The silly non-aggression principal

[Lexicus]

@El_Machinae, you going to answer the question I asked above? Why do you think the "libertarians" wanted to give the state more power to control the movements of people they were, as you put it, "worried about"?

 

[civver_764]

It failed because 'libertarians' chose to not apply libertarian principles when they were actually appropriate. Its logic didn't fail. It failed as an ideology. 'Libertarians' showed that all of their talk failed to convince even themselves

Well then surely we just need more principled libertarians? Surely we should be pushing harder for libertarianism?

 

[El_Machinae]

Well then surely we just need more principled libertarians? Surely we should be pushing harder for libertarianism?

I am not communicating. Think of all the 'libertarians' you knew during the Ebola crisis.

Of all of them, only a handful chose to apply Libertarian principles. On the whole, we don't need *more* people who call themselves 'libertarian'. Sure. If the ideology could actually shift so that it didn't fail such easy tests, then that would be good.

But currently, as a useful ideology, it failed. On the whole, 'leftists' provided all the solutions where libertarians could have.

They (as the believers of an ideology) flailed about uselessly and then went back to whining about leftists once the situation was solved.

It failed as an ideology because it couldn't convince the people who claimed to believe it.

It's akin to a bunch of dieticians who constantly pimp a 'great' diet they cannot even keep themselves. Meanwhile, the people pointing out that a different diet gets (realworld) improvements are more healthy overall.

"Diets" are more than a nutritional calculation. They're better judged by whether they actually help people.

The libertarian philosophy failed, not because of its underlying principles, but because libertarians don't actually believe it.

I watched it in real time, where a huge number of people I thought were libertarian actually proved not to be.

Leftists solved the Ebola crisis. Libertarians not only didn't, but only impeded the solutions.

 

[Borachio]

Thats a tough religion to follow... forgiving trespassers aint easy when their sins cause immense pain.

But that's the deal.

I'm always amazed how easily mainstream so-called Christians, especially in the US where being nominally Christian seems to be the norm, forget this fundamental part of their religion when it comes, for example, to bombing the heck out of people.

And yet, unless I'm under a gross misapprehension about it, the only way to salvation is by forgiveness.

(If salvation is what you're after, in any case.)

The sword symbolizes the cleaving of family ties as converts anger traditionalists. Jesus knew his way would separate families and friends and result in violence.

You put that nicely, I think.

 

[christos200]

Taxation is theft but that does not mean that such theft cannot sometimes be justified. To quote from an article:

If taxation is theft, does it follow that we must abolish all taxation? Not necessarily. Some thefts might be justified. If you have to steal a loaf of bread to survive, then you are justified in doing so. Similarly, the government might be justified in taxing, if this is necessary to prevent some terrible outcome, such as a breakdown of social order.

Why, then, does it matter whether taxation is theft? Because although theft can be justified, it is usually unjustified. It is wrong to steal without having a very good reason. What count as good enough reasons is beyond the scope of this short article. But as an example, you are not justified in stealing money, say, so that you can buy a nice painting for your wall. Similarly, if taxation is theft, then it would probably be wrong to tax people, say, to pay for an art museum.

In other words, the “taxation is theft” thesis has the effect of raising the standards for justified use of taxes. When the government plans to spend money on something (support for the arts, a space program, a national retirement program, and so on), one should ask: would it be permissible to steal from people in order to run this sort of program? If not, then it is not permissible to tax people in order to run the program, since taxation is theft.

As such, most libertarians (with the exception of the anarcho-capitalists) argue that taxation can be justified. So the whole "libertarians do not believe in any taxation" thing is a bit of nonsense. There are also some libertarians who believe in some form of safety net. To use some examples, both Friedman (negative income tax) and Hayek believed in the state providing a minimum safety net while in Libertarianism.org there was an article titled 'Libertarian case for Basic Income'.

Non-Aggression Principle is not 'silly', it is a framework to avoid aggression and let people live their lives as they want with only minimal state intervention (only anarcho-capitalists argue that the existence of the state violates the NAP; most libertarians accept a minimal state to ensure that the NAP is not breached by the most powerful). Laissez-faire.

 

[El_Machinae]

Taxation is theft in the same way that a restaurant presenting you a bill for your meal is theft. It's absolutely possible to have scenarios where taxation is theft, but these don't really happen in the developed world.

@El_Machinae, you going to answer the question I asked above? Why do you think the "libertarians" wanted to give the state more power to control the movements of people they were, as you put it, "worried about"?

I think it's a human reaction when scared. People are scared of Ebola, and they're happy for the gubmint to use force to solve it. And their petty little ideology didn't create a mindset that allowed solutions better than "burn it with fire" to percolate forward for consideration.

 

[Berzerker]

Of course, nuclear weapons developed and maintained by states with GDP one sixth that of Pakistan
Definitely no one will starve in Libertarian country

How would that work ?

Buying nukes or paying for protection or both... You're moving goalposts, you said China would roll up smaller countries and now its about muslim theocracies and starvation. Nukes are ending the era of rolling up tiny nations, the horrors of payback are not worth having an empire. But your argument is a libertarian country is open to attack and invasion. Most countries are open to that... Not as much though, WMD are an equalizer. "Hey, lets go invade the libertarian country. Oh, they got nukes? Never mind."

I won't be thinking of the Island or the non-aggression principle. My thoughts will be much more pragmatic.

You'd know the person attacking you is violating the NAP and you have the moral authority to defend yourself because of that principle. Course you're just reacting at the time, but you're gonna be a bit more pissed off knowing you've been wronged. Its possible this same moral code exists throughout the animal kingdom. Defenders seem more motivated, its as if they understand the moral high ground and property. Dogs sure understand property.

But you should not be satisfied with the non-aggression principle working merely in one situation. If one proposes that the NAP is something that should not be violated and should guide moral behavior, then it should be able to handle cases like my exploitative Island case. If not, it's not a particularly good principle to stand by.

One situation? Most of our laws are based on the NAP and I already dealt with your island example. How did my solution mishandle it so badly the principle is flawed?

If I were in such a position as the Island owner I would not ask for compensation.

Maybe he aint got much money. If I ate his food and cost him gas for 3 boat trips I'd feel obliged to leave a few bucks in the boat once I got back. Well, I'd return the boat with the money.

Non-state actors can use violence 'legitimately' only if the state says their violence is 'legitimate.' This is perfectly consistent with the idea that the state claims a monopoly on legitimate force. The monopoly on force includes a monopoly on authorizing the use of force by other parties.

Our government didn't authorize the use of force, it recognized the inherent right of self defense and limits were placed on the state. Are genocide and slavery legitimate violence? A monopoly on force that profits everyone equally? I dont accept your definitions of legitimate and monopoly, this is a discussion about the non-aggression principle and morality, legitimate also refers to a logically valid argument, not just what is legal. Legitimacy preceded the state too... Of course the state can do whatever it wants, outlaw self defense, outlaw property, murder millions the state doesn't like, and call it all legal, but legitimate?

A human right is a logically valid moral claim and it comes from being human, not from a state. So where in our Constitution or founding documents did you find this claim of a monopoly on force? Those people believed the state's power came from the consent of the governed, they believed life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness come from the creator, not the state.

Certainly taxes are coercive. The state is coercive. Private property is coercive for this reason:

Is all property - both public and private - coercive? Is self defense coercive too? What isn't coercive under your ideology?

In the United States for example, literally every single bit of land in the country was stolen from Native Americans. And much of the country's economy was built with labor stolen from black people. At base, private property is about using force to prevent others from using or occupying the property you claim...and to imagine that property can exist without the (coercive-by-nature) state is ludicrous.

So the property/labor of Indians and slaves were stolen and you're indicting property as coercive? I thought you wanted to do something with property, 'redistribute' or abolish it? What is it you want to do? Anyway, not every bit of land was stolen. Most of the land wasn't inhabited (and still isn't) and property has existed with or without states. If I spend years of my life working to buy a home, why does that coerce you? Since when are you "entitled" to years of my labor? Why do you get to live in the house I bought with years from my life? Are you coerced if you're not allowed to murder people? Apparently you're coerced if you're not allowed to occupy other people's houses.

I don't believe that limits on state action are limits on democracy - they are essential to democracy.

But what are those limits based on? When can "democracy" (majority rule) be over ruled by your limits? You dont believe property is a limit, its coercive. And if that goes out the door, so does all that labor, the billions of man hours to save enough money to buy a home or start a business. Yeah, those people are coercing you. Or somebody. Who is being coerced? Those limits exist because the rights of the people preceded the state, rights are valid claims of moral authority. You dont need the state for that, but better states will codify those rights. Bad ones will violate them. Property was a high priority for the people who created this country.

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, there are two types of property.

Property that you are currently physically using.

Property that you are not currently physically using.

For me to gain use of the first type, I would need to physically force you to give it to me - that's coercion. For me to NOT gain use of the second type would require you to physically stop me - that's then coercion.

Now, obviously, societies work way way better when we have some type of property protection. We give power to 'the state' to use force to stop people from using property. But there's not much paradigm switch to realize that this is coercion.

And if the initial property rights were assigned illegitimately, then it's not unfair to say that the current distribution is also unfair. But it's also fair to say that at some point we just need to let bygones be bygones, so that actual transactions can occur. Because transactions are a good thing.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Buying nukes or paying for protection or both... You're moving goalposts, you said China would roll up smaller countries and now its about muslim theocracies and starvation. Nukes are ending the era of rolling up tiny nations, the horrors of payback are not worth having an empire. But your argument is a libertarian country is open to attack and invasion. Most countries are open to that... Not as much though, WMD are an equalizer. "Hey, lets go invade the libertarian country. Oh, they got nukes? Never mind."

So you think that tiny nations arent being annexed by larger nations or being proxied or being invaded ?
I suppose the Libertarian states could form a kind of EU, but except it will be dominated the economic might of California, Texas is like the UK with its robust military and constant demands for special privileges all covered under the nuclear umbrella of the big three. Meanwhile the heartland is like the Balkans little more then third world, corrupted and backwards. Probably have the new problem state of MethLand, state of TaxHaven and the Libertarian failed states dotted around the place which are little more then criminal enterprises itching to be invaded.

As time goes on the Big three will get more powerful and the hearthland will get progressively backwards, Methland will become a narco state. But dont worry Bezerker Smaller country dont get rolled up, Maybe they will get nukes right ?
The Hearthland is already going backwards right now and thats with massive amounts of federal subsidies, tax allocations and disaster aid.

 

[Berzerker]

Well, there are two types of property.

Property that you are currently physically using.

Property that you are not currently physically using.

For me to gain use of the first type, I would need to physically force you to give it to me - that's coercion. For me to NOT gain use of the second type would require you to physically stop me - that's then coercion.

If neither property belongs to you, why do you get to use it? I'm not using my radio now, do the locks on my doors coerce you from stealing it? But isn't stealing coercion? You've got both the thief and victim coercing each other.

Now, obviously, societies work way way better when we have some type of property protection. We give power to 'the state' to use force to stop people from using property. But there's not much paradigm switch to realize that this is coercion.

Well yes, a law that doesn't let me take your house "coerces" me, but that aint the coercion were talking about when a crime has been committed. I'm not your victim because I cant legally kick you out and move in. You'd be the victim and it wouldn't matter what the law said.

And if the initial property rights were assigned illegitimately, then it's not unfair to say that the current distribution is also unfair. But it's also fair to say that at some point we just need to let bygones be bygones, so that actual transactions can occur. Because transactions are a good thing.

The Indians got screwed... and there was plenty of land for everyone.

 

[Berzerker]

So you think that tiny nations arent being annexed by larger nations or being proxied or being invaded ?

I said it happens less, not never... and hasn't happened to any state armed with nukes. So it aint gonna happen to a libertarian state armed with nukes.

I suppose the Libertarian states could form a kind of EU, but except it will be dominated the economic might of California, Texas is like the UK with its robust military and constant demands for special privileges all covered under the nuclear umbrella of the big three. Meanwhile the heartland is like the Balkans little more then third world, corrupted and backwards. Probably have the new problem state of MethLand, state of TaxHaven and the Libertarian failed states dotted around the place which are little more then criminal enterprises itching to be invaded.

Meth will become important if there is a war

As time goes on the Big three will get more powerful and the hearthland will get progressively backwards, Methland will become a narco state. But dont worry Bezerker Smaller country dont get rolled up, Maybe they will get nukes right ? The Hearthland is already going backwards right now and thats with massive amounts of federal subsidies, tax allocations and disaster aid.

They get subsidies to grow food, aint many disasters out here. Now why would libertarian states agree to join a union dominated by California? The smaller states didn't agree to such a deal when the country formed, thats why we have an electoral college and a senate with 2 people from each state. Two tiny states have more power than big California.

 

[Lexicus]

I think it's a human reaction when scared. People are scared of Ebola, and they're happy for the gubmint to use force to solve it. And their petty little ideology didn't create a mindset that allowed solutions better than "burn it with fire" to percolate forward for consideration.

I dunno, I perceive a common thread. The "libertarians" seem to want the state to keep people of color away even when they don't have Ebola.

 

[christos200]

I dunno, I perceive a common thread. The "libertarians" seem to want the state to keep people of color away even when they don't have Ebola.

This is a straw man and you know it.

 

[Lexicus]

This is a straw man and you know it.

I'm sorry, straw man? Don't you mean to say outright false?

 

[christos200]

straw man: a common form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent.

 

[Tahuti]

I dunno, I perceive a common thread. The "libertarians" seem to want the state to keep people of color away even when they don't have Ebola.

Not all libertarians are like Hans Hermann Hoppe, though yeah, sadly there are enough Libertarians so they can be racist.

 

[El_Machinae]

I dunno, I perceive a common thread. The "libertarians" seem to want the state to keep people of color away even when they don't have Ebola.

I don't really agree. They were more than happy to turn on non-colored people they were worried about, too. I watched how they treated the MSF nurses who came back in-country after fighting the fight. "Libertarians" were more than happy to violate every single libertarian principle with the nurses, too.

I am not denying that lots of latent racists espouse libertarian philosophy. But my criticism is deeper. The philosophy wasn't convincing to the people who claimed to believe in it. And so, they didn't actually believe in it.