Revolution ongoing in Europe?

[DATA COMMANDER]

My point is that libertarians are not against all initiations of force.

[MoonShadow]

My point is that libertarians are not against all initiations of force.

Really?  How does your post make this point?

[DATA COMMANDER]

My point is that libertarians are not against all initiations of force.

Really?  How does your post make this point?

Are you serious?

[MoonShadow]

My point is that libertarians are not against all initiations of force.

Really?  How does your post make this point?

Are you serious?

Yes.  I'm seriously asking how your strawman situation supports your claim that libs are not against all initiations of force.  This may or may not be true for any given lib, but lets leave that aside for a moment and examine your contrived situation.  If someone steals my coat from the coatrack at a resturant, how does that affect my views on initiation of force?  He initiated force, after all, because I was denied use of my own property.  I'm not likely to be terriblely concerned about the theft of a coat, beyond the inconvience of the moment, but my freedom to decide to give my coat away or not was denied me by someone else.  Was it not?

[BCEmporium]

So, creighto,

You conceive the essence of "economic violence".

As it is "economic violence" to get your coat, it may be also "economic violence" to use own wealth as a weapon... There's no "high ground" or "sanctuary" of ownership, a thing just belongs to you as long as you can keep it that way, when you can't... well... appeal to morality wouldn't probably help much.

[MoonShadow]

So, creighto,

You conceive the essence of "economic violence".

As it is "economic violence" to get your coat, it may be also "economic violence" to use own wealth as a weapon... There's no "high ground" or "sanctuary" of ownership, a thing just belongs to you as long as you can keep it that way, when you can't... well... appeal to morality wouldn't probably help much.

I can conceive it, this doesn't mean that I agree with your interpretations of it.  There is an implicit agreement between myself and the restraunt owner, that he agrees that I own what I arrived with (so long as there is no credible claim otherwise) and thus, by agreeing to take responsibility for my property, is partially responsible for defending it against theft or destruction.

[DATA COMMANDER]

He initiated force, after all, because I was denied use of my own property.

This is what I'm talking about when I say that libertarians have redefined words. You were denied the use of your coat, but not by force. Theft and robbery are not synonymous.

[MoonShadow]

He initiated force, after all, because I was denied use of my own property.

This is what I'm talking about when I say that libertarians have redefined words. You were denied the use of your coat, but not by force. Theft and robbery are not synonymous.

I was denied my coat by deception, but it would have required the use of force if the deception had failed.  Otherwise, why bother to sneaksteal?  If the person is entitiled to my coat because I'm not wearing it, what does it matter if I know that he is stealing it?  It's because theft is still the act that initiates the force.  Initiation of force is not the same as the use of force.

[BCEmporium]

I can conceive it, this doesn't mean that I agree with your interpretations of it.  There is an implicit agreement between myself and the restraunt owner, that he agrees that I own what I arrived with (so long as there is no credible claim otherwise) and thus, by agreeing to take responsibility for my property, is partially responsible for defending it against theft or destruction.

I wasn't referring to "keep of ownership" above this specific hypothesis but in abstract.
But back on that hypothesis: Say you're rich and lack... some respect... so that coat has diamond-made letters saying  "F**k all niggers" sew to it. This would bend the initiation of force to your side... even if you "own it" and was "damn expensive". "Violence" is not linear.

[MoonShadow]

I can conceive it, this doesn't mean that I agree with your interpretations of it.  There is an implicit agreement between myself and the restraunt owner, that he agrees that I own what I arrived with (so long as there is no credible claim otherwise) and thus, by agreeing to take responsibility for my property, is partially responsible for defending it against theft or destruction.

I wasn't referring to "keep of ownership" above this specific hypothesis but in abstract.
But back on that hypothesis: Say you're rich and lack... some respect... so that coat has diamond-made letters saying  "F**k all niggers" sew to it. This would bend the initiation of force to your side... even if you "own it" and was "damn expensive". "Violence" is not linear.

So?  Freedom of speech means that the government can come after me for what I say, but that does not mean that I won't have to deal with those other citizens that I tend to offend.

[BCEmporium]

No, nothing to do with governments, but insulting can be considered also an initiator of violence.
The whole point is that there's always violence... no matter what. Trying to be rational and avoid it seams the best thing to do, but have an organized force (police) to deal with it is still a need.

[DATA COMMANDER]

I was denied my coat by deception...

False.

...but it would have required the use of force if the deception had failed.

Speculation. If the "deception" had failed, perhaps the thief would have run away. You can't assume that he would have robbed you.

Otherwise, why bother to sneaksteal?

Because I like coats, but I don't want to physically harm you?

It's because theft is still the act that initiates the force.

You are confusing theft with robbery.

Initiation of force is not the same as the use of force.

Huh?

The initiation of force is the start, or beginning, of the use of physical and/or legal coercion, violence, or restraint.

I walked into the restaurant, headed for the coat room as if I had a reason to be there, grabbed your coat, and walked out of the restaurant. When, exactly, did the "physical and/or legal coercion, violence or restraint" start or begin?

[mike002]

They will all go back home as winter approaches.

Nice joke :DD (y)

[LakeDaivt]

Don't want to sound rude, but it's just another movement that everyone will forget

[criptix]

too bad this thread is from 2011 and we still dont have a revolution 

[Rigorous]

It has started 15th May, and has already start to spread from Spain to Lisbon, Paris, Athens, London, Dublin, Amsterdam...
Are we about to see a new order to surface?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCoF3j_RcHg

Cut the social assistance, you'll stop the immigration from Africa and the Middle East, people without handouts will be forced to go to work.

There's probably another reason, low birthrate in affluent countries. If population shrinks the whole economic growth ponzi scheme falls apart. So they decided to import a higher birthrate.

[btcgolong]

I am against Democracy when it results in situations like my country.

The best way to describe my country is:

2 wolves and a sheep voting for dinner.

I like this metaphor...

What country do you live in?



EDIT: 2011, oppps, didn't see the date

[Sithara007]

There's probably another reason, low birthrate in affluent countries. If population shrinks the whole economic growth ponzi scheme falls apart. So they decided to import a higher birthrate.

Immigration is not the only solution to solve the low birth rate crisis. Look at countries such as Japan and South Korea. Despite having birth rates which are lower than most of the European Union nations, these countries have decided not to import the third world immigrants. On the other hand, they are mostly relying on automation in the manufacturing sector.