To all of those who would feel oppressed in a Libertarian society...

[myrkul]

He is using hyperbole (exaggeration for effect) But then you counter with accusations of hypocrisy.

Address his hyperbole, then his hypocrisy.

[myrkul]

Empirically, most people don’t actually want absolute freedom, which is why democracies don’t elect libertarian governments. Irony of ironies, people don’t choose absolute freedom. But this refutes libertarianism by its own premise, as libertarianism defines the good as the freely chosen, yet people do not choose it. Paradoxically, people exercise their freedom not to be libertarians.

The political corollary of this is that since no electorate will support libertarianism, a libertarian government could never be achieved democratically but would have to be imposed by some kind of authoritarian state, which rather puts the lie to libertarians’ claim that under any other philosophy, busybodies who claim to know what’s best for other people impose their values on the rest of us. Libertarianism itself is based on the conviction that it is the one true political philosophy and all others are false. It entails imposing a certain kind of society, with all its attendant pluses and minuses, which the inhabitants thereof will not be free to opt out of except by leaving.

-Robert Locke

The parts you bolded outline the hypocrisy (or at least self-delusion) of Libertarianism in that it preaches prevention of coercion, but its existence requires coercion. (Note: I agree, that's why I'm an Anarchist)

Address his hyperbole: "You're forcing someone to have sex with you but they're forcing you not to have sex with them, therefore rape and defending yourself from rape both involve force. Your logic is utterly ridiculous."

[AyeYo]

Empirically, most people don’t actually want absolute freedom, which is why democracies don’t elect libertarian governments. Irony of ironies, people don’t choose absolute freedom. But this refutes libertarianism by its own premise, as libertarianism defines the good as the freely chosen, yet people do not choose it. Paradoxically, people exercise their freedom not to be libertarians.

The political corollary of this is that since no electorate will support libertarianism, a libertarian government could never be achieved democratically but would have to be imposed by some kind of authoritarian state, which rather puts the lie to libertarians’ claim that under any other philosophy, busybodies who claim to know what’s best for other people impose their values on the rest of us. Libertarianism itself is based on the conviction that it is the one true political philosophy and all others are false. It entails imposing a certain kind of society, with all its attendant pluses and minuses, which the inhabitants thereof will not be free to opt out of except by leaving.

-Robert Locke

The parts you bolded outline the hypocrisy (or at least self-delusion) of Libertarianism in that it preaches prevention of coercion, but its existence requires coercion. (Note: I agree, that's why I'm an Anarchist)

Address his hyperbole: "You're forcing someone to have sex with you but they're forcing you not to have sex with them, therefore rape and defending yourself from rape both involve force. Your logic is utterly ridiculous."

I'm not going to address his incorrect summary of an argument I never made.  I'm STILL (going on like 10+ posts now) waiting for him to cut the childish shit and address MY points.  The bit about the hypocrisy IS my point, and he has yet to address it.

[myrkul]

I'm not going to address his incorrect summary of an argument I never made.  I'm STILL (going on like 10+ posts now) waiting for him to cut the childish shit and address MY points.  The bit about the hypocrisy IS my point, and he has yet to address it.

While I've got you, Let me offer a four-way choice:
1: All-encompassing government, one state monopoly on all services and goods (Soviet Russia, or similar command economy)
2: Government in most pies, regulating the market, and controlling the currency
3: Libertopia: Government monopoly only on protection.
4: Anarchy: Market provides all services, including protection

Which would you prefer, and why?

Edit: I'll include pure communism, where no property is recognized, under "Anarchy", since it's the market, just based on a gift economy. (also, this can exist within a greater Market Anarchy without conflict, so long as the communists respect the fact that the others do not share their beliefs.)

[AyeYo]

Start a new thread.  Don't sidetrack this one because I'm going to keep hammering my points home until he stops avoiding them.

[NghtRppr]

He's using gross exaggerations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

Your beliefs entail absurd conclusions. So much the worse for your beliefs. Instead of addressing the issue, you brush it aside.

[myrkul]

Start a new thread.  Don't sidetrack this one because I'm going to keep hammering my points home until he stops avoiding them.

Fair enough.

[AyeYo]

He's using gross exaggerations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

Your beliefs entail absurd conclusions. So much the worse for your beliefs. Instead of addressing the issue, you brush it aside.

You can keep telling me that I'm wrong, but that's getting anywhere.  You need to EXPLAIN WHY I'm wrong, if that's the route you're going to go.

[NghtRppr]

You need to EXPLAIN WHY I'm wrong, if that's the route you're going to go.

Like I said, according to your logic, forcing someone to have sex with you and forcing someone not to have sex with you both involve force, therefore rape and defending yourself from rape both involve force. That leaves out a huge part of the equation, namely, rape is wrong and defending yourself from rape isn't. You can't keep chanting "everything involves force" as if that's supposed to be an argument for anything.

[AyeYo]

You need to EXPLAIN WHY I'm wrong, if that's the route you're going to go.

Like I said, according to your logic, forcing someone to have sex with you and forcing someone not to have sex with you both involve force, therefore rape and defending yourself from rape both involve force. That leaves out a huge part of the equation, namely, rape is wrong and defending yourself from rape isn't. You can't keep chanting "everything involves force" as if that's supposed to be an argument for anything.

It's not an argument for anything other than the fact that your system is hypocritical.

Once you drop the totally irrelevant rape example and actually address the point I'm making, it'll all start making sense to you.

Let me re re re re re state myself:

In Liberkidland, while I can personally choose not to do drugs, I cannot choose to not live in a society that is tainted by rampant drug use. 

While I can choose to carry car insurance on my own car, I cannot choose to not be subjected to roads full of uninsured drivers. 

While I can choose to eat healthy, I cannot choose to not be stuck wondering whether the labels on food (if there are any) are false or not because there is no regulatory agency controlling them. 

While I can choose not to harm the environment myself, I cannot choose to not live in a world whose environment is being destroyed by unregulated businesses. 

While I can choose to not take people to a heavily biased, privately own kangaroo court, I cannot choose to not be at the mercy of others taking me to these courts for frivilous reasons because that is the only legal system in existence.

While I can choose to work hard, I cannot choose to not live in a society of exploited workers and I will be worse off for it.

I'm FORCED into these things.  You FORCING me to be subject to these market forces is NOT DEFENCE in any way, shape, or form.


Pro-tip:
Rape DOES NOT have a goddamn thing to do with the point I'm making, so DO NOT have the words rape, murder, or steal ANYWHERE in your reply, lest you make a futher fool of yourself.

[myrkul]

I'm FORCED into these things.  You FORCING me to be subject to these market forces is NOT DEFENCE in any way, shape, or form.

News flash: You're always subject to market forces. Protecting you from them requires forcing others to give up their money.

[NghtRppr]

It's not an argument for anything other than the fact that your system is hypocritical.

According to your logic, it's also hypocritical to say rape is wrong but defending yourself from rape isn't.

You FORCING me to be subject to these market forces is NOT DEFENCE in any way, shape, or form.

I'm also forcing you not to have sex with me, how is that not defense?

[AyeYo]

I'm FORCED into these things.  You FORCING me to be subject to these market forces is NOT DEFENCE in any way, shape, or form.

News flash: You're always subject to market forces. Protecting you from them requires forcing others to give up their money.

Thanks for telling me my point, captain obvious.  Let's see if you're savy enough to understand what that makes the bottom line.  Take a guess.  Hint hint, answer below...














It means that THERE'S FORCE AND COERCION INVOLVED NO MATTER WHAT SYSTEM YOU CHOOSE.

That's not an issue for me, because I'm the one saying force is necessary and part of ALL systems.  It IS an issue for someone that's claiming to have a system based on only defensive force.

It's not an argument for anything other than the fact that your system is hypocritical.

Yes and according to your logic, it's also hypocritical to say rape is wrong but defending yourself from rape isn't.

Um, no.  Just... no.  Not at all, not even close.

rerererererererereread this:

I'm FORCED into these things.  You FORCING me to be subject to these market forces is NOT DEFENCE in any way, shape, or form.

[AyeYo]

I'm also forcing you not to have sex with me, how is that not defense?

This is easy because I don't even have to post anything new, I just keep quoting myself until you actually read the written words....

Pro-tip:
Rape DOES NOT have a goddamn thing to do with the point I'm making, so DO NOT have the words rape, murder, or steal ANYWHERE in your reply, lest you make a futher fool of yourself.

[NghtRppr]

You FORCING me to be subject to these market forces is NOT DEFENCE in any way, shape, or form.

Sure it is. I'm defending my property from you. Since you can't just take my property then you have to make me an offer to get what you want. That's called the free market.

This is easy because I don't even have to post anything new, I just keep quoting myself until you actually read the written words....

I read it but I'm not here to let you off easy. I'm going to hold your feet to the fire until you admit you're wrong. Ignore it if you want but just know that you are avoiding the issue instead of addressing it.

[MoonShadow]

Ah, I think I see the disconnect now.

A market force is not the same as coercion.  Coercion against Tom implies that there was a willfull intent on some person's or group's part to affect Tom, be it directed towards Tom himself or some third party that might hold authority over Tom or is dependent upon Tom.  A market force is a collective thing, without a will to cause you harm or gain.  Thus a market force is comparable to a force of nature, in that it's not anyone's fault that Tom just got screwed, except maybe for Tom's own poor investment choices.

What Libs & Anarchists oppose isn't the broad, aggragate forces of society, but the individual & collective initial acts of coersion.

[myrkul]

I'm FORCED into these things.  You FORCING me to be subject to these market forces is NOT DEFENCE in any way, shape, or form.

News flash: You're always subject to market forces. Protecting you from them requires forcing others to give up their money.

It means that THERE'S FORCE AND COERCION INVOLVED NO MATTER WHAT SYSTEM YOU CHOOSE.

News Flash #2: Market forces are not coercive.

[NghtRppr]

News Flash #2: Market forces are not coercive.

But you're forcing me not to take whatever I want by force! Wahhhh!!! Also, hyperbole.

[em3rgentOrdr]

You need to EXPLAIN WHY I'm wrong, if that's the route you're going to go.

Like I said, according to your logic, forcing someone to have sex with you and forcing someone not to have sex with you both involve force, therefore rape and defending yourself from rape both involve force. That leaves out a huge part of the equation, namely, rape is wrong and defending yourself from rape isn't. You can't keep chanting "everything involves force" as if that's supposed to be an argument for anything.

Pro-tip:
Rape DOES NOT have a goddamn thing to do with the point I'm making, so DO NOT have the words rape, murder, or steal ANYWHERE in your reply, lest you make a futher fool of yourself.

Suppose Action X is wrong/immoral.
Suppose it is okay to use force to prevent activities which are deemed to be wrong/immoral.
Suppose Action X uses force.
If one subscribes to a moral system that claims that any use of force is wrong,
   Then both engaging in Action X and/or using force to prevent Action X is immoral.
Else if one subscribes to a moral system that only permits use of force against activities which are deemed to be wrong/immoral,
   Then engaging in Action X is immoral, but using force to prevent Action X is morally permissive.

Since libertarianism is a moral system that only permits the use of force against activities which are deemed to be wrong/immoral by said philosophy, therefore according to libertarianism, it is permissible to use force against a rapist.  However, according to a philosophy such as extreme passivism that claims all uses of force to be immoral, then it would not be permissible to use force against a rapist.  Q.E.D.

Libertarianism != Passivism.

[AyeYo]

Ah, I think I see the disconnect now.

A market force is not the same as coercion.  Coercion against Tom implies that there was a willfull intent on some person's or group's part to affect Tom, be it directed towards Tom himself or some third party that might hold authority over Tom or is dependent upon Tom.  A market force is a collective thing, without a will to cause you harm or gain.  Thus a market force is comparable to a force of nature, in that it's not anyone's fault that Tom just got screwed, except maybe for Tom's own poor investment choices.

What Libs & Anarchists oppose isn't the broad, aggragate forces of society, but the individual & collective initial acts of coersion.

Alright, this is an interesting revelation brought about by the arbitrary defintions of libertarians.  After I'm done with cash kid, I'll invite you to follow me down the rabbit hole for a second here, one step at a time so everyone can follow sans hyperbole and strawmen.

The faster you can get him to stop throwing out strawmen, the faster we can move on.


In the mean time, please review the defintion of coercion, it will be relevant in later debate.  #3 is especially important.

co·erce
   [koh-urs] Show IPA

–verb (used with object), -erced, -erc·ing.
1.
to compel by force, intimidation, or authority, especially without regard for individual desire or volition: They coerced him into signing the document.

2.
to bring about through the use of force or other forms of compulsion; exact: to coerce obedience.

3.
to dominate or control, especially by exploiting fear, anxiety, etc.: The state is based on successfully coercing the individual.

Sure it is. I'm defending my property from you. Since you can't just take my property then you have to make me an offer to get what you want. That's called the free market.

Again:

In Liberkidland, while I can personally choose not to do drugs, I cannot choose to not live in a society that is tainted by rampant drug use.  

While I can choose to carry car insurance on my own car, I cannot choose to not be subjected to roads full of uninsured drivers.  

While I can choose to eat healthy, I cannot choose to not be stuck wondering whether the labels on food (if there are any) are false or not because there is no regulatory agency controlling them.  

While I can choose not to harm the environment myself, I cannot choose to not live in a world whose environment is being destroyed by unregulated businesses.  

While I can choose to not take people to a heavily biased, privately own kangaroo court, I cannot choose to not be at the mercy of others taking me to these courts for frivilous reasons because that is the only legal system in existence.

While I can choose to work hard, I cannot choose to not live in a society of exploited workers and I will be worse off for it.

Which of those situations involves you defending your property from me?