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

[NghtRppr]

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.

I'm protecting my money by not being forced to pay insurance premiums if the owner of the road doesn't require them before he or she allows me to drive on said road.

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.

I'm protecting my money by not being forced to print labels unless I choose to so I can advertise that I comply with certain standards.

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.

I'm protecting my property because as long as my pollution doesn't contaminate your property, I can do whatever I want with my property.  

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.

I'm protecting my money by not paying for court services unless I plan on using them.

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 protecting my body by dictating the wages and conditions I'm willing to work for, even if they don't meet your expectations.

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

All of the above.

[1713308198]

1713308198

[1713308198]

1713308198

[1713308198]

1713308198

[1713308198]

1713308198

[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.

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.

Hyperbole and strawmen are not violations.  I don't intend to do anything about it until they start recommending anatomicly impossible acts involving your gentialia and your bodily orifaces.  I never did anything about your strawmen, did I?

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

co·erce

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

And that is a wonderful definition.  Notice, if you are capable, that for that definition to be effective, some authority in the state apparatus must act towards an end goal.  It's not necessary for the actions of distant authorities to know the individuals they are coercing, nor even the details of the coercion in reality, but only that there is an intent to achieve a goal and an action taken towards that goal.  Enacting a tax is one such example of a collective act that forces those subject to that tax to themselves react in a manner that they would not have voluntarily.  I realise that there is a paradox in all of this, as a lib is not an anarchist, but subtlety is a product of compromise; and the ability to discount the negative effects of such subtle inconsistancies is a sign of wisdom.  I wish to see progress within my own lifetime.  Yet I don't advocate sudden social change, even that which would significantly favor my own ideologies.  I recognize the paradox, I just reject the concept that this paradox negates the validity of the system as a whole.

[AyeYo]

But what of my rights to protect my property?


Requiring everyone to carry car insurance is me protecting me from being SOL and forced to pay out of pocket when I get hit and injured and/or have my car damaged by an irresponsible, uninsured motorist.  That's me protecting my money.

Requiring labels on food is protecting me from having to visit every single manufacturing and storage plant to ensure composition and quality of every single item of food I eat.  That costs lots of money and time.  That's me protecting my money and time.

Setting pollution regulations me protecting my property (my own body) from harm due to your poor decisions, as well as all the ensuing medical costs (protecting my money).

Setting up a central court ensures me that my property rights will not be trampled by biased private courts and that there will be one entity that has a final say, rather than me being dragged around to an endless number of private courts while you search for a ruling in your favor.  That's saying me time and money and protecting my rights.

Setting minimum wage laws and workplace safety standards allows me to not live in a society with streets full of beggars and the inevitable increase in voilence that always follows desparate people.  That's me protecting my right to life and my safety.  It allows me to not have to pay higher insurance rates for the increased number of injuries at workplaces.  It allows me to not pay higher product and service prices due to the increased number of days of abcense caused by the increased injuries/deaths in workplaces.  That's me protecting my money.


All possible scenarios work both ways.  Keep in mind, I'm even arguing this ON YOUR TERMS by assuming that the only thing in the world that matters is private property.  If I actually argued this on a normal person's terms or terms society would find reasonable, you wouldn't have a prayer, because private property is NOT the only thing that matters to about 99% of the world's population.


What it boils to is, once again, something I've posted already:

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.

[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.

Hyperbole and strawmen are not violations.  I don't intend to do anything about it until they start recommending anatomicly impossible acts involving your gentialia and your bodily orifaces.  I never did anything about your strawmen, did I

You're his liberbuddy.  I didn't say ban him, I said make him respond to my points - as his liberbuddy, not as a mod.

[AyeYo]

And that is a wonderful definition.  Notice, if you are capable, that for that definition to be effective, some authority in the state apparatus must act towards an end goal.  It's not necessary for the actions of distant authorities to know the individuals they are coercing, nor even the details of the coercion in reality, but only that there is an intent to achieve a goal and an action taken towards that goal.  Enacting a tax is one such example of a collective act that forces those subject to that tax to themselves react in a manner that they would not have voluntarily.  

Excellent.  Quoted for use later, if we're ever able to move on.

Pro-tip: Start coming up with a reason, if you even can (hint: there won't be a valid one that lets you stay consistent, but that never stopped you before), why that exact same idea doesn't apply to large players in a free market also.

[MoonShadow]

Hyperbole and strawmen are not violations.  I don't intend to do anything about it until they start recommending anatomicly impossible acts involving your gentialia and your bodily orifaces.  I never did anything about your strawmen, did I

You're his liberbuddy.  I didn't say ban him, I said make him respond to my points - as his liberbuddy, not as a mod.

I don't have 'liberbuddies'.  I don't know him any better than I know you.  And I'm sure that you know that I wouldn't "make him respond" even if I could realisticly have such a power as a mod.  You can choose to ignore him, free speech goes both ways.

[NghtRppr]

Requiring everyone to carry car insurance is me protecting me from being SOL and forced to pay out of pocket when I get hit and injured and/or have my car damaged by an irresponsible, uninsured motorist.

You have to show a clear and present danger. You don't have to wait until the bullet is ripping through your flesh to defend yourself from a mugger but you can't kill him in his sleep because you think he might mug you someday. You have the right to seek restitution if someone wrecks into you. You have no right to require them to have insurance in case it happens though.

Requiring labels on food is protecting me from having to visit every single manufacturing and storage plant to ensure composition and quality of every single item of food I eat.  That costs lots of money and time.  That's me protecting my money and time.

That's not protecting your money or time because your money and time aren't being stolen. Just because you feel entitled to get things at a certain price and convenience doesn't equate to self-defense when your inflated sense of entitlement isn't met. You're torturing the English language.

Setting pollution regulations me protecting my property (my own body) from harm due to your poor decisions, as well as all the ensuing medical costs (protecting my money).

Like I said, I don't have the right to pollute your property or cause you physical harm. However, if I'm not doing that then you have no right to regulate what I do.

Setting up a central court ensures me that my property rights will not be trampled by biased private courts and that there will be one entity that has a final say, rather than me being dragged around to an endless number of private courts while you search for a ruling in your favor.  That's saying me time and money and protecting my rights.

Again, you don't have the right to prices or certain levels of convenience. You don't get to trample all over my rights and steal my money just because you'll be inconvenienced.

Setting minimum wage laws and workplace safety standards allows me to not live in a society with streets full of beggars and the inevitable increase in voilence that always follows desparate people.  That's me protecting my right to life and my safety.  It allows me to not have to pay higher insurance rates for the increased number of injuries at workplaces.  It allows me to not pay higher product and service prices due to the increased number of days of abcense caused by the increased injuries/deaths in workplaces.  That's me protecting my money.

Yet again, you have to show a direct threat, you can't just say X will increase the chances of something bad happening to me. If that were the case we'd have to lock up all teenage males since they are more likely to commit violent crimes than any other demographic.

You need to acknowledge the distinction between taking money out of someone's pocket vs. charging them higher prices. One should be a crime, the other should not.

[AyeYo]

Once again, again, again, your response boils down to: "we're going to do things my way, I'm going to tell you what you do and do not need, and if you don't like it, tough shit, I'm forcing you into it anyway."  You don't want to get rid of tyranny, you just want a form of it that favors you.

Head explosion: by subjecting me to these market forces that I do not want to be subjected to and currently are not subjected to, you ARE taking money out of my pocket.


Again again again again again again again...

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.

[MoonShadow]

Head explosion: by subjecting me to these market forces that I do not want to be subjected to and currently are not subjected to, you ARE taking money out of my pocket.

You are already subject to those same market forces.

[NghtRppr]

Once again, again, again, your response boils down to: "we're going to do things my way, I'm going to tell you what you do and do not need, and if you don't like it, tough shit, I'm forcing you into it anyway."  You don't want to get rid of tyranny, you just want a form of it that favors you.

It sure does. I think that murder, rape and theft are wrong and if you disagree, tough shit. I am a tyrannical bastard when it comes to you keep your hands to yourself unless you have permission otherwise.

Head explosion: by subjecting me to these market forces that I do not want to be subjected to and currently are not subjected to, you ARE taking money out of my pocket.

No, I'm not. I'm forcing you to pay for things or do without, rather than steal them. It's that inflated sense of entitlement that is clouding your mind. All you can think is "me me me, mine mine mine."

Anyways, you've made your point. You feel entitled to a certain lifestyle and therefore think you are justified in advocating theft of money in the form of taxes by threat of violence or imprisonment and a bunch of other violently coercive practices. I vehemently disagree and if I had the ability to defend myself, I would. Until then, I'm biding my time.

[ascent]

It sure does. I think that murder, rape and theft are wrong and if you disagree, tough shit. I am a tyrannical bastard when it comes to you keep your hands to yourself unless you have permission otherwise.

What are you going on about? Honestly. It must really suck to have to argue from your point of view.

I said earlier that the world and human society are of great complexity, and the confluence of the two doesn't make it less so. Why the fuck do you think everything is the same as rape and murder?

I challenge you to make a clear point going forward.

[ascent]

All you can think is "me me me, mine mine mine."

That's all you're doing.

EDIT: You haven't said one god damned thing that would indicate that your views are nothing more than about preserving your own possessions.

[NghtRppr]

Why the fuck do you think everything is the same as rape and murder?

Actually, all crimes are crimes of property rights. You own yourself. Rape and murder are violations of that property.

You haven't said one god damned thing that would indicate that your views are nothing more than about preserving your own possessions.

It's not just about my property. It's about the property of others as well. I don't want to live in a world where theft is seen as legitimate. There are some things more important than living a comfortable life or living at all, such as justice and morality. Everyone dies but few people live a life worth living.

[westkybitcoins]

All you can think is "me me me, mine mine mine."

That's all you're doing.

EDIT: You haven't said one god damned thing that would indicate that your views are nothing more than about preserving your own possessions.

Why is preserving ones own possessions bad?

Is there no moral or other difference between preserving ones own possessions without initiating force/fraud, and preserving ones own possessions by initiating force/fraud, that is relevant to this thread? (I'm actually curious, because if no such difference is relevant, then I'll just bow out.)

[ascent]

Why is preserving ones own possessions bad?

Is there no moral or other difference between preserving ones own possessions without initiating force/fraud, and preserving ones own possessions by initiating force/fraud, that is relevant to this thread? (I'm actually curious, because if no such difference is relevant, then I'll just bow out.)

There is nothing wrong with preserving one's own possessions. It's just that there are other issues at play due to the complexity of the world and its closed system. They should be addressed with equal, if not more weight. I can assure you, that nobody here wants to break into your house and take your possessions.

That's why it would be a really good idea if everyone could get past that and move on to bigger issues, like large entities using their possessions and wealth to cause bad thing to happen within that closed system, both near term and long term.

[NghtRppr]

I can assure you, that nobody here wants to break into your house and take your possessions.

Taxes?

[ascent]

Taxes?

And death.

[myrkul]

Taxes?

And death.

More like or.

[ascent]

Taxes?

And death.

More like or.

Last time I checked, the phrase was death and taxes.

[NghtRppr]

Taxes?

And death.

You make it difficult to take you seriously when all you offer is jokes.

You claim nobody wants to rob me yet if I fail to pay taxes I'll be kidnapped or murdered if I resist and my property will be taken and sold to pay for those taxes that I refused to pay.