Libertarians should not align with the Alt-Right or support Trump

[Tyler H]

6 hours ago, Dylan Lawrence Moore said:

On 4/26/2017 at 0:42 PM, Tyler H said:

My argument is that anything less than the scientific method is not the scientific method at all. The scientific method is a set of steps, each necessary but not sufficient. If you skip a step or vary from the method in any way then you are no longer adhering to the scientific method.  You may be following some steps of the scientific method, but without all the constituent parts you do not have the scientific method. Saying people who manipulate data to advance their own agenda are adhering to the scientific method in any way is exactly the kind obfuscation I worry about permeating the philosophical arena. 

The same with the NAP. It's a principle which posits that all actions are allowed but for actions of physical aggression. Therefore if you act in a physically aggressive way, you are no longer adhering to the NAP. If you make the exception that there are gradations and there is no way to adhere to it in the ideal, then you leave a crack in the foundation for evil to gain social acceptance. 

I really think the language and specificity are important, especially with the constant co-opting of language by sophists. 

Then there has never been such a thing as a scientist, because every generation of scientists have had their own biases that had to die with them before the next generation was able to move on. 

The scientific method is like an asymptote: a perfect ideal that you reach for but can never fully attain. Same with the NAP: there is no such thing as a perfectly free society. The non-aggression principle is like one of the cardinal directions, it isn't a place in and of itself, it's a concept that guides actions.

Furthermore, talking about it is easier than applying it. Things get difficult where the rubber meets the road. I'm not saying you can get more NAP by violating it, but I am saying the direction to choose may not be so radiantly clear.

Of course I'm open to correction, but I don't see that how that logically follows from what I said.  Also, I think we would need to define scientist.  

I don't think the scientific method is a perfect ideal you cannot attain.  It is a set of steps you either follow or do not follow.  If you do not follow them, then you are not doing science in that instance.  Later, if you follow the steps, well then you are doing science.  How often someone is allowed to waffle between the two in their professional work and still be labelled a scientist is debatable.  I wouldn't say they need to reach perfection in always adhering to the scientific method, but a certain level of consistency would be required to categorize them as such in our minds, wouldn't you agree? And wouldn't you also agree that if someone were blatantly disregarding the scientific method while simultaneously calling themselves a scientist we would recognize that as a contradiction?

I think the same is true for the NAP.  I do not think it is a perfect ideal; it's a principle, and you are either following it or not following it at any given point in time.  And how often you vacillate between that adherence will have an impact on your ability to support the claim that you follow the principle. Furthermore, if someone were in the act of aggression claiming that they adhered to the NAP we would recognize that as an affront to the concept.  Which would be the same as saying "I think it is perfectly fine, nay just!, for you to be threatened with murder and thrown in a cage to be raped for not paying for my child's education/the national defense/the prevention of competition in industry/social welfare/<insert government program here>.  Oh, and by the way I adhere to the NAP."  Nope! No, you don't.  Not until you change your tune on telling other people to use force for you so you don't get your hands dirty or face any risk.  

It is a corruption of science for someone not following the scientific method to claim that what they are doing is science, as we recognize is happening in the scientific community now.  And it is a corruption of voluntarism to claim that an institutional system of coercion, or anyone who endorses it, is at all associated with the non-aggression principle.  I push back so hard against this because the manipulation of language is the philosopher's undoing.  It really matters how we say things.

 

7 hours ago, Dylan Lawrence Moore said:

Same with the NAP: there is no such thing as a perfectly free society.

I was re-reading before posting and this part really stuck with me for some reason; why are these two things put together this way?  So after some thought this is what I have to say, let me know what you think.  A perfectly free society is, I think, an unattainable ideal, and necessary for the pursuit of that ideal is the NAP.  However, a perfectly free society is not necessary for the pursuit of the NAP.  Is there something in your life where you feel you cannot avoid violating the NAP? I don't mean to detract from the conversation, but it would seem to me that there is no reason we can't perfectly adhere to the NAP in our own lives which sparked the thought that maybe there was something where you felt violating the NAP was necessary and so therefore an unattainable ideal on which we can, at best, only compromise.  I could be way off but these thoughts were floating around in my head so I thought I'd share them.  If it's nonsense go ahead and toss them in the trash or tell me to go pound sand, or inform me on how I've misunderstood the content of your post.

 

 

[plato85]

On 25/04/2017 at 0:55 PM, Erwin said:

Noooooo. 100% racial identity. 

In the words of Jared Taylor himself:

 

It's chilling looking back at what I wrote, that the alt-right wasn't a racial thing. I was mostly watch mainstream media. The media was describing libertarians like Milo Yiannopolis as alt-right. So I assumed alt-right just meant something like, the people who were left wing but who have crossed over and voted for Trump. When you sent me video of Jared Taylor, I thought this is a smear on the alt right, to put people like Jared Taylor in with Milo Yiannopolis.

I've since learnt how wrong I was, especially after the events in Virginia yesterday. No wonder I was getting funny looks when I was telling people I was alt right.

Damn media.

[Grand]

On 2/16/2017 at 0:34 AM, jrodefeld said:

 

I don't understand this comment.  I'm not trying to be a troll nor do I intend to just post topics critical of Stefan and his followers.  Rather I just think this division within libertarianism needs to be resolved if we are to move forward and achieve our goals of a Stateless society.  Freedomain Radio, Stefan and his followers seem to represent one of the larger contingents of pro-Trump libertarians within the movement.  I don't really understand it so I'm trying to have a conversation about the topic.  

 

I'm hoping this is permitted?  If anywhere, I'd expect open and vigorous debate to be welcomed in the FDR forums.

It's simple: You are not trying to have a conversation on the topic, as your argument is rife with inaccuracy, falsities and sophistry. Your argument is made entirely of highly inaccurate generalizations, of both the sweeping and hasty variety. You have a very particular view of Libertarianism and Anarchy, and you seem to be functioning on the level that this must be the one true form of Libertarianism and anyone who does not follow it is "making the wrong choice". Your opinion is quite literally identity politics, which is why it is so weak. The comment points out that you will not find sympathy from people here, nor will you find mercy. People here are going to deliver clear, concise and well reasoned arguments, and they are going to do so to the fullest capacity they can. A weak argument such as yours, which is to be blunt trolling, is simply going to get dominated here, so it makes more sense for you to simply leave now before that happens.

 

TL'DR he's saying that you're a moron and just going to get butt hurt, so you should just leave now and save yourself the trouble.

[Grand]

 

 

On 4/26/2017 at 1:00 AM, plato85 said:

People are either more liberal minded or more conservative minded, and there are liberal minded and conservative minded people on both sides of politics just as there is idealism on both sides of politics. Conservative minded people are more idealistic and collective, liberal minded people are more independent.

In the old days the division between the left and the right was more simple, the left and the right both had a Christian outlook. The conservatives were more and idealistic Christians, and they tried to push their 'modernist' lifestyle onto everyone. They wanted everyone to fit into the perfect mold of a stoic christian nuclear family. The Left tried to reign in the government and churches influence. That was the main difference between left and right in politics.

Then in the 1930s FDR came along and offered 'The New Deal' which completely changed politics. The new deal was a trade off of liberal and authoritarian values. The trade off was a bigger state in return for civil rights. The 'Social Liberals' lifted the prohibition, fought for new rights for workers, women, and coloured. From the time of FDR, 'social liberals' (as opposed to 'classical liberals' / libertarians) fought for equal rights under the law. That's what 'equality' used to mean.

Since then, the conservatives and the 'classical liberals' have been grouped together as right wing, but this always was is a division. Because most liberal minded people were voting with the left, conservatives minded people dominated the right.

By the end of the 1980s FDRs 'social liberal' agenda for equal rights was pretty close to complete, but no one announced that the agenda was complete. Everyone had equal rights under the law. Because this agenda was complete, and the left had the status quo, the left became idealistic and conservative. They told everyone that what they were really after was 'equality,' but they changed the meaning of the word equality from equal rights, to something else, but at the time most people didn't realise it, and the rusted on liberal minded voters continued voting with the left. 'Equality' is their brand of social engineering. It's about changing the way people think and deconstructing a way of life. Rather that equal rights they're trying to make men and women the same.... This of course is authoritarian. It started more subtly and became really obvious over the last 8 years.

So recently liberal minded people started flocking to the right. It has changed the balance of liberals/conservatives in the right-wing, but it has also given more power to the 'classical conservatives'.

The left are no longer for rights or freedoms, they are fighting for a bigger state and for social engineering. The left are the status quo, and they are becoming more and more authoritarian. The left are now THE conservatives. Anyone with 'classical conservative' ideas is now radical. The meanings of all our political language have changed so much since the 1930s that it's hard to even talk about the changes in our political/philosophic outlooks without constantly re-defining what you mean.

You know, my room mate and I had a conversation last year with a friend of my room mate who lives in Germany, and the entire definition of terms such as "Conservative", "Progressive" and "Liberal" are entirely different in Europe compared to how they are currently defined in the states, so the definitions are also different based on location. IIRC Europe tends to view "Progressive" and "Liberal" in a more economical sense? Perhaps someone from Europe could clarify as I only vaguely remember the conversation I'd had.