or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Libertarianism
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Libertarianism - Page 16

post #601 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

How about arrest and incarcerate someone for committing a crime? Should you or I be able to do that? Should the government?

It's called self-defense.

Or are you implying that we do not have the right or ability to defend ourselves or others against aggression by subduing or detaining the aggressors? That we must call the police and hope they arrive before we are harmed or killed or our property is stolen or destroyed?
Defending others is not self defense. Are you saying that under your system vigilanteism would be acceptable? How do you bring someone to trial?
post #602 of 735
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post


Defending others is not self defense. Are you saying that under your system vigilanteism would be acceptable?

 

Coming to the aid of someone in distress is vigilantism?

 

Are you conceding that we do have a right to defend ourselves by subduing and detaining the aggressors ourselves?

 

Quote:
How do you bring someone to trial?

 

Read this, please.

 

There is a section called "Police, Law, and the Courts" which discusses the subject at length, and I've already posted numerous excerpts from it which you have obviously ignored.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #603 of 735

Who said anyone was in distress? The crime has been committed.

 

And instead of simply answering the question, which you claim to be so knowledgeable about, you direct me to a three hundred fucking page book. Why am I not surprised? You've never, not once, not ever, given a straight answer when faced with a difficult question about the practicability of your philosophy.

post #604 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

And instead of simply answering the question, which you claim to be so knowledgeable about, you direct me to a three hundred fucking page book.

 

Actually, he pointed you to a 34 page chapter in a book. Of course, you may chose to read the entire book to get more answers to other questions if you wish. But no one is forcing you to do any additional reading to gain greater knowledge and understanding.

 

Down with your mock outrage. 1rolleyes.gif

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #605 of 735
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Who said anyone was in distress? The crime has been committed.

 

And instead of simply answering the question, which you claim to be so knowledgeable about, you direct me to a three hundred fucking page book. Why am I not surprised? You've never, not once, not ever, given a straight answer when faced with a difficult question about the practicability of your philosophy.

 

The question cannot be answered simply.

 

I have directed you to an excellent resource and have posted excerpts from it that can answer your questions in a much more thorough and eloquent manner than I can.

 

Just because your question can't adequately be answered in a couple brief paragraphs on an internet forum does not mean it can't be answered.

 

Don't blame me for your own stubborn refusal to learn.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #606 of 735

I've read your chapter on Law, and it didn't answer the question.

 

The Irish example ignores several differences between then, and now.

 

Then, men fought with clubs, spears and (occasionally) swords. Now, men fight with weapons of mass destruction. A single tool can devastate. There are no more "brawls" possible. The man accused of a crime goes and buys some fertilizer and blows up a building, or an automatic assault rifle and shoots every member of the opposing "tuath".

 

Then, men had limited mobility. If found guilty of a crime, they literally had nowhere to run. Now, a man can hop on a plane and disappear forever.

 

There are countless more examples besides this.

 

There is so much oversimplification in your example it is laughable.

 

Now. Care to answer the question?

 

Who will arrest someone suspected of murder to face trial? Don't point me to the book. It didn't answer the question. Try again.

post #607 of 735

So your standard appears to be perfection.

 

P.S. My guess is you didn't read it...you skimmed it. Nor did you take much time to digest and contemplate it.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #608 of 735
Thread Starter 

Let me know when you're actually interested in learning about libertarian philosophy. Then we can have a discussion.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #609 of 735

I did read the chapter. I then asked you a question. You (two) refused to answer, accused me of expecting perfection, then said that I'm not communicating. Nice.

post #610 of 735
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

I did read the chapter. I then asked you a question. You (two) refused to answer, accused me of expecting perfection, then said that I'm not communicating. Nice.

 

No answer I can provide would satisfy you, as you have no real interest in learning about or understanding libertarian philosophy.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #611 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

I did read the chapter. I then asked you a question. You (two) refused to answer, accused me of expecting perfection, then said that I'm not communicating. Nice.

No answer I can provide would satisfy you, as you have no real interest in learning about or understanding libertarian philosophy.
Philosophy is nice. Applicable philosophy is nicer. Libertarian philosophy is applicable in some cases and in some aspects. Just not in it's entirety. Just like any political or socioeconomic philosophy, be it communism, socialism, capitalism, democracy, religion... They all have their strengths and weaknesses. The solutions to very diverse problems require a very complex mixture of solutions.
post #612 of 735
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post


Philosophy is nice. Applicable philosophy is nicer. Libertarian philosophy is applicable in some cases and in some aspects. Just not in it's entirety. Just like any political or socioeconomic philosophy, be it communism, socialism, capitalism, democracy, religion... They all have their strengths and weaknesses. The solutions to very diverse problems require a very complex mixture of solutions.

 

Please quote me where I have ever stated or implied libertarianism is complete and perfect. Oh wait, you can't. Because I have never made such a claim. Nor has anyone else.

 

Read the book. Cover to cover.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #613 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Please quote me where I have ever stated or implied libertarianism is complete and perfect. Oh wait, you can't. Because I have never made such a claim. Nor has anyone else.

 

I see this a lot particularly among statists of the leftist slant: They hold the free-market to a much higher standard than their own beloved government. Problems with the government are frequently excused, dismissed or downplayed while even the smallest, infrequent failing of the market is held as the example of why markets won't, don't or can't work. Sometimes it's not even an actual failing but either a perceived failing, a disliked outcome or even simply a speculated failing.

 

A corollary observation is the following:

 

1. Positive outcomes of a government action are assumed to be 100% (or nearly so) probable.

2. Negative side-effects of the action are dismissed, downplayed, ignored or assumed to be 0% (or nearly so) probable.

3. Even if #2 is acknowledged as possible (and some non-trivial level of probability) it's excused as being "worth it" in whatever calculus those advocating #1 are doing (essentially applying their own personal value rankings to this determination.)


Edited by MJ1970 - 2/8/13 at 10:20am

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #614 of 735
Thread Starter 

On a lighter note:

 

 

*

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #615 of 735
Thread Starter 

"Let us assume, for the moment, a world with two hypothetical countries: Graustark and Belgravia. Each is ruled by its own State. What happens if the government of Graustark invades the territory of Belgravia? From the libertarian point of view two evils immediately occur. First, the Graustark Army begins to slaughter innocent Belgravian civilians, persons who are not implicated in whatever crimes the Belgravian government might have committed. War, then, is mass murder, and this massive invasion of the right to life, of self-ownership, of numbers of people is not only a crime but, for the libertarian, the ultimate crime. Second, since all governments obtain their revenue from the thievery of coercive taxation, any mobilization and launching of troops inevitably involve an increase in tax-coercion in Graustark. For both reasons — because inter-State wars inevitably involve both mass murder and an increase in tax-coercion, the libertarian opposes war. Period."

 

- Murray N. Rothbard, For a New Liberty

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #616 of 735
Begging the question that taxes are theft, as usual.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #617 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Begging the question that taxes are theft, as usual.

 

I believe the reasoning for this characterization has been explained to you before. Just because the explanation of why is it considered theft is not given every time doesn't mean one is begging the question.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #618 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I believe the reasoning for this characterization has been explained to you before. Just because the explanation of why is it considered theft is not given every time doesn't mean one is begging the question.

I reject that you have ever sufficiently demonstrated that taxes are theft.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #619 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post


I reject that you have ever sufficiently demonstrated that taxes are theft.

 

Good for you. I submit there's no way anyone ever could to your satisfaction.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #620 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

Good for you. I submit there's no way anyone ever could to your satisfaction.

I submit that if you don't like the idea of a social contract, you can live off the grid or leave the country.  And even if you do live off the grid, you still are getting some protections from society--you're stealing from us!  But that's fine, go ahead, we don't consider it theft.  We're happy to have you enjoying your wilderness libertarian utopia and not shoveling that horseshit down the rest of our throats.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #621 of 735
Exactly. If Ted Kaczynski had refrained from using our nationalized postal service, I'm sure he would have lived happily ever after.

Except these people are never happy, are they?
post #622 of 735

To bad Ted K never targeted Mc Connell, Graham , and Bohener life would have been much better with out then in the picture now.
 

post #623 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

I submit that if you don't like the idea of a social contract, you can live off the grid or leave the country.  And even if you do live off the grid, you still are getting some protections from society--you're stealing from us!  But that's fine, go ahead, we don't consider it theft.  We're happy to have you enjoying your wilderness libertarian utopia and not shoveling that horseshit down the rest of our throats.

 

I submit that someone who accuses others of begging the question and regularly mocks those who believe in the unprovable God blows the irony meter when he starts stridently talking about the "social contract."

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #624 of 735
Thread Starter 
Quote:
It is true that the theory of our Constitution is, that all taxes are paid voluntarily; that our government is a mutual insurance company, voluntarily entered into by the people with each other; that each man makes a free and purely voluntary contract with all others who are parties to the Constitution, to pay so much money for so much protection, the same as he does with any other insurance company; and that he is just as free not to be protected, and not to pay tax, as he is to pay a tax, and be protected.
 
But this theory of our government is wholly different from the practical fact. The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: "Your money, or your life." And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat.
 
The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him from the roadside, and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful.
 
The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a "protector," and that he takes men's money against their will, merely to enable him to "protect" those infatuated travelers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful "sovereign," on account of the "protection" he affords you. He does not keep "protecting" you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villainies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave.

 

-- Lysander Spooner

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #625 of 735
Perhaps I am describing myself the wrong way. On a gas gauge, if E is Liberal and F is Conservative, I would like to believe that I am over half but below 3/4, so I have come to the conclusion that I am Libertarian. Moderate would be 1/2. If that makes sense.
post #626 of 735
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post

Perhaps I am describing myself the wrong way. On a gas gauge, if E is Liberal and F is Conservative, I would like to believe that I am over half but below 3/4, so I have come to the conclusion that I am Libertarian. Moderate would be 1/2. If that makes sense.

 

I think this short quiz would be a more accurate gauge than the one you've described.

 

This is my result (where the red dot is):

 

 

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #627 of 735
My result won't paste for me so I'll tell that that I am a Libertarian leaned towards liberal which is about what I expected.
post #628 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post

Perhaps I am describing myself the wrong way. On a gas gauge, if E is Liberal and F is Conservative, I would like to believe that I am over half but below 3/4, so I have come to the conclusion that I am Libertarian. Moderate would be 1/2. If that makes sense.

 

I think this short quiz would be a more accurate gauge than the one you've described.

 

This is my result (where the red dot is):

 

 


And you're proud of the fact that you're an ultra extremist?

post #629 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post


And you're proud of the fact that you're an ultra extremist?

 

What an interesting question. Looks like a variation on poisoning the well.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #630 of 735
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post


And you're proud of the fact that you're an ultra extremist?

And once again you demonstrate how very little you actually know about libertarianism.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #631 of 735

Yeah. Gotcha. 1rolleyes.gif

post #632 of 735
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Yeah. Gotcha. 1rolleyes.gif

 

Your use of the word "extremist" is interesting. That word has become a modern-day synonym for "terrorist".

 

The State is threatened by the principles of liberty. Therefore, you and many others have been conditioned by the State-run mainstream media to associate libertarians and others who are fundamentally opposed to tyranny with the likes of the Timothy McVeigh, mass-shooters, etc.

 

However, a careful study of libertarianism shows that such acts are in direct contradiction to the non-aggression principle (NAP) - which is at the very heart of libertarian philosophy.

 

So, when you ask me if I'm proud to be an "ultra extremist", it is quite obvious you have accepted the definition of libertarianism that has been spoon-fed to you by your favorite media sources and pundits and have never really made conscientious effort to research and understand it yourself.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #633 of 735
Libertarianism--consider a spherical cow in a vacuum.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #634 of 735
Thread Starter 
Quote:
The very existence of majorities and minorities is indicative of an immoral state. The man whose character harmonizes with the moral law, we found to be one who can obtain complete happiness without diminishing the happiness of his fellows. But the enactment of public arrangements by vote implies a society consisting of men otherwise constituted — implies that the desires of some cannot be satisfied without sacrificing the desires of others — implies that in the pursuit of their happiness the majority inflict a certain amount of unhappiness on the minority — implies, therefore, organic immorality. Thus, from another point of view, we again perceive that even in its most equitable form it is impossible for government to dissociate itself from evil; and further, that unless the right to ignore the state is recognized, its acts must be essentially criminal.

 

-- Herbert Spencer, The Right to Ignore the State

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #635 of 735

You have a right to ignore the state--live off the grid or leave.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #636 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Yeah. Gotcha. 1rolleyes.gif

 

Your use of the word "extremist" is interesting. That word has become a modern-day synonym for "terrorist".

 

The State is threatened by the principles of liberty. Therefore, you and many others have been conditioned by the State-run mainstream media to associate libertarians and others who are fundamentally opposed to tyranny with the likes of the Timothy McVeigh, mass-shooters, etc.

 

However, a careful study of libertarianism shows that such acts are in direct contradiction to the non-aggression principle (NAP) - which is at the very heart of libertarian philosophy.

 

So, when you ask me if I'm proud to be an "ultra extremist", it is quite obvious you have accepted the definition of libertarianism that has been spoon-fed to you by your favorite media sources and pundits and have never really made conscientious effort to research and understand it yourself.


Um... no. I wasn't correlating your position with anyone else. Just that it was at the ultra extreme end of the libertarian philosophy, accept no compromise, accept no combination of philosophies and solutions, accept only the extreme angle of your beliefs. You know. Extremist.

 

Other examples of extremism throughout history have consistently failed. Communism. Theocracy. Even pure Democracy. And yes, anarchy.

 

Society is diverse. No matter how extreme you personally are, society will never conform to your extremist views. Therefore we need to find solutions that are not extremist.

post #637 of 735

Was Lynda Lyon exercising her right to ignore the state?

post #638 of 735
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post


Um... no. I wasn't correlating your position with anyone else. Just that it was at the ultra extreme end of the libertarian philosophy, accept no compromise, accept no combination of philosophies and solutions, accept only the extreme angle of your beliefs. You know. Extremist.

Other examples of extremism throughout history have consistently failed. Communism. Theocracy. Even pure Democracy. And yes, anarchy.

Society is diverse. No matter how extreme you personally are, society will never conform to your extremist views. Therefore we need to find solutions that are not extremist.

You don't have the slightest idea what my views really are. You've been conditioned to believe they are "extremist", and that anything "extremist" is bad. That's the extent of your "knowledge" of libertarianism.

But whether or not my views are "extreme", they needn't worry you. I have never claimed that I can and should use government to violently force everyone else to conform to my views. That goes against the very beliefs you claim are "extreme".

You, on the other hand, have made it very clear that you have no problem with governments inflicting violence on people to conform to views you agree with.

I want to bring about a better world through peaceful, voluntary interaction and liberty.

You want to bring about a better world through violent coercion and force.

So which one of us is really "extreme", here?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #639 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

You don't have the slightest idea what my views really are.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

 

 

Yep. Extremist.

post #640 of 735
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

 

Yep. Extremist.

 

Libertarians want maximum liberty for all. Oooh...how extreme.

 

What were your quiz results?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Libertarianism