LIBERTY IS LIKE SEX. IT’S ALWAYS GOOD. SOME SEX IS BETTER THAN OTHER SEX, BUT IF

LIBERTY IS LIKE SEX. IT’S ALWAYS GOOD. SOME SEX IS BETTER THAN OTHER SEX, BUT IF ITS SEX IT’S GOOD. SAME GOES FOR LIBERTY.

(cross posted)

Hoppe’s argument is only accessible to X% of people. And that X% is very small. Molyneux’s argument is accessible to far more. Rand’s even more because its in novel form. Not everyone can climb all the way to ratio-scientific argument. And not everyone needs to. I’d argue that Molyneux tried and can’t. his book is … well, terrible. I can also argue as others have that there are plenty of holes in Hoppe’s criticism of others, if not holes in the brilliant solution he gave us. So anyone who advances liberty is good enough for me. If someone wants to argue that some statement is true or false then that’s a question for us to answer. And I’ll take all comers. And I’m pretty sure that there aren’t’ any I can’t defeat. But that’s different from saying that any argument in favor of liberty that also advances liberty (it isn’t so flawed that it produces negative results) is ‘good’.

There are arguments against liberty. Arguments for liberty that cause people to reject liberty. Arguments for liberty that are weak or flawed that cause people to desire liberty. Arguments that are strong that cause people to desire liberty.

And the natural differences in our intelligence and means of understanding require a diversity of arguments in favor of libertarianism, whether they are sentimental, analogical, moral, historical, empirical, and ratio-scientific. WIth the first item in that list requiring nothing but passion, and the last requiring mastery of multiple domains.

Liberty is like sex. It’s always good. Some sex is better than other sex. But if its sex it’s good. Same goes for liberty.

Voluntary exchange applying to sex as well. 🙂