Comments on: Go Read a Bunch of Stuff http://aaeblog.com/2009/04/27/go-read-a-bunch-of-stuff/ "Austro" as in Rothbard and Wittgenstein, "Athenian" as in Aristotle and smashing-the-plutocracy. Sun, 12 Feb 2012 05:00:32 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Leo T. Magnificent http://aaeblog.com/2009/04/27/go-read-a-bunch-of-stuff/comment-page-1/#comment-350334 Leo T. Magnificent Thu, 30 Apr 2009 00:26:31 +0000 http://aaeblog.com/?p=2373#comment-350334 "Leo the nym," is that a horrid example of you attempting to insult me, or was it a bad joke? Please, the kids at the high school I go to are more experienced in the art of insulting people. I would suggest that you go take lessons from them, for they are wise in such ways. “Leo the nym,” is that a horrid example of you attempting to insult me, or was it a bad joke?

Please, the kids at the high school I go to are more experienced in the art of insulting people. I would suggest that you go take lessons from them, for they are wise in such ways.

]]> By: Leo T. Magnificent http://aaeblog.com/2009/04/27/go-read-a-bunch-of-stuff/comment-page-1/#comment-350333 Leo T. Magnificent Thu, 30 Apr 2009 00:10:39 +0000 http://aaeblog.com/?p=2373#comment-350333 I believe, "center-right libertarian," is probably the correct term. Personally, I call myself a, "center-left libertarian." I believe, “center-right libertarian,” is probably the correct term. Personally, I call myself a, “center-left libertarian.”

]]> By: Stephan Kinsella http://aaeblog.com/2009/04/27/go-read-a-bunch-of-stuff/comment-page-1/#comment-350326 Stephan Kinsella Wed, 29 Apr 2009 21:48:39 +0000 http://aaeblog.com/?p=2373#comment-350326 Heh. Hey, I have an idea: how about capitalist libertarians, or maybe, just "capitalists" for short. Has anyone thought of that? Heh.

Hey, I have an idea: how about capitalist libertarians, or maybe, just “capitalists” for short. Has anyone thought of that?

]]> By: william http://aaeblog.com/2009/04/27/go-read-a-bunch-of-stuff/comment-page-1/#comment-350302 william Wed, 29 Apr 2009 08:36:37 +0000 http://aaeblog.com/?p=2373#comment-350302 "Rights-based is good. Localism.. is overdone." No, you have me confused for someone in your camp, Kinsella. I'm teh embodiment of the evil window smashing social anarchist scourge in the ALL you keep ranting about. I keep throwing out all these quotes about the possible necessity of slaughtering the bourgeoisie before enacting anarcho-capitalism for you to scaremonger and you're just not taking the bait. It's very annoying. ;) In all seriousness, "rights" fail a lot of the basic requirements I have for a functioning ethical system, particularly in their specificity to present day human context (where I think Roderick and I, at root, explicitly part ways). And further, no I don't buy Rod's argument around the congruence of rightsists and assumed good consequences. I'm more than willing to bite the bulllet on traditional consequentialist bugaboos like saving ten by sacrificing one. Although my branch of Utilitarianism is that of the Social Anarchist tradition. One that focuses heavily on the interrelation of ends and means, particularly when applied many times in a broader social context -- see game theory. And further sees, in one phrasing, 'capacity for choice' to be the ultimate moral good, rather than pleasure or happiness and the like. --All of which is not even the beginnings of an argument, since I don't want to spend the time here and now, but rather an overview. “Rights-based is good. Localism.. is overdone.”

No, you have me confused for someone in your camp, Kinsella. I’m teh embodiment of the evil window smashing social anarchist scourge in the ALL you keep ranting about. I keep throwing out all these quotes about the possible necessity of slaughtering the bourgeoisie before enacting anarcho-capitalism for you to scaremonger and you’re just not taking the bait. It’s very annoying. ;)

In all seriousness, “rights” fail a lot of the basic requirements I have for a functioning ethical system, particularly in their specificity to present day human context (where I think Roderick and I, at root, explicitly part ways). And further, no I don’t buy Rod’s argument around the congruence of rightsists and assumed good consequences. I’m more than willing to bite the bulllet on traditional consequentialist bugaboos like saving ten by sacrificing one. Although my branch of Utilitarianism is that of the Social Anarchist tradition. One that focuses heavily on the interrelation of ends and means, particularly when applied many times in a broader social context — see game theory. And further sees, in one phrasing, ‘capacity for choice’ to be the ultimate moral good, rather than pleasure or happiness and the like. –All of which is not even the beginnings of an argument, since I don’t want to spend the time here and now, but rather an overview.

]]> By: Roderick http://aaeblog.com/2009/04/27/go-read-a-bunch-of-stuff/comment-page-1/#comment-350294 Roderick Wed, 29 Apr 2009 05:12:20 +0000 http://aaeblog.com/?p=2373#comment-350294 P.S. - One of my favourite headlines by B. Tucker -- "Plumbline or Corkscrew, Which?" P.S. – One of my favourite headlines by B. Tucker — “Plumbline or Corkscrew, Which?”

]]> By: Roderick http://aaeblog.com/2009/04/27/go-read-a-bunch-of-stuff/comment-page-1/#comment-350293 Roderick Wed, 29 Apr 2009 05:09:58 +0000 http://aaeblog.com/?p=2373#comment-350293 Re your confusion on William's comment -- he's a utilitarian, if that helps. Re your confusion on William’s comment — he’s a utilitarian, if that helps.

]]> By: Roderick http://aaeblog.com/2009/04/27/go-read-a-bunch-of-stuff/comment-page-1/#comment-350292 Roderick Wed, 29 Apr 2009 05:08:54 +0000 http://aaeblog.com/?p=2373#comment-350292 "Plumbline" is definitely wrong; it doesn't mean neither left nor right (after all, it was coined by a left-libertarian, Benjamin Tucker, and then borrowed by Rothbard during his leftmost period), it means never deviating from the non-aggression principle. I've tried to get Walter to stop using it to mean neither left nor right, but I fear nothing will work short of ... some violation of the non-aggression principle. I am awfully tempted to suggest "modal libertarian" as the name for what you're talking about. :-) “Plumbline” is definitely wrong; it doesn’t mean neither left nor right (after all, it was coined by a left-libertarian, Benjamin Tucker, and then borrowed by Rothbard during his leftmost period), it means never deviating from the non-aggression principle. I’ve tried to get Walter to stop using it to mean neither left nor right, but I fear nothing will work short of … some violation of the non-aggression principle.

I am awfully tempted to suggest “modal libertarian” as the name for what you’re talking about. :-)

]]> By: Stephan Kinsella http://aaeblog.com/2009/04/27/go-read-a-bunch-of-stuff/comment-page-1/#comment-350289 Stephan Kinsella Wed, 29 Apr 2009 04:23:49 +0000 http://aaeblog.com/?p=2373#comment-350289 Leo the nym, you may be right, this blogpost--not "article"--was not as polished as, say, an article might be. Maybe the grammar is not perfect. Guilty. "The biased based term, “normal Libertarian.” And, yes, I noticed that awkward conjugation of the verb too, Mr.Bloke." What term would you have me use instead? I won't accept the pejorative paleo; or defining ourselves in reference to left-libs, "non-left-libertarians". What else should we say. I'm at a loss. Plumbline? Centrist? Austro-? William:"just my distaste for Localism and Rights-based ethics." Uhh this has me confused. Rights-based is good. Localism.. is overdone. Leo the nym, you may be right, this blogpost–not “article”–was not as polished as, say, an article might be. Maybe the grammar is not perfect. Guilty.

“The biased based term, “normal Libertarian.” And, yes, I noticed that awkward conjugation of the verb too, Mr.Bloke.”

What term would you have me use instead? I won’t accept the pejorative paleo; or defining ourselves in reference to left-libs, “non-left-libertarians”. What else should we say. I’m at a loss. Plumbline? Centrist? Austro-?

William:”just my distaste for Localism and Rights-based ethics.”

Uhh this has me confused. Rights-based is good. Localism.. is overdone.

]]> By: Stephan Kinsella http://aaeblog.com/2009/04/27/go-read-a-bunch-of-stuff/comment-page-1/#comment-350288 Stephan Kinsella Wed, 29 Apr 2009 04:18:46 +0000 http://aaeblog.com/?p=2373#comment-350288 Roderick, minor point, but here: "William G. has doubts about “the Carson/Long project,” though I’m not entirely sure what that is" -- shouldn't "entirely" be italicized? I mean, for just the right touch? Roderick, minor point, but here: “William G. has doubts about “the Carson/Long project,” though I’m not entirely sure what that is” — shouldn’t “entirely” be italicized? I mean, for just the right touch?

]]> By: Roderick http://aaeblog.com/2009/04/27/go-read-a-bunch-of-stuff/comment-page-1/#comment-350284 Roderick Wed, 29 Apr 2009 03:12:33 +0000 http://aaeblog.com/?p=2373#comment-350284 Oh, now it sounds vaguely familiar. Oh, now it sounds vaguely familiar.

]]>