Flint wrote:

henry_quirk wrote:

What to do with the people who are shitting right near us, but unwilling to pay for the pipes and treatment facilities?

*kill them

*drive them off

*make them pay

*pay for them

*move

*attend to your own health by spendin' your money to isolate your property from theirs

I can make a case for any of the above based on specific details of a specific scenario which you haven't offered

So I could be spending my days in a protracted land feud with my neighbors, who are dumping their raw sewage into my drinking water? I'm sold on this libertarian utopia-- sign me up.
 

 
why would it be protracted?

where does your water come from?

who said diddly about utopia?

thats a genuine interest in hearing what you think about it, by the way, i really would love to know what your reaction to left-wing libertarianism and anarchism is. i feel like you might just knee-jerk dismiss it as more totalitarianism or whatever, but that might not be giving you enough credit

erika wrote:

thats a genuine interest in hearing what you think about it, by the way, i really would love to know what your reaction to left-wing libertarianism and anarchism is. i feel like you might just knee-jerk dismiss it as more totalitarianism or whatever, but that might not be giving you enough credit

as I say: I'd be happy to give an opinion, just offer some definitions

anarchism, for example, covers a lot of territory...which anarchism?
 

if postin' definitions ain't your cuppa tea, E, let me give you lil bit on my own natural rights libertarianism, then -- at your leisure -- you can compare & contrast

my natural rights libertarianism is a kind of moral realism...it's not an overtly political position

on to the juicy bits...

-----

Instinctually, invariably, unambiguously, a man knows he belongs to himself.

He doesn't reason it, doesn't work out the particulars of it in advance. He never wakens to it, never discovers it. It's not an opinion he arrives at or adopts. His self-possession, his ownness, is essential to what and who he is; it's concrete, non-negotiable, and consistent across all circumstances.

It's real, like the beating of his heart.

A man can be leashed against his will, can be coerced into wearing the shackle, can cringe reflexively when shown the whip, can be born into subordination, but no man ever accepts being property, and -- unless worn down to a nub, made crazy through abuse and deprivation -- will always move away from the yoke when opportunity presents itself.

Not even the slaver, as he appraises man-flesh and affixes a price to it, sees himself as anything other than his own.

Take a moment or more, consider what I'm sayin' here, research the subject. Your task is simple: find a single example of a man who craves slavery, who desires to be property, not because he chooses it but because it's natural to him.

While you're at it, find a single example of fire that freezes.

I expect you'll be as successful with one as you will be the other.

Ownness (a man belongs to himself) is a fact (a true statement; one that jibes with reality).


Now, morality is all about the rightness or wrongness of a man's intent, his choices, his actions and conduct, as he interacts with, or impinges on, another. Seems to me, the validity of a morality rests solely with how well the assessment of wrongness or rightness agrees with reality, or with statements about reality.

So, a moral fact is a true statement; one that aligns with the reality of a man (not his personality, or opinion, or whims, but what is fundamental to him, ownness).


Can I say slavery is wrong is a moral fact?

Yes.

To enslave a man, to make him into property, is wrong not because such a thing is distasteful, or as a matter of opinion, or because utilitarians declare it unbeneficial. Leashing a man is wrong, all the time, everywhere, because the leash violates him, violates what he is.

-----

a man belongs to himself

a man's life, liberty, and property are his

a man's life, liberty, or property are only forfeit, in part or whole, when he knowingly, willingly, without just cause, deprives another, in part or whole, of life, liberty, or property

Last edited by henry_quirk (12/04/2020 8:49 pm)

IC wrote:

erika wrote:

would love to know what you reactionary libertarian types think of libertarian municipalism and/or democratic confederalism but getting you to read (or even read about) any Murray Bookchin or Abdullah Öcalan is probably too much of an ask, and i dont have the focus or attention span to write a primer for you right now

Thank you for your charitable and helpful message.  Thank you also for your most kind pigeon-holing of our views, and the clear vote of confidence in our intelligence.  It will make us all the more likely to take your suggestion seriously.   We sure will feel like spending time talking to you in future.  Best wishes.
 
 

"we"

The royal "we" 

the socialist "we"

or maybe you got a mouse in yer pocket.

or maybe you just forgot your sarcasm tag #sarcasm
 

I too would like a definition of Socialism.

so, mouse.

gotcha.  

weirdo.

IC wrote:

Gee, not much goes on on this board. Nobody got stuff to say?  Or nobody paying attention here?

 
this place is just the funeral for the old place

most of the members just don't know it yet

fargon wrote:

Most of us have jobs and lives to live.

As a matter of fact, I do.

What is a man's philosophy who would bomb the heart of downtown Nashville?  Why so much silence?  Are we waiting for Cellar extremists here to justify it?

Or what is the philosophy of 20 people on a 26 foot boat crossing 140 miles of open ocean. While not immigrants fleeing for their lives.  And probably all dead.

Or philosophy of a lying president who spends over an hour bullying a Secretary of State in GA  to subvert an election.  Why is that philosophy acceptable because he has been doing such corruption all his adult life?

What is the mindset of a pharmacist who would intentionally threaten lives of some 570 people by destroying life saving drugs?  Because emotions justify actions?

What is justification of extremists who intentionally subvert Constitutional Rights of all Americans in public spaces?  Why are these relevant and current questions not being asked?

So what is a philosophy of so many who do not bother to even ask?

How many dead nails await hammering?
 

IC wrote:

henry_quirk wrote:

as I say up-thread: this place is just the funeral for the old place...most of the members just don't know it yet

I, myself, would like to get back to the moral fact thread, but no one seems interested any more

I'm interested.  Was anything interesting developed out of that, Henry?

 
not really

others might disagree, but, it seems to me, we never got out of the startin' gate in that thread

henry_quirk wrote:

I, myself, would like to get back to the moral fact thread, but no one seems interested any more

Morality is not based in fact.  Morality is most often based in emotions. Same emotions that despots appeal to for power.  Morality: I should impose my religious beliefs on you.  Because my religion is moral.

Concept is so vague and distorted that it should never be associated with the word 'fact'.
 

mor·al
adjective
1. concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.
"the moral dimensions of medical intervention"
Similar:
virtuous, good, righteous, upright, upstanding, high-minded, right-minded, principled, proper, honorable,
honest, just, noble, incorruptible, scrupulous, respectable, decent, irreproachable, truthful, law-abiding,
clean-living, chaste, pure, blameless, sinless,
 
Opposite:
immoral, bad, dishonorable
 
2. holding or manifesting high principles for proper conduct.
"he prides himself on being a highly moral and ethical person"
 
noun
1. a lesson, especially one concerning what is right or prudent, that can be derived from a story, a piece of information, or an experience.
"the moral of this story was that one must see the beauty in what one has"
Similar:
lesson, message, meaning, significance, signification, import, point, precept, teaching
 
2. a person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do.
"the corruption of public morals"
Similar:
moral code, code of ethics, moral standards, moral values

OK, as an adjective good not bad, but does not define what good and bad are.
As a noun #1 is teaching good vs bad, which means what someone else decided what good and bad entail.
#2 is your  personal collection of what you feel  is good and bad behavior.
Fair enough, but to say your collection that guides your behavior is "Moral Fact" is misleading at best.
Sure it's a fact to you, it's your chosen path, but it's not a fact to me or anyone else. If you say it's a fact because it's your way of thinking and behaving, you're saying you'll never change your mind or compromise the path under any circumstances. If you say it, and believe it, there is still no guarantee, there's no law or force to make you, strictly your decision. Because of that I don't buy it's a fact.