LPSF inquiry

George Gaboury from the Ron Paul / Campaign for Liberty SF Meetup told me in response to my asking that he is interested in the LPSF. He is the president of the San Francisco Tesla Society (www.sftesla.org), which describes itself as "a grass roots organization which promotes the advancement and greater public awareness of science". Here is his contact info:

sftesala@hotmail.com
(415) 753-3892
P.O. Box 22174, San Francisco, CA 94122

Love & Liberty,
                                 ((( starchild )))

Thanks, Starchild.

I called George and left info about our monthly meetings, our website,
and encouraged him to call me should he have questions.

BTW, since you did not respond, can I assume this signals your
agreement with my assertion that to determine what libertarianism
represents it makes sense to cite the writings of Murray Rothbard, the
founder of the modern libertarian movement?

Warm regards, Michael

Michael,

  Thanks for following up on the inquiry.

  My lack of response to any particular post should not necessarily be construed as agreement however. While I am an admirer of Murray Rothbard and consider him one of the most insightful, perceptive libertarian writers I've ever encountered, I wouldn't go so far as to call him the founder of the modern libertarian movement -- I think many others deserve a share of the credit for that. And even if he were the sole or primary founder of the movement, that would not automatically make his interpretation of the Non-Aggression Principle the best one, although I agree his views are worth taking into consideration.

Love & Liberty,
                                 ((( starchild )))

Michael,

  If you were to say that the Non-Aggression Principle applies only to beings that can reason, and therefore it applies to humans and not to cows, I might disagree but at least that would leave the door open to the NAP applying to another species that might be found to have the ability to reason. If you merely say that we deserve more rights than cows simply because we are human and they are not, that is a speciesist claim which I do not consider objective.

Love & Liberty,
                               ((( starchild )))

Michael,

  Charity is not a being. One could speak (however erroneously) of having a right *to* charity, but it would be absurd to speak of charity itself having "rights". Similarly I don't think Ayn Rand believed that literature has rights or deserves special consideration under the law as somehow different from other speech. Individual living beings including animals and plants are a fundamentally different matter.

  My theory, brief and poorly developed though it is, and with credit to thinkers like Teilhard de Chardin and Peter Singer, is that rights are based on *awareness*, as measured by the capacity to suffer, and that the obligation to recognize the rights of others is also a function of awareness. I see awareness as a positive value, though not without its serious downside (I think there's *some* truth to the familiar proposition that "ignorance is bliss"). Awareness is something toward which the universe (or perhaps multiverse) is evolving, with life being the main current means or process (so far as we know) by which matter is organizing itself into awareness.

Love & Liberty,
                                ((( starchild )))

Starchild,

I don't think you responded to my question (see below).

You disagree Rothbard is the final arbiter of libertarian principles. Then how would you derive the fundamental principles of libertarianism?

Warm regards, Michael

Michael,

  I have great respect for Murray Rothbard's thinking and writing, but I don't think one person should be the final arbiter of any philosophy, especially not after that person is dead!

  How would I derive the fundamental principles of libertarianism? In a practical sense, the answer seems quite obvious (if admittedly less than fully satisfying) -- by continuing to think about and discuss the meanings of non-aggression and freedom.

  But it seems to me quite clear that basing libertarianism on what amounts to a narrow, parochial foundation (rights for humans simply *because* they are humans) is unsound and not philosophically rigorous thinking.

Love & Liberty,
                                  ((( starchild )))