Clarification with regards to Rothbard, Block, and Myself

[Christian Liberty]

This thread isn't really for aCultureWarrior's benefit, since he'll ignore me anyway. But since he just closed his thread, I'm going to respond to something he said here, for everyone else's sake:

aCW said this:

You can leave now Jr., as I see the train to la la land is boarding. (the conductor of the train is the late "Mr. Libertarian" Murray Rothbard who stated that parents have a "right" to starve their physically disabled child to death. The train's engineer is Rothbard's replacement, atheist Walter Block, who believes that selling a 4 year old boy (who is not an adult) to a NAMBLA pervert is acceptable in some cases).

Rothbard did say that parents had such a right. While he would have been horiffied by such a thing, he derived this conclusion from the non-aggression. He was, in my opinion, very wrong. I imagine Rothbard would also say that the parent could not prohibit anyone else from caring for the child. Again, though, he was still wrong.

Walter Block's "some cases" would only consist of cases where the child would die otherwise. In other words its "be sold to NAMBLA or starve. I strongly disagree with Block on this point, but he wasn't saying something like this would be justified under normal circumstances. I do find it interesting that some of the same people who would scream bloody murder at Block for something like this would also support the outright murder of thousands of children in Middle Eastern countries for a far vaguer conception of "greater good." But, I still believe strongly that Block is wrong.

libertarian voluntarists do not agree with each other on all issues, as aCW falsely tries to imply. I don't agree with Rothbard or Block on the issues in question.

Now, back to your regularly scheduled programming.

 

[GFR7]

An apt explanation:

Reasonable and concise (as was your point on aCW's thread; yes I got it, but of course he didn't/couldn't).

One thing to remember before losing the thread of the fabric altogether: Thoughtful reflection and polite reasonable argument will NEVER get you anywhere with aCW. :wave2:

Yes, Block was speaking of exceptional and dire cases, and thus not requiring normative judgment or making Kantian universal proclamations.

Rothbard's natural rights ethics is a bit extreme (some call him a morally insane anarcho-capitalist) : But then, you specifically state that you disagree with him (do you imagine aCW accepted that I can disagree vigorously with Nietzsche or Kierkegaard on any point? :think: )

 

[Christian Liberty]

An apt explanation:

Reasonable and concise (as was your point on aCW's thread; yes I got it, but of course he didn't/couldn't).

One thing to remember before losing the thread of the fabric altogether: Thoughtful reflection and polite reasonable argument will NEVER get you anywhere with aCW. :wave2:

Yes, Block was speaking of exceptional and dire cases, and thus not requiring normative judgment or making Kantian universal proclamations.

Rothbard's natural rights ethics is a bit extreme (some call him a morally insane anarcho-capitalist) : But then, you specifically state that you disagree with him (do you imagine aCW accepted that I can disagree vigorously with Nietzsche or Kierkegaard on any point? :think: )

I don't think I'd go so far as to call Rothbard "morally insane." I'm an anarcho-capitalist myself, though an-caps disagree with each other on issues. I'm more like C Jay Engel than Rothbard when it comes to justifications for libertarianism... I go by propositional, Biblical revelation rather than natural law. I think Rothbard's epistemological method would have been reasonable fom a deist standpoint as far as it goes, but I'm not a deist.

Rothbard wasn't advocating people starve their kids, he was strictly and in his mind consistently applying a principle. I happen to think he's wrong in part because I see the family as a positiviely divinely ordained institution, and because I think when two people choose to have sex they also consent to ensuring that the product of that union is cared for. Now, I would say that it would be far better to handle a situation like this by offering to take care of the child rather than by punishing the parents, but I would say that a parent certainly COULD be justly punished for physically neglecting their child.

Block is inconsistent with his own premises IMO. He normally goes with a deontological commitment to the NAP, but in this case he seems to cast aside the NAP in favor of utilitarianism, since he doesn't believe children can consent to sex. (I do know of ancaps who believe they can, though they are a minority, but Block isn't one of those.) He may well be right from a utilitarian standpoint that being raped is better than being murdered (though that's kind of a value judgment, I'd rather just be killed personally), but I think he's wrong deontologically, not only according to my deontology, but also his own.

Here's the crazy thing though. Block says something like this about an extremely rare situation that would rarely if ever occur in a prosperous, free market economy, and people cry "pedophile." Someone else advocates bombing thousands of children for a much vaguer conception of "greater good" and that's generally considered a normal political position to hold.

I hate this world.

I get why someone would be hard on Block for holding that position, as well as Rothbard, but if I were going to do that, there would be a lot of bigger monsters I'd have to yell at first. Rothbard and Block are right way more often than not politically. But its easy to cherry pick weird statements, take them out of context, and use it to destroy somebody's reputation.

 

[GFR7]

Here's the crazy thing though. Block says something like this about an extremely rare situation that would rarely if ever occur in a prosperous, free market economy, and people cry "pedophile." Someone else advocates bombing thousands of children for a much vaguer conception of "greater good" and that's generally considered a normal political position to hold.

I hate this world.

I get why someone would be hard on Block for holding that position, as well as Rothbard, but if I were going to do that, there would be a lot of bigger monsters I'd have to yell at first. Rothbard and Block are right way more often than not politically. But its easy to cherry pick weird statements, take them out of context, and use it to destroy somebody's reputation.

I understand you on this fully, and I feel the same disgust at the inconsistency, and at the "straining at gnats and swallowing camels".

I understood what you meant about Block being deontologically inconsistent - but I cannot agree that to be murdered is better than being raped. :think: I get your point, though.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I understand you on this fully, and I feel the same disgust at the inconsistency, and at the "straining at gnats and swallowing camels".

I understood what you meant about Block being deontologically inconsistent - but I cannot agree that to be murdered is better than being raped. :think: I get your point, though.

I wasn't saying that it was "better" just that I'd prefer it. That is of course partially motivated by knowing where I'm going when I die

The main reason I disagree with Block is that I'm not a utilitarian. Which is weird because Block isn't either. But he uses utilitarian reasoning on that issue.

Have I told you that you are an awesome poster lately?

 

[GFR7]

I wasn't saying that it was "better" just that I'd prefer it. That is of course partially motivated by knowing where I'm going when I die

The main reason I disagree with Block is that I'm not a utilitarian. Which is weird because Block isn't either. But he uses utilitarian reasoning on that issue.

Have I told you that you are an awesome poster lately?

Of course belief in eternal heaven certainly casts a different light on death. :cheers:

Block does at that, and one wonders why.

Why, thank you!~ and that sure is a compliment, coming from an illustrious poster such as yourself. :thumb: :e4e:
(Cue for aCW to chime in, and rip us both to shreds. lain: )

 

[Christian Liberty]

Of course belief in eternal heaven certainly casts a different light on death. :cheers:

Block does at that, and one wonders why.

Why, thank you!~ and that sure is a compliment, coming from an illustrious poster such as yourself. :thumb: :e4e:
(Cue for aCW to chime in, and rip us both to shreds. lain: )

aCW isn't strong enough to rip either of us to shreds.

Regarding Block, I think I know why. Sinful man naturally gravitates toward utilitarian reasoning. If one is an atheist, as Block is, this is all the more the case. So even if Rothbard or Block try to be consistent libertarians, their atheism will still make them go utilitarian sometimes. Even as Christians most of us do it occasionally.

 

[GFR7]

aCW isn't strong enough to rip either of us to shreds.

Regarding Block, I think I know why. Sinful man naturally gravitates toward utilitarian reasoning. If one is an atheist, as Block is, this is all the more the case. So even if Rothbard or Block try to be consistent libertarians, their atheism will still make them go utilitarian sometimes. Even as Christians most of us do it occasionally.

That's a strong argument for Christian Libertarianism , or a Libertarian Christianity - and would actually be an excellent premise for a full article (why atheist Libertarians go astray in theory and practice vis a vis Christian Libertarians ) :think: .............Once you are doing graduate work, you'll get published, easily. But perhaps before then.......

 

[Christian Liberty]

That's a strong argument for Christian Libertarianism , or a Libertarian Christianity - and would actually be an excellent premise for a full article (why atheist Libertarians go astray in theory and practice vis a vis Christian Libertarians ) :think: .............Once you are doing graduate work, you'll get published, easily. But perhaps before then.......

Ooh... this could be fun. There's already an article sort of like this that you might find interesting here:

http://americanvision.org/663/can-i-be-libertarian-without-christ/

Mind you, the writer of the article is a theonomist and thus not exactly the same form of libertarian as I am, but there are more similarities than differences, and its a valuable read nonetheless.

 

[GFR7]

Ooh... this could be fun. There's already an article sort of like this that you might find interesting here:

http://americanvision.org/663/can-i-be-libertarian-without-christ/

Mind you, the writer of the article is a theonomist and thus not exactly the same form of libertarian as I am, but there are more similarities than differences, and its a valuable read nonetheless.

Interesting. :think: Thnx, I shall have a look anon.

 

[GFR7]

Interesting parallel to Kierkegaard's Christian existentialism. K speaks of
turning toward Christ as the paramount act of freedom.

Nice essay (although I believe you could - and will - do better).

There are in fact parallels between Christian existentialism and Christian Libertarianism (of course aCW believes that both spheres are of the Devil). :jawdrop: