Dwain Dibley

Well technically, Libertarianism is an Ideology, not a philosophy. Its followers have demonstrated that they will use political force to impose upon others their 'principles' dictating how others should live their lives and they convey a strict set of pseudo-economic dictums towards achieving a society predicated upon their beliefs. And everyone will have to believe them in order for them to work. A good rule of thumb; if there is an "ism" attached, it's an ideology.

Let's try this; let's suppose that government, after a long struggle, has finally died from lack of attention taking with it all forms of civil structure and the suggestions of NAP are established as the norm. I'm walking down the dirt path that manages to weave itself between all the claims of property ownership and a guy walking the opposite direction bumps me on his way past, whereupon, I promptly turn and shoot him dead. ***Oh, the question: Did I follow the suggestions of NAP?

You are not arguing the logic of 2+2=4, you are not arguing logic at all. You are rationalizing your beliefs by attaching a nonexistent universality to them.

Let's see, what have you offered as a defence of your ideology for me to rebut....."IS NOT!" OK...... I'm not here to rebut your beliefs, I don't give a fuck what you believe. But the moment you take upon yourself the task of telling me what I should believe and how I should believe it, then we've got a problem....

That's right, just ignore the evil guy pointing out the obvious, stick to the plan....

First off comrade, imposing a set of dictums that you believe everyone should follow because you believe they're universal is not ethics, it's political force and coercion, totalitarianism. See: Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao, etc. Women's suffrage was not the imposition of a set of dictums upon society, it was a fight for inclusion into a political process and for equal standing. The abolition of slavery was not the imposition of a set of dictums upon society, it was for inclusion into the society, the political process and for equal standing. Can you see the difference? "Ethics is not physics. I am bound by the laws of gravity whether I believe in them or not. Ethics is open to interpretation and nuance" Out of your own reason, you demolish the basis of NAP, yet you continue to believe...

Ideology is political force and coercion, which ultimately leads to physical violence. It's just a matter of numbers. You guys are getting in on the ground floor, maybe you'll get a leadership position out of your loyalty to the dictums....who knows...

NAP will not work, it's irrational to assume that everyone in the world will interpret and hold to NAP as you want to believe they should.

Difference Between Philosophy And Ideology Philosophy vs Ideology There are very fundamental differences between philosophy and ideology. Ideology refers to a set of beliefs, doctrines that back a certain social institution or a particular organization. Philosophy refers to looking at life in a pragmatic manner and attempting to understand why life is as it is and the principles governing behind it. Ideology expresses dissatisfaction with the current state and aspires to be some future state whereas philosophy tries to understand the world in its current state. In other words, ideology is aimed at changing the world whereas philosophy is aimed at seeking the truth. Ideology is rigid and once fixed on certain beliefs, refuses to change its stance irrespective of any change in the surrounding environment. Challenging an ideologue can be the most difficult task. A philosopher, on the other hand, may arrive on some construct for the basis of life and other things but will be willing to discuss and ponder other philosophies. A philosopher is open minded and willing to listen to criticism whereas an ideologue will refute anything challenging his or her ideology outright. This also suggests that while philosophy encourages people to think, ideology discourages any thinking that goes against the basic doctrines that govern the ideology. The above definitions and differences clearly indicate that philosophy and ideology, if measured on a scale, would occupy two extreme ends of the scale. The purpose of any philosopher is to seek knowledge for the sake of wisdom and truth whereas an ideologue’s sole aim is to advocate and enforce his or her ideology wherever he can. Philosophy is objective whereas an ideologue will always impose his or her ideology’s vision and discard anything against it. Philosophy requires structured thinking whereas ideology has lot of personal emotions in play. Philosophy is neither harmful nor helpful as there is no advocacy behind it. On the other hand, an ideology can bring both harm and good to the society. This is because the set of doctrines that govern the ideology may always not serve universal interests and ideology demands advocacy and conversion of other beliefs and thoughts to that particular ideology in order to reign supreme. However, every ideology is born out of some philosophy. In conclusion, here is a summary of differences between philosophy and ideology. 1.Philosophy refers to a pragmatic approach of looking and analyzing life. Ideology refers to a set of beliefs and rules belonging to a particular group or set of people 2.Philosophy aims at understand the world as it exists whereas ideology is born out of a vision for the future and aims at changing the current state to that particular vision 3.Philosophy is objective whereas ideology is dogmatic and refuses to participate in any discussion that does not agree with that ideology 4.Philosophy does not have as much impact as an ideology would have on the world ‘“ for ideology aims at spreading the beliefs and imposing them on the rest of the society irrespective of its relevance 5.All ideologies have some underlying philosophy but it is not vice versa. ----------------- Think about what you preach....

Well with that, we can both agree...

Individuals are just fine, it's those damn 'people' you gotta watch out for...

What is that, the Libertarian moto to go along with NAP?

Well yes, context is everything. Self knowledge is a luxury afforded to one's self, it is not a pursuit of necessity. Being self aware, is a different matter, it is a part of our post primal nature. Being self aware or even knowledgeable in that awareness, does not remove one from the state of nature, that takes cooperation with other self aware beings along with a broader awareness of the environment within which they eke out their existence.

It appears that the article pretty much nails it. Think about it: Over 7 billion nations of One, following the premise of NAP, which is based upon the threat of immediate violence, a choice left to each individual nation to determine what constitutes an act of physical aggression. Yep, that will work. Libertarianism, a totalitarian ideology, negates all notions of society, they cannot exist in a libertarian world.

Well, the entirety of the video was based in emotionalism but it was well put together and the narration was pleasant listening. As far as "equating free market labor with slavery". it depends upon the amount of free will choices left to the laborer's discretion. Capitalism, it's that nagging little itch in the back of your mind that whispers "something's not right about this" each morning as you prepare yourself to go out and earn that living. It's almost primal, like being in the state of nature with modern trappings, economic...competition...

Curious, why are you thanking Samuel, he did not address the question you asked? Self awareness does not lead you out of the state of nature nor does it make you any smarter.

Interesting video, I enjoyed it, thanks...

What if there were a chance that you could bust up centralized control, would you take it?

Philosophy is primarily concerned with where we came from and how we got here, providing the insights that, hopefully, help you figure out where you are and where you choose to go. Ideologies are more concerned with devising selective philosophical truths that drive you forward to a predetermined destination.

There is no right or wrong in a state of nature. It is sustain your existence by whatever means necessary or parish.

It appears that what passes for modern philosophy these days is either garrulously esoteric to the point of being nothing more than inane prattle or, devoted to finding ways to generate dictums on how others should live their lives. I would suggest that a proper order would be science then philosophy. Science says "here is the answer", philosophy asks "to what purpose or why".