Um ... how does his response qualify as a "non-response"? For some real "non-responses", you ought to take a look at the posts of some libertarian critics. In fact, I just reviewed our exchanges from a few months ago on this topic, and you really don't have much room at all to be commenting on anyone else's lack of responsiveness.
Oh, I reviewed that thread before posting. Good times. Your "responses" were funny. Hilarious. I see nothing has changed. Shanek's comments amount to a "non-response" for reasons already explained: Victory asked Libertarians* about the *foundation* for their beliefs, and it's only one or the other. Indeed, as I said in a previous post, I attempted to ask for similar distinctions. Instead I got posts like his (and posts like yours).
In that thread, you became quite evasive when it came to backing up some of the bullsh*t you were posting about libertarians. Evasiveness is apparently not the only trait you share with Victor, as you also became increasingly hostile and insulting in response to being called on that evasiveness. Two peas in a pod. [/B]
Ah, yes, more of the same vague references. You mean how in those previous threads I quoted the Libertarian Party's platform several times (and provided links numerous times) and you just plugged your ears, closed your eyes and changed "Na na na na na na." Yeah, that was also funny -- painfully so.
OTHER POST:
What a surprise that you'd share Victor's assessment of what the two choices should be.
Feel free to demonstrate how Victor's assessment of the situation misses the mark. To anyone who plays the tiniest attention to these debates among political philosophers, he perfectly captured the main disagreements between Libertarian philosophers. But seeing as how you don't have the slightest grasp of these elementary issuses, and will avoid at all costs my challenge to show where Victor's analysis errors, this is a moot point.
Well, I guess she might be the most popular and influential philosopher among libertarians who are influenced by philosophers. But for most of us, she is completely irrelevant
I don't know who "most of us" speaks for, but that's fine. I do not deny that party hacks like Shanek and yourself pay zero attention to political philosophy -- that's obvious. However, inside the intellectual circles critical to the movement academically, she's always a subject of discussion. Murray Rothbard, Robert Nozick and others found her inspirational, but reject many of her ideas.
Where do [rights] "come from" for anyone?
I'm lumping this with another poster's comments on morality. Rights, which are predicated on preferences, come from our interactions with other human beings. But they're hardly "natural" in any meaningful sense of the word (as any first year anthropology student knows). This introduces potential complications for clear discussion: do we regard everything as "natural"? So the computer that I'm using to type this message natural? I can agree to these terms, but it changes perspective.
For most of us who are able to formulate ideas about such things on our own, the answer is nobody. In my own case, the primary foundation for recognition of these rights is a profound respect for individual sovereignty.
That's fine, but it's hardly "natural." Natural would be deriving an "ought" from an "is" and I cannot readily agree that a respect for individual sovereignty -- though I may agree with those aims -- is easily integrated into the Dariwnian paradigm. Nature doesn't care about rights. It doesn't care if you're happy, and it certainly has no respect for the individual. Selfish genes are only using you as a way of propagate themselves, which we might disagree with, or even judge tyrannical. "Natural" is not to be confused with "good".
That you may be incapable of comprehending [natural rights] without a religious framework does not mean everyone else suffers from the same limitation.
Certianly, but that requires an argument (obviously).
However, if someone taking the position that there are no rights wanted to be consistent, then they would have to agree there is also no right to violate anyone else's sovereignty anyway, wouldn't they?
This sentence is quite confused. First, define rights (and use the term consistently). If, suppose, we define "right" in the negative sense -- freedom from (human) intereference -- then there is no "violation"of "sovereignty" because those words *assume* checks against force/interference/non-consent. This person would say "sovereignty" is an illusion and they couldn't be "violating" anything.
Here's your trash. Keep it to yourself next time. Thanks.
*Sigh* Telling people they've misunderstood things is also a hallmark of libertarian critics. Well, get ready for a taste of your own medicine later in this post.
Nope, not so much. As we'll see, pretty much the only "good reason" you're able to come up with is just a reflection of your own inability to comprehend a basic concept.
Some people are waaaaay too full of themselves, and of all the stuff they've read. I'm not sure who you think you're talking about, but, as with our discussion a few months ago, most of this stuff is irrelevant to the views of most libertarians anyway.
Kind of reminds me of just about all criticisms of libertarianism.
