tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post3044172620876751103..comments2024-02-29T03:34:23.190-05:00Comments on Who Were the Sea Peoples?: What do I mean by the modern individual?gcallahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comBlogger40125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-62221639727729293382014-10-08T11:50:02.101-04:002014-10-08T11:50:02.101-04:00You're getting there Samson! By "libertar...You're getting there Samson! By "libertarian" Gene basically means individualist. (Of which there can certainly be overlap.)K.P.https://www.blogger.com/profile/10802193565054725900noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-20695169889250384772014-10-07T20:40:16.496-04:002014-10-07T20:40:16.496-04:00I'm more curious as to what implications it ha...I'm more curious as to what implications it has. Back in high school, I embraced social contract theory after reading about the Enlightenment and the Glorious Revolution. Popular sovereignty, democracy, and consent of the governed seemed to be the only principles that mattered there and the behavior of the modern individual just wasn't addressed by any of it.Samson Corwellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10148822362930969284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-43765443617447271662014-10-07T19:55:26.490-04:002014-10-07T19:55:26.490-04:00And of course libertarians will not fancy this poi...And of course libertarians will not fancy this point.gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-14150378736147632852014-10-07T19:49:09.135-04:002014-10-07T19:49:09.135-04:00In other words, they might say, "But Gene, th...In other words, they might say, "But Gene, that's entirely besides the point. Libertarians are not concerned about what makes the modern individual exist. We only care about the particular policies in place.".Samson Corwellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10148822362930969284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-71814462139072272132014-10-07T19:48:45.409-04:002014-10-07T19:48:45.409-04:00But the point IS that this modern individual was a...But the point IS that this modern individual was a product of various bits of social engineering! (And of course, those projects were created by individuals, so it is mutual determination.)gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-14034084566000109212014-10-07T19:46:53.178-04:002014-10-07T19:46:53.178-04:00Oh, well, I can see that, but I think that they wo...Oh, well, I can see that, but I think that they would object to these examples on the grounds that they are unlibertarian examples of "social engineering". I think that would have an effect on the persuasiveness of your point for them.Samson Corwellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10148822362930969284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-27013999579423313942014-10-07T19:16:00.703-04:002014-10-07T19:16:00.703-04:00"Wouldn't these be examples most libertar..."Wouldn't these be examples most libertarians are opposed to, though?"<br /><br />What do you mean "though"? The point of these posts has been that an entity libertarians object to (the modern state) creates the libertarian individual.gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-31646237544287297832014-10-07T19:07:10.896-04:002014-10-07T19:07:10.896-04:00"But the state has gradually broken down the ..."But the state has gradually broken down the ability of other social groupings to effectively banish such a person to the wilderness. A landlord today is not allowed to deny McCloskey housing because of her choice to become a woman. A grocer is forbidden from denying McCloskey access to food, as long as she can pay. Her employer is forbidden from firing her for undergoing her transformation (except for rare cases, for instance, if she had been working as a male stripper)."<br /><br />Wouldn't these be examples most libertarians are opposed to, though? And wouldn't the first instance be something that the paleoish libertarians would consider "big government"? (I don't consider it to be "big government" or solely the doing of "the state" because I think that to an extent rule enforcement can't be separated from society, i.e., an organized police force in a metropolitan district and the militia members of a small town are roughly the same in function.)Samson Corwellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10148822362930969284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-62991200311058757822014-10-04T21:56:02.434-04:002014-10-04T21:56:02.434-04:00Your bigger point is completely irrelevant, you...Your bigger point is completely irrelevant, you're itching for an argument that no one here is having. The point isn't the possibility of libertarianism. I thought I made this painfully clear.<br /><br />My point is only to clarify libertarianism from misrepresentation. To which you've ("something like that") apparently agreed to my take. This is no different from defending, say, Marxism from conservative misrepresentations. First get it right then criticize to your heart's content.K.P.https://www.blogger.com/profile/10802193565054725900noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-67032023508794205512014-10-04T20:18:10.235-04:002014-10-04T20:18:10.235-04:00"Samson, "master rules" sure sounds..."Samson, "master rules" sure sounds and awful lot like "policy prescriptions" would you actually like to elaborate on your assertion? (As we seem to agree)"<br /><br />Something like that. My bigger point is that "enforce property rights and contracts" is woefully inadequate as a legal maxim and ignores vast swaths of jurisdiction: aviation law, space law, bankruptcy, copyright, privacy law, traffic law, torts, marriage law, family law, etc. You can't expect the concepts of property and contract to be as expansive as you think they are. Does it really make sense to say "property rights are solution to pollution" when pollution needs to be established as a separate charge?Samson Corwellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10148822362930969284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-53669502341162294092014-10-04T16:46:49.296-04:002014-10-04T16:46:49.296-04:00Did my reply to K.P. get through?Did my reply to K.P. get through?Samson Corwellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10148822362930969284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-636223458265004562014-10-04T14:53:47.093-04:002014-10-04T14:53:47.093-04:00"Right. It has taken a particular set of righ..."Right. It has taken a particular set of rights that all liberals support and placed a one-sided emphasis on them."<br /><br />Would it then be accurate to say that it's like a mutant strain of liberalism?Samson Corwellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10148822362930969284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-47978875362030618892014-10-04T14:52:00.623-04:002014-10-04T14:52:00.623-04:00"Samson, "master rules" sure sounds..."Samson, "master rules" sure sounds and awful lot like "policy prescriptions" would you actually like to elaborate on your assertion? (As we seem to agree)"<br /><br />"Master rules" isn't <i>quite</i> synonymous with "policy prescriptions". The problem with libertarianism and most libertarians is that it/they have a cartoonish/naive idea of law. The way most of them understand real world examples are usually distorted. Anarchists saying common law was "market law" or "stateless law" don't know what the hell they're talking about. An example: Walter Block is an economist, not a lawyer. He has no business propounding legal theory, let alone legal theory based on Austrian economics.<br /><br />"Enforce property rights and contracts" as a maxim is woefully inadequate and neglects entire swaths of jurisdiction: aviation law, space law, family law, privacy law, tort law, traffic law, construction law, debt protection, licensing, statute of limitations, etc. Doesn't it seem a little weird to say that property rights are the solution to pollution? It would be wholly inaccurate to say that pollution was the result of property rights not being enforced. They were, it's just that pollution wasn't an offense.<br /><br />Most libertarian legal arguments I've seen are usually just convoluted word play, like the way Jan Masek was trying to explain how debt isn't intangible. His arguments about blackmail/defamation were just fractally wrong, erroneously assuming that defamation assume property in reputation.<br /><br />"As Ken B and Gene are saying, libertarianism is a subset of liberalism. I don't necessarily disagree, in that it's roots are definitely there. It is just that it's so narrowly focused and radically different at this point (evolved/devolved into a new species?) that to put Hobbes and Rothbard in the same tent is just a bit ridiculous. (I should have been more clear previously)"<br /><br />Think of it as a mutant version of liberalism, I guess. It's based on a concept of property rights that completely out of proportion.Samson Corwellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10148822362930969284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-58761377227338941952014-10-04T12:26:48.891-04:002014-10-04T12:26:48.891-04:00Also, I should have expected Oakeshott being broug...Also, I should have expected Oakeshott being brought up, however I was thinking more along the lines of Carl Schmitt's interpretation. Both seem to agree on the individualism of Hobbes at any rate.K.P.https://www.blogger.com/profile/10802193565054725900noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-78889629006822198912014-10-04T10:59:33.212-04:002014-10-04T10:59:33.212-04:00Samson, "master rules" sure sounds and a...Samson, "master rules" sure sounds and awful lot like "policy prescriptions" would you actually like to elaborate on your assertion? (As we seem to agree)<br /><br />As Ken B and Gene are saying, libertarianism is a subset of liberalism. I don't necessarily disagree, in that it's roots are definitely there. It is just that it's so narrowly focused and radically different at this point (evolved/devolved into a new species?) that to put Hobbes and Rothbard in the same tent is just a bit ridiculous. (I should have been more clear previously)K.P.https://www.blogger.com/profile/10802193565054725900noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-5927195863300474962014-10-04T10:29:16.466-04:002014-10-04T10:29:16.466-04:00Right. It has taken a particular set of rights tha...Right. It has taken a particular set of rights that all liberals support and placed a one-sided emphasis on them.gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-30962763918527133982014-10-04T10:23:56.620-04:002014-10-04T10:23:56.620-04:00The core of the kind of Libertarianism we are disc...The core of the kind of Libertarianism we are discussing is a radical (and absurd) view of rights: that all rights are property rights, are absolute, cannot conflict, and cannot be ranked. Ken Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08207803092348071005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-30320952533202411092014-10-04T07:59:08.003-04:002014-10-04T07:59:08.003-04:00Alright, but do you at least agree that the econom...Alright, but do you at least agree that the economism and emphasis on contract isn't necessarily in all forms of liberalism?Samson Corwellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10148822362930969284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-74061297876483999852014-10-04T07:47:23.291-04:002014-10-04T07:47:23.291-04:00Samson, if you go into a room full of historians o...Samson, if you go into a room full of historians of political thought, and point out that libertarianism is a species of liberalism, they will ask why in the world you are pointing out something so obvious. This isn't a controversial point Dan and I are making: it is quite commonplace. You just have to study the history of liberalism to see it is true. gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-76572299767455070412014-10-04T07:15:57.308-04:002014-10-04T07:15:57.308-04:00Ehhhhh, I'm not so sure about that. There'...Ehhhhh, I'm not so sure about that. There's nothing particular about liberalism that would even hint at the vulgar economism that's common in libertarianism. Nor is there anything in liberalism that makes contracts and property out to be so fundamental. Libertarianism's policy prescriptions don't seem to be rooted in liberalism as much as they seem to be based around incredibly strange perspectives on property and social contexts.Samson Corwellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10148822362930969284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-1202766007315577532014-10-04T05:52:03.793-04:002014-10-04T05:52:03.793-04:00I agree, Lorenzo. I agree, Lorenzo. gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-24247551539542657622014-10-04T03:00:51.291-04:002014-10-04T03:00:51.291-04:00If the modern sovereign individual is a post-Refor...If the modern sovereign individual is a post-Reformation evolution, then perhaps the Reformation had something to do with it. The key claim of the Reformation (that Scriptures create the Church--that what anchors the body of believers is their acceptance of the authority of Scripture) in opposition to the Catholic claim that the Church--understood as the body of believers--creates Scripture) had several consequences. One of which was to end up empowering the individual conscience, since the authority of Scripture was available to all who accepted it. Hence Protestant Churches beginning to elect clerics and having doctrine-deciding Synods with elected lay members. That seems a powerful source of notions of sovereign individuals.Lorenzohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00305933404442191098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-45394447370038743592014-10-03T22:53:00.315-04:002014-10-03T22:53:00.315-04:00This is also the secret of libertarianism's ap...This is also the secret of libertarianism's appeal: because it just pushes further ideas that are already common to us as citizens of a liberal world, its dicta can seem perversely commonsensical, such that an ordinary person knows something is wrong but cannot articulate just what. Open borders is a good example. Daniel McCarthyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07151051165704452294noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-38700442397335762102014-10-03T22:49:10.287-04:002014-10-03T22:49:10.287-04:00Libertarians are not alone in this, however: as Ge...Libertarians are not alone in this, however: as Gene points out, libertarianism is a subspecies of liberalism, and liberalism has increasingly characterized our political-social world over the last few hundred years. Libertarians just take further ideas that are already intimated in the common ideological background. The question is whether pushing these tendencies to the utmost is a good idea or whether slowing them down or checking them might be a better idea. Daniel McCarthyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07151051165704452294noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-82478750966064126072014-10-03T22:11:51.773-04:002014-10-03T22:11:51.773-04:00"The core of libertarianism isn't individ..."The core of libertarianism isn't individualism, not does it's core even imply individualism. At best, it's a boring set of policy prescriptions that allow for it (and just about everything else)."<br /><br />Except that's <i>not</i> what it is. All of the stuff that it "allows" for must be confined to its master rules. No bankruptcy, no marriage, no child custody, no consumer protection, no animal rights, etc.Samson Corwellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10148822362930969284noreply@blogger.com