Those intrigued by Stefan's ethical theory might be interested in checking out my critique.
http://libertarian-left.blogspot.com/
PeterWellington: -I like some of the connections he makes between family and the state, personal problems, etc. but I think he takes it too far, using family as a scapegoat at times or neglecting other causes/solutions to problems.
-I like some of the connections he makes between family and the state, personal problems, etc. but I think he takes it too far, using family as a scapegoat at times or neglecting other causes/solutions to problems.
Unless he advocates destroying the concept of family in order to address the issue of authority (& by proxy, coercion) within the concept of the family, the challenge to the concept itself isn't being paid enough attention, imo. I think the concept of family should most definitely change to a non-authoritative environment & to encourage core libertarian/anarchistic ideas & values (anti/non-coercion, voluntaryianism, direct action, egalitarianism for those interested); homeschool isn't enough, I don't think, especially for those who will either not be totally homeschooled (due to costs & laws), or for those who enter public education later on in life(whether grade, high school, college, university, etc.). The argument for libertarian & anarchistic schools goes without saying, & would obviously help, in this respect. Unfortunately, there will be those who (not unjustifiably) argue that this would go against Biology and/or Genetics, but I think that would only make the inital one or two generations of a population attempting such a radically different family model difficult, not impossible.
WARNING: This signature violates Rule 5. Stay classy!
This would have been more awesome if you said "robble robble" like the hamburgler :) robble robble hahah man that guy kills me.
I'm listening to Stefan' podcasts during more boring hours at work. I agree with a lot of of what he's saying but some of his ideas do bother me.
One of them is his claim that any kind of violence is wrong, even violence as a means of self-defense. And approving violence for defending oneself or one's family would eventually lead to the government's sanctioned violence as a way of self-defense. Well, in my opinion there's no connection. If anything, it's the government that's always limited our options of self-defense making it easier for the criminals to prey on innocent people. After all, the sheep are too stupid to be allowed to defend themselves or, God forbid, use the weapons to overthrow the tyrannical government?
Also, even he admits that while most people are naturally non-violent, there're still some that are just born this way. A lot of violence and corruption today is caused by the government, but there's no gurantee they would comletely disappear in the stateless society. Therefore, we'd have to take measures against the risk of being attack and so the idea of violence in self-defense would likely be accepted by the majority of population anyway.
If I hear not allowed much oftener; said Sam, I'm going to get angry.
J.R.R.Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings
I don't know whom you are quoting, but that comment is the most terribly sexist thing I have heard in a long time. It is disgusting to think that gettiing laid is somehow a necessary perservative of the female soul. Vile.
It is also simply wrong to paint Ayn Rand as celibate. She was married and for a time had a lover (with her husband's consent). The person you quote simply lies.
Furthermore, hating Molyneux because of his atheism is misguided. While there are things I hate about Molyneux, religionists have throughout human history always been the happy partisans of state abuses. Accept facts; reject religion.
And that Agorist stuff is just absurd. It looks like you are trying to merge Marx with Austrianism. Give it up; it cannot work.
Somehow I never got banned.
Franklin: And that Agorist stuff is just absurd. It looks like you are trying to merge Marx with Austrianism. Give it up; it cannot work.
Wow.
Franklin:And that Agorist stuff is just absurd. It looks like you are trying to merge Marx with Austrianism. Give it up; it cannot work.
Never afraid to speak without knowledge, eh?
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
As someone who regularly draws on Marx, I take exception to the implication that merging Marx with Austrianism can't be done. Why would you think that?
His agorism, not all agorism
Because Bohm-Bawerk refuted the whole of the Marxist system.
Notice the use of "that"---referring to the stuff on his blog. I am saying that it is absurd for him to claim that the free market and marxism are the same. You misunderstood me, dude.
Also, Agorism is generally bad. It is the idea that black markets should be fostered in order to undermine the state. Since lawfulness is a virtue even if you oppose the state, I don't see how you can claim I am speaking ignorantly.
I deleted your apologization request from my profile.
The more you post about agorism the smarter my comment looks.
Donny with an A: As someone who regularly draws on Marx, I take exception to the implication that merging Marx with Austrianism can't be done. Why would you think that?
I'm interested, could you provide any links?
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Ohh please! You're asking HIM to explain to YOU why marxism and austrianism can't be merged? Dude, you're the one who is gonna have to explain to the rest of us how it can be done.
The only thing marxism has in common with austrianism is some of the observations and categories the two schools both make upon society, like when they talk about "class-struggle", the "proletariat", "explotation", etc. but they have nothing incommon when it comes to actually theory. You know, moral, methodology, economics etc. infact one could say that in this regard they are eachothers opposite.
Magnus: Donny with an A: As someone who regularly draws on Marx, I take exception to the implication that merging Marx with Austrianism can't be done. Why would you think that? Ohh please! You're asking HIM to explain to YOU why marxism and austrianism can't be merged? Dude, you're the one who is gonna have to explain to the rest of us how it can be done. The only thing marxism has in common with austrianism is some of the observations and categories the two schools both make upon society, like when they talk about "class-struggle", the "proletariat", "explotation", etc. but they have nothing incommon when it comes to actually theory. You know, moral, methodology, economics etc. infact one could say that in this regard they are eachothers opposite.
Any particular reason for the hostility?
Franklin, Bohm Bawerk refuted Marx's economic theory, but not Marxism, broadly conceived. There are substantial strains in Marxian thought which are never mentioned in Bawerk's major work on the subject (assuming you're talking about Karl Marx and the Close of His System). Among the most relevant among these is the concept of alienation, but the notion of dispossession has also proven relevant in modern discussions of property theory.
Giles, this is probably the most recent example.
Magnus, obviously not all of Marx's ideas can survive a subjectivist examination (Franklin alluded to Bohm Bawerk's famous critique, to which I'd add von Mises' discussion in Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth, elaborated upon by Hayek in "The Use of Knowledge in Society"), but that does not mean that everything Marx said was wrong. I'm certainly not the only Austro-libertarian to draw on Marx in the area of social philosophy (Tyler Cowen comes immediately to mind), and for those Marxian ideas which are not based on the labor theory of value, it's not clear why we would need to do much translating to make them coherent within an Austrian framework. Have you read any Marx, or are you just taking the party position on this one?
Donny with an A:Giles, this is probably the most recent example.
Thanks for link, I just finished reading it in between typing up my economics notes, and it was a very good read. I always find it interesting when libertarians use ideas other than Rothbard, Mises etc in their writing I've read a few things from your blog and I've always enjoyed it but I think I'll start reading it more often now.
Thanks; glad to hear it!
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap