Posted by seigneur  1/05/2019 1:28 am | #21 |
UGADawg wrote:
@ 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.
Not so cheap. The cheapest is the Kindle version at $9.59, but the problem with the Kindle version is that you cannot be sure if you can get the real file.
At the publisher's site there is the ebook option for $9.99. Ebook is a file you can copy to any device with a display for reading.
The key question around libertarianism boils down this:
[Eric Mack] provides illuminating accounts of the foundational arguments and the theories of economic justice offered by Robert Nozick and F.A. Hayek. He then examines a range of other debates, such as those surrounding the nature of the minimal state and those between critics and defenders of libertarianism.
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.
Given the overarching topic of the forum, I think the OP speaks from the concern that there is no way to reconcile being libertarian and theist/Christian at the same time. Even without reading the suggested book it looks like it does not address the issue.
Last edited by seigneur (1/05/2019 2:00 am)
|
Posted by UGADawg 1/05/2019 10:12 am | #22 |
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
|
Posted by Jeremy Taylor 1/05/2019 7:45 pm | #23 |
Seignuer,
It might be helpful to the discussion (and I mean this sincerely) if you unpacked your assertion about those thinkers and selfishness. Such strong claims surely need some explanation and support.
|
Posted by seigneur 1/07/2019 5:02 am | #24 |
Why do I have to teach you how to conduct a discussion?
The topic is "I hate libertarianism", on the example of Ayn Rand's objectivism. The task for libertarians is to change the OP's mind or correct his opinions.
We got so far as to agree that Ayn Rand is "BS". But without Ayn Rand, what is libertarianism and who is libertarian? No explanation thus far, except that we should read Eric Mack's recent book.
We are on a theistic forum. Why should I pick up a theistically irrelevant, or perhaps even detrimental, book? Convince me that it's worth it. If the ideas in the book cannot be summarised and defended, or any other thesis of libertarianism stated, then there simply is no discussion to be had.
|
Posted by DanielCC 1/07/2019 5:25 am | #25 |
Why do I have to teach you how to conduct a discussion?
The topic is "I hate libertarianism", on the example of Ayn Rand's objectivism. The task for libertarians is to change the OP's mind or correct his opinions.
We got so far as to agree that Ayn Rand is "BS". But without Ayn Rand, what is libertarianism and who is libertarian? No explanation thus far, except that we should read Eric Mack's recent book.
I take Libertarianism alone as an economic policy. Thus libertarian Christians and other non-objectivists would argue that it is the economic system that promotes the greatest social flourishing given the average of human nature. Of course one could try to make the same point with Communism if one so wanted.
|
Posted by Jeremy Taylor 1/07/2019 5:30 am | #26 |
Seigneur,
You made some strong, very controversial assumptions without unpacking or defending them. It's up to you, but you won't win anyone over or make a meaningful contribution to discussion that way. I am not a libertarian, so I'm not here to defend libertarianism per se or that particular book, but there are worthwhile ways of criticising libertarianism and classical liberalism and less worthwhile ones. Collapsing classical liberalism and libertarianism into Objectivism is not accurate or helpful, when classical liberalism clearly predates Ayn Rand by centuries and even in the post-war revival of strands of classical liberalism, known as libertarianism, Rand was one amongst a host of figures, from Albert Jay Nock to Murray Rothbard. Nor is making the hugely simplistic comment that libertarianism is selfish and Christianity unselfish, therefore they must be incompatible, likely to add much to meaningful debate. There are all sorts of issues that would need addressing to conclude that, as Daniel touches on, like what policy best contributes to human welfare and what is the moral role of the state compared with the role of the individual (after all it is very simplistic to just equate state action with the individual virtues).
|
Posted by seigneur 1/07/2019 5:39 am | #27 |
I take Libertarianism alone as an economic policy. Thus libertarian Christians and other non-objectivists would argue that it is the economic system that promotes the greatest social flourishing given the average of human nature. Of course one could try to make the same point with Communism if one so wanted.
Exactly. To repeat, "Of course one could try to make the same point with Communism if one so wanted."
If libertarianism is so non-specific that it is interchangeable with Communism or perhaps common sense that everybody could easily agree to, then why call it libertarianism? Unfortunately, this kind of formulation of libertarianism does not even define libertarianism, much less defend it.
|
Posted by DanielCC 1/07/2019 6:02 am | #28 |
I take Libertarianism alone as an economic policy. Thus libertarian Christians and other non-objectivists would argue that it is the economic system that promotes the greatest social flourishing given the average of human nature. Of course one could try to make the same point with Communism if one so wanted.
Exactly. To repeat, "Of course one could try to make the same point with Communism if one so wanted."
If libertarianism is so non-specific that it is interchangeable with Communism or perhaps common sense that everybody could easily agree to, then why call it libertarianism? Unfortunately, this kind of formulation of libertarianism does not even define libertarianism, much less defend it.
Libertarianism would be defined as minimal state intervention (or the non-aggression principle as the basis of civil law law). What the definition alone cannot tell us is whether such a proposed really does provide the greatest social flourishing - that still remains to be argued for.
|
Posted by LeoFreskos 11/27/2024 2:13 pm | #29 |
My method was to lie on the couch watching AKIRA over and over, stuff my mouth full of ores until they kind of melted in that fantastic way ores do, then wash them down with a big swig from a 2L of MTD. This would backwash crumbs into the 2L, not only claiming it as all MINE.
Game enthusiast
Page: