A few years ago I came across a letter I wrote to Edith Efron back in 1978 in response to an article she had published in Reason criticizing anarchists within the libertarian movement. After rereading my letter — I had forgotten ever writing it — I found her article on the
Does there now exist the same sort of libertarian intellectual movement that David describes from the ‘60s through the ‘80s? David himself is obviously still doing great work but is there the same sort of intellectual/political group developing libertarian ideas with the same degree of rigor that existed back then?
I am loving digging into this. My position is that in order to be a human you must be a herm. You are a real thinker who gives yoyr opposition their arguments. My women come over to me by saying i am allman. But guess what, i would die from those adrenachromes. By themselv3s male hormones are reactive and I donot know what else
you should read “In Praise of Decadence” by Riggenbach. the derision of hippies by so-called traditional libertarians is fundamentally wrong. the greatest impetus to becoming a libertarian in the 60’s was not theoretical arguments based on the myth of natural rights but rather the military draft which sent individuals to die in wars (as governments are wont to do).
I think most people, with the possible exception of philosophers, are moral realists, whether or not they admit it.
The classic moral relativist story is the Eskimo putting his grandfather on an ice flow to die. You should not interfere because what he is doing is consistent with Eskimo morality. The "should not" reveals the presence of unacknowledged moral realism. Why shouldn't you, if interfering is consistent with your morality?
So it isn't surprising if most in the libertarian movement take it for granted that the NAP, considered as a moral claim, must be either true or false.
Have you considered the possibility that Huemer is correct and you are the moral equivalent of blind, somehow missing the ability most humans have to (imperfectly) sense moral facts?
If you did conclude that was true, what would the implications be for action? Someone who is blind can still take advantage of information about the physical world provided by sighted people. If you are blind to moral facts, should you accept what other people tell you they see in deciding how to act?
"Maybe the least controversial would be greater male variance in a characteristic such as IQ, where one very popular objection would be that this (or its implications) could not possibly be the case since such a belief is sexist therefore it is false and evidence to the contrary is wrong."
I don't think I have ever seen anyone offer that as an argument. The pattern I see, and which may be what you are referring to, is people holding beliefs that make facts fit their moral views but defending those beliefs with non-moral arguments.
My standard example is that lots of libertarians believe libertarianism is morally right but also, by a curious coincidence, produces more attractive outcomes than any alternative.
Does there now exist the same sort of libertarian intellectual movement that David describes from the ‘60s through the ‘80s? David himself is obviously still doing great work but is there the same sort of intellectual/political group developing libertarian ideas with the same degree of rigor that existed back then?
I am loving digging into this. My position is that in order to be a human you must be a herm. You are a real thinker who gives yoyr opposition their arguments. My women come over to me by saying i am allman. But guess what, i would die from those adrenachromes. By themselv3s male hormones are reactive and I donot know what else
you should read “In Praise of Decadence” by Riggenbach. the derision of hippies by so-called traditional libertarians is fundamentally wrong. the greatest impetus to becoming a libertarian in the 60’s was not theoretical arguments based on the myth of natural rights but rather the military draft which sent individuals to die in wars (as governments are wont to do).
I think most people, with the possible exception of philosophers, are moral realists, whether or not they admit it.
The classic moral relativist story is the Eskimo putting his grandfather on an ice flow to die. You should not interfere because what he is doing is consistent with Eskimo morality. The "should not" reveals the presence of unacknowledged moral realism. Why shouldn't you, if interfering is consistent with your morality?
So it isn't surprising if most in the libertarian movement take it for granted that the NAP, considered as a moral claim, must be either true or false.
Have you considered the possibility that Huemer is correct and you are the moral equivalent of blind, somehow missing the ability most humans have to (imperfectly) sense moral facts?
If you did conclude that was true, what would the implications be for action? Someone who is blind can still take advantage of information about the physical world provided by sighted people. If you are blind to moral facts, should you accept what other people tell you they see in deciding how to act?
"Maybe the least controversial would be greater male variance in a characteristic such as IQ, where one very popular objection would be that this (or its implications) could not possibly be the case since such a belief is sexist therefore it is false and evidence to the contrary is wrong."
I don't think I have ever seen anyone offer that as an argument. The pattern I see, and which may be what you are referring to, is people holding beliefs that make facts fit their moral views but defending those beliefs with non-moral arguments.
My standard example is that lots of libertarians believe libertarianism is morally right but also, by a curious coincidence, produces more attractive outcomes than any alternative.