3 ms·

>> first principles examination of Libertarian axioms. First principles of libertarian axiom is not the Non-Aggression Principle as many believe, in fact ther

by syshum 5y ago

>> first principles examination of Libertarian axioms. First principles of libertarian axiom is not the Non-Aggression Principle as many believe, in fact there are some serious flaws with that [1], libertarianism is more accurately stated as having a foundational principle of Self Ownership [2], from this the non-aggression principle can be derived however like with many other things non-aggression can not be viewed as an absolute, if it is then every breath you exhale is an act of aggression.... [1] https://www.libertarianism.org/blog/six-reasons-libertarians-should-reject-non-aggression-principle https://www.libertarianism.org/blog/six-reasons-libertarians... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9srplWe_QQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9srplWe_QQ >> The role of the state in a Libertarian framework is to protect individuals from such unwanted force by enacting force onto the aggressor. That is an extreme over simplification of what a libertarian framework is, and stated in the way you have could betray the libertarian principles as it seems to have with in it a justification for the initiation of violence, something that would counter the libertarian ideology

fighterpilot 5y ago
Suppose for argument's sake that climate change is both significantly driven by humans and that it poses a real and grave risk. What would be the Libertarian solution to that, and what would be its justification? I've heard Yaron Brooks, who I usually agree with, on this topic but he seems to downplay negative externalities, which I view as a non-starter, given that they clearly exist and in some cases are large in magnitude (e.g. dumping of chemicals in a river). > serious flaws with that [1] I've read this before and agree with it. > That is an extreme over simplification Is it an over simplification of minarchist-libertarians, though? What state apparatus do they want? Police, courts, etc. These all have the purpose of protecting individual A from individual B by using force (arrest, prison, fines, etc) on individual B if they commit violence/fraud/etc against A. I perhaps shouldn't have used the word "Libertarian" for that though since that's a broader category.

by syshum 5y ago

fighterpilot 5y ago

Suppose for argument's sake that climate change is both significantly driven by humans and that it poses a real and grave risk. What would be the Libertarian solution to that, and what would be its justification? I've heard Yaron Brooks, who I usually agree with, on this topic but he seems to downplay negative externalities, which I view as a non-starter, given that they clearly exist and in some cases are large in magnitude (e.g. dumping of chemicals in a river). > serious flaws with that [1] I've read this before and agree with it. > That is an extreme over simplification Is it an over simplification of minarchist-libertarians, though? What state apparatus do they want? Police, courts, etc. These all have the purpose of protecting individual A from individual B by using force (arrest, prison, fines, etc) on individual B if they commit violence/fraud/etc against A. I perhaps shouldn't have used the word "Libertarian" for that though since that's a broader category.