Why so few anarchists? (1 Viewer)

[Ziva]

nope why

read the summary just then lol

 

[SylviaB]

brilliant economics book etc

 

[cp3]

I failed to see a presupposition-free ought in there

There wasn't. Just thought it sounded good at the end of the qoute. If you dont have any refutations of the rest of my claims i presume we agree.

Anyway, as i said earlier, all moral questions start with axioms. All human endeavours start with axioms that we build on, even in inductive reasoning. For as much as the physical sciences try they still rely on it. So for the social sciences obviously all theoretical speculation is very very very thin thats why rationalism cannot be held to be useful as much as something as praxis at least in the present time. And even worse for morality all theoretical speculation is mega bullshit but it has practical application in society. No morals are superior to another one, they can only be used in the framework of somebodies goals. If people want a society that is alturistic, they will use morality that they believe will achieve that, if they want a society where individual desire and goals is the most immportant they will have morality that suits that ideology. As Oscar Wilde says "no better or worse". If we dont atleast acknwoledge these epistemological differences all debate will be worthless.

 

[cosmo kramer]

there are so few anarchists because the between 14-18 age demographic is only a small fraction of the population

 

[moke]

I think what this thread is more concerned with is more concerned with is libertarianism, rather than anarchism. Minarchism, which has been mentioned, is generally considered to be the most extreme form of libertarianism. Unfortunately, in the Australian political environment the position of libertarians (and there are few of them) is largely misunderstood. Some people seem to classify them as superconservatives and others understand them as a strange type of liberal. In fact libertarianism is entirely removed from this mystical, ridiculous spectrum. And this is the reason that there are so few 'anarchists'. Most people are brought up understanding everything from a Liberal/Labour, Conservative/Liberal dichotomy. Contemplating any other sort of political ideology would send their little minds into overdrive.

On another note, does the person who believes themself to be an 'Objectivist' mean an Ayn Rand type of Objectivist or merely someone who disputes subjectivism?

 

[murphyad]

Unfortunately, in the Australian political environment the position of libertarians (and there are few of them) is largely misunderstood. Some people seem to classify them as superconservatives and others understand them as a strange type of liberal. In fact libertarianism is entirely removed from this mystical, ridiculous spectrum.

Not really.

Libertarianism is a more modern and radical evolution of classical liberalism of the sort espoused by Locke, and Hobbes to a degree. Those writers such as Nozick and Hayek, who are considered the 'founders' of libertarian thought, acknowledge the role of classical liberal thought as part of the basis of their beliefs.

Anarcho-capitalism is essentially a yet more radical derivation of libertarianism, combining the libertarian belief in the supremacy of liberty with the anarchist belief in the necessary abolition of the state.

In my opinion the fusionism (perhaps conflation) of libertarians and conservatives arises from the modern-day trend of lassiez-faire economics in rightist thought. The difference, however, is that conservative social views can in some ways differ widely from libertarian ones.