1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

The silly non-aggression principal

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by AlpsStranger, May 29, 2017.

  1. Lexicus

    Lexicus Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    25,433
    Location:
    Sovereign State of the Have-Nots
    @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"?
     
  2. civver_764

    civver_764 Deity

    Joined:
    May 19, 2007
    Messages:
    6,436
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Jose, CA
    Well then surely we just need more principled libertarians? Surely we should be pushing harder for libertarianism?
     
  3. El_Machinae

    El_Machinae Colour vision since 2018 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    45,361
    Location:
    Pale Blue Dot youtube=wupToqz1e2g
    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.
     
    Cutlass likes this.
  4. Borachio

    Borachio Way past lunacy

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2012
    Messages:
    26,698
    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.)


    You put that nicely, I think.
     
  5. christos200

    christos200 Never tell me the odds

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2011
    Messages:
    12,060
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    EU, Greece, Athens
    Taxation is theft but that does not mean that such theft cannot sometimes be justified. To quote from an article:

    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.
     
  6. El_Machinae

    El_Machinae Colour vision since 2018 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    45,361
    Location:
    Pale Blue Dot youtube=wupToqz1e2g
    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.

    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.
     
  7. Berzerker

    Berzerker Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    19,781
    Location:
    the golf course
    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."

    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.

    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?

    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.

    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.

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

    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.

    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.
     
  8. El_Machinae

    El_Machinae Colour vision since 2018 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    45,361
    Location:
    Pale Blue Dot youtube=wupToqz1e2g
    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.
     
  9. FriendlyFire

    FriendlyFire Codex WMDicanious

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    19,908
    Location:
    Sydney
    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.
     
  10. Berzerker

    Berzerker Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    19,781
    Location:
    the golf course
    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.

    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.

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

    Berzerker Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    19,781
    Location:
    the golf course
    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.

    Meth will become important if there is a war

    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.
     
  12. Lexicus

    Lexicus Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    25,433
    Location:
    Sovereign State of the Have-Nots
    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.
     
  13. christos200

    christos200 Never tell me the odds

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2011
    Messages:
    12,060
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    EU, Greece, Athens
    This is a straw man and you know it.
     
  14. Lexicus

    Lexicus Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    25,433
    Location:
    Sovereign State of the Have-Nots
    I'm sorry, straw man? Don't you mean to say outright false?
     
  15. christos200

    christos200 Never tell me the odds

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2011
    Messages:
    12,060
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    EU, Greece, Athens
    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.
     
  16. Tahuti

    Tahuti Writing Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2005
    Messages:
    9,492
    Gender:
    Male
    Not all libertarians are like Hans Hermann Hoppe, though yeah, sadly there are enough Libertarians so they can be racist.
     
  17. El_Machinae

    El_Machinae Colour vision since 2018 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    45,361
    Location:
    Pale Blue Dot youtube=wupToqz1e2g
    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.
     

Share This Page