In Leonard Peikoff’s latest podcast, we learn:
- If you enter someone’s house with a concealed weapon, you have to let them know;
- a pregnant woman has a right to abuse her body even up until the moment the baby’s born, even if it harms the fetus. It’s vicious and immoral but people have the right to do vicious things. After all, Kant with his ideas killed “thousands of generations,” but that was legal;
- it’s okay for immigrants who come to America to continue to celebrate their foreign culture;
- the owner of your body upon death is whoever you leave it to in the will, or whatever the default legal rules in the absence of a will;
- the practice of women, but not men, wearing makeup, may have some objective natural basis, but perhaps in some societies it would be alright for men to wear makeup instead;
- if a student at a public high school is assigned a lot of community service hours as a significant part of the grade of a senior year government class, it’s irrational to refuse to do the community service.
Often Mr. Peikoff’s logic is, umm, shall we say, hard to follow.
would you also be required to alert your host that you’ve received some sort of martial arts training that would make you a threat should a disagreement arise?
I’m interested in what points you agree with Peikoff on and what points are a source of disagreement.
Also, is this a new recurring feature?
I agree, actually, with a lot of Peikoff’s views. It’s just amusing he pontificates from his armchair about what is “rational,” or “okay,” or not. Yes, I occasionally remark on his comments; search for Peikoff on my site.
Yeah he does seem like a cool guy. Reminds me of Peter Singer saying necrophelia was consistent with his utlitiarianism, so long as you agreed to having it done to your corpse while you were still alive.
I wonder what Peikoff thinks of the topic.
The owner of your body upon death is whoever you leave it to in the will, or whatever the default legal rules in the absence of a will.
Please educate me. We talk about doing whatever we want to do right? We should have the right to do whatever we want to without the government telling us what to do right? However the sentence above indicates that we have to follow someone elses rules through law written by men right? How is that following the Libertarian cause? I dont want a lawyer or governement entity forcing their will on me.
Perhaps I am not as well read as ya’ll but it just seems ridiculaous to argue the point of true freedom and then turn around and indicate that we have to follow rules.
I am new to all this so please tell me where I am wrong.
Joseph, I don’t think that there are many libertarians who maintain that we can do anything we want to do. That’s a myth put out there by our opponents to try to discredit us. Libertarians believe that there are rules that everyone must follow if we want a just society. The main rule that libertarians, and particularly anarchist libertarians, advocate for is that no one may initiate force. Read Stephan’s article What It Means To Be An Anarcho-Capitalist.
Thanks, but if you have rules then there has to be enforcment. Plus if you enforce a rule then you set precedence to continue enforcing rules even if the rules are unjust. Such as this alarming link.
Lawyers write laws to control the masses, it’s is just a fact usually out of arrogance and money. See below.
I can see that there are people that want to discredit movements that are Libertarian in nature so I appreciate you pointing that out to me. However – At the end of the day ‘How do you have rules if there is NO enforcement?
I would ask that you all see the video that I linked. It’ not in the mainstream media but 100 percent true.. now the people in PA are extremely on the verge of total anarchy over this.
I would appreciate your take on any of this – Like I said I am rather new to this. I am NOT very well read., I am just anormal guy who wants to be left alone and run my company without interference by force.
Thanks again for replying I appreciate it.
I love this rule…
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
I hope Stephen does not sic the “Moderation Police” after me. hahahahaha love ya Stephen.
One way to enforce the rules is to refuse to associate with those who violate the rules. Would you deal with someone that you knew would not be fair and honest with you? Not many people would want to deal with someone like that. Ostricization can be very effective as an enforcement mechanism.
After I posted my comment your blog said.
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Erinn and I were laughing our tushes off…