Message from @Drywa11
Discord ID: 614351637040988179
I'm referring to Rothbardian libertarianism
and also, that criticism fits into the two problems I already described
that of being culturally lassez faire
allowing the persistence of anti-libertarian institutions within a libertarian order, which adhere to the letter of the law, while violating its spirit, is culturally lassez faire
Check this out when you get time
Ancap vs Right Wing Statist
Well, I tend to refer to NAP priorty libertarianism, and just say that the only way it can work is through Hoppean style cultural chauvinism. Rothbard wasn't an anarchist, though he was quite close in many of his arguments. Even he wasn't a culturally lassez faire libertarian.
Kokesh is fake and also gay.
I agree with many of the arguments I've heard from Rothbard, but some of the disagreements often stem from where he doesn't seem to have taken his own arguments to their full conclusion, or where he failed to account for certain variables.
Which ones?
There is a reason Rothbard became a Statist later in his life
Once he realized the failures of libertarianism
Well, his argument that parents should be allowed to abandoned their children, if only exclusively operating on the NAP.
I believe his argument, even with exclusive reference to the NAP, is incorrect.
Because he doesn't account for the fact that procreation is generally a voluntary act for the parents, but not voluntary to the new party being created, the child.
Basically, having a child, through consensual intercourse, is like two parties engaging in an activity that they have good reason to believe can incapacitate a non-consenting third party.
Ergo, they should be accountable for having placed that third party in the position of vulnerability.
In must the same way that, if your deliberate recklessness were to result in a car accident which paralyzed someone.
Rothbard became a statist?
I know he made strategic judgement involving the state and government. But that's triage more than anything. If you behave like you exist in a libertarian order, when you don't, you're just being an idiot.
True
Things like, "as long as the state does exist, I will argue it ought serve my interests" is not statism. It's just being practical.
And if that state is *always* going to violate the NAP, making an argument for a process of violation which is less destructive to libertarian goals is also strategic.
What's funny is, from what I understand of propertarianism, that's pretty close to my position. So, I'm not really sure why we're arguing. I guess just over definitions of what constitutes a libertarian order.
My basic argument is that, for any kind of NAP or property oriented system of law to persist, it must be perpetuated by capable people whose priority is doing so, and who can recognize when that objective isn't being served, reacting accordingly.
Like, one could even argue that many of the original US stated values are not particularly terrible, but that the chief failing in their manifestation and persistence is simply that, for the people whose actions could have secured it, they simply, didn't regard it as a sufficient priority to do so.
And this is almost always the core problem, in any given system
People don't often prioritize high minded ideals over their own comfort and convenience.
I don’t know enough about propertarianism to critique it. The Wikipedia page on it isn’t very detailed, but it doesn’t look objectionable.
Often only doing so when they feel there are sufficient, and immediate costs to inaction.
@Drywa11 The Wikipedia article is mostly about Minarchism. What I'm referencing is different.
I myself am not particularly sure how it really differs from the hoppean model.
If you could explain that, it would be appreciated.
It basically expands the NAP to include more immoral acts
And relies on reciprocity
It is significantly different from Hoppeanism
which immoral acts?