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)

We can't all be as gracious and tactful as whoever you are.

henry_quirk wrote:

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?
 

wait a minit. I was here first, let's get the definition of "socialism" established then we  can move on to the 31 flavors of anarchism.

BigV wrote:

henry_quirk wrote:

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?
 

wait a minit. I was here first, let's get the definition of "socialism" established then we  can move on to the 31 flavors of anarchism.

no worries: E & me are done (I think)...carry on

so, mouse.

gotcha.  

weirdo.

legit point

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

Most of us have jobs and lives to live.

fargon wrote:

Most of us have jobs and lives to live.

Well apparently whatever job you have is unrelentingly demanding, even over a holiday.  It's January, and this board has been dead as a doornail for weeks now.

tw wrote:

IC wrote:

It's January, and this board has been dead as a doornail for weeks now.

Some doornails have life.  Watch it jump out of the way so that a hammer hits your finger. 

I guess ithat passes for some sort of response to the problem of nothing going on at this site.  But I would say it was more certainly evidence that people are abandoning serious discussion at this location, for some reason.  

Being a very late latecomer to the site, I find that surprising.  The natural thing, when one comes across a dead horse, is to wonder what killed it.  Well, this site is seeming like a dead horse.  Any idea what killed the animal?

tw wrote:

What is a man's philosophy who would bomb the heart of downtown Nashville? 

Nihilism, I'm guessing: the man committed suicide.

tw wrote:

Or what is the philosophy 20 people on a 26 foot boat crossing 140 miles of open ocean.

Likely either Islam, or something Islam hates.  Some are economic migrants, some, clearly Islamic extremists, and some are tying to get away from the lands where the Islamic radicals are making their lives Hell.  That seems to be the mix.

tw wrote:

Or philosophy of a lying president...

Pragmatism.  Or Socialism. I've noted that leaders will lie for either, but more for the latter than the former.

tw wrote:

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

"Mindset" is quite different from philosophy, of course.  Mindset is not necessarily systematic.  So it's not possible to say without asking the person.

tw wrote:

What is justification of extremists who intentionally subvert Constitutional Rights of all Americans in public spaces?  

You mean Islamists?  Or do you mean radicals like Antifa or BLM? It's not clear to me who you're pointing out, or which "constitutional rights" you perceive to be at threat.

tw wrote:

Why are these relevant and current questions not being asked?

They are, and should be...just not here, apparently.

tw wrote:

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

Well, again...people are asking, and as above, there are plausible answers.  It's just that nobody's doing it here, I see.

tw wrote:

How many dead nails await hammering?

All of them.  I've never seen a "live" nail.  They're all "dead."

Well, the rhetorical flourishes are mildly entertaining, but I still don't know why people aren't using this discussion forum.  Any more down-to-earth reasons you know of?

 

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?

I find it curious that the usual suspects are blamed.  I only expect that from one here declares them all as Islamoterrorists.

Does Nihilism explain Timothy McVeigh? Or an inspired freedom fighter who shot up a Washington DC pizza shop to free imprisoned children from the basement of a pedophile operation run by Hilary Clinton?  Or a bomber in TN that was building a bomb for months?

People, with contempt for the Constitutional Rights of all others, refuse to wear masks in public. Especially to threaten the lives of Doctors and Nurses.  So apparently they are also undercover Islamists.

A common philosophy applies.  But concerning is this automatic fear or distrust of Islam.