The fact that cooperate and voluntarily associate with others doesn't mean they aren't independent. "Social" behavior isn't coercive.
I think the non-Libertarians ITT should give the Libertarians through the 4th of July to talk amongst themselves without our participation. Then we can come in and judge them.
Some light reading for you on the science of human action. Part I of the book analyzes the issue. https://mises.org/sites/default/files/Human Action_3.pdf
Not interested in reading any mises nonsense tbh but thanks...I assume you have to ignore reality to believe that groups don't behave
A social collective has no existence and reality outside of the individual members' actions. The life of a collective is lived in the actions of its individual members, and its actions are comprised solely of the actions of its members. There is no social collective conceivable which is not operative in the actions of some individuals. The only way to a understand the collective whole is through an analysis of the individuals' actions, and by analyzing the meaning of those various actions you necessarily learn everything about the actions of the collective.
I'll assume you've read a lot of his work and that it was with well-informed, careful thought that you were able to so dismiss his work as laughable. I'm glad we are able to have such learned discussions in this thread.
I find a lot of what stagger says vague and quite frankly nonsensical but he doesn't seem like a dick so I don't know why the dog pile has to occur
I wasn't dog piling. It was a reference to how clearly well read he is on the subject. He just ended up on the complete opposite end of the spectrum from where Mick did.
I think ~ taylor ~ and 2Poor were just pointing out that most of the other posters in this thread are just half-assing it with their libertarianism.
Not at all. I very much respect Stagger Lee's libertarianism; he knows what it is and he believes in it.
In retrospect, I was probably being a condescending dick to the non-@stagger lee libertarians. C'est la vie.
There's also this weird thing with people who vote libertarian or lean that way where they're held to the standard of falling in line with every single position of the party or the political philosophy. Neither of the two major parties are held to those standards.
Not at all. The Republican thread and the Left thread discuss differing philosophies all the time. The Libertarian thread should do the same.
Even though I couldn't disagree more with his political ideologies, stagger is a good poster. And yes he's bona fide in his libertarianism. He's not one off those Republicans who just decided to be a libertarian
What I'm saying is that for some reason it seems like, very often, people who tend to lean toward libertarianism but aren't your hard core versions are not as well respected as Stagger. Like, why do I have to be chest deep to vote this way without derision?
As I understand it, Stagger Lee is hesitant to refer to himself as a libertarian (as it relates to the political party anyway) so I don't think he'd have a problem with you expressing a different idea of what being a Libertarian means to you.
Why isn't it enough to be a person who values conservative financial policies but for the most part wants the government to stay the fuck out on everyone's social lives and actually means it? Why do I have to want the gold standard and hate the Federal Bank or want complete anarchism to be taken seriously? When the basic ideas are agreeable, for the most part, what's wrong with that?
You don't...but I guess a lot of people interpret that as basically being a republican without all the embarrassing social beliefs, which is fine. Personally I find libertarianism confusing because it's so poorly defined and those who subscribe to it like to move the target as it conveniences them.
There are clearly shades of both parties. You would be hard pressed to find an objective person who agrees with every single position his or her party takes. That's just politics.
The guy that created the The Left thread got pissed that people were supporting Hillary Clinton in that thread and changed the title for a month. Based on today's discussion in the thread, it might happen again.
I'm not disagreeing with you but it happens to people of other parties. Like when swimfan thinks he's iceburning the entire left when he posts something stupid Hillary did, as if I'm some huge supporter of hers
Nothing. The answer is nothing. There are many Republicans who couldn't care less when Jim and Jeff get married. Just like there are many rich Democrats who would rather keep their money than give more towards taxes.
It can be whatever you want it to be, man. Before you got married, however, you probably had some conversations to find out if you had a similar world view and could live together. I'm just encouraging the same here.
I guess it comes down to the meaning of "behavior." I read the term as connoting action. Action requires conscious, purposeful behavior towards certain ends. Determination and application of means to ends is done by the individual. Groups of individuals can come together and propose mutually sought-after ends, and they can agree to act in a certain manner towards those ends, but I don't consider this behavior of a group. Even if social, emotional, or psychological pressures are applied by other members of a group, the behavior is ultimately that of each individual. When the time comes that technology provides a way for individual minds to be synchronized and ratiocination conducted collectively, then I'll jump on board with the "group behavior" theory.
I understand. I'm not new to the philosophy. I voted for Ron Paul in 2012 before the racist stuff came out. I just tend to not fall in line with the hard core crazies, like, generally. Not saying Stagger is crazy but there are certainly hard core crazy libertarians. It's a choice on the degrees of the version, to me. I like Gary Johnson. He has some positions that are quite unrealistic in today's political atmosphere but said he'd been cool with working with other people to meld them into something acceptable. That's all. For me, it's about the candidate more than the party because I've become disillusioned with parties in general. The only thing I can control is who I vote for, whichever party that person comes from. I just refuse to vote for the other two jackoffs and I find Gary Johnson to be fairly pleasant with lots of things I like the sound of, certainly not a repugnant human like the other two, so I will vote for him. I bet that's similar to a large amount of people that would vote for him.