Austrian Revivalist on Nostr: The Libertarian theorist doesn't 'dictate' but arrives at a set of moral, ethical and ...
The Libertarian theorist doesn't 'dictate' but arrives at a set of moral, ethical and legal values through logical reasoning and argumentation with other people.
He doesn't bring forth a set of dictums out of thin air according to his own arbitrary value judgements and self-interest. He merely restates what has been known to human beings for millenia as natural law and natural rights arrived at through logical reasoning.
And he does this from the perspective of the individual.
Whether or not one accepts it, he leaves it upto them. He lets anyone believe what they want as long as his own natural rights to life, liberty and property are not violated.
This is why Ancaps and Libertarians don't advocate the use of physical force to bring about their idea of the world, unless their own natural rights are violated. Their chosen alternative is to debate and reason with people, to bring about an order that doesn't require a coercive State to maintain.
The alternative, however, to doing all this is moral and ethical relativism and positive law, which he believes to be a road to tyrrany.
In the case of communism, everybody owns everything so there inevitably emerges a coercive State who allocates resources and property.
In the case of moral and ethical relativism, everybody is right and nobody is wrong so there inevitably emerges a coercive State who determines what is right and wrong through the establishment of positive law.
If there is a spontaneously emergent moral, ethical and legal order that is built on natural law and natural rights arrived at through logical reasoning and argumentation, it is possible for the society to be anarcho-capitalist.
We don't have such an order, hence our society is not ready for that.
I'm all for building towards such an order. But without it, a coercive State will inevitably emerge even if you abolish the current one.
He doesn't bring forth a set of dictums out of thin air according to his own arbitrary value judgements and self-interest. He merely restates what has been known to human beings for millenia as natural law and natural rights arrived at through logical reasoning.
And he does this from the perspective of the individual.
Whether or not one accepts it, he leaves it upto them. He lets anyone believe what they want as long as his own natural rights to life, liberty and property are not violated.
This is why Ancaps and Libertarians don't advocate the use of physical force to bring about their idea of the world, unless their own natural rights are violated. Their chosen alternative is to debate and reason with people, to bring about an order that doesn't require a coercive State to maintain.
The alternative, however, to doing all this is moral and ethical relativism and positive law, which he believes to be a road to tyrrany.
In the case of communism, everybody owns everything so there inevitably emerges a coercive State who allocates resources and property.
In the case of moral and ethical relativism, everybody is right and nobody is wrong so there inevitably emerges a coercive State who determines what is right and wrong through the establishment of positive law.
If there is a spontaneously emergent moral, ethical and legal order that is built on natural law and natural rights arrived at through logical reasoning and argumentation, it is possible for the society to be anarcho-capitalist.
We don't have such an order, hence our society is not ready for that.
I'm all for building towards such an order. But without it, a coercive State will inevitably emerge even if you abolish the current one.