[Lightman]

This begs the question how firearms would be controlled (not regulated, more like owned and operated, identified with), produced, and distributed though.

Without identifying and appreciating individuality, none of this could take place.

Oh, you mean after a socialist state has been established via revolution. In that case you'd have to ask a Marxist; I do know that a Marxist would advocate an armed society now.

You're really being dishonest here. You were referring to both intellectual and artistic tradition.

No, I am not being dishonest; you are misreading my post. I made two distinct points: that libertarianism is theoretically very simple whereas socialism is not.

"This is because most socialist traditions are more sophisticated than any libertarian tradition. Libertarianism is theoretically very simple and its analysis rarely has much to do with real life, whereas socialist theories tend to be empirical and more dynamic. Also, socialists have a long artistic and literary tradition; libertarians have Ayn Rand and some science fiction authors." The also clearly implies a separate thought.

I'm not attempting to defend socialism on those grounds, as (1) that's absurd and (2) I am not a socialist. I'm merely pointing out why socialism is seen as a more sophisticated ideology than libertarianism.

Even regarding art though, libertarianism doesn't seek to establish tradition or become renowned. As a matter of political strategy, you could say libertarianism shoots itself in the foot here.

You need to stop anthropomorphizing political ideologies; libertarianism as such cannot seek to do anything. My point is that there are many more writers who identify as socialist than there are that identify as libertarian (you might find some more science fiction libertarian writers, but then again socialism also has a huge tradition there).

One, libertarianism does have extensive epistemological considerations. The problem is when people criticize libertarianism, they say it's not practical, so if anything, it's libertarianism's opponents who are unsophisticated. Is libertarianism predictable? Yes, but that's part and parcel with libertarianism's goal. The goal is to be openminded and transparent so people can understand, not to be snobbish so people become impressed.

This is false; libertarianism does not have a single epistemological base. The only epistemology associated with any variation of libertarian ideology is the Randian epistemology, which is a terribly shitty epistemology.

Also, the hilarious snobbery of Randists would seem to suggest that your last sentence is false.

However, many libertarians do not delve into epistemology because the libertarian personality cannot afford it. Libertarianism is an ideology built upon accommodating sensitive people. As a sensitive person though, it becomes difficult to explore epistemology at a young age because you live in a very noisy world where you aren't allowed to focus.

This assertion is silly and untrue. I don't see a hell of a lot of "sensitive souls" among the libertarian population.

Many do, many don't. Landownership, free banking, and contained government are certainly libertarian ideas.

You're calling Jackson an advocate of contained government?

[Daktoria]

This is false; libertarianism does not have a single epistemological base. The only epistemology associated with any variation of libertarian ideology is the Randian epistemology, which is a terribly shitty epistemology.

Also, the hilarious snobbery of Randists would seem to suggest that your last sentence is false.

First off, Robert Kane, Robert Nozick (expanded upon and refined by Rothbard), and Anthony de Jasay have established explicitly comprehensive deontologically libertarian epistemology. Hayek and Mises established utilitarian libertarian epistemology, but the thing with them is even they had to ground utility in the free will of human action. That is the very measurement of utility itself must be scrutinized in order for utility to be valuable.

Second, Rand is noteworthy as a practical libertarian. That is she's an easy introduction to the ideology without losing your motivation for living life.

However, even Rand had to concede to the idea of going Galt in how acting in a society which does not appreciate your action is fruitless.

This assertion is silly and untrue. I don't see a hell of a lot of "sensitive souls" among the libertarian population.

By sensitive, I don't necessarily mean compassionate although compassion is a long term derivation of sensitivity once you come to terms with frustration.

By sensitive, I mean people who are sensationally and emotionally sensitive. Again, this doesn't necessarily mean people who are in touch with others' feelings (although this does happen with matured libertarianism), but it does mean people who have feelings which are easily affected.

You're calling Jackson an advocate of contained government?

I'm calling Jackson an advocate of free banking.

[Lightman]

First off, Robert Kane, Robert Nozick (expanded upon and refined by Rothbard), and Anthony de Jasay have established explicitly comprehensive deontologically libertarian epistemology. Hayek and Mises established utilitarian libertarian epistemology, but the thing with them is even they had to ground utility in the free will of human action. That is the very measurement of utility itself must be scrutinized in order for utility to be valuable.

Nozick's epistemology (I'm referring to his truth-tracking idea; if there's something else you're referring, then excuse me) isn't a libertarian epistemology; it's an epistemology developed by someone who happened to be a libertarian.

I can find no reference to Robert Kane being a political libertarian; he is a philosophical believer in free will, which is described in philosophical circles as "libertarian" but has essentially nothing to do with the political libertarianism (and even if Kane is in fact a political libertarian, the problem of free will is metaphysical, not epistemic).

I know nothing about de Jasay.

I'd also say that Mises and Hayek's "epistemological views" were likely not epistemological in a philosophical sense (the calculation problem is not really an epistemological problem in that sense), but I haven't read the relevant works by either to make that assertion for sure.

Second, Rand is noteworthy as a practical libertarian. That is she's an easy introduction to the ideology without losing your motivation for living life.

However, even Rand had to concede to the idea of going Galt in how acting in a society which does not appreciate your action is fruitless.

Rand is also great for initiation into the cult of the asshole.

By sensitive, I don't necessarily mean compassionate although compassion is a long term derivation of sensitivity once you come to terms with frustration.

By sensitive, I mean people who are sensationally and emotionally sensitive. Again, this doesn't necessarily mean people who are in touch with others' feelings (although this does happen with matured libertarianism), but it does mean people who have feelings which are easily affected.

That is the sense I took your assertion; I think that's false.

I'm calling Jackson an advocate of free banking.

Fair enough.

[Vera Politica]

Nozick's epistemology (I'm referring to his truth-tracking idea; if there's something else you're referring, then excuse me) isn't a libertarian epistemology; it's an epistemology developed by someone who happened to be a libertarian.

This is absolutely correct. Nozick's epistemology was both an answer to skepticism and to Gettier cases and is not tied in with his political philosophy.