-
How is that different from, or incompatible with, Libertarianism?
-
Would you classify the Cato Institute as Libertarian or as Constitutionalist?
http://static.firedoglake.com/2007/09/cthulhu-elections.gif
Go look at this. No, really!
To be fair, Cthulhu isn’t evil, per se. It’s just that his telepathic dreams happen to drive humans insane. And looking at him will drive humans insane as well. And when he awakens and surveys the planet everyone will die.
Whereas in Constitutionalism the law exists to limit government, in Libertarianism the government exists to secure rights and property. The law should guarantee freedom for every citizen. Freedom = the absence of coercion. However, there should be no limit upon whatever is required for government to suppress coercion (without itself being coercive, of course). Coercion = initial force or deception.
Libertarianly speaking, a law that coerces a citizen is unethical, irrespective of whether it is constitutionalized or limits government.
A bit of both, but mainly the latter. The two overlap whenever [Constitutionalism: the law restricts government] [Libertarianism: from being coercive].
I appreciate the difference between defending a concept’s validity and supporting it. I presume that part of the validity of Paul’s Bill is that it wouldn’t entirely strip us of the privacy rights which Paul values.
What I’m asking you, and what I haven’t seen in your response, is the mechanism by which these privacy values would be protected in Paul’s world. You claim that these rights are natural rights that need not be granted by laws. Fine. How are they protected? What is the remedy for their violation? Because under the Bill, it would no longer be the courts.
I covered that already. The remedy is to consent to the government of your choice. In his world, the people are the remedy. They form governments according to what they believe will best assure their safety and happiness. For him, the right to assemble entails much more than being able to gather for a meeting; it means being able to associate with people who want to be governed in the same way you do. In his model, if the constitution of Texas does not suit you, Texas cannot stop you from moving to California. As far as the federal government, again it has no authority to snoop in your business at all, except with respect to three specific crimes. That’s his model. I personally reject its premise, but that does not affect the validity of his argument.
I’m sorry, that just isn’t an answer. We’re talking exclusively about federal government power. Your only claim, with regard to the federal government, is that it has no authority to snoop in your business at all. I conceded that in my hypothetical question (which assumed you have a natural right to privacy which the government does not have the authority to intrude upon). What happens if it exceeds its authority? What is the remedy? Must we have a revolution every time the FBI oversteps its bounds?
Or must we have to move to another state? That would suck, too. Maybe Texas could not stop me from moving to California, but the fact that my job–and my family, and my church, and my club–was in Texas would. How much bathroom-bugging by an agency overstepping its bounds would folks be prepared to put up with, if moving meant total lifestyle disruption? New schools for your kids, new pediatricians, new dentists, having to start over from scratch for everything. I’m betting quite a few people would be prepared to shrug and put up with it, if the tradeoff meant massive disruption (not to mention the sheer expense of moving, and the hassle of finding a new job), and then before you know it, if you get lots and lots of people in a state shrugging and putting up with unconstitutional bathroom-bugging because they don’t wanna have to move to California, you’ve got a state that’s basically a law unto itself, compared to neighboring states.
So you’re effectively setting up a system of minor principalities a la the German city-states pre-Bismarck. That would suck, too.
And not what I think of as the United States of America. 
I’m not arguing that it wouldn’t suck. Lots of perfectly valid worldviews suck.
No, he’s effectively setting up a system of independent states united by federalism, a la the United States of America that fought the Revolution, the Civil War, and (to a slightly lesser extent) World War I.
Either that or capitulate as you do now.
The whole point is that we don’t have to capitulate in the current system.
So, if suckiness and internal inconsistency aren’t related at all to your concept of a valid worldview, what exactly do you mean by valid?
“Brain” is not the correct word. “Moonbat” is the correct word.
Sure you do. That’s exactly what you’re doing. There is no gay marriage, and the FBI is tracking you without your knowledge. Not only that, but as I said before, the same court that you perceive as saving your ass right now can just as well rule against you. And then what is your recourse? Whichever way the court rules, the other side must capitulate.
As I said already (when you tag the next guy, would you ask him to read the thread?), an argument is valid if its inferences follow the rules of its system — in this case, Constitutionalism. That is the ordinary definition of logical validity. I suspect your concern may actually be about soundness, rather than validity. An argument is sound if it is valid AND all its premises are true.
Hand-waving. There are certainly contemporary problems with privacy and the court does not always rule the way I want. But I guarantee you that if the FBI bugs my bathroom without a warrant or some compelling exigent circumstance I will have court remedies and I will win.
Oh please. If you take an unpopular position, lots of people will argue against you. You’re not a martyr or being piled on. And I have read the thread. You should occasionally consider the possibility, however remote, that you haven’t been clear in stating your position. An ounce of humility would go a long way.
The conventional view of logical validity is that when the premises are true, the conclusion must follow. Your application of this to the validity of a worldview is less than straightforward. But even given your explication, it seems clear that the worldview cannot be internally inconsistent (i.e. values yet destroys privacy) and still be valid.
You say that like it is a bad thing. Libertopia must be very chaotic, with no civilized way to settle differences other than one side moving to California. Which is capitulation.
Gratuitous. Your guarantee is worthless.
Red herring. As I’ve stated repeatedly, I’m not taking a position. I’m explaining someone else’s.
It isn’t the worldview that is valid (or invalid). The worldview supplies the rules by which validity may be determined.
I think you mean Constitutionopia. You don’t seem to know what libertarianism is.
Perhaps; all I know of libertarianism, I learned from you.
Then you know that in libertarianism, the owner of land need not move anywhere in order to withhold his consent to be governed. Therefore, with “Libertopia must be very chaotic, with no civilized way to settle differences other than one side moving to California,” you fail the class.
Translation: I have no rebuttal to your claim so I will play with your use of the word guarantee.
You are defending its validity. That *is *a position.
You’re debating yourself here, so you’ll probably win. You raised the issue of the validity of worldviews, not me. To quote:
Which deftly avoids my original observation that Libertopia (which, according to you, views submission the courts as capitulation), eschews any mechanism to settle disputes. When differences between people occur (as they will in Libertopia, as in any society), without respect for the system of law, in which one party must, by definition, capitulate, chaos ensues. You have avoided explaining how two libertarians who disagree can have their differences arbitrated without one of them ultimately capitulating. I don’t expect a specific answer from you, for that would expose the flaws in your fantasy. Your silence speaks loudly though.
Choose some other word if you wish.
Are you saying his argument is invalid? If so, what rule of inference is it breaking?
Ah, so I must be semantically precise, but you can use words you didn’t mean. I meant that his argument is valid even though I believe the premises implied by his worldview are false. But I had already said that — a couple of times. I had hoped a different wording would help. An argument can be valid even if its premises are not true.
Why should I have to explain what I’m not even talking about? What I’ve been explaining is Constitutionalism.
What I’d really like to know is what with all the sudden rudeness? I thought you and I had made peace, and you suddenly descend on me by insulting my philosophy. I don’t do that to you. I don’t jump into threads where you’re posting about something completely unrelated just to say how stupid Atheistopia is. Is there something about libertarianism that pushes your button?