close

Discovered in

Roachrat

Roachrat
677 Favs

Find other sites about

Related Sites

  • A Handout for Statists

    this is an eloquent rendition of one aspect of the philosophy of the American Libertarians. As an anarchist myself I am sympathetic to many of their conclusions but their arguments are woolly. Their starting point is the raising of non-coercion to a philosophical or ethical principle. It... more

    Reviewed by harrystottle May 26 2008, 04:16pm ( 6 reviews ) • strike-the-root.com

    549 views
  • 5 reviews
  • Reviews of the site
  • Join StumbleUpon or login to add a review! default avatar

  • Rated by MichaelJN on Sep 10, 11:27am

    "Statist: I can certainly see that position. Me: Can you find any logical flaws in my position? Statist: No, but I still think that you are wrong." Ya, that about sums it up. Statists are convinced that government is the solution, not the problem, and are so invested in that belief they will deny logic when presented with an argument which is not compatible with their world view.

  • Rated by NiKo2008 on Oct 12 2008, 3:06pm

    How many true believers are out there?

  • Rated by harrystottle on May 26 2008, 4:16pm

    this is an eloquent rendition of one aspect of the philosophy of the American Libertarians. As an anarchist myself I am sympathetic to many of their conclusions but their arguments are woolly. Their starting point is the raising of non-coercion to a philosophical or ethical principle. It isn't. It is merely an aspiration (which I share). The difference is crucial. Consider the "driving on the roads" case which Molyneux nimbly sidesteps. It is obviously the case that if we do not enforce the decision to drive on one side of the road, we will cause large numbers of road deaths. This is more than enough to justify the "coercion" required to persuade people to conform, purely on the basis of our right to self defence (which the libertarians support). So there cannot be a blanket ban on coercion. The real questions are:a) when is such coercion justified b) who should make the decision c) who should implement the decision and d) what means are acceptable when implementing the decision (and who should decide that and so on)The only clear ethical principle we can voice in regard to coercion is that we cannot oblige ANYONE to accept it as just or fair. Like the Democratic Cannibals, each of retains the right to fight for our own interests regardless of consensus against us. We may well submit to the coercion for sensible tactical reasons (we are clearly outgunned) but that does not imply that we "accept" the coercion in any way other than, as Molyneux suggests, a slave accepts lunch.

  • Rated by dysurian on Feb 12 2008, 8:44am

    A must read for those interested in understanding the immoralities of governments.

  • Rated by Roachrat on Dec 15 2007, 7:22am

    Interesting concept breaching ignorance.