|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 30, 2024 16:29 |
|
|
Well lets have a NEW discussion brought from a favorite hang out, my facebook wall! We have a libertarian on here talking about the Non Agression Principal. Some snippets: My OP: An interesting point on Libertarianism and also on folks that advocate guns, is that they claim violence is the worst thing possible. Violent action or coercion is of the utmost evil. Yet these gusn rights and self defense activists fail to see the very contradiction in their position-the very position of authority they wish to defend is based upon the threat of violence. The entire idea of "an armed society is a safe society" isn't that guns inherently make you safer by virtue of them being present. Its the imminent threat of violence (called coercion WHO KNEW?!) is what enforces "safety". This is why Libertarianism is closer to a religion than a political ideology. Response: Incorrect representation of libertarianism, the non-aggression principle states that initiation of violence or coercion is immoral and thus aggression is immoral, self-defense is not aggression. As libertarians would not commit such an act, but statists do on a daily basis. Having the means of violence is not coercion if used solely for defense of your natural rights. Or rights by objective reasoning, it doesn't matter how you get there, but it is fairly universal that you have the right to your life, your liberties and the fruit of your labor. Encroaching on one's land is trespassing and a form of aggression, using a weapon to defend your property is once again, not a form of aggression. I just like poking Libertarians. It always goes in circles, but its public, so people get exposed to it. I think that is important.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2014 04:15
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:That's not a very good argument. Are you saying that the ability to defend yourself is somehow "the imminent threat of violence"? No, i'm not saying the ability to defend yourself is the threat of violence. I'm saying the open display of force is a threat of violence. If I walk around with guns pointed everywhere and say "Hey, can I have your last Pepsi, SedanChair?" are you more likely to give it to me or tell me to gently caress off? 
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2014 04:26
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:To gently caress off, I suppose. But you didn't mention anything about open carry in your statement, just guns. Well its open carry, but is really about guns in general. The main reason folks that I hear in the gun debate that claim they are Libertarian is that they want to be able to shoot and kill anyone that they deem threatens their property. They want to be able to defend themselves. Got it. The trouble is when they want a small armory in order to defend against the government or some sort of paramilitary organization like the Ironborn intent on taking their daughters as Saltwives. It becomes less about defense of their selves, and more about a show of force to deter anyone from messin' with em. That is different.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2014 04:30
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:That's a weird definition of "force." But I mean other than open carry (which is just impolite) and brandishing (which is illegal) what's wrong with showing that you're not worth messing with? I mean it's OK to lift weights and be strong, isn't it? I say it has a lot to do with it because showing that you have a massive force with which to defend yourself is in and of itself a form of force. A gun on the table is an object on a table. A gun in the hand is a weapon that can kill. It fundamentally changes the person holding it and the gun itself because it is no longer a stagnant object, but a characteristic of a person.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2014 04:58
|
|
|
A lot of the conversation with Libertarians I have turns to one of those line items- "get rid of the bums". Libertarian friend of mine said that folks that work many hours but are still in poverty need to figure out a way to improve their station by either learning a skill or taking a second job. I just think its hilarious that its just a magic wave of the wand and now this bum is suddenly Productive Citizen_01. Its like they have no concept of space or the marginal utility of a dollar, an hour, or hell, a jacket. A Libertarian that adheres to the idea that the worth of a person is equated to how much they can produce, then the Libertarian has to admit that some people are worth less or worth more than others, not just in terms of dollars, but in terms of actual human worth. If you work a poo poo job that is required to make a business go, but is poo poo, then you are literally not worth any participation in society. If you were, you wouldn't be working the poo poo job! Except, SOMEONE has to work the poo poo job. In order for Libertopia to work, SOMEONE has to be low man on the totem pole. Its like they want to have a ladder of economy but want to continue to chop off the bottom rung of the ladder, wherever it may be. The only way to do this is to either reintroduce a slave like system, a feudal system, or create a separate utopia separate from everyone else like in some dystopian society where the undesirables are kept hidden and disenfranchised from the "creators". Basically they want Bioshock: Infinite.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2014 13:14
|
|
|
MadMattH posted:If everyone has a gun with them at all times then it does become a stagnant object. Like underwear. The guns aren't supposed to be in your hand, it's just that everybody is supposed to know (or really it is just implied) that you have one. Oh didn't see this post! I would say its still a bit different. Your underwear can't indiscriminately kill a bunch of people because you decide to flip out. There is also a reason that the appearance of the ability to harm others has an impact on the way situations are perceived. I think to ignore that is to ignore reality in favor of having guns all over the place.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2014 13:23
|
|
|
LogisticEarth posted:Jastiger, you always pop into these threads and describe your conversations with various libertarian friends who seem to be complete shitheads. You should probably get some new buddies. Trying to get an idea of what any ideology/economic theory/philosophy is about by talking to randos at the bar or on Facebook is like the least efficient and most frustrating and misleading way of going about things. Ehh I just think its an interesting forum to bounce ideas around. I find a good conversation, be it on here or on Facebook is far more interesting and productive than circle jerking about things we all agree about. SedanChair posted:Especially since he isn't really any good at arguing with them. It isn't as simple as that, SedanChair. It isn't just anti gun for the sake of being anti gun. I'm pointing to what I consider to be a fundamental flaw in the NAP when applying it to modern US Libertarians. These same Libertarians argue that monopolization of force by a state is inherently wrong because it uses force or the threat of force to enact policy or certain behavior. For example, we hear of folks saying "They could just send a drone over if they don't like X!!" I'm saying, how is that any different than a private individual having the ability to do so? If SedanChair A. Freeman has a stockpile of drones, artillery pieces, access to the water supply, a small private bodyguard group, and a tank and asks me if I want to support his "purchase" of my right to the water supply, that is a form of coercion, isn't it? The same argument applies when we see Libertarians claim that the right to self defense is important and that the NAP works because if you aggress against me, I have the means to aggress back with nothing between me and the aggression (a state). Its not just about guns, its about the presence of the use of force and how it changes situations simply by existing in the context of that situation. Edit: As the poster above me said, politeness enforced with potential violence is still a form of coercion. Jastiger fucked around with this message at 15:32 on May 24, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 24, 2014 15:25
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 30, 2024 16:29 |
|
|
LogisticEarth posted:It's an interesting forum to bounce things around, but the whole "my vulgar libertarian friend said..." thing really doesn't contribute to much other than perpetuating the circle-jerk in D&D. Not just you specifically, of course. These threads quickly and inevitably devolve into that until wacko #47 shows up and trolls the poo poo out of it. I think its useful because I know these people and I can see how they think. Its also useful to see how my own ideas are viewed when posted here and we can discuss them from different points of view. But, I totally hear ya man. SedanChair posted:Well, but the state engages in literal, actual, premeditated force. As you and the libertarians say, they send drones (or troops, or cruise missiles) and actually kill people. That's very far removed from simply having weapons of whatever caliber or lethality. Most people do not consider having weapons to be in itself coercion, and the number of weapons you have doesn't really change that. So why would libertarians especially view it as aggression? Nobody else does. I don't think that makes a difference. People engage in literal, actual, premeditated force all the time, whether it be actual overt shooting of people or the threat of doing so. For example, there are laws against holding guns and truncheons outside of voting booths because of the perceived threat of coercion. This demonstrates that showing the possibility of force can be used as a form of coercion. Look at security guys at sporting events or security guards at target. They don't have guns, but their presence and uniforms are used to encourage or discourage certain behavior. Same for armed guards at banks and in court. Its pretty evident that the show of force and the visibility (or even the perceived visibility) of the ability to inflict harm changes and can even coerce others into action. As another poster noted, the specific issue I have with the NAP and Libertarians is that they advocate for defense, which makes sense, but when challenged on why they should be able to use force its because they wish to use that defense to coerce others into not offending. Which....is contradictory.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2014 17:45
|
|