|
absolem posted:because the hiring of armies to rule by force and taxation involve aggression and are therefore unjustifiable. You mean like the systematic genocide of native american populations upon who's land you currently live? So what is the take away here then? Make sure you loving kill them all because otherwise you'd have to give it back? quote:Suppose that you have a glass of water. It's yours. Next to you is me. I am dehydrated and will die without water. Suppose that you decide to not give me your glass of water, as is your right. Also, reply to this. I asked you something similar in the US thread and have yet to receive a reply.
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 01:46
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 04:54 |
|
|
absolem posted:How come we can have objective laws of X, but not objective morality? The sort I've suggested still seems pretty nice... Because morality is by its very nature subjective and subject to change. A century and a half ago it was morally okay to own another human being, In places of the world today it still is by the local morals. Morality is what society says it is, which is why you cannot have objective morality despite the fact that you really, really want to. Can it be your morality? Sure but I hope you reconsider because as a former libertarian I know how lovely life is when you look at the world that way. Is it Objectively true? Not at all. Just because you found a path of logic that makes it seem so doesn't mean that there aren't millions of other people using similar logic to prove that their morality is the right one. I could logically prove that a double down is objectively the best food, but that doesn't make it anything but heart clogging garbage. Bacon is good, chicken is good, the Double down has naught but chicken and bacon. What other food has nothing but chicken and bacon? The double down is the best food.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 01:52
|
|
|
absolem posted:except that my proof of my ethics is still looking pretty ok even after a couple of you had a go at it, and your proof of the double down is obviously awful Hahahahahahahaha...oh... wait. You're serious? Please tell me you aren't seriously looking at the proof of my double down example as if it were serious. And pretty much [citation needed] numerous people have raised criticism of your 'proof' and you've yet to defend against any of it apart from what amounts to 'nuh uh.'
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 02:08
|
|
|
Corvinus posted:I know everyone saw the word "Hoppeian" and totally went "not this retarded poo poo again", but it bears repeating that Hans-Hermann Hoppe is a racial supremacist that also hates people who are democrats/leftist/communist/non-heteros. And although Argumentation ethics is philosophically broken since the non-aggression principle is actually not a real a priori, even other libertarians were not so enthused with it. And druids. I don't know the specific backstory because even when I was a libertarian I thought Triple H was a little nuts, but the guy has this bizarre thing where he loving HATES druids.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 02:16
|
|
|
quote:There can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. They-the advocates of alternative, non-family-centered lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism-will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order. I've bolded the important part of it here. gently caress druids and their level 9 spells.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 02:29
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Hoppe to it. Damnit Sedan. I'm just getting beaten left right and center in posting interesting things today. quote:Unlike states, [insurers] could and would not want to disregard the discriminating inclinations among the insured towards immigrants. To the contrary, even more so than any one of their clients, insurers would be interested in discrimination, i.e., in admitting only those immigrants whose presence adds to a lower crime risk and increased property values and in excluding those whose presence leads to a higher risk and lower property values. That is, rather than eliminating discrimination, insurers would rationalize and perfect its practice.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 02:37
|
|
|
So I suppose I have one more question for Absolom, how do you feel about Hans Hermann Hoppe now?
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 02:40
|
|
|
Ernie Muppari posted:Maybe he found out he was living on stolen land and is voluntarily returning it and all his former possessions to the rightful owners of that land? Still posting in D&D, so I think we scared him off. 
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 02:53
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 04:54 |
|
|
StashAugustine posted:It's also worth noting that by stealing it you're denying it to somebody else. Only under the assumption that the lack of supply is what is causing high prices. Medicine has inellastic demand insofar as you will pay whatever you have to pay to keep living, thus leading to the possibility of totally decoupleing supply from demand. The flag pole example is a better one anyway however. You fall from a roof and manage to grab a flagpole. There is one window to a private suite in front of you, one you do not have permission to enter. If you don't enter you will die within minutes. Is it morally acceptable to 'aggress' against someone elses property in this way?
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 19:47
|
|