No, it’s correcting an incorrect assertion. I don’t see any of the people making the critique doing anything of substance that libertarians are not, nothing that will end in anything substantive.
Saying “murder is wrong” does not in any way indicate that one is only performative.
A response to: ‘ Objection: ”This is silly and you’re overthinking things, we just mean that you have to act in some type of way, or else you will be run over by the state’s policies eventually”
Response: In that case, I generally agree, but if that is all that is meant by the statement, then it should not be used as a critique against libertarianism as a philosophy, or even libertarians in general, as there are many libertarians who are proactive, and libertarianism does not forbid such action. ‘
What a weird way of saying “I realize what you’re telling me is reality is true, but I choose to live by theory as some sort of theology.”
This in no way tackles the point made. If libertarianism does not forbid the use of power in order win, then the critique cannot be levied against libertarianism itself.
Murder is the reality, so is rape and theft, yet I doubt most of the people who scoff at libertarian theorists for
not living in “reality” would argue against a person who opposes murder despite their inability to stop it? I’d think not.
Also, calling it a theology is not the own you think it is. A theist believes their beliefs are true, and so they believe them, a libertarian believes their beliefs are true, and so they believe them as well. This is not abnormal.
The only comparison to a religion is that libertarianism prescribes norms and serious libertarians tend to take it seriously, but this is true of anyone who takes morality seriously.
This is a very long winded way of arguing with the boxcar door.
No, it’s correcting an incorrect assertion. I don’t see any of the people making the critique doing anything of substance that libertarians are not, nothing that will end in anything substantive.
Saying “murder is wrong” does not in any way indicate that one is only performative.
A response to: ‘ Objection: ”This is silly and you’re overthinking things, we just mean that you have to act in some type of way, or else you will be run over by the state’s policies eventually”
Response: In that case, I generally agree, but if that is all that is meant by the statement, then it should not be used as a critique against libertarianism as a philosophy, or even libertarians in general, as there are many libertarians who are proactive, and libertarianism does not forbid such action. ‘
What a weird way of saying “I realize what you’re telling me is reality is true, but I choose to live by theory as some sort of theology.”
This in no way tackles the point made. If libertarianism does not forbid the use of power in order win, then the critique cannot be levied against libertarianism itself.
Murder is the reality, so is rape and theft, yet I doubt most of the people who scoff at libertarian theorists for
not living in “reality” would argue against a person who opposes murder despite their inability to stop it? I’d think not.
Also, calling it a theology is not the own you think it is. A theist believes their beliefs are true, and so they believe them, a libertarian believes their beliefs are true, and so they believe them as well. This is not abnormal.
The only comparison to a religion is that libertarianism prescribes norms and serious libertarians tend to take it seriously, but this is true of anyone who takes morality seriously.