ISSN 1335-8715

10-05-2009   Lukáš Krivošík   Slovenská otázka   verzia pre tlač

Nová vlna – ako odraziť konzervatívnu politiku od dna?

Minulý týždeň sa v Bratislave uskutočnila konferencia na tému „Ako odraziť konzervatívnu politiku od dna“, s podtitulom: „Pohľad novej vlny slovenských konzervatívcov na budúcnosť našej politiky“. Diskusné príspevky sa postupne zverejňujú na novom blogu, ktorý má ambíciu stať sa ohniskom debaty o budúcnosti slovenskej pravice tvárou v tvár socialistickej presile.

Reakcia na príspevok

RE: Konzervatívci
autor: jg
pridané: 21-05-2009 20:07


No mne sa zas zda, ze vy nad tym, co bolo napisane asi vobec neuvazujete, lebo to, co teraz pisete z kontextu nasej diskusie vobec nedava zmysel. Tomuto sa hovori "filozoficke zlyhanie" :-):

Vy: "To znie ako komunisticka anarchia. A komusticka anarchia nie je nic ine ako pravy libertarianizmus. ..."

Ja: "Mne zase znie komunisticka anarchia ako oxymoron, ak sa pod "komunisticka" mysli to, o co sa pokusali komunisti napr. vo vychodnej Europe ..."

Vy: "To o co sa pokusali komunisti napriklad tu nemalo s anarchiou nic spolocne, ..."

To akoze vo filozofii si kludne mozete protirecit?

"Neinicializacia nasilia ako zakladny princip libertarianizmu - vysoko sporne."

Prosim vas, najprv si precitajte konecne nieco o libertarianizme a skuste debatovat az ked su vam jeho zakladne tezy aspon trochu jasne. Neinicializacia nasilia je zakladny princip libertarianizmu z jeho definicie. Ale co uz ocakavat od cloveka, ktoremu vo filozofii nevadia protirecenia.

"Podla akej definicie? Aku ma tato definicia vseobecne zaväznu akademicku autoritu aku ma hlbku historickej reflexie? "

Wikipedia:

According to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

Libertarians are committed to the belief that individuals, and not states or groups of any other kind, are both ontologically and normatively primary; that individuals have rights against certain kinds of forcible interference on the part of others; that liberty, understood as non-interference, is the only thing that can be legitimately demanded of others as a matter of legal or political right; that robust property rights and the economic liberty that follows from their consistent recognition are of central importance in respecting individual liberty; that social order is not at odds with but develops out of individual liberty; that the only proper use of coercion is defensive or to rectify an error; that governments are bound by essentially the same moral principles as individuals; and that most existing and historical governments have acted improperly insofar as they have utilized coercion for plunder, aggression, redistribution, and other purposes beyond the protection of individual liberty.[5]

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states "libertarianism holds that agents initially fully own themselves and have moral powers to acquire property rights in external things under certain conditions." It notes that libertarianism is not a “right-wing” doctrine because of its opposition to laws restricting adult consensual sexual relationships and drug use, and its opposition to imposing religious views or practices and compulsory military service. However, it notes that there is a version known as “left-libertarianism” which also endorses full self-ownership, but "differs on unappropriated natural resources (land, air, water, etc.)." "Right-libertarianism" holds that such resources may be appropriated by individuals. "Left-libertarianism" holds that they belong to everyone and must be distributed in some egalitarian manner.[1]

Vsimnite si: "... that the only proper use of coercion is defensive or to rectify an error", co je ekvivalent s neinicializaciou nasilia proti nevinnym.

Vy aby ste nejaky objekt alebo jav z reality identifikoval, nepotrebujete poznat jeho definiciu?

"Teoreticke definicie anarchokapitalizmu su pre mna pri pohlade na anarchokapitalisticku realitu podruzne"

Dalsi filozoficky skvost. :-) Takze pre vas su definicie podruzne. Tak to robite vo vsetkom? Macky nazyvate psami a domy stromami?

A dalsi:

"Stredna Afrika ... Vladne tam kapitalizmus? Ano - v tomto regione vladnu trhove mechanizmy vo svojej najsurovejsej a najpuristickejsej podobe."

Nepoznate ani definicu kapitalizmu a volneho trhu, protirecenia vam nevadia a tvarite sa ako filozof. To ze aj v strednej Afrike su aj majitelia kapitalu zdaleka neznamena, ze tam vladne kapitalizmus. Wikipedia:

Capitalism is an economic system in which wealth, and the means of producing wealth, are privately owned.[1][2] Through capitalism, the land, labor, and capital are owned, operated, and traded for the purpose of generating profits, without force or fraud, by private individuals either singly or jointly,[3][4] and investments, distribution, income, production, pricing and supply of goods, commodities and services are determined by voluntary private decision in a market economy.[5] A distinguishing feature of capitalism is that each person owns his or her own labor and therefore is allowed to sell the use of it to employers.[3][6] In a "capitalist state", private rights and property relations are protected by the rule of law of a limited regulatory framework.[7][8] In the modern capitalist state, legislative action is confined to defining and enforcing the basic rules of the market,[7][8] though the state may provide some public goods and infrastructure.[9]

Chcete mi nahovorit, ze nieco take je v strednej Afrike?


 
Meno:
E-mail:
Web stránka:
Predmet:
Text správy:

Zadajte iniciály Pravého Spektra - PS:
(antispamová ochrana)
 
 

Upozornenie

Príspevky v diskusii k článku sú osobnými názormi jednotlivých čitateľov. Redakcia Pravého Spektra za ich obsah nenesie žiadnu zodpovednosť.

Diskusné príspevky, ktoré sú v rozpore so zákonom budú odstránené.

O problematických príspevkoch nám môžete dať vedieť e-mailom na adresu redakcie.

Copyright © 2001-2021 Pravé Spektrum, občianske združenie
Stránka používa redakčný a publikačný systém Metafox od Platon Group