So the blogger who (partially) inspired my post yesterday has responded. You can read his piece for yourself here. You, of course, will draw whatever conclusions you will. For my part, his claim that things like clean water, clean air and clean food are only “supposed” goods not necessarily worth making cross-generational commitments to ensure pretty much exposes the uselessness of libertarianism as an actual plan for social action, as opposed to a tool of social and political criticism.
I’ve read this whole thread…starting with the post that inspired your initial response. After taking it all in, it’s pretty clear that, in this argument, you’re losing badly and know it. I can’t think of any other way to explain the blatant misdirection and dishonesty.
From your use of exceptions (infants and psychopaths) to disprove the rule (sound-minded adults) of the inviolability of self-ownership, to your quoting of the word “supposed” above (a word which doesn’t even appear in LA Liberty’s response), you refused on all counts to engage with his ideas.
You suggest that because he believes no one should be forced into cross-generational commitments, that he is against them in principle; that he believes that “commitment[s] beyond…one-to-one agreement” are unnecessary. You ignored the responses to your argument and decide instead to disparage him for something he didn’t even say.
Also, I can’t help but point out that shortly after saying that “a blanket statement ‘never’ is, well, silly,” you say that you’ve “never, ever heard a libertarian even vaguely hint at an” alternative to coerced cross-generational participation. [ LA Liberty note: the word ‘never’ didn’t even appear in my original post, nor any subsequent one. ] An assertion that is both silly and shocking, since I, in the course of my varied careers in food service, ministry, graphic design, and web development, have encountered a number of specific and general alternatives; how is it that in the course of your study and teaching of Politics and Government you haven’t?
At no point did I ever hint, much less outright “claim that things like clean water, clean air and clean food are only “supposed” goods not necessarily worth making cross-generational commitments to ensure.” I didn’t say they were only “supposed” goods at all, whatever that means. I didn’t discuss cross-generational commitments outside of noting that a father’s oath is not automatically applied to the son, and that the actions of a previous generation do not lock in decisions for subsequent generations, even if the subsequent generations benefitted from the explicitly unrequested actions. In other words, my argument was consistently one regarding consent. (Private property, by the way, can span many generations through natural mechanisms of trade and inheritance.)
Further, I offered a number of entire volumes dedicated to discussing how goods normally seen as “common” or “public” are made available in a voluntary society without the need to preclude consent.
Professor: that we disagree is abundantly clear. I believe that no peaceful individual should be forced into any obligation that he or she did not consent to, that the individual is the ultimate authority over his or her life. You, in contrast, believe aggressively forced obligations to be fundamental to a safe and functional society, that the individual does not necessarily have final say over his or her life. The only reason I can come up with as to why you persist on misrepresenting our point of disagreement is that you’ve realized the barbarity of your position when presented it in plain language.
- iambinarymind likes this
- chrisray likes this
- laliberty likes this
- michaelangerlo likes this
- biognosis likes this
- robbyattacks likes this
- goddanbriggs reblogged this from politicalprof and added:
- naturaldissidence likes this
- michaelangerlo reblogged this from laliberty and added:
- cyderpunk likes this
- supersailormeow likes this
- laliberty reblogged this from holeycynicism and added:
- mangleopolis likes this
- littleblackkittycat likes this
- missberdote reblogged this from politicalprof
- missberdote likes this
- holeycynicism reblogged this from politicalprof and added:
- acceptdinosaurs likes this
- hermanapto likes this
- retiredpinkwhitegold likes this
- paulclause likes this
- prettayprettaygood likes this
- mustachenmuscles likes this
- sarahlee310 likes this
- ellisondubois likes this
- invisiblelad likes this
- andrewgraham likes this
- interruptions likes this
- foundingfatherquotes likes this
- politicalprof posted this