Libertarians: You fire fighter lovers sure are good at debate!

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Libertarians: You fire fighter lovers sure are good at debate!

«‹›4 »

Babylon Astronaut: Apr 19, 2012

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

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 30, 2024 21:59

Babylon Astronaut: Apr 19, 2012

Unlearning posted:

What's your source for this? I don't see it in your post.

I'll admit holocaust denier could be stretching it, but here we go. If you think this is cherry picked, read the articles and see if I mis-characterized him. Harry Elmer Barnes Learned Crusader: The New History in Action is a collection of essays about, well, Harry Elmer Barnes. Rothbard stated in the essay he contributed:

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.

In the face of the two great wars of this century, and of the enormous pressures to fall into step behind them, Barnes has intrepidly led the revisionist movements in analyzing the causes, the nature, and the consequences of both wars. Revisionism, of course, means penetrating beneath the official propaganda myths spawned by war and the war-making state, and analyzing war independently of court pressures and court emoluments. But it also means more � and one of the problems in Revisionism has been the inability of many of its former followers to penetrate to its true nature and to understand its major implications.

(The use of the phrase "Court Intellectual" is important. Barnes referred to mainstream historians as "Court Historians" because he believed they made up atrocities committed by the Germans to entertain the power elite.) That's pretty high praise about a man who wrote an article titled "The Zionist fraud" in which he stated:

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."

This wasn't a case of Rothbard's hero falling from grace. These views were widely known at the time of Rothbard's writing. So, I believe if you are praising the historical works of a holocaust denier, chances are you are somewhere on the spectrum of holocaust reductionists and deniers.

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�"

Cold War Myths is all about how we never should have intervened in WWII and let the Nazis take care of the Communists.

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?
Two reasons we have already mentioned; to celebrate the victory of freedom of inquiry and of truth for its own sake; and a bullet through the heart of the egalitarian-socialist project. But there is a third reason as well: as a powerful defense of the results of the free market. If and when we as populists and libertarians abolish the welfare state in all of its aspects, and property rights and the free market shall be triumphant once more, many individuals and groups will predictably not like the end result. In that case, those ethnic and other groups who might be concentrated in lower-income or less prestigious occupations, guided by their socialistic mentors, will predictably raise the cry that free-market capitalism is evil and "discriminatory" and that therefore collectivism is needed to redress the balance. In that case, the intelligence argument will become useful to defend the market economy and the free society from ignorant or self-serving attacks. In short; racialist science is properly not an act of aggression or a cover for oppression of one group over another, but, on the contrary, an operation in defense of private property against assaults by aggressors.

The guy has written so much crazy poo poo, he's poison to anything that dares to associate with him such as Ron Paul and The Von Mises institute he helped found. In the words of Triple H: "There would be no anarcho-capitalist movement to speak of without Rothbard."

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.

Rothbard would say because objective science proves that things are only in whites' favor because of genetics, so the other races will have to accept the realities of the free market!

Babylon Astronaut fucked around with this message at 13:37 on May 23, 2014

# ¿ May 23, 2014 13:30

Babylon Astronaut: Apr 19, 2012

I've noticed that's what they trip you up on, semantics about inconsequential nonsense while glossing over "the free market needs slavery to find the value of labor" and "sell your babies or let them starve." What's the point of owning your body if you are born a trespasser? Sell your body, or die makes the whole thing moot except for those born into money. Almost like they made it that way.

Babylon Astronaut fucked around with this message at 04:52 on May 25, 2014

# ¿ May 25, 2014 04:13

Babylon Astronaut: Apr 19, 2012

At the end of the day, you have to discuss these things as an extreme critique of government as it exists instead of a panacea for all social problems. I've noticed that political philosophies you don't like have to solve all problems, or they are dumb, where the status quo has the advantage of being time tested and stable. Noting the advantages of no government over the status quo is not without merit; you'll see libertarians more or less study their philosophy, and implement the things they find advantageous into the current system. The same can be said of socialists and the social programs they implement.

# ¿ May 26, 2014 02:10

Babylon Astronaut: Apr 19, 2012

I agree, though in many aspects they are anti-government. Just not uniformly so. My statement was more about the various flavors of anarchism. I don't think even the true believers of libertarianism are under the impression it will benefit all classes.

# ¿ May 26, 2014 02:36

Babylon Astronaut: Apr 19, 2012

I just explained that's why we have to discuss anarchism as an extreme critique of the state: if you think you know for certain that man is basically good or inherently evil, you are wrong. That is a metaphysical question, and not germane to discussing a political theory. By definition, anarchism is not a form of government. What you think is the plan for a government is actually a reason that we may be better off without a government.

Babylon Astronaut fucked around with this message at 09:09 on May 26, 2014

# ¿ May 26, 2014 09:03

Babylon Astronaut: Apr 19, 2012

Unlearning posted:

I'm not talking about when somebody postpones using the land; I'm talking about when they simply abandon it and have no reason to exclude others from accessing it. This seems unjustified by your earlier definition of use-rights: you said that "B's radio waves are in no way affecting A's right to continue growing their corn unmolested". The same thing applies if A stops using the land to grow corn (indefinitely), and C decides that he'd like to do so instead. C's decision does not affect A at all.

Adam Smith would say that's why we need property taxes.

# ¿ May 26, 2014 11:41

Babylon Astronaut: Apr 19, 2012

The CATO Institute runs policemisconduct.net.

# ¿ Jun 3, 2014 09:56

Babylon Astronaut: Apr 19, 2012

Actually, the free market baby thing seemed to me like a crackpot theory that came about because he painted himself into a corner when he said that parents cannot be compelled to take care of their own children. Most people aren't that cool with child abandonment, so he came up with the free market of babies. It's a moot point anyway because as soon as a child says "I don't want to be here" they have self ownership and you don't have to feed the little poo poo anyway.

# ¿ Jul 9, 2014 02:13

Babylon Astronaut: Apr 19, 2012

blugu64 posted:

'gun in the room' gag used on me, and being told I was a 'a loving pig' for making GBS threads on the NAP.

I wish a motherfucker would.

# ¿ Aug 16, 2014 22:33

Babylon Astronaut: Apr 19, 2012

Providing public education: putting a gun to his head. gently caress it, let them starve: true freedom.

# ¿ Aug 16, 2014 22:45

Babylon Astronaut: Apr 19, 2012

VitalSigns posted:

Sure wealthy people would be able to afford premium treatment or their own private armies, but what about the poor? What's more cost-effective for investigation: respecting privacy, getting warrants, and adhering to Bill of Rights protections? Or is it cheaper to require subscribers of basic service to install cameras in their homes and allow DRO police to dig through their poo poo whenever? And remember that poor neighborhoods have higher crime rates, so they're already going to be paying a premium for protection and have basically no ability to renegotiate their contracts because the alternative is death. If I'm a DRO, it's in my self-interest to collaborate with other DRO's to keep prices high and costs low with a cartel agreement and work together to push out newcomers rather than to engage in profitability-destroying competition. And the barriers to newcomers are pretty high, since only having a recognized DRO will allow you to engage in commerce, so as the established DRO I can threaten to cancel coverage to any business that accepts upstart WhiteKnightDRO.

I think I've solved the problems with DROs. I would found a DRO that cost no money to join, but instead you were required to help on night raids killing and robbing non members. Because you'd naturally outnumber and out desperate the other DROs you'd have the competitive advantage you need to stay afloat.

# ¿ Aug 18, 2014 18:34

Babylon Astronaut: Apr 19, 2012

It's funny how we're always on the right side of the graph and never get to the point where raising taxes would increase revenue. Why is that I wonder?

# ¿ Sep 29, 2014 04:41

Babylon Astronaut: Apr 19, 2012

The Mutato posted:

Sorry, in a developed country. This has been pretty much what the entire thread's debate has been assuming.

Here's a good one about how a new disease was invented in the US by speeding up an assembly line to the detriment of the workers: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/06/hormel-spam-pig-brains-disease

You know, it's almost as if capital is reckless of the health or length of life of the labourer, unless under compulsion from society.

# ¿ Sep 30, 2014 20:04

Babylon Astronaut: Apr 19, 2012

I'm cracking up that he's going to send the most conservative state right back into the loving arms of a democratic governor. I was super pissed off at Obama for stealing Kathleen Sebelius with Brownback waiting in the wings, but it will be more funny this way.

# ¿ Oct 1, 2014 01:35

Babylon Astronaut: Apr 19, 2012

I've brought this up to libertarians in person, but I haven't been able to articulate it in writing before because it is impossible to explain to people who were brought up middle class: in your perfect system, I kill you and take your stuff. Over the internet, this sounds like bluster but a good point was brought up: what about people whose labour value is less than a living wage? No, I don't mean the propensity for poor people to commit more property crime. If defending private property is a job, and private property is only private because people are willing to protect it with their life for money, there is also property that isn't worth defending and people who can't eat without taking in more property than they can afford. When responsibility is spread out across an entire government's worth of people, maybe someone robbing me isn't worth the police response but it really helps people on the cusp whose lives and assets would be swept up in the rolling riot I see eating libertopia. I've never seen a credible countervailing force from libertarian literature. The people who would be the DRO would be better served joining the mob and there would be no legal pressure for them not to. The golden horde would happen and I've never met a libertarian who wouldn't be eaten alive. Natural forces like resource scarcity and entropy don't obey the non aggression principal so private property is as moot as the 33 house-mates-with-one-bathroom's right to their own toilet.

# ¿ Oct 1, 2014 23:14

Babylon Astronaut: Apr 19, 2012

Rhymenoserous posted:

Bureaucracy is inefficient by design, and for good reason.

What? No it isn't. You just described why it is efficient. Maybe you meant impersonal instead of inefficient? "Bureaucracy is inefficient by design" is one of the most incorrect things I have ever read. Bureaucracy is designed efficiency is closer to the truth. Is this one of those things where a word now means the complete opposite of what it did when I went to sleep like the word entitled or the one bad apple metaphor?

# ¿ Oct 2, 2014 19:41

Babylon Astronaut: Apr 19, 2012

DrProsek posted:

What happens in Libertarianville if the DROs decide my home is just too expensive to defend?

This is actually answered a bunch in libertarian writings because it is the obvious question. The answer I've heard is that you could qualify for premium deductions like owning a gun, or fencing your yard, or buying a guard dog. This is apparently the way high-crime areas will get police protection.

# ¿ Oct 4, 2014 22:06

Babylon Astronaut: Apr 19, 2012

Baby DRO circling the neighbourhood in an icecream truck, seeing who is grown-up enough for self ownership.

# ¿ Oct 6, 2014 04:43

Babylon Astronaut: Apr 19, 2012

Why would a free range child stay with abusive parents when Baby DRO has ice cream, puppies, video games, all free.

# ¿ Oct 6, 2014 09:18

Babylon Astronaut: Apr 19, 2012

So we pool our money, make some roads, and all we ask for is following some basic rules and some wise-rear end goes "but what if I want to get drunk and kill people? That's not fair." I find that to be terribly coercive. My right to conceal how dangerous I am to others trumps your right to live, I bet you felt like a real political philosopher coming up with that one.

# ¿ Oct 6, 2014 23:59

Babylon Astronaut: Apr 19, 2012

I mean, I was raised on Rush Limbaugh of all things so I just assumed you'd figure out that it might be you that is the rear end in a top hat somewhere before advocating luring babies into trucks to sell as sex toys and drunk driving might be good, not bad as long as you murder families because you couldn't piece together loving cab fare because you are a piece of poo poo lush who, if faced with the reality that you are responsible for your actions would put a gun in your mouth and raise the average IQ.

# ¿ Oct 7, 2014 00:08

Babylon Astronaut: Apr 19, 2012

Why do they have to test everyone's vision? Why don't they just wait outside an optometrist�s office?

# ¿ Oct 7, 2014 13:16

Babylon Astronaut: Apr 19, 2012

wateroverfire posted:

A random stop at a DUI checkpoint is by definition (because it's random) conducted without probable cause or reasonable suspicion. Implied consent to the stop is a tortured rationalization that should never have passed inspection.

That's a contradiction in terms. If it is a checkpoint, it is not random, it is everyone driving through the checkpoint. Randomly stopping cars on the road is illegal. Also, the US constitution has neither jack, nor poo poo authorizing them. They are only legal where the state has the statutory authority. A DUI checkpoint by definition is not a search and does not require probable cause. You don't have the right to never be inconvenienced by an investigative tactic. The checkpoint is way to gain probable cause, it is not a search.

So not only are you guys torpedoing what would be a reasonable argument such as "the gradual lowering of the BAC limit betrays the original intent of removing dangerous drivers from the road" or "internal checkpoints should not receive validity from the federal government based on their proximity to the US border" with insane absolutism and a complete misunderstanding of what the law actually states.

Rights trump safety is not only meaningless, it sounds like something a child would say.

Babylon Astronaut fucked around with this message at 17:43 on Oct 7, 2014

# ¿ Oct 7, 2014 17:39

Babylon Astronaut: Apr 19, 2012

A random stop means stopping someone randomly you piece of poo poo. Oooh, I have a mental illness because I know what words mean. Get hosed you idiot. Again, there might be a reasonable argument inside your addled skull, but you're too busy making GBS threads out your mouth to make any goddamned sense.

Babylon Astronaut fucked around with this message at 18:11 on Oct 7, 2014

# ¿ Oct 7, 2014 18:09

Babylon Astronaut: Apr 19, 2012

See that would be something to complain about. But instead, let's talk about how much it sucks that I can't get black out drunk and kill children and how it's apparently ironic that autism is a developmental disorder of the mind AKA a mental illness. Seriously, the bait and switch to make yourself sound like a thinking human being is getting tired. You can't say that DUI laws should not be enforced AT ALL and twist that into gestapo tactics. You can't say that your freedom to do absolutely anything trumps everyone else's right to continued existence and accuse the people who rightfully find that mental of being authoritarian. Again, there might be a good argument somewhere in whatever you're trying to communicate, but you are doing it a disservice by coupling it to some weird absolutism that is not compatible with human life. By your terms, a stop light is unethical.

# ¿ Oct 7, 2014 18:18

Babylon Astronaut: Apr 19, 2012

DeusExMachinima posted:

For an example of unacceptable statism that doesn't involve goldbuggery, consider mandatory breathalyzer tests for suspected drunk drivers. This clearly violates the 5th Amendment and the bullshit lawyer-speak way of getting around it is "implied consent" when you got your license. Never mind that "implied consent" is a literal contradiction in how consent in supposed to work, and the "implied" part is just "agree to never exercise the Fifth and we won't violate the 14th by not giving you your license even though you passed the driving test." Thousands more would die if people couldn't be forced to breathalyze or lose their license for a year. Speaking as someone who's been in more than one accident due to others drunk driving, who has dead friends from it, tough poo poo. The 5A is a right, safety third.

Ok, I guess technically disallowing any possible way to gather evidence of a DUI isn't letting people drink and drive. You got me.

# ¿ Oct 7, 2014 18:31

Babylon Astronaut: Apr 19, 2012

I don't know what problem you guys have with communication. Police lying to obtain probable cause is a problem. Performing a search without probable cause is illegal. Agree or disagree with the law, the odor of illegal drugs is probable cause that there are illegal drugs in the vicinity. Is there a point to all this noise? I guess that's the loggerhead, otherwise let's just go whole hog and get it out of the way:

*unzips* looks like rape cop is feeling frisky *jams plunger up your anus*
...and that's why we can't have laws or government.

# ¿ Oct 7, 2014 18:41

Babylon Astronaut: Apr 19, 2012

Talmonis posted:

You're ignoring the "Reasonable" part of the amendment. It is unreasonable to pull people over to search their cars for anything they may or may not be up to, regardless of suspicion. This is what is being argued against. What you seem to be arguing is that since cars are regulated at all, and driving is not a right, police should be able to search your vehicle at any time for any reason. Which is bullshit. There needs to be a reason, and "because safety" is not a good enough reason to do random searches.

That is not what's being argued against. You're taking something that is legal, and conflating it with something that is illegal to make an argument against the legality of the thing being discussed. We've tried to disambiguate random searches from dui checkpoints which are neither random, nor searches several times.

wateroverfire posted:

What's wrong with responding to "X is legal because THE AUTHORITIES deemed it legal" by saying "I think they called it wrong"? Certainly that's a thing that happens on these boards all the time. =)

But to be specific, I think the rationale that drivers give implied consent to search in exchange for a license granting freedom of movement is basically the supreme court pissing on the 4th amendment. It would be like ruling that as a condition of accepting employment you implicitly sign away your right to workman's comp, waive your rights under the ADA, etc. It makes those rights meaningless.

I don't agree with this, but you are stating your actual position and abiding by generally accepted definitions of common terms so this is actually discussion. There is an argument that transportation by motor vehicle, hell, airplane is a necessity of free travel but that is not the law currently. The legal system has hosed up many times during our stupid history.

# ¿ Oct 7, 2014 19:06

Babylon Astronaut: Apr 19, 2012

VitalSigns posted:

DUI checkpoints aren't searches, but the court does consider them seizures so for purposes of the 4th Amendment it's not any different.

It's different. You can be seized without having your expectation of privacy violated. All that means is a reasonable person would know that you should stop for the uniformed officer. I kinda lean towards Brennan's dissent in Martinez-Fuerte that it is dangerously close to a search because you can see more in a stopped car than one moving and that an objective standard needs to be set. We're about due for a case about privacy, I don't really like the state by state thing they having going currently, and the right to privacy is murky considering Warren (it was Warren right?) based the right to privacy on the first amendment. Still all kinds of things that need to be ironed out.

Talmonis posted:

And yet those are not the only checkpoints, which are hiding under that same umbrella ruling.

Not really though? I mean we have a ruling for stationary checkpoints, moving checkpoints, one for checkpoints with dogs, all kinds of rulings.

Mavric posted:

DUI checkpoints and drug search checkpoints are very different things, one is looking for intoxicated drivers and the other is just looking for contraband. Do you have examples of these drug search check points which are similar to DUI sobriety check points? It has been a bit since criminal law in law school but I recall check points with K9 units sniffing for drugs to be held unconstitutional (not counting boarder searches which are a completely different topic) as there is no relation to driver safety.

Edmond was a really big deal when I was in school because it was recent. You have it right; the court ruled that prevention of ordinary crime is not a compelling reason for a checkpoint, so even if they invent a magic drug detecting wand or something it's covered.

Babylon Astronaut fucked around with this message at 19:49 on Oct 7, 2014

# ¿ Oct 7, 2014 19:41

Babylon Astronaut: Apr 19, 2012

DeusExMachinima posted:

I'm aware of what courts can do and disagree with the blood draw during detention ruling SCOTUS made recently, if that's what you're referring to. I'm saying it completely breaks credulity to believe that drunk drivers endangering lives merits a stop based on nothing other than time of night, but potential murderers don't.

Have you ever been near the scene of a murder? It's much more intrusive than a DUI checkpoint. Look at the manhunt for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.

# ¿ Oct 7, 2014 21:38

Babylon Astronaut: Apr 19, 2012

Wait, you think walling police from the community they patrol is a good thing? That's hilarious.

# ¿ Oct 8, 2014 02:25

Babylon Astronaut: Apr 19, 2012

SedanChair posted:

They wall themselves off. Until utopia prevails, increasing police contact and expecting any good to come out of it is foolish.

That is how they got the actors who played the victims in Last House on the Left to be legitimately afraid of the villains on camera. Is there any field in which you have education, because I'm struggling to think of a single piece of evidence that supports the view that segregation makes people get along better outside of right wing ethnic nationalism. Where exactly did this idea come from is what I'm asking. It is a bizarre and alien viewpoint to me. For instance, I haven't heard anyone say that the problem with Ferguson MO was that the police were too involved with the community and that knowing the people they interact with is what led to the racial tension.

Can I just throw out the fact that "it should be illegal to breathalize people pulled over on suspicion of DUI" has turned into "racial profiling should be illegal" like no one would notice? I mean the thrust of the argument is that a strawman will lead to a slippery slope. I'm one of the few people I know who will take anarchism on its own terms, and I find the position of "I shouldn't be accountable for anything" well, irresponsible. You couldn't discredit a political philosophy better than to let libertines explain their views on law and order.

SedanChair posted:

I also don't want to hear about court cases, Jesus Christ.

Ignorance of the law is what got you here in the first place. Maybe you should learn what the laws of the land are before you take a stance that all of them are invalid? I loving despise the status quo, but you can't just misrepresent it to make it sound worse than it is.

# ¿ Oct 8, 2014 02:45

Babylon Astronaut: Apr 19, 2012

SedanChair posted:

You must have missed the part of the phrase with "police" in it

You really have no idea what he is talking about. What makes you think you can form an educated opinion about one of the most widely accepted ways to curb police brutality?

# ¿ Oct 8, 2014 02:47

Babylon Astronaut: Apr 19, 2012

This reminds me of Ambrose Bierce's definition of land: A part of the earth's surface, considered as property. The theory that land is property subject to private ownership and control is the foundation of modern society.... Carried to its logical conclusion, it means that some have the right to prevent others from living; for the right to own implies the right exclusively to occupy; and in fact laws of trespass are enacted wherever property in land is recognized. It follows that if the whole area of terra firma is owned by A, B and C, there will be no place for D, E, F and G to be born, or, born as trespassers, to exist.

# ¿ Oct 9, 2014 16:02

Babylon Astronaut: Apr 19, 2012

shiranaihito posted:

Here's what I originally said;

It's not that complicated:
- A mafia threatens you with violence to get money from you.
- A government threatens you with imprisonment to get money from you.

Murderers cut people with knives.
Surgeons cut people with knives.

# ¿ Oct 11, 2014 22:50

Babylon Astronaut: Apr 19, 2012

quote:

Here's a wild unsubstantiated claim: If you actually go through enough Austrian economics material, you'll eventually understand that governments are only harmful to the well-being of everyone on the planet, even from a purely economic standpoint (ie. disregarding the NAP altogether). Don't believe that? -Go ahead and prove me wrong then! *Think* for yourself.

Surface area of the planet organized by governments. If it was harmful economically, that by definition could not happen.

# ¿ Oct 14, 2014 02:19