|
What exactly happens if I take something that you did not want me to take without using violence? Any attempt to retrieve it or otherwise enforce your property rights would involve initiating violence. Especially if I decided to squat on your land. How do you propose to get me off without initiating violence against me? Oh, I found your "answer": quote:No it doesn't. To say "defending people or property requires the initiation of violence" is a contradiction in terms. Defensive violence is not initiatory. You have to have a coherent understanding of what legitimate property rights are before you can determine what is initiatory and what is defensive violence. Defensive violence must be proportional otherwise it becomes initiatory. If you shoot someone who is trespassing on your property you are committing aggression. The act of trespass is a far less serious act of aggression than shooting someone. If you tell someone they are trespassing and you make every effort to politely ask them to leave your property, then you are justified in using force to get them to leave. So you are actually all for initiating violence, but only when it is convenient. That kind of makes a joke of the whole non-aggression principle, dude. Hodgepodge fucked around with this message at 05:06 on Aug 10, 2014 |
#
¿
Aug 10, 2014 05:03
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 18:16 |
|
|
DoctorWhat posted:In Jrodefeld's worldview, taking his property/squatting on his land is itself an act of violence. That requires quite the mental gymnastics, not to mention creatively redefining your entire vocabulary to hide the fact that you are selectively all for initiation of violence under some sort of facade of pacifism. Really, once you are using violence to enforce property rights, you've allowed all the violence of a modern state. Oh, except taxation, but your supposedly moral stance against violence is revealed as a farce when you turn around and decide that you can initiate violence in every other situation in which a state does. That's not being against violence, it is just not liking having to pay taxes. Or is there something I'm missing that goes beyond some truly pathetic special pleading? e: also, your covenants or whatever are probably going to initiate violence against you should you fail to live up to your contractual obligation to help fund them. Are you alright with that? A contract was broken, after all. And you have what is now their money in your possession. edit 2: The more I think about it, the more it is clear that libertarians are fine with the state and it's violence, they just want to create a new state in which they have more power than they currently do. Hodgepodge fucked around with this message at 05:21 on Aug 10, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2014 05:14
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Seriously, if you had just a modest competence in reading comprehension you could clearly see my position. Or even a five minute Google search to try and understand the nature of aggression or Rothbardian private property rights. Actually, if someone steals from you, you have no right to initiate violence against them. Currently, that is the purview of specific agents of the state. I'm not forgetting the word 'initiation.' I am saying that you do a bait-and-switch by pretending that you despise the initiation of violence when it comes to taxes and the state, then turning around and special-plea for a large number of cases in which you would, in fact, initiate violence. Suddenly, any violation of your 'natural rights' (as you happen to define them) is defined as 'aggression,' even when the violation does not involve violence. It turns out, then, that you actually support the initiation of violence in a great number of situations. It is quite possible, then, that a libertarian society that you would support would initiate the use of force as often as the modern state, or even more often. That you feel that this society would initiate the use of force 'correctly' is irrelevant here. Your criticism of the state on the basis of its initiation of violence is dishonest and hypocritical, for your society would simply initiate the use of violence for slightly different reasons than the state does. Hodgepodge fucked around with this message at 10:58 on Aug 10, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2014 10:44
|
|
|
Socrates16 posted:I've always been surprised by most Goons' vehement hatred for libertarianism, especially considering that the SA forums are a great representation of what people can do when they're allowed to freely organize themselves. I don't know how many of you are gamers, but if you are, think about how idiotic politicians are when it comes to videogames. They're totally uneducated about the issue, yet they make policy based off the emotions of voters who are also ignorant. What you need to realize is that they're doing the same thing for every single issue. They're uneducated and belligerent, and playing off of your emotions. A lot of it is that we have a lot of ex-libertarians around. No one here is particularly naive about how politicians work. It does strike me as naive to think that the same people who are politicians now would not be able to exploit a given libertarian society.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2014 05:06
|
|
|
Actually just double-taking on the idea that SA would translate from a message board to an actual government. We'd be killing each other in the streets within hours.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2014 05:12
|
|
|
Socrates16 posted:They're examples to a broader point I was making about how politicians make terrible laws about everything. And when they make good legislation, or when bad legislation is fixed? E: To be a bit more nuanced than the whole racism thing, it does seem fair to me to characterize libertarianism as having roots in the idea of state's rights (in the American sense). Which has its roots in slavery and often was used to perpetuate racist policies, but is not racist in and of itself, but rather in its context. Hodgepodge fucked around with this message at 05:45 on Aug 11, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2014 05:41
|
|
|
Socrates16 posted:You're a very rare breed. Most statists are worried population control, not the need grow or maintain the population. I have probably been beaten, but this is hilarious. You can't pay for poo poo this precious (well, I guess it costs  ), thank you  Yes, that was a thing statist were worried about at one point, but then the demographic reality that well-off societies have less children than poor societies was observed. Now lots of poor people want in, and we need them because we need more people to maintain our society. But some people find that fact scary. You are talking as if you read some books and forgot that they are rooted in a different historical context than our own. And as if you have little knowledge of those ideas outside of that historical context. Hodgepodge fucked around with this message at 16:38 on Aug 11, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2014 16:11
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:No, that's asinine. Under a broad interpretation of socialism, even the DPRK's weird Juche philosophy is socialist, both explicitly and by heritage. There's also things like Maoism which ranges from legitimate political analysis to Cultural-Revolution-era Chinese propaganda. Also, postmodernism (broadly speaking) is sometimes associated with socialism for a lot of reasons, sometimes correctly and sometimes no. Also, there's a lot of demographic overlap between libertarians and people who believe the Sokal Hoax was some sort of silver bullet argument against postmodernism.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2014 20:57
|
|
|
Reverend Catharsis posted:Kind of a loaded statement, given how vague it is. Depending on how "broad" we want to go at some point we start burning Churches to the ground for being filthy communist sympathizers and spitting on effigies of Jesus because he was a dirty hippie who said give all your wealth to the poor. Well, in the terms we're discussing, socialism has its roots in Christianity. That such a major figure in it's development as Marx was an atheist who wrote at a time when logical positivism was ascendent has tended to mask the degree to which the values Marx was attempting to fulfill are inherently Christian. Of course, Ayn Rand's thoughts on Christianity never seem to come up in the same manner.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2014 21:10
|
|
|
I'm kind of torn, though. Libertarianism probably does a lot of kids growing up in Republican-dominated areas a great deal of good as an outlet for political identity outside of doctrinaire conservatism.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2014 16:44
|
|
|
Typical Pubbie posted:It isn't good if the outlet for political identity takes them further to the right on several issues than their parents are. I bet mom and dad are all smiles and nods at junior proclaiming his love for the free market, until he goes on a rant about how we need to end Social Security and Medicare RIGHT NOW! Also how tipping or always putting down the toilet lid are irrational demands on their Liberty. I'd like to think that this as a wake-up call for a lot of conservatives that their market-centric ideology is producing children who value loyalty to the idea of "the market" in ways one usually values a religion or nationality.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2014 17:41
|
|
|
Come to think of it, the only person I know whose sympathy for libertarian ideas I understand or respect refers to any situation in which he can apply them in practice as a "scam."
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2014 17:58
|
|
|
Socrates16 posted:Corporations are chartered by the state. What does that have to do with the post you are replying to? I think you are implying that the state is at fault for any and all negative experiences he had working for a corporation. But I must be wrong, because that would be a silly thing to say.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2014 05:55
|
|
|
Socrates16 posted:You're right. As we all know, foodborne illnesses are now a thing of the past. Thanks, our god, government! Having worked in several kitchens, I can tell you that without regulations there would be a lot more foodborne illness.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2014 05:57
|
|
|
Socrates16 posted:Dude was at best implying that being libertarian has anything to do with being pro-corporation, which is some old bullshit. Oh funny, I thought he was saying that his experiences as a participant in the labor market contradicted his former libertarian beliefs. Hodgepodge fucked around with this message at 06:01 on Aug 15, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2014 05:59
|
|
|
Socrates16 posted:Without our god, who could possibly stop it? You!? No way! So you want to rely on me being willing to lose my job by publicly trashing my own employer's reputation in order to uphold the public good?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2014 06:02
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 18:16 |
|
|
tbp posted:I didn't misunderstand anything, though. You're Socrates16, right? You have the same one-line, low-effort shitposting style.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2014 22:36
|
|