Maximum role of Government?

[myrkul]

In order to enforce environmental regulation, you will need to use coercion. This is in violation of my principles, and therefore wrong. If humankind cannot produce a voluntary solution to the environmental issues, then the end result (The earth becoming uninhabitable to people, and so, no more people) is only just.

So because your principles dictate that nobody can be coerced a few people are free to fuck up everything for everybody else. How is that just?

Voluntary solution. Ever hear the phrase 'Two wrongs don't make a right'?

[1714796533]

1714796533

[1714796533]

1714796533

[1714796533]

1714796533

[1714796533]

1714796533

[JA37]

Nothing about my views have changed. It's rather dishonest to try to frame the discussion as if they have. I've never been interested in achieving your ideal society, only the libertarian ideal society.

I won't compromise libertarianism. Your rhetoric fails.

Then you will never have anything that even resembles libertarianism. Shame. Everything in libertarianism isn't completely bonkers, but it seems that the followers refuse to live in the real world.

Want to know my ideal society? It's a society where we all try to get along and were everyone realizes that you can't always get everything your way, and that you have to compromise to find a way that is acceptable to all.
It's not going to happen either, but I can dream.

[JA37]

Voluntary solution. Ever hear the phrase 'Two wrongs don't make a right'?

Yes, and I've also heard that "three lefts do".

I imagine the following scenario.
A number of people are sitting in a boat in shark infested waters. One of them have an axe.
Axe-man: I want to make a hole in the boat
Passengers: Don't, we'll die.
Axe-man: Well, you can't initiate force against me and coerce me to do what you want. I want to make a hole. After the damage is done you can sue me if you like.
 

[myrkul]

Voluntary solution. Ever hear the phrase 'Two wrongs don't make a right'?

Yes, and I've also heard that "three lefts do".

I imagine the following scenario.
A number of people are sitting in a boat in shark infested waters. One of them have an axe.
Axe-man: I want to make a hole in the boat
Passengers: Don't, we'll die.
Axe-man: Well, you can't initiate force against me and coerce me to do what you want. I want to make a hole. After the damage is done you can sue me if you like.
 

Damaging the boat would be the actual 'initiation' of force, thus, pushing the axe-man off the boat would be self defense. You can do it as soon as he starts his swing.

[AyeYo]

Voluntary solution. Ever hear the phrase 'Two wrongs don't make a right'?

Yes, and I've also heard that "three lefts do".

I imagine the following scenario.
A number of people are sitting in a boat in shark infested waters. One of them have an axe.
Axe-man: I want to make a hole in the boat
Passengers: Don't, we'll die.
Axe-man: Well, you can't initiate force against me and coerce me to do what you want. I want to make a hole. After the damage is done you can sue me if you like.
 

Damaging the boat would be the actual 'initiation' of force, thus, pushing the axe-man off the boat would be self defense. You can do it as soon as he starts his swing.

LOL


And what if he's got a gun?  Do I use my Jedi reflexes to catch the bullet as soon as he fires it?

[JA37]

Damaging the boat would be the actual 'initiation' of force, thus, pushing the axe-man off the boat would be self defense. You can do it as soon as he starts his swing.

Why? Don't you have to prove damage before you can act on it? How do you know he won't stop just before impact?

[myrkul]

LOL


And what if he's got a gun?  Do I use my Jedi reflexes to catch the bullet as soon as he fires it?

If you've got them. But Self defense against an armed assailant is well-trod ground. No need to run over it again.

Still waiting on your arguments as to why murder is wrong.

[JA37]

Voluntary solution. Ever hear the phrase 'Two wrongs don't make a right'?

Yes, and I've also heard that "three lefts do".

I imagine the following scenario.
A number of people are sitting in a boat in shark infested waters. One of them have an axe.
Axe-man: I want to make a hole in the boat
Passengers: Don't, we'll die.
Axe-man: Well, you can't initiate force against me and coerce me to do what you want. I want to make a hole. After the damage is done you can sue me if you like.
 

Damaging the boat would be the actual 'initiation' of force, thus, pushing the axe-man off the boat would be self defense. You can do it as soon as he starts his swing.

LOL


And what if he's got a gun?  Do I use my Jedi reflexes to catch the bullet as soon as he fires it?

Or a life raft and a knife. Punctuating it is a rather easy and quick thing to do.

[AyeYo]

LOL


And what if he's got a gun?  Do I use my Jedi reflexes to catch the bullet as soon as he fires it?

If you've got them. But Self defense against an armed assailant is well-trod ground. No need to run over it again.

It's not self-defense (according to you) until he's actually done something wrong.  I can't stop him mid-swing (as JA37 pointed out) because he hasn't actually done anything wrong.  There's nothing wrong with swinging an axe through the air.

[myrkul]

LOL


And what if he's got a gun?  Do I use my Jedi reflexes to catch the bullet as soon as he fires it?

If you've got them. But Self defense against an armed assailant is well-trod ground. No need to run over it again.

It's not self-defense (according to you) until he's actually done something wrong.  I can't stop him mid-swing (as JA37 pointed out) because he hasn't actually done anything wrong.  There's nothing wrong with swinging an axe through the air.

"I have an Ax (or knife) and want to make a hole in the boat" is a pretty clear statement of intent. Acting on that intent (moving the ax or knife toward the hull) is more than enough to warrant 'Clear and present danger'.

Still waiting on your arguments as to why Murder is wrong.

[JA37]

"I have an Ax (or knife) and want to make a hole in the boat" is a pretty clear statement of intent. Acting on that intent (moving the ax or knife toward the hull) is more than enough to warrant 'Clear and present danger'.

Still waiting on your arguments as to why Murder is wrong.

What if there is no statement of intent? Or what if he's a juggler that decides to practice knife juggling in your life raft. You can't coerce him to stop, right?

[myrkul]

What if there is no statement of intent? Or what if he's a juggler that decides to practice knife juggling in your life raft. You can't coerce him to stop, right?

Life-raft scenarios always breaking down aside, No, but you can attempt to convince him that now is not the time, and that when they reach the island (presumably the one Aye-Yo posited) then he can juggle. It's in his best interest to put the knives away, too, so it's likely he will.

[AyeYo]

"I have an Ax (or knife) and want to make a hole in the boat" is a pretty clear statement of intent. Acting on that intent (moving the ax or knife toward the hull) is more than enough to warrant 'Clear and present danger'.

Still waiting on your arguments as to why Murder is wrong.

What if there is no statement of intent? Or what if he's a juggler that decides to practice knife juggling in your life raft. You can't coerce him to stop, right?

Excellent, even better example because it's risky behavior instead of straight up violence.

[AyeYo]

What if there is no statement of intent? Or what if he's a juggler that decides to practice knife juggling in your life raft. You can't coerce him to stop, right?

Life-raft scenarios always breaking down aside, No, but you can attempt to convince him that now is not the time, and that when they reach the island (presumably the one Aye-Yo posited) then he can juggle. It's in his best interest to put the knives away, too, so it's likely he will.

And what if he doesn't because he thinks the razor sharp knives are no threat to the life raft?

[myrkul]

What if there is no statement of intent? Or what if he's a juggler that decides to practice knife juggling in your life raft. You can't coerce him to stop, right?

Life-raft scenarios always breaking down aside, No, but you can attempt to convince him that now is not the time, and that when they reach the island (presumably the one Aye-Yo posited) then he can juggle. It's in his best interest to put the knives away, too, so it's likely he will.

And what if he doesn't because he thinks the razor sharp knives are no threat to the life raft?

Then you're better off swimming.

Still waiting on your argument as to why murder is wrong. You said before you could prove it. Time to do so.

[AyeYo]

What if there is no statement of intent? Or what if he's a juggler that decides to practice knife juggling in your life raft. You can't coerce him to stop, right?

Life-raft scenarios always breaking down aside, No, but you can attempt to convince him that now is not the time, and that when they reach the island (presumably the one Aye-Yo posited) then he can juggle. It's in his best interest to put the knives away, too, so it's likely he will.

And what if he doesn't because he thinks the razor sharp knives are no threat to the life raft?

Then you're better off swimming.

So you're in favor of one person's irresponsible behavior killing many others, that's perfectly acceptable to you? 

As has been asked before, how do you justify this?

[myrkul]

As has been asked before, how do you justify this?

As has been asked now 5 times, Justify why you believe murder is wrong.

[FredericBastiat]

Competing jurisdictions. The market will decide the law.

They (the market) actually already do. That's how we have republics, democracies, socialism, communism or any other type of -ism or governing. The basic premise of the law is force legalized. Which is to say, your version which you execute upon another man (for reasons justified by you) is merely competing with another man's version of the law. The question is, if you're right, then yours should be the ipso facto standard. Unfortunately that doesn't suffice. Truth doesn't make things happen, implementation does. That requires real force applied to real objects (including people in some instances).

Saying that we can compete for the definition of the law is to apply force your way, or their way, or some other way. In the final analysis and outcome of things, it isn't so much that you may be right (no harm, no injury, do as ye will) it's who has the superior force.

You and your collective force (mutual solidarity) must merely have superior strength, not superior truth. We can't break the laws of nature (as far as I know), but we can violate each others basic human rights. For that -collectively- we must have a standard, and then, and only then can we compete for services (governmental or otherwise) under that premise and principle.

Competing jurisdictions would work well if the boundaries to those 'jurisdictions' couldn't be invaded or penetrated by external forces. If that were possible, we could all start our own societies and see who comes out on top. Sadly, this is near impossible

[AyeYo]

As has been asked before, how do you justify this?

As has been asked now 5 times, Justify why you believe murder is wrong.

Stop deflecting and man up.

[myrkul]

As has been asked before, how do you justify this?

As has been asked now 5 times, Justify why you believe murder is wrong.

Stop deflecting and man up.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying, now put up or shut up.