Not exactly, I know. But I have to run out for a while and can't write it up now. What do you think my response to Mattheus is?
I gave a hint of it in the comment section of the post he references. I don't think it's an especialy typical view. Probably the closest person I know to my view made explicitly is Gene Callahan. But I think my view is more or less what people really mean when they cite things like the "social contract" (which is definitely a silly idea).
Friday, June 29, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
The only truly coherent alternative is the idea that the "criminal gang" are really better than everyone else.
ReplyDeleteThere are arguments for this and arguments against. These are complicated arguments.
I agree that social contract theory is silly, I'm a utilitarian.
Perhaps to remain a libertarian it is essential to remain ignorant of the history of political theory?
DeleteGranted, I am not the bees knees when it comes to the history of political thought, but you cannot say that I do not make an attempt to become proficient in this area. The fact that I disagree with much of it and am thus a libertarian is far different than being entirely ignorant.
DeleteNormally I would assume that you were talking to Current, but you kind of made the implication that this is true of all libertarians.
I can only guess that the alternative would be that there exists a ruling class, separate and distinct from the rest of us schmucks.
ReplyDeleteMaybe "class" isn't the right word. Maybe a better word would be "club", or maybe "clique".
DeleteJoe, of course that's already true. What I'm asking for is a justification of that club or clique.
DeleteYes, I should be more clear.
DeleteWhat I am saying is that the alternative justification is that there is an order such as this that is considered natural and just. That some people are just meant to rule while others are meant to be subordinate. That this is the natural order of things. That's really the only other justification that I can find (i.e. the old republican justification). Of course, I find such a justification absurd, but you already knew that.
Obviously, there is no denying that a ruling class currently exists and that we aren't in the club.
Obviously, there is no denying that a ruling class currently exists and that we aren't in the club.
ReplyDeleteAre you shitting me?!
Speak for yourself Fetz, I'm a member of the Illuminati. Whether there is a "ruling class" depends on exactly what you mean by rule. The people never rule in detail, the "ruling class" do that, but the people have a large say in the general direction that that class must take.
ReplyDeleteMy reply above was a bit tongue in cheek.... I think Daniel would first reach for the argument that a state of some kind is necessary. So, we don't need social contract theory to justify the state, the state is inevitable. To a degree I agree with this argument. He'd then talk about how to make the state as nice as possible. There I'd start disagreeing with him.
That's a complete non-answer. I punched you in the face because it was necessary and inevitable.
DeleteI'm saying what I think Daniel would say.
DeleteJoseph, to be honest, that's a justification. I don't see why it's any better than an ethical justification. It's just that the latter appeals more to you.
DeleteThat may be the case, but I certainly wouldn't call that any less silly than social contract.
DeleteIt's kind of like saying, "because I said so" or "that's just the way it is".
Delete