Classical Theism, Philosophy, and Religion Forum

You are not logged in. Would you like to login or register?

Practical Philosophy » I hate libertarianism » 1/05/2019 10:12 am

UGADawg
Replies: 27

Go to post

Looks like the buyer would basically get a defence of Nozick and Hayek. This is not very interesting, inasmuch as the core of their theories is a eulogy of freedom to be selfish, while the fundamental theist/Christian ethics has an emphasis on the virtue of being unselfish.

lmao
 

Practical Philosophy » I hate libertarianism » 1/04/2019 6:26 pm

UGADawg
Replies: 27

Go to post

To get past all the BS on Ayn Rand, I'd recommend the new SEP article here. I'm not defending her (I'm nowhere close to an Objectivist), but it's well worth a read. Many people focus on her egoism and ignore the fact that she was a certain kind of virtue ethicist.

@ Due,

If you're sincerely interested, as I mentioned before, I'd recommend Eric Mack's recent book. It's cheap and it's probably the best introduction / overview of classical liberal / libertarian philosophy I've ever read. Here it is.

Mack usefully breaks up the ethical positions for libertarianism (and classical liberalism, hereafter just libertarianism) into three categories: (a) natural rights (think Locke, Nozick); (b) cooperation to mutual advantage (think Hume, Hayek); and (c) some sort of indirect consequentialism, e.g. rule or institutionalist (think the early JS Mill and many other political economists). Naturally, how those roads lead to libertarianism, and how they deal with the usual objections, vary.

If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask. 
 

Practical Philosophy » I hate libertarianism » 1/03/2019 3:56 pm

UGADawg
Replies: 27

Go to post

Ah, when you implied Cruz, Paul, etc. were unable to distance themselves from Rand's "atheist self-fetishist libertarianism," I took you to mean that they were indeed atheist self-fetishist libertarians. My mistake.

Practical Philosophy » I hate libertarianism » 1/03/2019 11:48 am

UGADawg
Replies: 27

Go to post

But Paul Rand, Ted Cruz, etc. are passionately in favour.

Interesting, didn't know they were atheists.

Practical Philosophy » I hate libertarianism » 1/02/2019 2:51 pm

UGADawg
Replies: 27

Go to post

What are three major points where classical liberals & libertarians disagree with objectivists?

Your question is not well-formulated, as you're confusing a position in political philosophy with a position in ethics (presumably, assuming you're not talking about Rand's metaphysics etc).

But many libertarians are highly critical of objectivism, e.g. see the libertarian philosopher Michael Humer's criticisms here.

Practical Philosophy » I hate libertarianism » 1/01/2019 8:06 pm

UGADawg
Replies: 27

Go to post

Due,

Adding to JT, I would recommend you read a bit of libertarian political thought. Your assertion that libertarians / classical liberals think externalities are irrelevant is simply false. Eric Mack has just recently come out with a nice introduction, that would be a decent place to start.

Religion » Question about the resurrection » 10/17/2018 4:28 pm

UGADawg
Replies: 3

Go to post

For Christians, is someone acting in an epistemically vicious way if they don't find the evidence for the resurrection compelling?

Practical Philosophy » Why has consent become the ruling principle of ethics? » 10/16/2018 5:24 pm

UGADawg
Replies: 9

Go to post

It's not necessarily, it depends on the metaethics, normative ethics, etc one presupposes.

Practical Philosophy » What would be a good introductory book on economics for lay persons? » 7/06/2018 6:21 pm

UGADawg
Replies: 9

Go to post

I agree about not needing to sidetrack the topic any further; if you think Auld made a mistake, feel free to PM me. Cheers.

Practical Philosophy » What would be a good introductory book on economics for lay persons? » 7/06/2018 10:41 am

UGADawg
Replies: 9

Go to post

You are essentially repeating the position I am criticising. ... Frankly, though, I have little to add on this that I didn't say above or in the other thread.

Oh, the feeling is mutual, believe me. I showed why several of your key contentions were just wrong, and sometimes not even wrong, so I have no interest whatsoever in spending additional time rehashing that debate.

I just felt Miguel should know you are not a reliable source of information when talking about economics, so I pointed it out to him. That's all.

You ignored this point (repeatedly). I invite you (or I would if it wouldn't side track Miguel's even further) to post your own description of Keen's argument and it's mathematical problems

I ignored many of your points on purpose; you have a tendency to Gish gallop, i.e. you listed a bunch of superficial objections that would take at least several times the length of your posts to begin to answer satisfactorily (I tried to mitigate this somewhat by offering you papers to read, but you obviously didn't read them, so unfortunately that didn't work either). Again, I'm not going to waste time on that kind of pointless low level discussion.

Regarding Keen: this is not the hill you want to die on. He just did the basic calculus wrong, and as a result he calculated profit incorrectly, which drove his results (P / Q outcomes other than those suggested by the standard model). The other paper provides a separate example where, again, he just did the basic maths wrong. This is not a matter of interpretation. If you cannot immediately read either of the papers I've linked (the original is here; PDF warning) and understand it, then I'll take that as confirmation of my earlier worries. It's literally the economaths version of someone insisting 2 + 2 = 6.

Board footera

 

Powered by Boardhost. Create a Free Forum