|
Typical Pubbie posted:Hell yes, I've been waiting for this thread! Have some Libertarian YouTube poop: I refuse to believe a human being could see the preview images on these videos and actually proceed to click on them. Also: Caros posted:
Likely sociopath? Someone dig up the quotes about Native Americans being subhuman trash, or that pedophile/child-murderer she worshipped as an example of the purest expression of freedom.
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 05:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 05:08 |
|
|
Posted this in the other thread, but might get an actual answer here. A question. Why are advocates of property rights and libertarian folk all about getting rid of estate taxes and stuff like that, yet, I don't see them advocating for all debts and wrongs to be passed on. Its ok if I hand my kids tax free a billion bucks, half the state of Arkansas, and all the rights to my company TAX FREE. But oh ho ho ho ho ho no, I can set up a legal frame work to absolve them of all debts? Why should that be allowed? How does a libertarian handle the debts in their no tax, no government world?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 05:24
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:Posted this in the other thread, but might get an actual answer here. They personally won't have to worry about things like crippling debt leading to basically feudalism, because as soon as all that regulation is out of the way they'll blossom into the brilliant captains of industry they always had the potential to be. Not coincidentally everyone question that starts "Hey, don't libertarians realize that in Freetopia things would be much worse for <x> people because <y>?" has the same answer. Someone mentioned it in one of the other threads like this, but libertarians are the kind of people who watch Deadwood and think that they would be Al Swearingen, not the dude shoveling poo poo. Wolfsheim fucked around with this message at 05:38 on May 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 05:35
|
|
|
I don't want to watch libertarians on video.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 05:39
|
|
|
Come on, SedanChair. Embrace the free market of ideas. 
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 05:40
|
|
|
Wolfsheim posted:They personally won't have to worry about things like crippling debt leading to basically feudalism, because as soon as all that regulation is out of the way they'll blossom into the brilliant captains of industry they always had the potential to be. Not coincidentally everyone question that starts "Hey, don't libertarians realize that in Freetopia things would be much worse for <x> people because <y>?" has the same answer. Libertarianism is a religion.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 10:03
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I don't want to watch libertarians on video. Don't take away their free speech!
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 10:18
|
|
|
I love Murray Rothbard. Not only is he a holocaust denier, he believes that WWII was waged to murder Germans and the Japanese. I usually quote him as a silver bullet to any "you haven't read mises.org" bullshit. They always expect you to read the entirety of mises.org. Anyway, here's my goto:The Ethics of Liberty posted:"the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die.[4] The law, therefore, may not properly compel the parent to feed a child or to keep it alive.[5] (Again, whether or not a parent has a moral rather than a legally enforceable obligation to keep his child alive is a completely separate question.) This rule allows us to solve such vexing questions as: should a parent have the right to allow a deformed baby to die (e.g., by not feeding it)?[6] The answer is of course yes, following a fortiori from the larger right to allow any baby, whether deformed or not, to die. (Though, as we shall see below, in a libertarian society the existence of a free baby market will bring such “neglect” down to a minimum.)" No one has been able to explain how to adhere to such a code without being severely mentally ill. Just that last parenthetical should torpedo the entire philosophy. "neglect." If you can't call a mother letting their baby starve intentionally, neglect, but rant on and on about how free you are, you are disturbed. edit- I took out the footnotes for readability, but drat it they make it so much better, so here they are: [4]On the distinction between passive and active euthanasia, see Philippa R. Foot, Virtues and Vices (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978), pp. 50ff. [5]Cf. the view of the individualist anarchist theorist Benjamin R. Tucker: “Under equal freedom, as it [the child] develops individuality and independence, it is entitled to immunity from assault or invasion, and that is all. If the parent neglects to support it, he does not thereby oblige anyone else to support it.” Benjamin R. Tucker, Instead of a Book (New York: B.R. Tucker, 1893), p. 144. [6]The original program of the Euthanasia Society of America included the right of parents to allow monstrous babies to die. It has also been a common and growing practice for midwives and obstetricians to allow monstrous babies to die at birth by simply not taking positive acts to keep them alive. See John A. Robertson, “Involuntary Euthanasia of Defective Newborns: A Legal Analysis,” Stanford Law Review (January 1975): 214–15. Babylon Astronaut fucked around with this message at 11:10 on May 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 11:02
|
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:I love Murray Rothbard. Not only is he a holocaust denier, he believes that WWII was waged to murder Germans and the Japanese. What's your source for this? I don't see it in your post.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 11:59
|
|
|
"Murray Rothbard and the Monstrous Babies" would be a pretty sweet band name e: "Monstrous baby" is also a good synonym for "libertarian"
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 12:01
|
|
|
I think everyone here should listen to this Majority Report podcast wherein Sam Sedar debates libertarian professor Walter Block. Here's the link. Walter Block is a childish idiot
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 12:57
|
|
|
I found libertarianism an attractive philosophy when I was 17 and did not really understand how things work in the world. I think everyone who follows libertarianism is still mentally 17 years old.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 13:18
|
|
|
I still have trouble believing something containing the words "free baby market" could be anything other than satire in the vein of A Modest Proposal but apparently there are idiots who are deadly serious about it. 
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 13:25
|
|
|
nutranurse posted:I've always wanted to ask a libertarian this (but I know few in real life because they're crazy fuckers and tend to be racist): Why would a minority want to forgo government protection of their rights in order to embrace the libertarian "get government out of everything so I can be a feudal lord" creed? I think it's an important question, as demographics begin to skew more in favor of non-whites libertarians will have to convince non-whites that their policies will actually benefit the traditionally disenfranchised. The main thing is that you might have good reason to distrust political hierarchies if you're a minority. Namely, the application of state power is predetermined by those in control of state power, and by accepting "protection" from the government, you're accepting the expansion of existing class and social divisions. So for example, a minority group that is subject to greater state protection might see that expressed most directly in the form of abusive police powers. The power to redistribute wealth will not ultimately benefit the minority group, as the distribution will be determined -- and strengthened -- by those in control of the wealth. Most (smart) libertarians I know will tell you that the choice between the Democrats and Republicans is a choice between Goldman Sachs and the oil industry. Either way, when you have a state, the power will be in the hands of someone, and most likely it'll be those with the greatest existing wealth and power. And you could go full-leftist and establish some kind of socialist regime that will redistribute wealth in an equitable manner, but the actual history of those regimes has shown that you won't have egalitarianism, but the creation of a new power elite that enslaves the people it claims to uplift. Of course, as you very rightly point out, the problem with the libertarian argument is that they're advocating for a pure economic hierarchy complete with feudal lords. -- Edit: So another example would be gun control. So like we need gun control to prevent privileged white guys from shooting minorities. This was an argument made after Trayvon Martin was murdered. But when you see strict gun control laws as actually practiced, the enforcement is directed most heavily at black communities through stop and frisk policies. A lot of young black men end up going to jail. Again: this strengthens pre-existing hierarchies. I've also seen a critique of some radical feminists who've argued against the presumption of innocence in rape cases, with pushback against this from libertarian-oriented MRA types. Okay the MRA guys are a bunch of creeps. But you can see a long history in America of black men being falsely accused of violating white womanhood, particularly in the South during Jim Crow, so expanding state powers against the accused in such criminal cases (in the name of protecting women) might disproportionately harm minorities. Edit: If I was a libertarian political strategist, one thing I'd aim at like a laser are the class tensions between white urban progressives and the black working and middle class. I live in Austin which is seeing a remarkable net decline in the African-American population even as the city remains one of the fastest-growing cities in the U.S. And this is in stark contrast to the nearby metropolises of Dallas and Houston, which have large and growing black populations. (I believe some of the fastest-growing.) And this is curious as Austin is considered far and away more progressive than the other two cities. And you can make the argument that progressive urban policies, such as Austin's attempt to slow suburban sprawl, its environmental no-go zones, stricter zoning and building codes, etc. have combined to reduce affordability compared to cities with more libertarian-oriented policies like Houston. The libertarians have quite deliberately built a coalition with white ethnic populists though so I don't expect that to happen. BrutalistMcDonalds fucked around with this message at 14:09 on May 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 13:27
|
|
|
Unlearning posted:What's your source for this? I don't see it in your post. Cold War Myths posted:It is to the everlasting honor of Harry Elmer Barnes that when the records are in and the accounts are drawn, it will never be said of him that he was a Court Intellectual. Absolute fearlessness, absolute honesty, absolute independence have been his guiding stars. He has, therefore, been nothing if not "anti-Establishmentarian" in a world where such a quality has been so desperately needed. And his presence has been particularly vital precisely in leading the opposition to the great barbarity of our day – the war system and its manifold intellectual myths. quote:"The courageous author [Rassinier] lays the chief blame for misrepresentation on those whom we must call the swindlers of the crematoria, the Israeli politicians who derive billions of marks from nonexistent, mythical and imaginary cadavers, whose numbers have been reckoned in an unusually distorted and dishonest manner." Rothbard's belief as to the cause of WWII is more cut and dry: Cold War Myths posted:Here he added another important point, linking Revisionism in World War II and in the Cold War. Barnes dismissed his own past criticism of the World War II unconditional surrender policy as valid but superficial; for he had learned from General Albert C. Wedemeyer’s book that the murder of Germans and Japanese was the overriding aim of World War II – virtually an Anglo-American scalping party. If maximum murder of the enemy is the sole aim of a war, then a call for unconditional surrender is only the logical conclusion of a conflict in which "there were no actual peace aims or programs. . . . The Allies won just exactly what they fought for – and all they fought for: an astronomical number of enemy scalps and incredible physical destruction of enemy property and homes…" So there isn't slam dunk he's a denier evidence but it's really hard to give him the benefit of the doubt after praising David Duke and endorsing The Bell Curve. The man is a self avowed "racialist." From his review of The Bell Curve: quote:If, then, the Race Question is really a problem for statists and not for paleos, why should we talk about the race matter at all? Why should it be a political concern for us; why not leave the issue entirely to the scientists? Cold War Myths although he eulogized the crap out of Barnes as well and wrote a book about him. Review of The Bell Curve David Duke Fellatio Basically there is evidence of Rothbard holding nearly every despicable viewpoint possible, from starve your baby to garden variety white supremacy. -edit- I just had to get this in here: nutranurse posted:I've always wanted to ask a libertarian this (but I know few in real life because they're crazy fuckers and tend to be racist): Why would a minority want to forgo government protection of their rights in order to embrace the libertarian "get government out of everything so I can be a feudal lord" creed? I think it's an important question, as demographics begin to skew more in favor of non-whites libertarians will have to convince non-whites that their policies will actually benefit the traditionally disenfranchised. Babylon Astronaut fucked around with this message at 13:37 on May 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 13:30
|
|
|
Huh. That's fascinating. I'd also be interested in reading more about the links between post-war libertarianism and pre-war domestic pro-fascist movements.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 13:36
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:Posted this in the other thread, but might get an actual answer here. Not a libertarian, but someone should at least try to take up the other side or this thread is just a circle jerk. I imagine debts would be paid out of whatever exists of the estate, like they are now. Depending on what flavor of libertarianism a person subscribes to enforcing contract law is something the government can do - libertarians aren't anarchists, necessarily - so the government would intervene if someone tried to default on a debt. In an An-Cap world I guess you'd either pay or have your knees broken by the other party's Dispute Resolution Organization or something, but custom (and not wanting to get wrecked) would compel most people to "voluntarily" pay. In ethical terms libertarians believe utility springs from agency and the way to maximize agency (and utility) is to minimize coercion. Strong private property rights are the instrument that minimizes coercion - they allow you to do what you want with your stuff, while making it difficult to impose yourself or your preferences on other peoples' stuff. That encourages voluntary associations on equal terms which increases agency and thus happiness, etc. Some libertarians would couch their ethics in terms of natural law, but I find that weird so I'm not going to attempt that. There isn't a lot to be gained by criticizing libertarianism based on hypotheticals. Pure libertarianism breaks down in application because people aren't 100% benevolent altruists with good intentions. However, so does every other utopian political philosophy - shout out to all the socialists or left anarchists in the audience.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 14:45
|
|
|
AnemicChipmunk posted:I think everyone here should listen to this Majority Report podcast wherein Sam Sedar debates libertarian professor Walter Block. Here's the link. Walter Block is a childish idiot Holy poo poo Walter Block is a loving LOON! Not to mention and enormous racist ("blacks don't have jobs because they are too lazy to earn those minimum wage jobs." What?!  ). And it is way different hearing stuff that absolem was saying nearly word for word coming from a real person's mouth than it is reading it on a forum, and not it a good way. I wanted to violate the NAP and reach through time and space and throttle the man.-EDIT- VVVVVVVVV "If you don't stop making fun of him, I'll have to dock your pay to $3.25." "Well it's better than nothing!  "
Who What Now fucked around with this message at 14:56 on May 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 14:52
|
|
|
AnemicChipmunk posted:I think everyone here should listen to this Majority Report podcast wherein Sam Sedar debates libertarian professor Walter Block. Here's the link. Walter Block is a childish idiot Hey Hey Hey Hey Hey!!!! Shut Up!!! Radio gold. Sam Seder also debated Stephan Molyneux about a year ago and it was just as hilarious. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vVW1t900Jg mcmagic fucked around with this message at 15:13 on May 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 14:54
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Not a libertarian, but someone should at least try to take up the other side or this thread is just a circle jerk. As much as I tend to argue with far-leftists here, I think most socialists are more sophisticated than that. For that matter, people being self-interested rather than altruistic is a key tenet of many forms of libertarianism; the main thing that makes libertarians naive is their assumption of rational self-interest. Agreed about left-anarchists, though.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 15:31
|
|
|
spoon0042 posted:I still have trouble believing something containing the words "free baby market" could be anything other than satire in the vein of A Modest Proposal but apparently there are idiots who are deadly serious about it. What I find baffling is that there's all of this "well you should own yourself and be free" but then they're suggesting literally selling living, breathing humans on a free market. Like, OK, it's not OK to own and coerce somebody, unless they're a baby. Cool, got it.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 15:37
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:What I find baffling is that there's all of this "well you should own yourself and be free" but then they're suggesting literally selling living, breathing humans on a free market. Like, OK, it's not OK to own and coerce somebody, unless they're a baby. Cool, got it. It's not that hard to understand. "Freedom" in this context means absolute freedom for the owners, for the powerful. If you're at the top you're free to make your own rules and impose them on others (basicaly divine right, but with "The Market" instead of "God"). It's freedom from democratic oversight or from any resistance by the dispossessed because that would be "coercion". If the under-classes complain they are acting unethically because after all they are "free" themselves and their poor situation is their own drat fault and if they don't want to starve then they should "freely" agree to the terms the market offers them for their subjugation. Many strands of libertarianism argue for the freedom to own slaves, since people can "freely" agree to put themselves or their children as collateral for a loan, for example. Bob le Moche fucked around with this message at 16:07 on May 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 16:05
|
|
|
Kind of related, it occurred to me after the last thread that assuming people are perfectly rational spheres should obviate contracts but 99% of the time libertarians say oh yeah we need government to enforce contracts (this is absolutely never elaborated upon). Of course that's only if two people would only agree to something that was to their mutual benefit as rational actors. If contracts are just a way for the wealthy and powerful to extract more wealth from the underclass though...
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 16:17
|
|
|
Anarchism is inherently rooted in lack of hierarchy and acceptance of collectivism. One of these capitalism is unable to survive without and the other capitalism opposes. There is no such thing as an AnCap no matter how much they want to try to distort anarchism to fit their fygm world view.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 16:26
|
|
|
Arri posted:Anarchism is inherently rooted in lack of hierarchy and acceptance of collectivism. One of these capitalism is unable to survive without and the other capitalism opposes. There is no such thing as an AnCap no matter how much they want to try to distort anarchism to fit their fygm world view. Both are ridiculous and not suited to the real world.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 16:31
|
|
|
spoon0042 posted:Kind of related, it occurred to me after the last thread that assuming people are perfectly rational spheres should obviate contracts but 99% of the time libertarians say oh yeah we need government to enforce contracts (this is absolutely never elaborated upon). Of course that's only if two people would only agree to something that was to their mutual benefit as rational actors. If contracts are just a way for the wealthy and powerful to extract more wealth from the underclass though... Yes libertarians usually say that they want a legal system and a police force (because even they, deep inside, realize that "markets" are not some universal part of nature and that they are a construct of society and the state). When you ask them about it though, they often go on about how all these former functions of the state could all be enforced by "private" for-profit firms: you could have a private police force / military that you pay to protect your property, you could have private judges that both parties agree to hire in the event of a trial, a private monetary system with private repo-men, etc. They claim that this would not constitute a state, but of course that's nonsensical semantics. It's still a state, just one that serves exclusively the interests of the capitalist class, with no regards to the people at large or even any pretence to represent them democratically. It's an absolute and unrestrained dictatorship of the oligarchy. Libertarians (as with any ruling-class ideology) are deathly afraid of any manifestation of democracy or of popular rule threatening the power and "freedom" of the strong-men heroes they worship, and this is what they mean when they say "the state".
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 16:32
|
|
|
im gay posted:What is the libertarian answer to environmental issues such as climate change that require international responses? I have a friend in college who is a) a radical libertarian and b) a staunch environmentalist. His Facebook page is the weirdest mix of "end the income tax" and reminders to turn off the bathroom lights to save energy. The way he rationalized it to me is that pollution does damage to the property of others. Companies should be forced to pay for these externalities. I didn't delve further; no point in getting with a possibly heated argument with someone I was living with for a year.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 16:34
|
|
|
Smiling Knight posted:I have a friend in college who is a) a radical libertarian and b) a staunch environmentalist. His Facebook page is the weirdest mix of "end the income tax" and reminders to turn off the bathroom lights to save energy. The way he rationalized it to me is that pollution does damage to the property of others. Companies should be forced to pay for these externalities. I didn't delve further; no point in getting with a possibly heated argument with someone I was living with for a year. I don't see a lot of contradiction there to be honest.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 16:35
|
|
|
spoon0042 posted:Kind of related, it occurred to me after the last thread that assuming people are perfectly rational spheres should obviate contracts but 99% of the time libertarians say oh yeah we need government to enforce contracts (this is absolutely never elaborated upon). Of course that's only if two people would only agree to something that was to their mutual benefit as rational actors. If contracts are just a way for the wealthy and powerful to extract more wealth from the underclass though... It doesn't seem like a stretch to assert that if parties agree to a contract the parties believe that contract is to their mutual benefit and that they consent to the terms. Enforceable contracts are pretty drat important. Without them all sorts of relations come down to the personal honor and willingness to deal fairly of the stronger party, or simply to naked force (You find out about your eviction when you come home and your stuff is on the curb, and your landlord has more goons than you, or whatever). If you think the "underclass" does better with that dynamic then I've got a great deal on a bridge you might be interested in. No contract, of course. I'll hand over possession once you give me the $$.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 16:35
|
|
|
tbp posted:Both are ridiculous and not suited to the real world. Thank you grandpa, now tell me how "socialism sounds good on paper. "
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 16:36
|
|
|
Smiling Knight posted:I have a friend in college who is a) a radical libertarian and b) a staunch environmentalist. His Facebook page is the weirdest mix of "end the income tax" and reminders to turn off the bathroom lights to save energy. The way he rationalized it to me is that pollution does damage to the property of others. Companies should be forced to pay for these externalities. I didn't delve further; no point in getting with a possibly heated argument with someone I was living with for a year. Who is going to enforce that corporations pay for their externalities?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 16:38
|
|
|
Arri posted:Thank you grandpa, now tell me how "socialism sounds good on paper. " Socialism similarly will not work in the real world but it's a more admirable goal I suppose.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 16:40
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:It doesn't seem like a stretch to assert that if parties agree to a contract the parties believe that contract is to their mutual benefit and that they consent to the terms. I didn't claim it was a well formed idea. (Appropriate for the libertarianism thread, then.) I was serious about how the minimal contract enforcing state is never explained though. It's always just tacked on to whatever horrible point they're trying to make. What is meant by enforce, how this state has any power to do so, how it is funded for this purpose, etc. Particularly the last one, are taxes voluntary? Are those who voluntarily pay given preference? Who's to stop them if so? At least when this sort of thing is left to "dispute resolution organizations" it's nakedly obvious the system is one of might makes right. Also you can't fool me, the workers' collective builds any bridges that are needed. 
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 16:44
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:What I find baffling is that there's all of this "well you should own yourself and be free" but then they're suggesting literally selling living, breathing humans on a free market. Like, OK, it's not OK to own and coerce somebody, unless they're a baby. Cool, got it. The whole child-market thing seems slightly less sinister in context. The idea isn't that the actual children aren't being sold, but the right of guardianship. Once a child expressed their self agency (e.g. by running away or seeking help in leaving) then the guardian ceased to have any right to detain or direct the child. Of course there are a whole host of other problems with that, but it's not as direct and less overtly evil as a simple child-market. Of course Rothbard and others describe our current child welfare system as a market as well, just one that is nationalized and politically controlled. And to be clear, I'm not a proponent of Rothbards system, just trying to do my part to break up the usual Rothbardian dogpile.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 16:53
|
|
|
That misses the part where the evil government can't do a thing if a parent lets their kid starve. edit: yeah yeah that's the whole point of the free baby market where magically a less terrible person would appear to buy the child or whatever who cares.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 17:02
|
|
|
spoon0042 posted:I was serious about how the minimal contract enforcing state is never explained though. It's always just tacked on to whatever horrible point they're trying to make. What is meant by enforce, how this state has any power to do so, how it is funded for this purpose, etc. Particularly the last one, are taxes voluntary? Are those who voluntarily pay given preference? Who's to stop them if so? All these questions have plausible answers. I'm not sure how useful it would be to write out all the details of how a hypothetical libertarian state would work, because hypotheticals can work however we want them to, but for the sake of it we could posit something like this: 1) Our hypothetical state has courts, a police force, and a set of laws we establish to allow them to judge compliance with contract terms and redistribute property / put people in jail / break kneecaps (why not) as necessary to make everyone play by the minimal rules. 2) Those things are paid for by the lowest practical tax, voluntary, which people will endlessly complain about but pay anyway because those who don't pay will not have access to services. Or it could work some other way. We have absolute freedom since our libertarian goontopia doesn't exist!
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 17:15
|
|
|
LogisticEarth posted:The whole child-market thing seems slightly less sinister in context. The idea isn't that the actual children aren't being sold, but the right of guardianship. Once a child expressed their self agency (e.g. by running away or seeking help in leaving) then the guardian ceased to have any right to detain or direct the child. Of course there are a whole host of other problems with that, but it's not as direct and less overtly evil as a simple child-market. A market for guardianship wouldn't be suuuuper different from some forms of adoption now, I don't think.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 17:18
|
|
|
I've always thought the funny thing about the "non-aggression principle" is that in order for it to work for you, you need to be a credible enough threat in yourself that nobody dares be aggressive against you. People who hold to this either don't understand that bit and assume people are capable of peace-and-love coexistence that they otherwise deride; or they believe money will buy them muscle and that the muscle is uninterested in turning against them; or they have a fantasy about their own ability to kill anyone who challenges them.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 17:28
|
|
|
IMJack posted:I've always thought the funny thing about the "non-aggression principle" is that in order for it to work for you, you need to be a credible enough threat in yourself that nobody dares be aggressive against you. People who hold to this either don't understand that bit and assume people are capable of peace-and-love coexistence that they otherwise deride; or they believe money will buy them muscle and that the muscle is uninterested in turning against them; or they have a fantasy about their own ability to kill anyone who challenges them. If you have a state enforcing robust property rights you don't have to be strapped all the time to deter people from messing with you or your property.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 17:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 05:08 |
|
|
IMJack posted:I've always thought the funny thing about the "non-aggression principle" is that in order for it to work for you, you need to be a credible enough threat in yourself that nobody dares be aggressive against you. People who hold to this either don't understand that bit and assume people are capable of peace-and-love coexistence that they otherwise deride; or they believe money will buy them muscle and that the muscle is uninterested in turning against them; or they have a fantasy about their own ability to kill anyone who challenges them. That's why you'll never get women on board. We face the threat of physical force often enough in this "statist" society. It can only get worse with less "state".
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 17:34
|
|
