am an average guy who is happy with my life, why should I risk "letting the market solve national defense?" At best, I pay less in taxes. At worst, my country gets invaded by China.
Because what you are supporting is immoral.
Fair. Under your definitions, can you imagine a scenario in which this is the case? If not, why not?
Sure, under almost any metric humans have flourished in the last few hundred years. Now did they flourish as a direct result of a constitution? I don't see the connection between a constitution and human flourishing.
This was listed in the post I linked as one of the hard questions libertarians need to answer.
I understand that, what I don't understand is where the baby in the ocean thing came from. Who ever said throwing a baby in the ocean isn't immoral?
Please note - the questions I posed are what I think libertarians need to answer if they ever want to have a legitimate voice in the direction of their country (at least from my perspective in the US). I am already opposed to most regulations. I also think there are some that probably do more good than harm, but those are very limited and I can't think of any examples off the top of my head.
Sure, but that's all just your opinion, man. My opinion is that a Libertarian (big L) isn't going to be able to do anything to get a legitimate voice. Look at what happened to Ron Paul when he ran. You can also look at what happened to Bernie Sanders. In the USA if you don't run as a D or a R you are not going to make it anywhere, it's been proven for years.
reply