Disputes with bloggers "liberal" against anarcho-capitalism as maximalist thinking and 100% After the debate that has been organized in my blog Liberalism with the publication of certain paragraphs of the article by Eduardo "Thought
100%, which made some reference to the maximalist thinking, scholastic, dogmatic and dangerously" liberal "linked to the Instituto Juan de Mariana, I remembered preterit disagreements were already embodied in the form of intense debate in the comments of other entries. Specifically, I have returned to head the defense
have some of the Amish community as pristinely liberal (I will skip comments in the same sense that once were made on the opus dei
) and my rejection of this thesis, which led to the confrontation with the anarchic maximalist positions that are articulated on two axes: the inviolability of negative liberty in the sense of I. Berlin and the principle of nonaggression. I tried to respond to both, I consider that quite rightly. The debate can continue
here. Some paragraphs highlights:
"An Amish community in a Pacific island does not provide that opportunity" to choose among several options, and would be a primitive organization based on coercive forms of state dsitintas linked to an overwhelming religious rigor. The Amish society is not liberal per se but to the extent that is registered in a country like the U.S. that provide a wealth of opportunities for those who want to leave the community. And indeed, coercion more widespread throughout the world is precisely the non-state.
For all that is completed in compliance with the Amish countryside pseudobucolismo is because there are violent and respect the lives of others. We do not know is whether it would behave the same way if they were not enrolled again in a country that guarantees the security of their property and defend their way of life. Would have to see how "voluntary" membership would be if that community had on that Pacific island three or four enemy communities fighting over scarce resources (for example, that land so highly productive). Then you'd have a check and right primitive tribe, with membership by blood, their particular religion, its uses and abuses based on custom and violence inherent to the communities that struggle for scarce resources. Then the Anarcho
may already clapping with joy. No more oppressive state and replaced magical explanations for the world (Adam and Eve, creation, etc.) group membership based on kinship, private law based on custom (ay! poor women) and private armies formed by the members themselves community. And all without coercion (of course). (...)
The Amish are a few free riders who take advantage of all the benefits of a state in the defense of private property and foreign aggression. (...) I would like to see the same community pacisfismo Amish if not protected by the coercive laws of a state. In fact, within the ethnographic bellonging is impossible to find anywhere peaceful comundiades the remote world might be. Only the head of our anti-Western utopian header. Moreover, the contempt shown to do for concepts rooted in our culture as the truth will progressively assimilates more malware postmodernism. In fact, raising a child without any autonomous choice in categorically false ideas as to effectively defined these fundamentalists are wrong. The religious rigor applied to minors is wrong. And no, it is equal to educate children about ideas than others. And the fact that the state can not provide the best guidelines for education based on scientific truth does not mean that we can discern that some degree of error and other is diametrically different. In the same way that the GAL and Stalin killed people and never occur to us to put them on equal footing. (...)
Hallelujah brothers! We have found the Noble Savage and is white!
(...) I understand that for someone who looks respectable father starve to leave their children without letting anyone know and be able to help them, but it seems a terrible injury to their freedom to explain to their children why creationism is bunk or that surgical techniques do not conflict with the "god" who appeared to him goatherds people centuries ago, seems an aberration freedom-all we say. But hey, be dealt with socialists, deconstructionists, post-structuralist and the whole brood of utopian and emerged victorious. You are not the first nor the last to fantasize about a man's concept totally alien to what it is. Little or no gift to claim the need for a "new man."
I do not understand the obsession called "liberalism" to that aberration that you defend with such passion. Cuendo especially that of liberalism is a concept rooted and closely linked to a certain tradition of thought that little or nothing to do with what you defend.
(...) I've said before: liberalism is a current that gives a great importance freedom but not exclusive. Negative concept of freedom as seen with better eyes to a person who only has an opportunity to share and who chooses "voluntarily" aquellla that has a lot of them to choose but which somehow weighs some form of coercion. That is not liberalism, is stupidity. Thus a man accidentally locked inside a cold dark room and 2x2 is freer than a poor citizen of the very socialist U.S. because you accidentally locked (without mediation of any human being in the accident) has absolute freedom to act without coercion anyone while the citizens pay taxes and abusive indoctrination in schools.
(...)
And yes, I hate you to defend the Amish. Not because I do not catching some sympathy, they do, but because you do under some ideas that equally respected Moslem communities of mass indoctrination, religious subjugation and extreme verbal and non-violence would you feel moved to do something "coercive" to change them . Entraríais or their properties or intentaríais empower their women children, or children without procuraríais that would stop suicide critical capacity on behalf of a fake. In any case, privately, inetnatríais minimize damage from these people about your property whenever they had a right to leave yours. And that bothers me, just So I bother you to defend child prostitution, child trafficking or private law varies according to your condition.
The Amish, the noble savage Rousseau who curiously has only been within a coercive state and all the advantages it provides are in any case, something to tolerate in the margin, not the example of anything even remotely desirable. Are the extreme case of what they can tolerate pluralistic and open societies based on certain universal principles that have only been delivered with the coercive state umbrella. (...)
have defined liberalism as a certain theory rooted in time defending some abstract aspects that any definition of a handbook of political science to use can be determined with enough accuracy. Which includes, generally, from the liberal left minarchism Mill until the end of Nozick. It does not seem anything crazy. What is the final fireworks is that you're just-Albert Esplugas-which I am accused of usurping terms to me when you
here have defined liberalism as you wish, citing an anarchist from those of the troop of Alabama:
(...) liberalism in the words of Walter Block: "only raises a question and gives a unique answer. Question, 'this act is necessarily a violent invasion? " If so, it is justified to use force (legal) to prevent or punish the act, if not, is irrelevant. " So if someone borrows the terms you are just you. It should be noted that from what was proposed in a famous book you propose Block is child prostitution and child trafficking.
(...) I am not against natural law ethics, defended by prominent liberals, but the restricted use to you doing fundamentalist contrantropológico it, I do not oppose the existence of innate concepts in mind, but the nineteenth-century methodological closure propugnais totally detached from the empirical, I am not opposed to the preponderance of the concept of negative liberty, but to use it as the only beacon of liberalism coming to say a man accidentally locked in a room without food diaphanous is freer than a U.S. citizen, I oppose the idea that power is a real danger of which we shield to protect our freedom, but never will hear me say, like you, that in Communist China today to enjoy the opportunity to exercise freedom in a way that is prohibited in the USA, I understand that liberal democracies owe more to what they have of liberals that they have for democracy, but will not hear me or my or any liberal say that is an absolute monarchy deseable que la democracia (como hace uno de vuestros popes), creo como tantos liberales que las familias deben de tener mayores ámbitos de decisión en lo que a la educación de sus hijos respecta, pero no me parece defendible ni que los prostituyan, ni que los engañen con cuentos del antiguo testamento para garantizarles muertes dolorosas muy pías, igual que entiendo, como tantos liberales, que el estado nos conmina a hacer muchas cosas arbitrariamente, pero no diré que el deber de socorro a un menor que está siendo deliberadamente maltratado por sus padres es un invento socialista. También entiendo, como muchos liberales, que el estado manipula a través de la educación a nuestros hijos, lo que llego a discernir es que manipulation that can have their parents on them can be as or more pernicious than the state (just see the children-and daughters-of radical Muslims.) I understand that some NGOs could help speed the adoption process that the state monopoly, which would never occur to me is advocating freedom of movement in a market of children who do not comply with coercive legislation, clear and very controlling. I understand that the public police is a constant threat but constrained to prefer legislation to replace mafia cartels that are not such in the worlds of our games anarchists. And so it goes ".
The full debate can be read here
.
