Poll needs another option: local despotism.
....what about divine monarchy while we're at it? |
|
|
|
So if there is an inalienable right to health, surely that means if someone is dying of kidney failure, it is in fact legitimate to take a kidney away from a match by coercion
No. This violates the right of control over one's own body. if someone needs money for healthcare you advocate appropriating it from successful people by coercion?
Yes. The idea is that everyone pays for the health of everyone. Those who can afford more, pay more. Don't you have to decide which right comes first, then? Your right to health may violate my right to my body. |
|
|
|
I mean, I know people who's tamagotchi is still alive.
Damn really? I had one of those when I was in third grade, it died in a week, how the hell do you keep it alive this entire time? they have a reset button. my daughter thought i had supernatural powers... ^^ Awesome. Way better than dealing with dead gold fish... |
|
|
|
No one is forcing anything on you. The moderators aren't going to kick you off the forum for not using "an-cap", but neither do we have to dialogue with you. If we so choose we can ignore your posts where you use "canarchy" and socially ostracize you by refusing to dialogue. That is not coercion. That is voluntary disassociation. Also, there is nothing wrong with trying to persuade you to use the commonly accepted abbreviations for words in order to maintain semantic consistency and clarity. Aren't you the one who was claiming libertarians always distort commonly accepted definitions?  |
|
|
|
|
I'm away from my computer this weekend. Will confirm once I get back to town.
|
|
|
|
I'd love for someone to tell my why speculation is bad.
I sense a thread derail coming, but yeah I don't see why speculation is so bad. |
|
|
|
|
See, here's the thing, people like to come up with very arbitrary and specific situations to try to prove how anarchy would fail, but often these situations would be just as bad or worse under government. For example, the situation with the drowning man. If there is a man drowning in the ocean, and there are two people on the beach. One of the people on the beach has a gun, but can't swim. The other has a boat, but no gun. The NAP says that the man with the gun should not force the man with the boat to save the drowning man. However, most laws in countries I know of also say that you can't put a gun to a person's head to force them to do something unless you are the government. So if the man with the boat does not want to help the man drowning the man with the gun will have to call the police and wait, and the man in the ocean will drown anyway.
The thing is it's pretty hard to imagine a situation like this, most people would care to help a drowning person, even for no monetary reward because of things like human empathy and compassion.
But say, for example under anarchy this situation exists and the man with the gun violates the NAP and forces the man with the boat to save the swimmer. The man with the boat takes the man with the gun to court. The court finds the man with the gun guilty of violating the NAP and essentially stealing the mans boat and time without paying for it. He will then have to pay restitution for the amount that the man's time and labor and use of the boat was worth. Perhaps, also some "emotional resitution" for putting a gun to the person's head but since the man wasn't physically hurt I doubt this would be that much.
|
|
|
|
No system can be non-aggressive because there will ALWAYS be SOMEONE that doesn't agree with the system and thus needs to be FORCED to abide by it. It's as simple as that.
A system can be non-aggressive against those who are non-aggressive, and that is all that NAP claims. There is no contradiction unless you misconstrue it to mean the complete absence of aggression under any circumstances, which nobody ever suggested. +1 The only system that would be completely non-aggressive would be pacifism and likely would not last long. No one is arguing that libertarianism is pacifist, only that it is non-aggressive EXCEPT against those who initiate aggression. There is no contradiction there. AyeYo, you are right in saying that some people would be aggressed against in an AnCap society, but only those who initiate force. So now, simple disagreement with the system is "initiation of force"? I LOVE these arbitrary defintions! I do not want to be subjected to the chaos that would insue from for a libertarian society, but you're forcing me to be subject to it under threat of violence. That's no different than the crying you're doing against the current system! You don't want liberty, you want YOUR form of tyranny. Except that in a libertarian or anarcho-capitalist society you and all the people who agree with you can set-up your own government where all those who want to can voluntarily submit themselves to the security of a State with democratically elected officials and tens of thousands of arbitrary, confusing laws, theft of 30-50% of your livelihood, etc. The only catch is anyone who wants to gets to opt out, so you can't force your system upon us. Only those who want will partake of it. But that's exactly what we have now. No one is forcing you to be here. You can leave at any time if you don't want to partake of it. Wrong. If I decline to pay taxes I go to jail. That's not voluntary participation. Voluntary participation is if I choose to participate and to pay taxes to fund things like interest on the national debt, aggressive wars against foreign countries, entitlement programs I think are immoral etc. If I freely trade with other individuals, live on my private property, don't aggress against others but don't pay my taxes I will go to jail. That's not voluntary participation. |
|
|
|
Anarchy: We will leave you alone, Whether you want it, or not!
Hahahaha  Except those who want to be taxed and molested by a state are free to set up their own, as long as they don't force us to join it. |
|
|
|
Ahh...the age old question: "Why the hell am I paying taxes to fund these police parasites when they aren't even legally obliged to protect me"Hey man, it's for a good cause. How else could we afford to bomb brown people? |
|
|
|
No system can be non-aggressive because there will ALWAYS be SOMEONE that doesn't agree with the system and thus needs to be FORCED to abide by it. It's as simple as that.
A system can be non-aggressive against those who are non-aggressive, and that is all that NAP claims. There is no contradiction unless you misconstrue it to mean the complete absence of aggression under any circumstances, which nobody ever suggested. +1 The only system that would be completely non-aggressive would be pacifism and likely would not last long. No one is arguing that libertarianism is pacifist, only that it is non-aggressive EXCEPT against those who initiate aggression. There is no contradiction there. AyeYo, you are right in saying that some people would be aggressed against in an AnCap society, but only those who initiate force. So now, simple disagreement with the system is "initiation of force"? I LOVE these arbitrary defintions! I do not want to be subjected to the chaos that would insue from for a libertarian society, but you're forcing me to be subject to it under threat of violence. That's no different than the crying you're doing against the current system! You don't want liberty, you want YOUR form of tyranny. Except that in a libertarian or anarcho-capitalist society you and all the people who agree with you can set-up your own government where all those who want to can voluntarily submit themselves to the security of a State with democratically elected officials and tens of thousands of arbitrary, confusing laws, theft of 30-50% of your livelihood, etc. The only catch is anyone who wants to gets to opt out, so you can't force your system upon us. Only those who want will partake of it. |
|
|
|
I did it for the black and yellow...
Eh.....? I think I'm missing some context. Sorry my bad. I was alluding to some lame Limp Bizkit tune "Nookie" where he raps: "Hey, what the hell, what you want me to say?
I won't lie, that I can't deny
I did it all for the nookie".
As Wikipedia explains: The song is about Fred Durst's relationship with a past girlfriend, in which she used him for his money, and cheated on him with his friends, and yet he continued to stay with her despite the emotional distress this caused. The hook reveals his reason for staying in the relationship, which was because of the sex.
My apologies for reminding people about this song. I in no way endorse Fred Durst. In fact I think most of the music from bands like Limp Bizkit are just playing to teenager hormones. Sorry. But yeah, I did it all for the black and yellow. LOL |
|
|
|
We are so sorry you don't have the power to loot and murder in the name of whatever whims and desires you may deem acceptable. We are sorry you can't make yourself entitled to other's earnings nor enslave others to provide for people you may deem worthy.
However, if you believe your use of violence is so acceptable, then you can try your luck against our armed populace and our competent and competitive set of judicial systems and authorities. I'm sure if your murder and theft is so loving and caring, there won't be an issue.
+1. On a side note, I have often wondered how much percentage of the population would have to subscribe to private security agencies in order to protect against fledging statists reasserting control. I estimate 20% would be sufficient. Not even in our current system are you obligated to protection from the police. Haha. Besides, having a threatened populace is bad for business. Order will be inherent. True but sad: http://50thingstonotknow.blogspot.com/2006/12/police-arent-legally-obligated-to.htmlI think it all goes back to the age old question: Is liberty the mother or the daughter of order? |
|
|
|
We are so sorry you don't have the power to loot and murder in the name of whatever whims and desires you may deem acceptable. We are sorry you can't make yourself entitled to other's earnings nor enslave others to provide for people you may deem worthy.
However, if you believe your use of violence is so acceptable, then you can try your luck against our armed populace and our competent and competitive set of judicial systems and authorities. I'm sure if your murder and theft is so loving and caring, there won't be an issue.
Ha ha |
|
|
|
I did it for the black and yellow...
Eh.....? I think I'm missing some context. |
|
|
|
No system can be non-aggressive because there will ALWAYS be SOMEONE that doesn't agree with the system and thus needs to be FORCED to abide by it. It's as simple as that.
A system can be non-aggressive against those who are non-aggressive, and that is all that NAP claims. There is no contradiction unless you misconstrue it to mean the complete absence of aggression under any circumstances, which nobody ever suggested. +1 The only system that would be completely non-aggressive would be pacifism and likely would not last long. No one is arguing that libertarianism is pacifist, only that it is non-aggressive EXCEPT against those who initiate aggression. There is no contradiction there. AyeYo, you are right in saying that some people would be aggressed against in an AnCap society, but only those who initiate force. I've been tracking most of your arguments so far, and agree with some of your points. Libertarianism will not be a utopia and there will be flaws and some really hard decisions/tough calls. But we believe it will be a much better, more fair and prosperous system than the current one. |
|
|
|
poker = unethical ?
sex with rabid warthogs = unethical?
specify plz
lol Good point. |
|
|
|
Hence the question of this forum topic: "Why does the Left Fear Libertarianism"?
Afraid of losing their meal ticket? Ahahaha! |
|
|
|
|
Have we reached the end of the bitcoin mining gold rush where new people rush to get rigs set up for mining? Is it still profitable for new individual miners to enter the market, or have we reached the point where most of the mining will be done by large, efficient mining operations?
Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
To be a standard requires consensus.
To be subjective requires the rejection of consensus.
Hence the term "standard of subjective values" is an oxymoron.
Your libertarian philosophy suffers the same problem as your writing. It's incoherent, fundamentally flawed and
indefensible to any rigorous inspection.
+1 Libertarian philosophy is fairly well defined and actually quite rigorous. Perhaps you have not done enough reading on it? There is an profound mathematical analogy I could present to illustrate my original criticism.
For a flavour of this refer to Langron's Lambda parameter in the study cellular automata.
The most productive societies occur at the boundary between authoritarian and anarchy.
A society based on pure liberartarianism will inevitably collapse through decadence.
++1 [/quote] Can you explain what you mean by "at the boundary between authoritarian and anarchy"? Those are completely opposite and conflicting ideologies. Most great societies collapse from decadence. Societies are transient institutions in the long scheme of things. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
