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

[jgraham]

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.

Personally, I find Atlas's mindless rhetoric oppressive.  Does a Libertarian society mean I have to hear whining like this a lot more or a lot less...somehow I think it's more.

No, after the coercion and force stops, Libertarians and Anarchists will shut up.

I have my doubts.  Atlas has never shown any sign of running out of rhetoric.    I strongly suspect there will always be another "slave" to be freed or another "looter" or "murderer" to be brought to "justice" by a seventeen-year old who really has never experienced significant slavery oppression or murder.

Edit: I stand corrected.  Atlas has now changed his profile to show that he is now the age of Methuselah

[NghtRppr]

Get it?

Yes, I get it. I also said I support forcing people not to do certain things, like murder, rape and theft. Do you get that? It's kind of hard to claim I'm against force and call me a hypocrite when I just said that I support certain kinds of force. Now tell me why I should care.

[AyeYo]

Get it?

Yes, I get it. I also said I support forcing people not to do certain things, like murder, rape and theft. Do you get that? It's kind of hard to claim I'm against force and call me a hypocrite when I just said that I support certain kinds of force. Now tell me why I should care.

One more time with the hyperbole and I'm going to make you sit in the corner.

I'll repeat myself, since you're obivously blind to second paragraphs:

Also (again, as discussed already), those are NOT the only items of force and coercion that citizens of Liberland are subject to.  They are also subject to the direct force and coercion of large market players and the indirect force and "coercion" (your definition as you currently cry about it in this society) of the ripple effects of the market due to the actions of other market participants.

"Now, the Libertarian Party, is a *capitalist* party. It's in favor of what *I* would regard a *particular form* of authoritarian control. Namely, the kind that comes through private ownership and control, which is an *extremely* rigid system of domination -- people have to... people can survive, by renting themselves to it, and basically in no other way... I do disagree with them *very* sharply, and I think that they are not..understanding the *fundamental* doctrine, that you should be free from domination and control, including the control of the manager and the owner."
-Noam Chomsky

[NghtRppr]

Also (again, as discussed already), those are NOT the only items of force and coercion that citizens of Liberland are subject to.  They are also subject to the direct force and coercion of large market players and the indirect force and "coercion" (your definition as you currently cry about it in this society) of the ripple effects of the market due to the actions of other market participants.

Yes, those are consequences of keeping your hands to yourself. If you can't just grab what you want, you have to pay for it and you might be forced to pay what the seller asks or do without. Again, I don't really care. Why should I? Because you feel self-entitled? Not good enough. Sorry.

[AyeYo]

Also (again, as discussed already), those are NOT the only items of force and coercion that citizens of Liberland are subject to.  They are also subject to the direct force and coercion of large market players and the indirect force and "coercion" (your definition as you currently cry about it in this society) of the ripple effects of the market due to the actions of other market participants.

Yes, those are consequences of keeping your hands to yourself. If you can't just grab what you want, you have to pay for it and you might be forced to pay what the seller asks or do without. Again, I don't really care. Why should I? Because you feel self-entitled? Not good enough. Sorry.

Alright, ten minutes in the corner for you.  When you're done, you can come back, apologize for your continued use of hyperbole, and then I'll give you a second chance to engage the adults in conversation.


"Libertarians rightly concede that one’s freedom must end at the point at which it starts to impinge upon another person’s, but they radically underestimate how easily this happens. So even if the libertarian principle of “an it harm none, do as thou wilt,” is true, it does not license the behavior libertarians claim. Consider pornography: libertarians say it should be permitted because if someone doesn’t like it, he can choose not to view it. But what he can’t do is choose not to live in a culture that has been vulgarized by it." - Robert Locke

[NghtRppr]

Alright, ten minutes in the corner for you.  When you're done, you can come back, apologize for your continued use of hyperbole, and then I'll give you a second chance to engage the adults in conversation.

"Libertarians rightly concede that one’s freedom must end at the point at which it starts to impinge upon another person’s, but they radically underestimate how easily this happens. So even if the libertarian principle of “an it harm none, do as thou wilt,” is true, it does not license the behavior libertarians claim. Consider pornography: libertarians say it should be permitted because if someone doesn’t like it, he can choose not to view it. But what he can’t do is choose not to live in a culture that has been vulgarized by it." - Robert Locke

So in other words, you've got nothing. That's fine with me. Let me know if you come up with something.

[AyeYo]

Alright, ten minutes in the corner for you.  When you're done, you can come back, apologize for your continued use of hyperbole, and then I'll give you a second chance to engage the adults in conversation.

"Libertarians rightly concede that one’s freedom must end at the point at which it starts to impinge upon another person’s, but they radically underestimate how easily this happens. So even if the libertarian principle of “an it harm none, do as thou wilt,” is true, it does not license the behavior libertarians claim. Consider pornography: libertarians say it should be permitted because if someone doesn’t like it, he can choose not to view it. But what he can’t do is choose not to live in a culture that has been vulgarized by it." - Robert Locke

So in other words, you've got nothing. That's fine with me. Let me know if you come up with something.

Second paragraph blindness strikes again.

[myrkul]

"Libertarians rightly concede that one’s freedom must end at the point at which it starts to impinge upon another person’s, but they radically underestimate how easily this happens. So even if the libertarian principle of “an it harm none, do as thou wilt,” is true, it does not license the behavior libertarians claim. Consider pornography: libertarians say it should be permitted because if someone doesn’t like it, he can choose not to view it. But what he can’t do is choose not to live in a culture that has been vulgarized by it." - Robert Locke

So, you suggest that to prevent someone from looking at two consenting people having sex, you would beat them, take their money, and put them in a cage?

[NghtRppr]

Second paragraph blindness strikes again.

I read it but I don't see anything new. Yes, you are forced to keep your hands to yourself. Yes, that has certain consequences such as being forced to live (or commit suicide) in a world where pornography has affected it. Why should I care? I've already said that I have nothing against forcing you to keep your hands off of other people and their property unless you have their permission and all the consequences that entails. Why should I have a problem with that? Give me a reason to care.

[MoonShadow]

Consider pornography: libertarians say it should be permitted because if someone doesn’t like it, he can choose not to view it. But what he can’t do is choose not to live in a culture that has been vulgarized by it." - Robert Locke

That is false on it's face.  Of course he can choose to live in a culture that has not been "vulgarized" by porn.  He just has to choose to live in a sub-section of society that is less than ideally libertarian.  The ideal is unobtainable anyway.  Take a look at the differences between public life in the North Eastern US and the 'bible belt' southern states.  Adult businesses are hard to miss rolling down the freeway in some locales, but in the bible belt they are off the beaten path and harder to stumble upon unless that is what you are looking for.  This is a product of zoning codes and religious influence, not libertarian concepts, but those adult businesses aren't actually illegal in the 'bible belt' states.  Likewise, a libertarian society may, and arguablely would, develop exclusionary zones wherein like minded people self-segregate to limit their exposure to such social corruptions.  This kind of thing has been going on in the US since the very beginning.  It certainly has it's downsides, but it's not rational to still argue that such a self-governing sub-culture can't exist within a much more libertarian, and libertine, society.  The Amish have been doing it for 200 years.

[AyeYo]

Consider pornography: libertarians say it should be permitted because if someone doesn’t like it, he can choose not to view it. But what he can’t do is choose not to live in a culture that has been vulgarized by it." - Robert Locke

That is false on it's face. 

Again, as typical, you attack the singular example rather than the PRINCIPLE behind it.

Here we go, thrice quote:

Also (again, as discussed already), those are NOT the only items of force and coercion that citizens of Liberland are subject to.  They are also subject to the direct force and coercion of large market players and the indirect force and "coercion" (your definition as you currently cry about it in this society) of the ripple effects of the market due to the actions of other market participants.

This has NOTHING to do with the hyperbole presented here.

[NghtRppr]

Consider pornography: libertarians say it should be permitted because if someone doesn’t like it, he can choose not to view it. But what he can’t do is choose not to live in a culture that has been vulgarized by it." - Robert Locke

That is false on it's face.  

Again, as typical, you attack the singular example rather than the PRINCIPLE behind it.

Here we go, thrice quote:

Also (again, as discussed already), those are NOT the only items of force and coercion that citizens of Liberland are subject to.  They are also subject to the direct force and coercion of large market players and the indirect force and "coercion" (your definition as you currently cry about it in this society) of the ripple effects of the market due to the actions of other market participants.

This has NOTHING to do with the hyperbole presented here.

You want to force others to give up their money and we want to force you not to. So your plan is to just keep chanting "hyperbole" over and over again and maybe it'll make us think that stealing is moral and forcing you not to steal is immoral? Brilliant plan. Why don't you answer my last post by the way, instead of ignoring it.

[AyeYo]

Consider pornography: libertarians say it should be permitted because if someone doesn’t like it, he can choose not to view it. But what he can’t do is choose not to live in a culture that has been vulgarized by it." - Robert Locke

That is false on it's face.  

Again, as typical, you attack the singular example rather than the PRINCIPLE behind it.

Here we go, thrice quote:

Also (again, as discussed already), those are NOT the only items of force and coercion that citizens of Liberland are subject to.  They are also subject to the direct force and coercion of large market players and the indirect force and "coercion" (your definition as you currently cry about it in this society) of the ripple effects of the market due to the actions of other market participants.

This has NOTHING to do with the hyperbole presented here.

You want to force others to give up their money and we want to force you not to. So your plan is to just keep chanting "hyperbole" over and over again and maybe it'll make us think that stealing is moral and forcing you not to steal is immoral? Brilliant plan. Why don't you answer my last post by the way, instead of ignoring it.

More hyperbole.  Keep ignoring the issues and you'll keep proving your inability to actually address them.

[MoonShadow]

Consider pornography: libertarians say it should be permitted because if someone doesn’t like it, he can choose not to view it. But what he can’t do is choose not to live in a culture that has been vulgarized by it." - Robert Locke

That is false on it's face. 

Again, as typical, you attack the singular example rather than the PRINCIPLE behind it.

I attack the singular example that you present as your support, not your principle, because there is nothing there to debate.  You believe that you are right, based upon your definition of the terms used, and believe that your's is the common usage of the term.  We believe otherwise.  I'd rather not be sucked into another circle jerk.  The irony is that, to some degree, I actually agree with your argument.  But you use an uncommon use of the term 'coercion' to attack the ideals of libs and anarchists based upon your overly broad use of terms.  Based on those overly broad use of terms, you badger us with your insistance that we admit that our system is no better than the alternatives.  Your argument is fundamentally based upon semantics.  You do realize that those definitions are usually numbered in order of their common usage, right?  If #2 sounds like our's but #3 sounds like your's, which do you think is the more common understanding of the term?  Does it really need to be said?

[NghtRppr]

More hyperbole.

Keep chanting.

[myrkul]

Also (again, as discussed already), those are NOT the only items of force and coercion that citizens of Liberland are subject to.  They are also subject to the direct force and coercion of large market players and the indirect force and "coercion" (your definition as you currently cry about it in this society) of the ripple effects of the market due to the actions of other market participants.

"direct coercion of large market players" Are you saying that the people with more money would be able to use violence to get what they want?

"ripple effects due to the actions of other market participants" Are you really comparing the fact that the price goes up as supply reduces to coercion here?

[jgraham]

You do realize that those definitions are usually numbered in order of their common usage, right?  If #2 sounds like our's but #3 sounds like your's, which do you think is the more common understanding of the term?  Does it really need to be said?

This is a, pardon the pun. A common misconception.  MW's "Sense order" is chronological (which is where this definition appears to be from) and OED IIRC is hierarchical based on etymology.  Even someone with a modest understanding of math and linguistics would see that attempting to derive 'common usage' would be difficult and arguable.   Incidentally if you are arguing that someone is using a word in two different senses then what you want to accuse them of is - equivocation.

I now return you to whatever very, very important thing you all were doing.

[MoonShadow]

You do realize that those definitions are usually numbered in order of their common usage, right?  If #2 sounds like our's but #3 sounds like your's, which do you think is the more common understanding of the term?  Does it really need to be said?

This is a, pardon the pun. A common misconception.  MW's "Sense order" is chronological (which is where this definition appears to be from) and OED IIRC is hierarchical based on etymology.  Even someone with a modest understanding of math and linguistics would see that attempting to derive 'common usage' would be difficult and arguable.   Incidentally if you are arguing that someone is using a word in two different senses then what you want to accuse them of is - equivocation.

Noted.

[Hawker]

Does any of this matter if you can't get people to vote for a smaller state?

[myrkul]

Does any of this matter if you can't get people to vote for a smaller state?

Well said. In fact, that's probably the best point you've made the whole thread.

Of course, I don't expect people to vote for a smaller state. I expect people to vote for a larger one. and when that collapses under it's own weight, I expect to be there, offering services to replace it.