Comments | reality_hammer: I am at a loss...

reality_hammer

I am at a loss...

Jul 06, 2006 04:13

I am at a loss to explain the large number of libertarians who apparently think it is okay to abrogate any agreement at any time for no greater reason than "they want to".

That is not in keeping with libertarian principles (though it may be an objectivist one).

libertarianism

Comments 18

minxyroo July 6 2006, 12:20:25 UTC

What do you expect from a bunch of damn fence straddlers!

*runs & hides*

reality_hammer July 7 2006, 13:19:14 UTC

Don't make me come over there!

minxyroo July 7 2006, 18:20:38 UTC

Bring it on whitey!

GOP! GOP! GOP!

reality_hammer July 10 2006, 02:22:35 UTC

Dudette, I am a certifiable minority!

Thread 5

(The comment has been removed)

reality_hammer July 7 2006, 13:20:18 UTC

Dude! Are you talking about the concept of AA or the implementation?

(The comment has been removed)

izuko July 7 2006, 20:19:52 UTC

That's right! The sooner we can get Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell, Ken Hamblin (we miss you), Colin Powell and Condi Rice into their places, the better! And Alberto Gonzalez. Can't let the mexicans get too uppity.

Thread 5

?! teleutemania July 6 2006, 20:18:17 UTC

Uh... nullifying an agreement on a whim is an Objectivist principle?

Re: ?! reality_hammer July 7 2006, 13:23:27 UTC

Maybe. An objectivist would have to offer their opinion. My sample size (two friends) is not statistically valid. For the record, they both see nothing wrong with terminating an agreement "as soon as it becomes detrimental" to their aims/goals/what have you. Both of these people are what I would call "hard core" objectivists-self-interest 24x7.

Re: ?! izuko July 7 2006, 20:14:06 UTC

Objectivism is more than simple egoism. Once one has given their agreement to do something, that is an obligation they have freely taken. Once the other party has fulfilled their part of the obligation, to abborgate the agreement is inexcusable, and tandimount to theft or slavery.

Violating our chosen obligations is not a "hard core" version of objectivism, it's a bastardization of it. Just let someone reneg on them and see how "hard core" they are.

Re: ?! reality_hammer July 10 2006, 02:27:31 UTC

Heh, I don't think either one would mind (in the sense that they wouldn't lose sleep over it), but I'll ask them. :)

izuko July 6 2006, 21:43:38 UTC

Objectivists would have no part of it. Any contract or agreement that was entered into, by free will, is an act of free will. The fact that the person does not wish to honor his side of the terms he freely agreed to does not free him of that responsibility. Otherwise, he has stolen from the other person.

reality_hammer July 7 2006, 13:29:04 UTC

The rub is that we are descendents of the original signatories. At what point do your heirs no longer remain obligated to your promises?

izuko July 7 2006, 20:08:16 UTC

That's an easy one. Heirs are not obligated to promises made by their progenitors. Nobody can create obligation for another.

reality_hammer July 10 2006, 02:30:12 UTC

What if I qualify an inheritance by stating that it can never be subdivided and is owned jointly and simultaneously by my heirs in perpetuity? Down the road can some of my heirs object to the way the inheritance is being managed and try to take their share and leave?

typewriterking July 7 2006, 12:52:45 UTC

You wisely didn't link to it, but this must be related to the little dialog on secession ( ... )

reality_hammer July 7 2006, 13:27:43 UTC

That indeed is my position, similar to heirs of people who purchased land in joint tenancy. While all N people own the land, they cannot at any point slice off 1/N of the land and sell it-it is an indivisible whole.

If secession had set a precedent I think we would now be several smaller nations as clusters of states broke off over a war, or economic hardship or what have you.