The two are so intellectually incestuous I don't see why you bothered to distinguish them as separate "schools" when they were really just two blokes that nobody agreed with (besides u apparently). They both share a tiny little gay-bashing island in a sea of libertarians who think they were haters with a suspect understanding of liberty.
WE HAVE a school of thought that arrives at exactly what you want. It's Heinleinism; Service Guarantees Citizenship (Would you like to know more?). But it's not libertarianism, so don't call it that.
What qualifications allow you to so definitively make that claim? He proposes stateless societies wholly based on self-ownership, property rights, and contract law. In what way is that incompatible with libertarianism?
And why are you so quick to spurn and insult potential allies?
It is not necessary to be libertine to be libertarian. But the maximum stance a libertarian can take on libertinism is "it's not my thing". Anything less permissive is hypocritical. If you think the libertinism of the individual should be subjugated to higher needs of the community, YOU ARE NOT LIBERTARIAN. Fullstop.
There is no intellectually honest out from that. To be libertarian is to be tolerant of shit you don't like even if you know it harms the community.
AND I SAY THAT fully acknowledging that libertinism is bad for the community. It's a failing of libertarianism, and why we have to move AWAY from libertarianism as a foundation and towards Heinleinism.
I like not having to watch out for used needles left by the homeless who shoot heroin in the street. And for the police to have some way to punish people who shoot heroin and/or leave used needles in the street. If that makes me Tipper Gore (or Hitler like the last guy called me) then so be it.
The same reasoning that you would use against drugs, or that Hoppe would use against homosexuality, is the same reasoning that was used against me and mine in the Satanic Panic.
I don't hate moralizing prigs.
But I fucking despise moralizing prigs who claim to be libertarians.
Because they're hypocrites.
Libertarianism fully realized produces an ugly world. But that's a foundational problem with the ideology, it's not something you can fix by being selective about the definition of liberty.
YOU need to discard the idea that you are a libertarian. You're not. And that's okay.
You're a Heinleinist, you believe that liberty comes with responsibility. The libertarian does not; libertarianism is detached from ANY civic responsibility or obligation to the community beyond tolerance.
Hoppe called himself a libertarian. That's not the same as being one.
The guy spent 25 years growing up in German before coming over to the United States and beginning to talk about liberty. I'm going to stand with his actual libertarian critics and question whether he really understood the concept.
The two are so intellectually incestuous I don't see why you bothered to distinguish them as separate "schools" when they were really just two blokes that nobody agreed with (besides u apparently). They both share a tiny little gay-bashing island in a sea of libertarians who think they were haters with a suspect understanding of liberty.
WE HAVE a school of thought that arrives at exactly what you want. It's Heinleinism; Service Guarantees Citizenship (Would you like to know more?). But it's not libertarianism, so don't call it that.
What qualifications allow you to so definitively make that claim? He proposes stateless societies wholly based on self-ownership, property rights, and contract law. In what way is that incompatible with libertarianism?
And why are you so quick to spurn and insult potential allies?
Because liberty and libertarianism doesn't mean jack if you only mean liberty to do the shit you approve of.
You, and him, are quite literally as bad as Tipper fucking Gore in my eyes.
It is not necessary to be libertine to be libertarian. But the maximum stance a libertarian can take on libertinism is "it's not my thing". Anything less permissive is hypocritical. If you think the libertinism of the individual should be subjugated to higher needs of the community, YOU ARE NOT LIBERTARIAN. Fullstop.
There is no intellectually honest out from that. To be libertarian is to be tolerant of shit you don't like even if you know it harms the community.
AND I SAY THAT fully acknowledging that libertinism is bad for the community. It's a failing of libertarianism, and why we have to move AWAY from libertarianism as a foundation and towards Heinleinism.
I like not having to watch out for used needles left by the homeless who shoot heroin in the street. And for the police to have some way to punish people who shoot heroin and/or leave used needles in the street. If that makes me Tipper Gore (or Hitler like the last guy called me) then so be it.
The same reasoning that you would use against drugs, or that Hoppe would use against homosexuality, is the same reasoning that was used against me and mine in the Satanic Panic.
I don't hate moralizing prigs.
But I fucking despise moralizing prigs who claim to be libertarians.
Because they're hypocrites.
Libertarianism fully realized produces an ugly world. But that's a foundational problem with the ideology, it's not something you can fix by being selective about the definition of liberty.
YOU need to discard the idea that you are a libertarian. You're not. And that's okay.
You're a Heinleinist, you believe that liberty comes with responsibility. The libertarian does not; libertarianism is detached from ANY civic responsibility or obligation to the community beyond tolerance.