Just when you think you’ve heard (and read) it all, something like this falls into your lap. It’s a Bloomberg News critique of Libertarianism that equates it with – of all things! – communism.
It dances on – at great length – without ever once mentioning the defining ethical principle of Libertarianism, the non-aggression principle (NAP for short). The idea that it’s never right to use force first.
The reason for not mentioning the NAP, of course, is that the article – and its ridiculous assertions – falls on its face if the NAP is acknowledged.
Consider some snippets from this epic work of evasion and slander:
“Let’s start with some definitions. By radical libertarianism, we mean the ideology that holds that individual liberty trumps all other values. ”
This is the “do anything you please” shibboleth Libertarians constantly encounter when dealing with Libertarian critics, who are invariably authoritarian collectivists of one stripe or the other. When the Libertarian points out the fallacy – that Libertarians believe individuals have every right to do as they please, provided they cause no harm to others – the authoritarian collectivist will then pretend not to have heard or understood. And give you something like this:
“Radical libertarians would be great at destroying.“
Which conveniently overlooks that bit about not harming others, the Libertarian Golden Rule.
The authors of the Bloomberg piece must argue something that Libertarians aren’t – setting up the proverbial straw man before knocking him down.
Ironically, these critics are always the aggressively violent ones.
For example:
“The alternative to this extremism is an evolving blend of freedom and cooperation.”
Italics added.
Libertarian readers are surely groaning along with me right about now. We favor voluntary cooperation. People such as the authors of Bloomberg rant always insist on cooperation – at gunpoint. Their “cooperation” is of a piece with Social Security “contributions,” Obamacare “markets” and DMV “customers.” What they cannot abide – but will never state honestly and openly – is the idea that people ought to be free to say no. To cooperate – or not. It is this freedom to choose that drives anti-Libertarians up the wall. The horrid, insufferable notion that their “plans” be contingent on the consent of those they wish to enlist.
But wait, there’s more. How about this one?
“Radical libertarianism assumes that humans are wired only to be selfish… ”
Ah, the “selfish” smear. It’s as effective as calling someone a racist. Shuts ’em right up, most of the time. But Libertarians aren’t afraid of it – nor will it shut them up. What the collectivists really mean when they use the term is – someone who would say no if he were free to do so. As in the case of taxation. It is “selfish” to object to being strong-armed into handing over one’s money for the benefit of random strangers, who are themselves not regarded as selfish for using violence (if only by proxy) to take the property of other people. It’s ok, apparently, to selflessly do others violence – but LIbertarians are bad selfish for daring to object to the violence done them and for wanting only to be left in peace and to leave others in peace.
Such is the mindset we’re dealing with.
The true colors begin to leach through the further down the piece you go:
“… eliminate the Internal Revenue Service and progressive taxation . . . “
Well, yes. Taxation, period, actually, But progressive taxation is particularly noxious. It is the idea that those who have more “owe” more. Which is like saying it’s ok to beat a healthy person more viciously than it is to beat a not-healthy person. Because the healthy person can take it better.
How about not beating anyone?
That’s the Libertarian horror. Stop it with the violence. Leave others be, if they’re not hurting you in some tangible way (not liking what others may be doing is not hurting you, incidentally).
” … programs that sustain a prosperous middle class are gutted.”
Translated: Wealth transfer and rent-seeking are boons. Which, of course, they are – to those on the receiving end. But what of those on the – uh – “giving” end?
Silence.
“…we have to see that freedom isn’t simply the removal of encumbrance, or the ability to ignore inconvenient rules or limitations. ”
The only “limitation,” Clovers (I use this term as generic anti-honorific to refer to authoritarians) is the Libertarian ethical line in the sand: Don’t cause harm to others, or attempt to coerce them using violence or the threat of violence. Any “limitation” or “rule” that doesn’t comport with this standard – i.e., there’s no victim, no party harmed – is nothing more than an arbitrary construct and illegitimate on the face of it. No one – not the authors of this execrably dishonest piece especially – has the right to impose their little (and big) “limitations” and “rules” on other people. Because in order to do so, one must be willing to threaten to harm others – or actually harm them. And to claim a right to harm others – for whatever “public” or “social” good – is oxymoronic, a contradiction in terms. Good cannot be done by treating people badly. The only thing that can be done is exploiting or controlling some people for the benefit of others. This is the logic of the zero sum. I win – you lose. The balled fist, the gun pointed your way. The “or else” left unspoken behind every “request,” “plan” and “program” they trot out. 
And they accuse us of being (pardon the language) “selfish” assholes!
The worst a Libertarian will ever do to you is not do anything to you. He might choose not to do business with you. Or rent to you. Or serve you. But you’d be free to seek out others to do business with. Or start a business yourself. Rent from another person – and so on. No violence would ever be done to you by a Libertarian. You’d free – and so would everyone else.
And that, friends, is the one thing anti-Libertarians dare not acknowledge. Must never address. Must evade, using all their smarmy demagoguery. For if they do acknowledge it, they’ve got no argument. No leg to stand on. Their violence is revealed, as contrasted with the non-violence of the Libertarian ideal.
Take heart from the pathetic shallowness of the “arguments” of our adversaries. They’ve got nothing – and they know it.
Throw it in the Woods?
Spread it via Twitter: LibertarianCarG (they would not let me have “guy”).
And:
We depend on you to keep the wheels turning. If you value alternatives to the MSM, please support independent media. Our donate button is here.
For those not Pay Pal-inclined, you can mail us at the following:
EPautos
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079
Thank you so much for sharing this post
Wow! Wow! Wow! Equating Libertarianism with communism, is like equating the Amish with practitionaers of the Knock-out Game!
The utter absurdity that only modern mass media can get away with, and only in the eyes of their ignorant readers.
But just like with the 2016 election mess, the Hitlery supporters will stay faithful to the media which uphold their sick values and perversions of reality, because it’s what they want to hear. The mass media is not for those who want to hear the truth. It is for those who want to immerse themselves in an alternate reality, and not have to be bothered with pesky things like facts and logic.
And there are plenty of people who would relish in libeling Libertarianism, or anything else which restores power to the individual to do as he chooses with what is his own, because these people are deathly afraid of actual freedom, because ultimately, these people are the shiftless incompetents, whose worldview does not work, and thus have to rely on the manipulation and control of others in order get the things they want. They are the real communists!
Hey Guy & Gals,
I only scanned the thread, so pardon me for asking if it has been answered, but did Peter Schwartz’s – Libertarianism, the Perversion of Liberty get any mention?
I had a fellow rummaging around my asshole yesterday because my PSA was above government approved levels. I’m sure that after I pass the watch he left in there, I’ll be more inclined to read the 300 plus posts.
Re: PSA – sorry, it’s been a while and I don’t remember the link, but a few years ago I read an article by the doctor who invented the PSA test. Said he was sorry he had done it, he had taken out many healthy prostates.
I am a selfish asshole because I don’t want to coerce or rob my neighbor, in-person nor by elected representatives; and because I want my neighbors to be free to choose; and to live their own lives; and to be free to reap the consequences or rewards that their choices and actions dictate!
Libertarians are the only ones in present-day society, who do not support slavery. It’s amazing how virtually all statists- be they liberal dumbocraps or conservative repugnantcans, ultimately endorse slavery, throgu hsuch things as taxation; redistribution of wealth;conveying of special privileges to certain groups; restrictions on the free -market, and the use of force and violence against those who have not used the same- and then they call US communists?
If that isn’t the pot calling the kettle black, I don’t know what is!
“When America was ruled by practicing Christian presidents, wasn’t the world a safer place?” – Michael Savage
Yeesh. It’s like the Right is screaming, “Slavery Now!” while ignoring the reality of the past.
…And, the Left, too. In their own way.
…And, in unison they all scream, “We Want to be Ruled!”
Comply or die
“..my
MuslimChristian faith..” – Barry Knobamahttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMhB-CwF4yc
Like Lincoln?
Wilson?
Nixon?
Reagan?
That “Savage” character as actually a whiny little self-hating Jew named Michael Weiner.
“named Michael Weiner”
Any relation to Anthony Weiner?
I thought Hitlery doesn’t like weiners?
Morning, Mole!
Yes, exactly. It is a point that bears harping on.
Libertarians (and anarchists) are the only people who advocate ending legal slavery and legal aggressive violence. You’d think this would be appealing.
Instead, it’s turned on its head – and (as you note) those who so advocate are characterized as “selfish.”
“Now this is the law of the jungle….”
Still seems better (and I’d be dead 39 years ago now, mind.)
Anyone else ever read the Gnoll Credo? Certain truths present there… Makes for a better society.
gnoll credo
http://www.thegnollcredo.com/what-is-the-gnoll-credo/
And don’t forget conscription. Although they are not currently practicing it in the USSA, they have, and very well could again. Even though I see no loophole for it in the 13th Amendment.
In the meantime, instead of forcing the cannon fodder to ‘enlist’ by drafting them, they just screw up the economy so there are no other jobs available for such. And they want to eliminate even more by increasing the minimum wage.
Well Sheet Bevin,
I didn’t know what you meant about winning arguments. I generally write in a piss stream of logical phallacies, one could best describe as ‘The Argument From Busey’ Cause that’s what I know.
We’re in two different worlds. On two sides of this old spinning coin. A world always flat as first imagined, only they got it spinning so fast now, it looks kinda round.
You said in the old world that politico game of “Chicken Kiev” wasn’t gonna end well. And you was right it seems. The more fires they can start, the hotter it gets, the more they like it. BBQ. QED.
Doesn’t take the heat off the USSA at all, like I hoped it might.
A-mare-wreck-ya, the booty-full. Our new spangled star fangled protest-ylizing New World Style, just doesn’t go over very well Over There.
You go on explaining the stuff to David and company. This old Robotic Teddy Bear can only ride the bicycles the ways he’s taught himself.
http://thesouloftheplot.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/awww_ai.jpg
Sometime in the future, Kubrick & Spielberg’s A.I. tells the story of David, a childlike android uniquely programmed with the ability to love.
I’m logged into wikipedia right now, what should someone edit it to say? (that has a chance of being left standing). I think I’ll add what you just said, if I can find a reference to it.
I recently edited the Euphrates River article – (Modern era section) to mention the fact its flow is stopped at the Turkish Border since April 15th.
Just recently, Turkey is addressing these “falsehoods” saying there’s a drought, and they’re not impeding the flow.
Doesn’t seem to be such a difficult fact to find the truth is. It’s nominally 2800km long. But if water is to be held in a dam at the Turkish border, it’s going to be far less than half that long at this some point.
Just like how the Colorado River no longer makes it to the Gulf of California.
When you don’t read Turkish or Arabic, it’s kind of hard to know for sure. I see lots of stories about ISIS attacking dams. Perhaps they’ll become the scapegoat for this at some point.
Turkey’s control of the Euphrates might lead to disaster
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/articles/europe/12295-turkeys-control-of-the-euphrates-might-lead-to-disaster
Gee, you think cutting off over half a countries water supply might be a problem?
Anyway
There are 46 different language versions of this Senkaku Island article, presumably each article is slightly different. All of the ones with alphabets I’m familiar with do have the title of the article as Senkaku.
There are other articles like – Senkaku dispute -, but no Diaoyutai competing article which could have been the case
Senkaku (short title of english article)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senkaku_Islands
The English full title admits:
Senkaku aka Diaoyu Islands aka Diaoyutai Islands aka Pinnacle Islands
In a diagram, the article shows these islands to be:
170km from Taiwan
330km from China
410km from Japanese island of Naha [over 800km from mainland Japan]
Some excerpts:
The Japanese central government annexed the islands in early 1895 after emerging victorious from the First Sino-Japanese War
Japan’s Ministry of Defense rents Kuba island for an undisclosed amount. Kuba is used by the U.S. military as a practice aircraft bombing range
On December 17, 2010, Japan’s Ishigaki declared January 14 as “Pioneering Day” to commemorate Japan’s 1895 annexation of the Senkaku Islands.
The People’s Republic and Taiwan claim that the islands have been a part of Chinese territory since at least 1534. They acknowledge that Japan took control of the islands in 1894–1895 during the first Sino-Japanese War, through the signature of the Treaty of Shimonoseki. They assert that the Potsdam Declaration (which Japan accepted as part of the San Francisco Peace Treaty) required that Japan relinquish control of all islands except for “the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine”, and they state that this means control of the islands should pass to China.
90 second video on Emergence – Murray Gell-Mann
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONiWmzrmfuY
0:28
Life can emerge from physics and chemistry, plus a lot of accidents.
0:36
The human mind can arise from neurobiology, and a lot of accidents.
0:44
The chemical bond arises from physics, and certain accidents.
0:49
It doesn’t diminish the importance of these subjects, to know that they follow from more fundamental things, plus accidents. That’s a general rule. It’s critically important to realize that.
1:12
Q1 But isn’t there something more?
Q2 Something supernatural?
A There isn’t. You don’t need something more, to explain something more.
The same is true for libertarian anarchism. All that is required is to determine and then illustrate the general principles.
Once determined, from this starting point, all manner of real world events/accidents will be recorded, and used to confirm and maybe slightly modify the general rules we’ve laid out before. Nothing more will be required.
Hope this works..
Nope.. anyway:
http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/screenhunter_974-jul-13-00-20.gif
@Bevin
Thanks for that explanation of doublethink.
I wonder what you think of this one:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2960207/posts
The Amnesia Effect
You ever find yourself reading something you know to be wrong, to be the most worthless and wrong news article and feeling a sense of disgust about it.
But then turn the page in the same newspaper, and find an article about some far away place, and feel filled with knowledge about the Middle East or whatever.
“Media carries with it a credibility that is totally undeserved. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well.
You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward – reversing cause and effect. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories. Paper’s full of them.
In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story-and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read with renewed interest as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about far-off Palestine than it was about the story you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.”
Dear Tor,
“You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward – reversing cause and effect.”
I know that feeling only too well. Mainstream statist intellectuals constantly comment on China. When they do, they demonstrate “absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues.”
One example out of many is the recent clash between China and Japan over the Diaoyutai Islands, which Japanese neofascists and American neo-conmen, who are using the former to “contain China,” insist on calling “Senkaku.”
Even Wikipedia refers to Diaoyutai as “Senkaku.” That is a perfect example of “being so wrong it actually presents the story backward – reversing cause and effect. ”
For the record, the reality is quite simple.
The Diaoyutai Islands are part of Taiwan. When Japan handed Taiwan back to China in 1945, the USG intervened. It held on to the Diaoyutai Islands. It claimed that it was “administering” them.
When the Korean War broke out, the USG was loath to return Chinese territory to a Communist ruled regime. So it transferred “administration” of the islands to US proxy Japan.
When vast reserves of natural gas were discovered, Japan claimed that “administration” meant “ownership.”
Now Japan claims that China’s attempts to get back what is rightfully its, are “aggression.”
How can China rightfully own anything?
Dear David,
Spare me the disingenuousness.
Voluntaryists understand perfectly well the finer distinctions concerning property rights. They are ultimately private and individual, never public and collective.
Why don’t you admit you know that I know the distinctions, and was using shorthand terminology, rather than play word games with me?
Once voluntaryism is implemented, our terminology will be made more precise, and reflect the realities of private, individual ownership.
Until then, your attempts to “catch me in a contradiction” will only come off as troll-like.
I don’t think its up for much debate, that you are one of the highest, if not the highest, hope of this blog to make something compelling and beautiful out of the disjointed muddled freedom musings of most of us.
And that’s what’s going to make us win. A flawlessly architected compact simple anti-fragile voluntarist kung fu that defends against all the old world ugly ideologies nearly everyone wants to be free of.
I’ll be the first to admit, some of what I advocate for, may not be seen as necessary by many of us here assembled. I’ll label it as an extreme-egoist freedom side agenda, to put a place holder on it, and then move it to the side and out of the way of the more important task at hand.
If this other side agenda, Jesus, is also sometimes to be brought up, then let’s start here:
“Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone.” I mean exactly how does that aphorism jibe with, I’m okay with some people being killed for this or that reason?
State justice is a whole lot of smoke and mirrors for nasty and usually nonsensical redistribution of violence. As you always say, this has no place in our new system, “you can’t put new wine into old wine skins”, as they say in the New Testament.
I wonder if the Dalai Lllama writes articles about driving on motorcycles at 150 mph. Or if he refrains from opining where he has not even remote peripheral knowledge.
I don’t wonder that many will write thousands of paragraphs about abortion. They who are guided mainly by Dehumanizing Tavistock Drivel straight out of 1984. And think there indoctrinated irrationalities are real. Who know far less than nothing.
Though they’ve never even known anyone with an unwanted pregnancy. Or knew anyone who even admitted they had unprotected sex.
Who write yards and yards of words, though they have no children. Probably never even been wholly responsibile for an infant for even a day.
Or slept in a bed next to a pregnant woman. Or brought her a cigarette, or a glass of wine during that mythical zero tolerance time, And never flinched or uttered a syllable, or even thought of telling another soul about it.
For of course, if such a thing should happen, the uterus spontaneously combusts so they think, because such a thing could never occur. The Surgeon General confirms this.
‘Cause in the doubleplus sterilized clover mind, a woman is just a machine carrying a fetus, and therefore, of course follows all government specifications at all times. Their Moms were just grocery getting clothes washing automatons. Not woman of chance behavior and fickle flesh, but always in full compliance mode to the UL Mothers Code.
Because they are moral. Babbling Packleds of the consequentialist platitudes. They need morality. Being moral makes them good. They believe things that make them feel moral and good, because they are smart.
This is so petty, bitter, and crappy. This isn’t going to beat those now in power. This is what Libertarianism musn’t be.
We have to be smarter. Easier to understand. And above all more elegant and seductively simple. Because that’s what the moral high ground really is, once you clear away all the cloveric clutter and pedantic bluster.
Hi David,
China is a country; an abstraction and not a living individual. Ergo, it cannot own anything.
The Man I Might Have Killed – Top Word Freq.
aimed (2) almost (2) attacked (5) away (5) basically (2) behind (2) car (5) choice (2) classes (4) death (3) defense (4) dog (3) door (8) exercises (3) face (3) fence (2) front (4) gun (4) head (2) house (5) keep (2) killed (3) live (3) looked (2) lucky (4) man (7) mind (3) mistakes (5) night (3) obviously (2) others (3) perceive (2) practice (4) prepared (3) probably (4) read (2) self (3) serious (2) shoot (4) shotgun (3) shouted (2) skills (2) soon (2) stress (3) sure (3) thought (2) town (2) understand (3) walk (4) window (2)
I carry a gun – Get over it – Top Word Freq.
anyone (4) attack (2) auto (2) available (1) betrayed (2) bowling (1) carry (3) clearly (2) course (2) crime (2) criminals (1) dead (1) defend (2) defense (2) disarmed (2) emergency (1) end (2) entire (2) examples (2) except (2) explain (2) fact (2) family (1) free (2) germany (1) gun (4) hand (4) harm (2) hope (2) innocents (2) insurance (2) life (3) live (4) obvious (2) ordinary (1) others (5) people (4) person (3) presents (1) rational (2) reason (2) responsible (2) rwanda (1) safety (2) thought (2) tool (2) trip (2) victim (2) weak (1) world (2)
What Libertarianism Isn’t… (includes comments)
abortion (120) aggressive (44) answer (51) authority (46) believe (106) bevin (86) child (61) claim (44) clover (87) com (60) david (45) dear (47) eric (80) feel (52) force (109) free (73) freedom (42) going (50) government (146) harm (45) helot (49) http (91) human (96) libertarian (271) life (72) live (94) market (67) moral (45) murder (62) nap (60) others (59) pay (51) people (205) person (122) pm (179) point (44) question (59) really (56) reply (191) society (72) someone (44) something (42) state (71) things (58) think (136) tor (66) work (59) world (53) www (45) years (75)
visualize word frequency
http://tagcrowd.com/
@BrentP
there are limits to minds. and limits to words themselves.
To clovers, the word government is the “duck-rabbit.” It is an ambiguous term, clover’s just “report what they see.” they use words as they see others use them.
They quite seemlessly argue from the duck image, then later, as it suits them, argue from the rabbit image.
Government is a double edged term. A duck and a rabbit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_Investigations#Seeing_that_vs._seeing_as
We are the government. We agreed at some point to build a road on land the government owned. It is unclear how the government came into possession of the land.
So we’ve built the road. It’s our road. But we can’t just use the road any old way we like. We have to follow the rules about this road we own together.
It’s very much of a piece of the Pakleds, what you are pointing out:
We are smart. We built the roads because we need roads. We have rules on our roads. If we break the rules we are punished. We obey our rules on our roads. We are glad we have our roads and to follow our rules.
We’re asking you to pay for our roads. Because you are we. And we need roads. We take some of your money because we have rules. We let you vote. And you voted to be part of we. And to follow our rules. If you break our rules of paying for our roads we need you are punished.
A statist will return to his own statist feces and never wander far from his vision. Clover loves repeating his crap about the roads.
Gil believes he is spot on in regards to what if a 17 year old girl’s boyfriend was 58 years old instead of 18 years old. It makes no sense to us, there is a rebuttable item of fact of what age her boyfriend is It’s an independent case. But to Gil’s statist cerebrum, the fact that he’s 18 also means he might be 58, and having such zero tolerance laws protect us all in someway we are too stupid to understand.
So until she reaches 18, it’s a dry spell time of celibacy. It’s for the common good. We need sexual relations to be among children. Or among adults. We don’t need one of each. 18 is the magic number. If a young couple doesn’t attain the age of 18 on the same day. To be safe, they need to abstain until the other also attains 18. We need these laws to keep us safe.
Post o’ the day, Brent – your Pakled channelling was brilliant!
Ozymandias believes that his vast intelligence obligates him to unite the warring modern world as Alexander the Great did in his time.
When he comes to doubt the value of confronting street criminals in the face of greater crimes of the powerful and governments that go unpunished, he endeavors to study world politics, and concludes that nuclear war will bring the world to an end in just a few years, and plans to use such a catastrophe to save the world.
Ozymandias is politically liberal, supporting social causes and performing at a benefit for India, which has suffered famine. He believes that everyone is capable of personal greatness, if they try hard enough, and that any problem can be solved with the correct application of human intelligence.
Ozymandias is shown to be very genial. He demonstrates his sense of humor, joking around many times during his interview with Nova Express and his battle with Rorschach, Nite Owl and Silk Spectre.
Ozymandias is also a vegetarian. His favorite companion is his genetically-engineered pet lynx, Bubastis.
@Helot,
Keep knocking every statethink softball out of the park. Atta boy champ!
Stanislaw Lem – The Congress
http://tvwat.ch/watch/the-congress/9554
Terry Gilliam – The Zero Theorem
http://www.solarmovie.tl/watch-the-zero-theorem-2013.html
Bitcoin Debit Card
http://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/news/hong-kong-bitcoin-exchange-anx-issues-bitcoin-debit-card/2014/07/10
Spore encrypted voice comm – OSTN for Android
https://myceli.al/projects/spore-android-client
OSTN – Open Telephony Network – wiki
https://dev.guardianproject.info/projects/ostn/wiki?title=OSTN
Tor Metrics: About
https://metrics.torproject.org/about.html
10 Rules For Talking Politics Productively
http://imgur.com/8HnSEEw
“Corporations aren’t people! They don’t have rights! They’re lifeless entities!”
I hear this argument often by people who claim government has the authority to limit corporate contributions to political campaigns (never will they consider limiting the power given to an elected office or identifying it as the problem).
Or, most recently, the Hobby Lobby controversy over whether or not a business has to provide certain contraceptives to its employees in spite of the religious objections of the owners.
This was the argument made by Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg in her dissenting opinion on the Hobby Lobby decision. Her interpretation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is something to marvel at, the same way one marvels at a child who claims categorically that families aren’t people and therefore their parents cannot refuse to buy them candy and toys.
I cannot help but observe the twisted logic inherent in this rationale. The argument goes as follows: Corporations aren’t people, therefore when people form corporations they give up certain rights.
If, however, that person gets elected to a government office, they not only do not give up their rights but they are granted privileges and power and authority that puts them above those who elected them.
Perhaps a new libertarian strategy is to turn this argument on its head. Governments aren’t people. Therefore, politicians have no right to force us to do anything we don’t consent to do. Government has no conscience, no belief, no feeling, no thoughts, and no desires.
As Grigg points out, they also have no legitimate claim to that which they possess. Corporations collect profits from people who voluntarily pay them – assuming the corporation is not using the coercion powers of government as part of their business model.
Corporations make no claim to authority over people who do not consent to purchasing their products or using their goods or services. When you use a Microsoft email account or open a Facebook account, you must agree to their terms and conditions.
When you create an account on Linkedin, you must consent to their privacy policy. If you park in a private parking garage, you must consent to the limited contract they offer in exchange for the parking spot.
The consent with corporations or private entities is not implied, nor it is regarded as a social contract. It is a de facto contract that requires your consent before you can use their services and before they can charge you for it. The only time this is not the case is when a corporation is able to exploit the coercion and power of the State to its own ends.
Just for the record, in the event someone somewhere makes the ridiculous claim about libertarians like myself, we do not worship corporations or consider them above reproach or run by saints.
In many instances, the only moral difference between a corrupt business and a politician is that the businessman can’t dupe anyone into thinking he has authority over them without their consent.
If people understand that government is not a person, then why do people continually speak about the State as though it were a living, breathing organism that thinks, hears, feels and cares about people?
We have all heard the statements: We need the government to look out after us. We need the government to protect us. The government keeps us safe. Without the government there would be chaos!
But if government is not a person, either, then how can any of this be true? And when you put a face to this entity, specifically one they hate, this argument falls apart.
No liberal will ever claim they needed George W. Bush to keep them safe or to protect them or that he cared about them, and no conservative will ever accept such a statement about Barack Obama. Somehow, this doesn’t prevent them from believing they need the very entity with which these people control their lives.
It’s amazing that people, particularly progressives, view corporations and private businesses as evil entities seeking to cheat, steal and defraud individuals, but regard government’s natural role as a protector and guardian and that it is the government’s job to protect them. Much of this is due to a misunderstanding of privatization and what constitutes the free market.
For example, they believe the government sub-contracting with private corporations to conduct surveillance or hiring mercenaries to fight in wars overseas constitutes “privatization.” As a reporter, I enjoyed the film State of Play, but it too makes this same error. It examines the consequences of hiring private contractors to fight in wars and handle national security, seemingly ignoring the fact that they are still contracted through the government and paid through taxation.
Returning to Ginsburg’s argument, what it really boils down to is that she believes the government has the authority to force a private business to provide contraceptives for their employees but the business owner does not have the right to decide what is done with their property. She is outraged, because she erroneously believes government has total authority and when individuals run a business or form a corporations they check their rights at the door.
Remember, this wasn’t about whether people could buy contraceptives. They are freely available and affordable; and Hobby Lobby already provides their employees for 16 out of the 20 contraceptives available. They simply did not want to pay for ones that cause or induce abortions.
What this court case came down to was whether the government and its proponents can force an employer to pay for anything they want them to pay for because people believe they have a right to have them as part of their employment and they have the right to use violence and coercion against them if it is not offered.
This goes back to what I’ve written on previously concerning sociopathic logic, which can be used even by a normal person. The logic runs like this; what’s theirs is theirs and what’s yours is theirs, as well.
This is the reasoning that justifies the use of the State to force others to do what you want them to do. It is also how people can claim you are violating their rights by not providing something for them, because they believe they have a right to your property.
It begs the whole question: If businesses like Hobby Lobby had no right to withhold paying for contraceptives for their employees, then what right does the Supreme Court have to tell them they must pay for it? This argument only works if you believe government has presumed authority that is innate and self-justifying; it has power because it has declared itself to have it and has the violence to enforce it.
So the next time you hear someone say “corporations aren’t people,” remind them that governments aren’t, either.
Corporations aren’t people; neither are governments
https://anarchistnotebook.wordpress.com/2014/07/10/corporations-arent-people-neither-are-governments/
Here’s a replacement image. Who wants to donate and sponsor it in the hopes it might be exchanged for the current abortion inclusive image?
don’t like something. keep your distance.
http://i.imgur.com/BriIaF7.jpg
Nordic Finland Creating A Mobility Market
http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/jul/10/helsinki-shared-public-transport-plan-car-ownership-pointless
You say where and when, smart device app offers all available bus, bike, taxi, train, private one time rental car, and other options at a set price you pay from your device.
Future of Helsinki Transportation
http://www.helsinkitimes.fi/finland/finland-news/domestic/11062-the-future-resident-of-helsinki-will-not-own-a-car.html
Of course the news spins this as no one will have a car, because they’re lying truth distorting aholes.
That would be like saying you won’t eat at home in your own kitchen, because they’re so many fast food, and restaurant options available to you.
Car manufacturers will adapt I’m sure, lowering prices, or offering additional features not available in this network.
Ingólfur Arnarson – Iceland’s Founding Father[sic, and ick]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingólfr_Arnarson
Ingólfur(Icelandic for Adolf – royal wolf) Arnarson and his wife Hallveig are recognized as the first permanent Nordic settlers of Iceland. He built his homestead in and gave name to Reykjavík around the year 860.
Though Ingólfur was the first Nordic settler in Iceland, there were also “Papar” – Irish monks and hermits – who had been living in the country before the arrival of the Norsemen.
These monks left Iceland when the Nordics arrived, because they did not want to live amongst the newly arrived pagans.
The Landnáma written in the year 1000 contains a long story about Ingólfur’s settlement. The book claims he left Norway after becoming involved in a blood feud. He had heard about a new island discovered in the Atlantic Ocean.
With his step brother, he sailed for Iceland. When land was in sight, he threw his high seat pillars – a sign of his being a tribal chieftain – overboard and promised to settle where the gods decided to allow them to arrive on shore.
Two of his slaves then searched the coasts for three years before finding the pillars in the small bay which eventually became Iceland’s largest city, Reykjavík.
In the meantime, Ingólfur’s step brother had been murdered by his Irish slaves because of his ill-treatment of them. (Exactly parallels the Christopher Columbus storyline) Ingólfur hunted them down and killed them in the Vestmannaeyjar Islands, which are named after these slaves.
Ingólfur was said to have settled a large part of southwestern Iceland, but after his settlement nothing more was known of him.
His son, Þorsteinn, was a major chieftain and was said to have founded the first thing, or parliament, in Iceland. It was a forerunner of the Althingi.
Viking expansion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_expansion
Nordicism – master race
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordicism#Nordicism
Nordicist, Mediterranean, and Alpine Scientisms
Nordicists claimed that Nordics had formed upper tiers of ancient civilizations, even in the Mediterranean civilizations of antiquity, which had declined once this dominant race had been assimilated. Thus they argued that ancient evidence suggested that leading Romans like Nero, Sulla, and Cato were blond or red-haired.
Some Nordicists admitted the Mediterranean race was superior to the Nordic in terms of artistic ability. However, the Nordic race was regarded as superior on the basis that, although Mediterranean peoples were culturally sophisticated, it was the Nordics who were alleged to be the innovators and conquerors, having an adventurous spirit that no other race could match.
The Alpine race was usually regarded as inferior to both the Nordic and Mediterranean races, making up the traditional peasant class of Europe while Nordics occupied the aristocracy and led the world in technology, and Mediterraneans were regarded as more imaginative.
1) I know it when I see it……..
2) a human being is what I say one is………..
3) By definition the other guy started it and I finished him……
For instance Eric is A-OK with routinely violating the rules for road usage established by the owner of the road in question and then claims to have been aggressed against by people WHO FOLLOW THE RULES because Rules waste his time. The whole position is eric-centric and ridiculous.
Abortion ‘doctors’ aggressor or just a humble businessman? This should be easy for every libertarian to get 100% right but most based on a me-centric attitude get it wrong.
Things environmental- one person pissing in a lake surely harms no one and yet 10M folks doing so turns drinking water into a sewer………….but the harm can be pinned on no one person or persons
Sigh.
Who owns the roads, Clover?
This entity called “government”? Really? Did it pay for it? I seem to recall being forced to pay motor fuel taxes…. does government pay motor fuels taxes?
And: It is so tedious repeatedly refuting the idiocy that “speeding” – driving faster than some arbitrary velocity – constitutes aggression.
“Me centric” is just another form of the Cloveritic “selfish” argument.
The only relevant consideration is: Has a real person been actually harmed? Not hypothetical “someones.” Not might be harmed.
A real person, actually harmed.
In the case of (merely) “speeding” the answer is, obviously – no.
In the case of abortion, it’s more nuanced. A day after conception? Doubtful. There is no “person” – there is just a collection of cells. Some may believe this to be a person, but that belief is not the same thing as proof.
What I find interesting about statists is how they always change what things are for the sake of the argument at hand. Much of the time they’ll argue that the government is us. That the people are the government. They’ll use words like ‘we’ to describe what the government did. But… when a person starts arguing that the people are the owners of public lands, resources, roads, etc then suddenly the government becomes this institution which owns the property and can set the rules at it’s whim. But if we are the government, if we are the owners, then the government employes, the institution, are just managers for us.
Eric- you only pay fuel tax BECAUSE you drive on the State’s roads. Stay offroad and you won’t be taxed. BUT………..if you insist on using the roads NOT following the Owner’s Rules of the Road as in when you drive at speeds in excess of posted limits is quite clearly aggression except of course in your Me-Centric twist on the NAP.
“In the case of abortion, it’s more nuanced. A day after conception? Doubtful. There is no “person” – there is just a collection of cells. ”
Yeah, sure thing. We are all just a collection of cells- some larger some smaller. As to fact we are all a unique member of the human species from conception. That is simply science. Refusing to recognise the biologically human as legally human just once again illustrates your make it up as I go along to benefit Me take on the NAP. Hardly a credit to the concept.
“That is simply science. Refusing to recognise the biologically human as legally human… ”
Wow. The Hayseed Hitler is now defending “the sanctity of human life.”
Will wonders never cease?
Not surprising actually, when you think about how he intends to defend “the sanctity of human life.” He intends to claim that the crime syndicate with a flag that calls itself “The Government” has final say on what is and is not a human being.
He intends to justify goonvermin discretion over abortion, just as he has justified goovermin discretion over “our children’s welfare,” over “our children’s education,” and everything else affecting “our children.”
bob dole is the hayseed hitler… bob dole… bob dooooooooooooooollllllel
Should I be ashamed that for once I actually agree with clover? (Despite the obvious irony of clover talking about sanctity of life, obviously.) lol…
I really don’t get this. I’m 99% sure that clover is paid by the government. Why on earth would the government have paid him to say that? What’s the point? This honestly confuses me and makes me wonder. This just doesn’t makes sense.
Of course, I agree with everything else Eric said (everything he said about not-abortion, lol.) The government is no rightful owner of the roads. And whether peeing in a river is aggressive depends on who owns the river.
WOW !!!!!!! man in a silly mask it just amazes me how much better you know me than I know myself. Here all this time I thought I was perfectly content with how our world class nationally know local Killer got put down for the eternal dirt nap by a very private one on one act in a semi-public place. Your wisdom makes it all sooooo clear now.
Are we the government? Or is the government something that rules over us? Something that owns us?
What the government is seems to change among statists with the topic.
@BrentP
I think the answer varies with each individual.
For me, the answer to “are we the X” is the Occam’s Razor question.
This is only rhetorical, you don’t owe me an answer to this. But consider your answer to these types of identity questions, not just the particular examples.
Are you BrentP, who resides in Chicago? Or are you BrentP, a Chicagoan? And do you agree there’s a distinction?
An imperfect sorting question, because if you say: “I’m an Engineer.” Or “I’m a Father.” That might be a legitimate and healthy type of Defining Function of your inner self. Not a way of subordinating yourself to some kind of rubbish Tavistock Identity Label.
In most other cases though, if you believe that in your essence, you are some kind of X, then, I would regard you as nothing but a Tool, and not a Man.
I would avoid you to the extent possible. Or keep everything on a casual superficial basis if necessary.
Or, if made to deal with you, I would use you however I saw fit, with little regard to you as an individual, because you identify yourself as a “Tool of X.”
To be fair, perhaps this desire to be some Thing has a place. There may be exceptions I’m not considering. It’s okay in my book to Love the Chicago Bears. And participate in shared sporting events and socialize.
But when someone’s identity is: “I’m a Chicago Bear’s Fan”, and then nothing else, or maybe a few more equally encyclopedic facts, then I know to expect about as much out of them as I would a 3 year old.
Because that’s probably the level of maturity they’re going to exhibit, based on their words. It’s not a bad thing to be a child, a pet, a spouse. To exist because you see a need, and you want to fulfill that need.
Where it becomes problematic, is in a forced society, where I’m forced to deal with these un-persons. These Psy-Borgs who like the Terminator: “Can’t be reasoned, with; can’t be bargained with…”
George Carlin said it quite well:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-rvXPfka8ljY/UmgD6bpgORI/AAAAAAAAGJo/aVLAby27HD8/s640/tumblr_muztpccGWk1rk0uv7o4_500.gif
“People are wonderful. I love individuals…”
Another good Carlinism
http://www.iwise.com/T63ap
“For a while, I thought of myself as an atheist until I realized it was a belief, too. It’s a shame everything has to have a label…”
Tor, the same statist will make different answers for different things.
In some instances the government owns everything in the next we are the government and our vote matters.
Dear Brent,
You’ve latched onto an important point.
Doublethink is the act of ordinary people simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct, often in distinct social contexts.[1] Doublethink is related to, but differs from, hypocrisy and neutrality.
Somewhat related but almost the opposite is cognitive dissonance, where contradictory beliefs cause conflict in one’s mind. Doublethink is notable due to a lack of cognitive dissonance — thus the person is completely unaware of any conflict or contradiction.
George Orwell coined the word doublethink in his dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four (1984); doublethink is part of newspeak.
As LRC columnist Butler Shaffer put it,
The “rightness” or “wrongness” of any form of collective behavior becomes interpreted by the standard of whose actions are being considered.
During World War II, for example, Japanese kamikaze pilots were regarded as crazed fanatics for crashing their planes into American battleships. At the same time, American war movies (see, e.g., Flying Tigers) extolled the heroism of American pilots who did the same thing.
One sees this same double-standard in responding to “conspiracy theories.” “Do you think a conspiracy was behind the 9/11 attacks?” It certainly seems so to me, unless one is prepared to treat the disappearance of the World Trade Center buildings as the consequence of a couple pilots having bad navigational experiences!
The question that should be asked is: whose conspiracy was it? To those whose identities coincide with the state, such a question is easily answered: others conspire, we do not.
Bevin,
You got it. Doublethink was my point. Statism would destroy NOMAD because it is a logical contradiction. That’s why I cannot accept statism, it’s not logical. The math doesn’t work. The principles don’t work. It’s ultimately self destructive.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6o881n35GU
speaking of “aggression” on the public way…. A couple-three days ago I turn right off an arterial road on to a residential road. A block in I making a left. I am bicycling BTW. I signal, make the right, signal left, take the lane, hear a car make the turn off the arterial, signal again, move to the left edge and hear the engine rev up, I slow down thinking something isn’t right here, signal again and start my turn only to have the clover pass me on the left, in the on-coming lane. I aborted my turn and wobbled back straight. This isn’t the first time this has happened to me and once again I was saved by knowing this was likely by what I could hear.
BTW: The three signals are so I can return my hand to the handlebars. This expressly permitted in the vehicle code.
Like most clovers they think I can’t catch them…. I caught up to the clover as she exited her vehicle in her driveway and gave her a piece of my mind. The most clover tastic thing about it, was her and her son? decided I was the problem for being upset about it. They threaten to call the cops. I say ‘go ahead’. After re-reading the law it would have been funny if they had. Somewhere in the years since I last read it, this sort of move is now punishable with up to a year in jail. Being ‘libertarian’, I don’t like government and cops, and once I said what I had to say I was done.
I’ve never once seen Eric advocate anything like this sort of driving I deal with often. Clover, the resident troll, does and defends it. That’s what aggression on the road looks like. Where someone decides because their machine is bigger they have the right to push others around. Our Clover here has defended this repeatedly.
I dunno mang. The problem might be in the mirror. Are you really bragging about some kind of news event where someone was killed out on The Plains? Is that the biggest happening for you this weekend? Please. Don’t tell.
The Plains
http://i1311.photobucket.com/albums/s665/bobsyeruncle666/tv/Fantasy_tattoo_205_zps5f9a1145.jpg
The Iceland settlement story is incomplete, but not entirely wrong. It is lacking in details in exactly in the same way the British Colonial settlement stories and the American settlement stories are also incomplete.
If only those Irish Monks believed in Self Ownership and the NAP. They might have helped the native Icers use advanced production techniques, and acquire enough wealth and prowess to fend off the rabid and destructive Free Shit Armies of East Scandinavia that were hot on their heels and followed them soon after.
It always seems to be, wherever missionaries and mystics of advanced nations arrive first. They serve to destroy the first nations culture and belief systems, annihilate thousands of years of unique knowledge and replace it all with useless cookie cutter unnatural and irrational belief systems, that are absolutely anathema to their survival.
First these witch doctors cast their spells. Then the atilla arrive and finish them off. A brutal one two cultural extinction combo that’s repeated over and over everywhere ad infinitum.
When a new territory is found, and there is no advanced government or only a weak government, the most powerful phyle dominates its territory. The first nations are decimated and the remaining scraps are absorbed into the new conquerors. All libertarian institutional accounts of capitalism DO PURPOSELY omit this fact.
It’s like they want capitalist means of production to have a sacred aura about them, it’s like they’re MONKS for WAGE SLAVERY land enclosure arrangements.
The strong enslaving or taking the mates of the weak is just how this world has worked in the past. If these first nations didn’t want to be invaded and plundered, they needed to resist militarily, or mass produce goods economically, or become service providers, or develop some other defense against the more powerful outsiders.
It is wrong to try to cast capitalism as it’s been practiced in any kind of morally superior light. That much traditional anarchists are complete correct. Annihilating entire modes of living isn’t the way of NAP, or Self Ownership.
But that doesn’t mean medieval Iceland isn’t an example of a marginally better society. That Iceland did not come under outside control. Is a very good thing. Not for everybody, but at least for some. For the strongest ones.
In no way should you let anyone tell you the later establishment of a strong centralized authority brings relief. Quite the opposite is true. If you compare Iceland to other more typical colonization patterns, it’s clear Iceland is freer and less oppressive overall.
Because everywhere that isn’t Iceland, once the new colonial capital is built, and the regular shipments from the empire are under way. And the ships filled with soldiers of the crown start landing. No one is free. Not even the local alpha phyle.
The dominant phyle in Iceland at least for a short time experienced freedom and anarchy. Even where there is no system, terrible things can happen.
Under Danish control Iceland is now every bit as brutually subjugated and tyrannized in every conceivable way by the foreign great power as anyone else there ever was. And their is no plausible hope of any kind of anarchy re-emerging there any time soon.
Once the central authority develops, the workable strategies seem to be only to seek a less oppressive central authorities.
Libertarians are making the case, that the best solution is to remove or reduce this central authority. Iceland is an imperfect example of what a society can look like with a greatly reduced central authority.
Modern Iceland, with only 320,000 is something finite enough, that it might be effectively understood and studied.
Let’s not fall again into the usual trap of attacking the Mises article and outside links and debating them as the ends to be pursued.
Posting relevant articles and analyses regarding Iceland is a means toward a shared ends most of us share. Living in freedom and having full unsullied title to one’s own mind and body.
Settlement of Iceland – First explorers and settlers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settlement_of_Iceland#First_explorers_and_settlers
The Íslendingabók claims that the Norse settlers encountered monks from a Hiberno-Scottish mission when they first arrived in Iceland.
There is some archaeological evidence for a monastic settlement from the British Isles in southern Iceland. Sediment deposits indicate people lived there around 800, and crosses consistent with the Hiberno-Scottish style were carved in the wall of a nearby cave.
The age of settlement in Iceland is considered to have begun with Ingólfur’s settlement, for he was the first to sail to Iceland with the express purpose of settling the land.
He was followed by many others—within about sixty years, all the usable land had been taken. Landnámabók manuscripts mention 1,500 farm and place names as well as more than 3,500 people.
The material gives a relatively complete picture of how the country was settled. It is difficult to estimate with any great precision the number of the migrants to the country during the Age of Settlement, but scholars estimate that it was between 15,000 and 20,000 people.
The age of settlement is considered to have ended in the year 930 with the establishment of Alþingi, when almost all land in the country had been claimed by settlers.
Icelandic Commonwealth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#Icelandic_Commonwealth
The Icelandic Commonwealth was established in 930 AD by refugees from Norway who had fled the unification of that country under King Harald Fairhair.
The Commonwealth consisted of a number of clans run by chieftains, and the Althing was a combination of parliament and supreme court where disputes appealed from lower courts were settled, laws were decided, and decisions of national importance were taken.
One such example was the Christianisation of Iceland in 1000, where the Althing decreed, under pretext of preventing invasions, that all Icelanders must be baptized, and forbade celebration of pagan rituals.
Contrary to most states, the Icelandic Commonwealth had no official leader. External threats, and infighting eventually led Icelandic chieftains to accept Haakon IV as king by the signing of the Gamli sáttmáli (“Old Covenant”) in 1262.
This effectively brought the Icelandic Commonwealth to an end.
Alex Whitman:
How’ve you been?
Isabel Fuentes:
Pregnant.
Isabel Fuentes:
Love is a gift, Alex, not an obligation.
Alex Whitman:
You are everything I never knew I always wanted.
Isabel Fuentes:
I pee really fast. I live with five brothers, three cousins and only one bathroom. Believe me – I can pee faster than anyone in the world.
Isabel Fuentes:
Whatever you do, don’t tell them I picked you up outside a restroom.
Isabel Fuentes:
No. No quiero oir nada. No quiero que me digas una palabra. Estoy harto de todos tus mentiras. Esos son todos lo que me has dicho. Cobarde.
Alex Whitman:
What does that mean?
Isabel Fuentes:
It means that you are a liar and a coward. That’s what it means.
Alex Whitman:
It sounded so much prettier in Spanish.
Great Grandma:
You will never know love unless you surrender to it.
Tracey Burnham:
Jeff, hon, would you get us some ice?… And while you’re at it put some scotch in it.
Tracey Burnham:
Well nobody ever plans to end up in Vegas. You just do. Kinda sneaks up on you. But it is the fastest growing economy in the US, the economy is booming, business is growing, I’m up to my neck in paperwork. Oh, but frankly, it’s not a whole lotta fun. Are you are whole lotta fun Alex?
Isabel Fuentes:
It was a sign, Alex.
Alex Whitman:
Of what?
Isabel Fuentes:
That the baby would be Catholic.
Great Grandma:
How selfish you are. To presume you know better than love.
Alex Whitman:
Where are you going?
Isabel Fuentes:
You’re not my favorite person right now.
Alex Whitman:
Yeah, well, you either.
Great Grandma:
It is not your faith that has betrayed you. It is your fear.
Priest on Street:
There are signs everywhere.
“ragebait” – I’d not heard that word before.
Something to keep in mind.
How was this subject brought up I wondered?
July 7, 2014 at 12:03 pm Top Level Comment
David:
I liked the article and thought it was excellent, but I had to nitpick one thing.
With regards to that one meme “don’t like abortions, don’t get one.”
A wise man recently said in this regard: We have all been here before, and the result was not pretty. Tempers flared.
So the ISSUE is Eric chose an ABRASIVE-to-some meme.
To my unenlightened eye, it seemed a harmless list of aphorisms.
But now look close, the graphic says: “atheistmemebase”
On the internet, atheists and christians are known to get each other’s hackle up.
Maybe this aphorism list is emotionally charged ragebait, that smuggles in an abortion equivocation in a way the atheists know agitates christians
I’m pretty sure Eric’s life goal isn’t to agitate anybody.
I hope I’m here to advance liberty thought, perhaps I falter or fall down at times, not hard to believe, since this is just a favorite hangout, not my livelihood.
That leaves only the atheistmeme guys as the primary issue.
And David’s white knight’s move to put Eric’s game in check, and advance his judeo-christian game by holding Eric’s feet to the fire, for selecting what was probably a quick image searched illustrative meme as a secondary issue.
I’ll leave it to anyone else, someone more even minded, to weigh in, and tell the group, whether that’s what libertarian is or isn’t.
Dear Tor,
Not sure exactly how the abortion issue reared its ugly head — again.
In any event, both sides have already presented their moral arguments. Both sides consider their moral arguments iron-clad.
So now the question is this:
If the anti-abortion side equates abortion with murder, what does it intend to do to a rape victim who is about to get an abortion?
No more moral arguments, please. We’ve already heard the two sides’ moral arguments, ad nauseum.
The question now is:
What do the anti-abortionists intend to do to the rape victim, who, according to them, is about to commit murder?
If David and others who share his view that “abortion is murder” refuse to provide a direct answer, I will take that as a tacit admission that physically accosting, physically incarcerating, and physically restraining the rape victim for nine months to prevent abortion is morally outrageous and indefensible.
The abortion reared it’s ugly head. I laughed a little at that.
I mean it’s hardly triumphal that 1/4 of all world pregnancies are medically ended. Sometimes a dark sense of humor helps to make sense of things.
Certainly getting glum and mucking about in quagmires because one’s agenda is losing isn’t pleasant. But when its something you feel is worth fighting for, you do so.
I certainly don’t like the way individuals are more and more constrained at every turn. I don’t want christians or abortion abolitionists to be forced to live against their wills or anyone else who’s peaceful either.
Are we the one’s to address this to at this point? We’re not in power. There’s not even a single township, or seastead we yet control, such that we can address one’s concerns about abortion.
We can armchair general, monday morning quarterback this until the cows come home, but it’s about as important as fantasy football leagues are, to actual football leagues, don’t you think?
Dear Tor,
Just for the record, I said “abortion issue,” not “abortion.” The last thing I want is unwarranted vilification.
I welcome warranted vilification for things I actually said.
But I get your “gallows humor.”
Bevin wrote – What do the anti-abortionists intend to do to the rape victim, who, according to them, is about to commit murder?
I don’t really consider myself anti-abortion, but I will answer anyway.
A concerned, moral person could offer alternatives to the “mother” which could benefit both parties. Creativity will be booming in the world of free market anarchism!
Dear IC,
I have absolutely no problem with your suggestion. I think it is consistent with the NAP and libertarian thinking.
My only concern is if anti-abortionists who equate abortion with murder start laying hands on or pointing guns at people.
not sure exactly how the abortion issue reared its ugly head — again.
see the graphic, embedded in eric’s essay.
I will take that as a tacit admission
fingers crossed, toes crossed, & sign of the cross, but…no. old time catholics bought & sold dispensations. even as the ubers prosecuted the inquisition & the unters looked away, tried to stay out of the way. so do new age nap’s.
physically accosting, physically incarcerating, and physically restraining the rape victim for nine months to prevent abortion is morally outrageous and indefensible.
lurid description of pregnancy. of course, what you’re actually describing is the rape. & conflating the baby with the rapist. sloppy for someone who otherwise likes to play it straight.
my direct answer: the least of us, like the rest of us, should not be killed. there are no moral arguments to counter this. blatantly & forthrightly immoral, amoral, or broken-sociopathic “debaters” are to be preferred, since they don’t pretend to be enlightened or evolved or ethical; they’re honest criminals.
so, I give it to you, bevin. collude with the women who have been raped & impregnated. pass the buck to the child. kill ‘em all.
56,979,843.8
– bevin’s diabolical confidence constant
55, 979,843.8
not exactly a rounding error. i’m probably off on the constant. but is it too small? or too big?
at any rate, now that the specifics that concern you have been conceded, & the evil seed issuance has been done in & disposed of, what do you, “pro-choicer”, intend to utter (nothing more active than that) on behalf of the babies, conceived in the usual, non-rape way? if you & the other Aztecs (which may only be symmetrical, & not be fair, since this seems only to be your big idea/argument) refuse to clarify your gossamerman extrapolation of the diabolical confidence constant as an attempt to justify killing the whole lot, it will not be tacit in the least what you are refusing to admit.
Dear oz,
You are already convinced you are right and I am wrong about abortion, right?
Fine. Now say for the sake of argument, you are right. The “moral debate” is over. I lost. You won. I am no longer a player. I’m now out of the picture.
Now the only players left are you and the rape victim. Now there’s just you and the rape victim, who intends to get an abortion. You consider her action murder.
Now the only question left is: What will you do? In order to prevent what you consider murder, what will you do?
How about answering the question?
Locking her up for nine months when she hasn’t actually done anything would certainly be unjustified.
Locking her up for life or putting her to death once she has actually murdered her child via abortion would not be unjustified. Perhaps not necessary (someone who aborts after a rape isn’t particularly likely to murder ever again, and that exceptional unlikelihood would make me inclined to show some leiniency were I a judge… I could think of potential scenarios involving adults being where I would feel similarly though). But definitely not unjustified in a theoretical sense.
If you’re asking what the punishment should be, I don’t know. I think that’s very case by case. I could imagine a circumstance where I’d rather not see any punishment, and I could imagine a case where I’d want to see capital punishment (unlikely in a rape case, but more likely in a non-rape case.) A big part of the issue here is that in most murder cases the heirs of a victim are the ones who will speak for the victim, while the unborn child has pretty much nobody to speak for them. The quickest possiblity that comes to mind is that people who feel like I do might voluntarily pay dues to an organization that exists to defend the unborn in court. Of course, what types of punishments they would recommend isn’t exactly predictable.
On the other hand, if you are asking what should be done preemptively to stop an abortion from taking place, that’s essentially an impossibility unless one happens to be in the room when an abortion is about to take place. Which is really similar to any other murder when you think about it. What are you going to do to stop (as opposed to punish after the fact) a killer? Well, you really can’t do anything unless he is about to kill someone right in front of you.
Hi David,
Let’s deconstruct “unborn child.” It presumes – once again – that sperm+egg, at the moment of conception, is a fully human being. But this “human being” has no awareness or even capacity to be aware (yet). It has no heartbeat, no central nervous system. As I have argued previously – and using facts only, not opinions – if a single cell is “human” by dint of being biologically alive and having a full set of human chromosomes and capable of becoming a full developed human being, then it seems to me any living cell of my body is also “human” and if I take any deliberate action that results in the biologic death of any such cell, I have committed “murder” – according to you.
Again, please explain to me how a potential human is the same thing as an actual one….
Dear David,
You wrote:
“Locking her up for life or putting her to death once she has actually murdered her child via abortion would not be unjustified. ”
FINALLY!
I can’t believe I finally got a straight answer from you, after tap dancing for about a week and dodging my direct question, which I must have asked half a dozen times.
So a woman who has been kidnapped, raped, and impregnated against her will, may not get an abortion. If she does, she should be sentenced to life imprisonment or death.
Thank you for finally giving me a straight answer.
Now let’s see how long it takes ozymandias to do the same. So far he’s still tap dancing. Typing lots of words but not saying what he would DO.
Bevin, I’m always amazed how “some” people seem to think the rights of an unborn child(no matter if we even know the circumstances of it’s health or anything else)trump the rights of those who they seem think should carry them to term “no matter what” as if a zygote has more rights than someone old enough to reproduce.
Once again, we have to remind ourselves that “some” people have been brainwashed since birth and can’t see the forest for the trees….or as Forrest’ mom would say, Stupid is as stupid does.
Just to illustrate how someone might change their view according to what the specifics of a case are, I just read in the comments section of Who,What,Why that a “person” called mikefromwhichita actually compared the much maligned National Geographic re-enactment of the Boston bombing to the also much maligned re-enactment of the Australian shootings. Both were designed to slant the audiences thinking at the obvious risk of doing great harm to the highly possible innocent.
All this was done to help govt. duplicity.
It’s all too real for me today since yesterday afternoon I nearly collected a stupid human with the front of a KW fully loaded who walked across a highway in front of me. I nearly wrecked and barely missed the guy, by maybe a foot. I hate to think of what would have happened to both of us without that small distance I managed to produce. I spent the rest of the afternoon shaking and not doing such a good job. About 200 yds from my rig, leaving in the crewcab my company owner was driving, I asked him to stop and threw my first dead beer bottle down and got another out of the cooler. Things aren’t always so cut and dried as statists would want you to believe but I realize YOU know that even if they don’t.
Dear 8sm,
Thanks for responding to what I put out there. I was beginning to wonder whether I was a voice in the wilderness.
As I told Tor, it really isn’t about “winning an argument for the sake of winning an argument.” I’m not big on pissing contests. It’s about what I perceive as a serious threat to natural rights and individual liberty.
That’s why I wanted David and Ozymandias to leave me out of the picture at this stage of the debate and move on. I wanted the question at hand to be:
“What would YOU do to prevent a woman from getting an abortion, if you consider abortion to be murder?”
After all, that’s where the real conflict lies. I don’t consider early pregnancy abortion murder. Therefore I would take myself out of the picture by refusing to intervene. The pregnant woman would not have to worry about me trying to stop her.
The real conflict is not between David and me or Ozymandias and me. The real conflict is between David and the pregnant woman or Ozymandias and the pregnant woman.
David and Ozymandias consider abortion murder, so it’s up to them to decide how they intend to prevent what they insist on characterizing as premeditated murder.
David has finally given his answer. I’ll give him that, however belatedly, and however much it was like pulling teeth!
at: helot,
you can always ask WWKCD? (what would King Clover do?)
Good King Cloverslas went down, on the Feast of Sweden…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5E8CXQwtrg
Or Watch the Top 20 Soviet Films for guidance
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DvEKNs-Elk
Solaris, Aelita, Amphibian Man, The Color of Pomegranates, all are must-watches(in part at least) if you can find English dubbed or subbed versions
Man With A Movie Camera (1929 silent)
https://archive.org/details/ChelovekskinoapparatomManWithAMovieCamera
Dziga Vertov’s Man With A Movie Camera is considered one of the most innovative and influential films of the silent era.
Startlingly modern, this film utilizes a groundbreaking style of rapid editing and incorporates innumerable other cinematic effects to create a work of amazing power and energy.
Film pioneer Dziga Vertov uses all the cinematic techniques available at the time – dissolves, split screen, slow motion and freeze frames.
“WWKCD? (what would King Clover do?)”
Ha! Ha! Ha!
Like King Kong? (But of course, at the same time, Not. As Kong was innocent. Unlike the Clover’s of the world.) However; Captive, yet destructive?
The same fate is awaiting us all, only, ‘The Kong’ is oblivious to, The End.
Whew, I think maybe I’m seriously messing up that metaphor, as the sheeple-Kong-like bunch might be oblivious, but we’re not. … For the most part. …Or, are we?
Anyway, it just occurred to me: All cops are shrinks. All shrinks are cops. W ether they like it or not. Shrink-ops? Cop-inks? There’s a couple dozen others I was thinking of as I prepared to cut the grass.
I so miss my friends who were good with cutting jokes from that kind of cloth.
I think they were swallowed by the Progressive machine or, the ‘Love The State’ machine. I feel bad that I could not help them as the bile from what they allowed to swallow them took them over. …It’s almost like I don’t recognize them now. ..It’s as if they were alien, or something? Vampire-something-or-other-zombie. But hey! I saw the zombie film where they Can Change!
Maybe that’s why I don’t mind the 65,000 Mexicans and Central Americans crossing the border every month? At least some of them seem to be somewhat pure… some of them, most of them (?) they want to work. It’s like most of America has ‘No Clue’ – without them – the crops in Middle America wouldn’t get picked. That’s a Fact Jack!
No Americans are going to do that, at a price other Americans are willing to pay. Could you imagine $20 McDonald’s hamburgers, and $20 for a dozen ears of corn? That’s what it’d take to get American’t’s to pick crops.
… But I digress. …Way.
“WWKCD? (what would King Clover do?)”
Ha! Ha! Ha!
The cousin of, Red Rover? Or, Humpty Dumpty?
(Dang, Not even, ‘Humpty Dumpty’ is in Spell-check! The-almost-worthless-piece of-…)
“WWKCD? (what would King Clover do?)”
Ha! Ha! Ha!
Nice.
Like King Kong? (But of course, at the same time, Not. As Kong was innocent. Unlike the Clover’s of the world.) However; Captive, yet destructive?
The same fate is awaiting us all, only, ‘The Kong’ is oblivious to, The End.
Whew, I think maybe I’m seriously messing up that metaphor, as the sheeple-Kong-like bunch might be oblivious, but we’re not. … For the most part. …Or, are we?
Anyway, it just occurred to me: All cops are shrinks. All shrinks are cops. W ether they like it or not. Shrink-ops? Cop-inks? There’s a couple dozen others I was thinking of as I prepared to cut the grass.
I so miss my friends who were good with cutting jokes from that kind of cloth.
I think they were swallowed by the Progressive machine or, the, ‘Love The State’ machine. I feel bad that I could not help them as the bile from what they allowed to swallow them took them over. …It’s almost like I don’t recognize them now. ..It’s as if they are alien, or something? “Covered in slime”, as they say on GhostBuster’s? Vampire-something-or-other-zombie. But hey! I saw the zombie film where they Can Change!
Maybe that’s why I don’t mind the 65,000 Mexicans and Central Americans crossing the border every month? At least some of them seem to be somewhat pure… some of them, most of them (?) they want to work. It’s like most of America has ‘No Clue’ – without them – the crops in Middle America wouldn’t get picked. That’s a Fact Jack!
No Americans are going to pick crops, at a price other Americans are willing to pay. Could you imagine $20 McDonald’s hamburgers, and $20 for a dozen ears of corn? That’s what it’d take to get American’t’s to pick crops.
… But I digress. …Way.
“WWKCD? (what would King Clover do?)”
Ha! Ha! Ha!
The cousin of, Red Rover? Or, Humpty Dumpty?
(Dang, Not even, ‘Humpty Dumpty’ is in Spell-check! The-almost-worthless-piece of-…)
One last bit, @Tor. I felt bad for what you wrote, about how people aren’t doing Jack unless they are actually, “doing something” … But then I read this:
Crap! The sweat from cutting the grass is fucking with me and I cannot find the link on LRC (via EPJ?) about being an idea smuggler.
Being an idea smuggler is a kick-stand above, ‘doing nothing’. It. is. Something.
Just a Hang Up I had. … Mad. (The Magazine) …Or, maybe that was, Spy Vs. Spy, I forget. One and the same? Idk. Time does that to ya.
I don’t want any bad or undue feel-ty. Not all ways fully in my right hemisphere, but I don’t mean to dethrone anyone else’s mental realm. Except those times with clovers and government workers, which weren’t my highest use of my time certainly.
And Now For Something Different 1) a pic from P.M. Lawrence’s page titled:
<a href="http://users.beagle.com.au/peterl/mom.jpg" Mom
2) comments 4 MamaLib’s School Shooters’ article
3) what’s libertarianism got 2 do, got 2 do with it?
That one link was mistyped, it should be, http://users.beagle.com.au/peterl/mom.jpg
What Libertarianism Could Be? Is the Zygote NGO, Foundation, and Associations.
Any pregnant woman in the world can do a selfie sonogram using the Zygote app on their smart device or desktop/laptop computer.
This assigns her at least 10 acres somewhere on Earth or under the Ocean waters at random. Or within the Earth. And acres in the solar system disk. And in the milky way disk. And acres on the Sun, and other Planets, and other celestial bodies. And an unique allocation in cyberspace. And a permanent recordation there whether she is ever born or not.
Looking back, in the 1980s the number of annual world births peaked at 138 million per year. It has since leveled off at 134 million per year. With deaths of 56 million per year. And abortions of 45 million per year.
But now, and in the near now, ever since Zygote began in 2015, there are only 5 million abortions per year. And 10 million deaths.
The 40 million less abortions are because 5 million fetuses are funded outright with no strings through Zygote. 20 million births are funded through contractual arrangements. and 15 million births are life recycle events.
In a life recycle, a new human life has more than 1 identity. He/She has his own unique name and record. And also exists as a copy of a different human life. This copy manifests in different ways.
Sometimes, an existing person’s brain is uploaded into a partition of the newborn. Sometimes, it’s just taught how to emulate another person through videos and multimedia. Sometimes the sponsored new life just continues on the old name, and is bequeathed with the former person’s legal title and property. And many other permutations also.
A sponsored zygote/fetus sometimes donates tissue for medical purposes to its sponsor. Or helps to regrow new organs, or build immunities to diseases of its sponsor. Its infused with two or more immune systems of other people.
It’s hard to explain without being in this future, but the Zygote app meant the end to the necessity of death. To chaining an emerging being to its human host or sperm provider when not wanted. And so much more.
Truly the market has spoken, and Zygote is one of the great triumphs of an amazing 21st century now known as the Transcendent Age. And also as the Post-Materialist Age.
— — —
What I do know, is ozymandias is NOT necessarily a socialist. I looked back into site history and his first posts were:
to contend with some of Tinsley’s assertions. And say to him: “population density and…doom…is a spurious correlation.”
to mention he had built some kind of cat habitiat
http://habitathaven.com/
to recommend “emancipating slaves, enslaving free men”, by Hummel as a good book
http://www.friesian.com/civil.htm
to say: “Authoritarians. Or anarchists. That’s the division.”
—
The first thing I said to him:
“I’m with you, Ozymandias. The right to jury trial, old age pensions, food stamps, disaster relief… All these false “rights” are worse than worthless. They cheat & corrupt functioning independent men, and leave dependent dysfunctional bankrupted parasites in their place. ”
—
The first thing Ozymandias said to me is:
“Ancestor worship, institutionalism (unredeemed shawshankers), & “we’re not worthy” waynes-worlders…lol”
http://ericpetersautos.com/2012/12/28/and-eat-your-veggies-too/
I am What Libertairianism Is. And What Libertarianism Isn’t. And Was and Wasn’t. And Will and Won’t Be. And so is everyone assembled here today, in his own way.
Yeah, I liked that, “I am What Libertairianism Is. And What Libertarianism Isn’t. And Was and Wasn’t. And Will and Won’t Be. And so is everyone assembled here today, in his own way.”
Rough edges.
well, thank huitzilopochtli for things recorded on the internet that can be dredged up & cited to alleviate one’s anxieties, or lighten one’s load of aspersions & ad hominems…i have heard, tho, that the inet can be as addictive as benzedrine. of vanishing points & addictive nervous systems…
and oh how we burned in the cubicle camps
we who dared break the fourth reality wall, and enrage and disobey the situations-normal-all-forced-united
and breach the fifth wall, and sink far below the cubicle horizon, doing unthinkable and unplottable things that unjustly outraged and angered every Agent Smith and every Agent Wesson
and finally breached the sixth wall, and soared in our imaginations beyond everything settled and planned beyond imaginings of every social security operative, who when each night out seeking a cyber-arrest,
became uncertain whether he would return to his wife and proper bank account balance, who teenage daughtered been skype-cat called and offered every agorist delight of brightest bitcoin myrrhth and franken-adsense and redditgold and fotoshopped vids of all with every praetorian mistress
watched by his laughing and loathing children and then the seventh wall through the eleventh wall started to bend and buckle tesseract-like good-bye
every topological step on the stare-case to bureaucrat heaven, nothing left to lose and boldly gone where no cyber ambush had gone with trojans, lolcats, chive-babes, and whatever else was at helot hand?
his organs of oppression quickly shriveled suffering a shortage of officers and transport and buzzcuts notwithstanding all of the National Security Contractors thirsts, the cursed mad machine ground to a halt!
Because wikipedantically, we did all love internet pr0no enough. And even had no care of our real situations, purely and simply deserving everything amazingly surreal mass hallucinated thing that subsequently happened or imagined, afterward, backward, foreword, taleb’s ladderward, mengerward,
and mandelbaumseinfeltfractalward.
Imho, it’s not about, love of P0rn, it’s about love of women. [Pardon my heterosexual slant there. Perhaps I should have said, “lust for the opposite sex”? … oh wait, how about,”lust for the desirable persona’s”?]. Anyway, I was disappointed in the search I did for, ‘chive-women’, not a one of them had a bundle of chives.
Also, what the heck is, “mandelbaumseinfeltfractalward”
That’s almost longer than Supercalifragilisticexpialidiouchious (and that word isn’t in spell-check, either? Yeesh. Spell-check ain’t got No culture. And this is what we can look forward to from Associated Press articles written by robots? Oh, joy.
Maybe not a Socialist, but spoken like a true statist/police state enabler: “i have heard, tho, that the inet can be as addictive as benzedrine. of vanishing points & addictive nervous systems…”
A lot of shrinks are having a problem with the idea there’s no such thing as, “addiction”. I guess, You Are Not Alone.
Keyword: Jon Rappoport.
Look it up.
oy…
“a lot”.
head-count helot. seriously doubt you’ve ever stood alone in any way, shape or form. or, at least not since your concussion(s). with comprehension as low as yours, you just don’t have much choice.
you’re gonna’ be surprised, yet again, if your facebook friend & you ever end up face to face in any kind of tight spot. byol; he’ll bring chianti & fava beans.
Thus proclaims, ‘the all-knowing’ statist-like, ozymandias.
Yeesh.
I dough-n’t think hee’s ayn Ameri-con. He dozen’t “feel our Paine.” That’s Y he’s relephant and app-roe-pough.
doppelgangsterism: jekyll peers into buddhist mirrors, sees hydes, hairs, vices, versas; doc frankensteins seizing inner monsters, seven sybils seas of dichotomies – two half lobotomies making whole our outer roboto-me.
Gregory Smith & Jon Rappoport – American Addict
http://www.redicecreations.com/radio3fourteen/2014/R314-140129.php
Dee Jay Em Kay Ultra Jazzy Jeff
http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2014/03/24/us-jazz-musicians-were-drafted-into-the-cias-mkultra/
chem imbal is dead – long live the chem imbal
http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2014/03/07/rip-psychiatry-the-chemical-imbalance-theory-is-dead/
Lojick and Analysis and Faith and Course
http://www.nomorefakenews.com/logiccourseoutline.html
Know Moore Phaik Nooze
http://www.nomorefakenews.com/
One of your graphics said, “Don’t like abortions, don’t have one.”
That should be amended to “Don’t want to be killed, don’t be a baby in the womb.”
Abortion is DEFINITELY initiating force against another human being, period. As a libertarian myself, it bothers me when other libertarians assume murdering innocents does not violate NAP. Just a blind spot, I guess.
Mark from Moorpark, is the sport of boxing a violation of the NAP?
Why?
helot….
one of my brothers was a golden gloves champ. the other was a junior olympics champ. i did a little of that, too. but i had more real things, out in the world, than all their bouts, combined. & i can tell you that just one blow to the head, let alone too many, can degrade analogical reasoning….
Zod Wrest Ye Clover Gentlemen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8H6XEIEqYik
Zod Wrest Ye Clover Gentlemen
From them we doth dismay
Sainted Krug-man, our Saviour
Transfers Wealth Taxstice day
To save us all from Sovereign power
Brash fellows gone astray
O titheings to extroverts who annoy,
Extroverts who annoy
O titheings to extroverts who annoy,
turning a blind eye is more like it, mark.
give them nothing.
Turning a blind eye, is it, eh?
Do you patrol the streets looking for instances to interfere with other people’s lives and defend them from every aggression they encounter?
By what authority do you claim while doing this, ozymandias?
have you been concussed, helot? or do you just need to speed up? or are you already at tora-tora-tora & need to slow down? dunno…your a/b schism is interesting.
So, are you saying you’re a cop, or a shrink, ozymandias?
…And, when did you stop beating your wife?
Also, I noticed you didn’t answer the fookin’ question(s). Ya Just danced around ’em.
not/never a cop. we’re all “shrinks” (psychologists) of differing sensitivities, skills.
didn’t answer the questions because those are, in fact, the only “dancing” here; attempted diversions & irrelevant.
the people here (& “fookin'” everywhere else, too) make moral arguments & pronouncements all day in & day out about just about everything. & some of them, like you, like a guy called himself “hotrod”, who even had god on his side, the 1st time i rolled thru this neighborhood, treat “abortion” like a 3rd rail. the rest of the aztecs don’t even hedge; they just lie their asses off & line up the sacrifices.
i’m walking the rail, helot; it ain’t electrified. & all the choo-choo noise is just a bunch a’ people trying to fool you into thinkin’ a train’s comin’.
@Helot- Is sport boxing consensual between both parties? Is abortion?
You already know the answer to this. That people who are frankly far more intelligent than me can come up with arguments this ridiculous flabbergasts me.
Abortion is murder, period.
David,
Merely asserting something just is – “period” – is not an argument. It is just an assertion. Your opinion.
@David, the point about the sport of boxing was that not all interactions between people where there is aggression are considered a violation of the NAP. Therefore; to say simply that aggression occurs is not a be all to end all reasoning to determine if the NAP has been violated.
Who owns what?
Anyway, it seems to me you’ve made up your mind that a mother does not own her own body. …If so, then who does? The State? “Society”?
The question runs in tandem with the discussion about circumcision on the Walter Block link above. You should consider reading it.
Libertarian good deeds, are only what you yourself voluntarily actually do.
Transformed Crib Honors Stillborn Boy Comforts Mom
http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/story/25470495/transformed-crib-honors-stillborn-boy-comforts-mother
14-year old son of a mom undergoing chemo carved her a message in the snow to brighten her spirits
http://i.imgur.com/U3ntOT4.jpg
14 year old crippled aussie kid gets to drive exotic cars – market charitable example
http://i.imgur.com/OOIChye.jpg
Market solution: brazilian kids learn english from lonely elderly english speaking americans
http://www.adweek.com/adfreak/perfect-match-brazilian-kids-learn-english-video-chatting-lonely-elderly-americans-157523
Market solution: Dakota coffee shop makes profit, with no officious overlord goon patrol clerk
http://twentytwowords.com/how-one-north-dakota-cafe-thrives-despite-rejecting-what-every-other-cafe-needs-to-survive/
Market charitable solution: Hong Kong billionaire donates entire fortune
http://www.celebritynetworth.com/articles/entertainment-articles/chinese-real-estate-billionaire-just-donated-entire-fortune-charity-leaving-kids-will-receive-precisely-nothing/
The fetal cells survive, only when conjoined to their mother. How are his self-arrogated life guardians to keep the peace of these cells? Perhaps a cauterized wifi baby heart monitor that beeps at the nearest fusion center? Or 24/7 surveillance cameras?
potential perpette tracking tape 34C67
http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/phpb_ssnyug/maxresdefault.jpg
Like Shylock in the Merchant of Venice, these interlopers preen and gape at the wombs of these alleged feminine self-murderers. Unwanted wombmates to be sure. Jealously keeping keen eyes on “their creators’ property” their pounds of brother flesh of another mother.
Their mystical feelings compel them to protect at all costs these ounces and then later pounds of flesh which grow within what sould be a sovereign human mother.
Antonia is dragged from the clinic to the court, with Shylock demanding she be caged until she raise and deliver “his” pounds of flesh. The presiding Duke of Venice initially proposes that Shylock might assume certain tissue losses and forgive his claim of Antonia being in his debt
Better Plays for Better Lives: The Merchant of Venice
http://oecdinsights.org/2013/08/01/better-plays-for-better-lives-the-merchant-of-venice/
Mystically and Triumphally Shylock Cackles:
It must not be; there is no power in Venice
Can alter a mystical decree established.
‘Twill be recorded for a precedent,
And many an error by the same example
Will rush into the states. It cannot be.
Actually Bevin,
David has not told you what he thinks about abortion. He’s been quite clear he lacks that faculty. He has repeatedly offered only his childlike mystical response to the subject.
Here are David’s own words, which you’ve earlier quoted:
But let’s look at what you wrote as well:
So, in that case, we have the right to say “don’t do that. Ever. And if you do, we’ll use defensive force to prevent you from doing it, and force to make you compensate the victim as well.” I feel very strongly that abortion is in the latter category.
David feels he has a right to force people to act against their will. He claims the right to defend his feelings for creator, and his perception of the will of this creator.
Clover feels like libertarians are anyone who hates the government. He feels like anyone who threatens his external authority is his enemy.
Ozymandias feels like I’m a torrid typist and sociopath who lacks empathy for the fetal stage of human development. Even though I was once a fetus, and could have been aborted myself. He feels I am a contradictory monster.
It’s a non-sequitir to reason with these three about anything, because they’re overwhelmed with their feelings, and aren’t ruled by their reason.
These kinds of minds need to seek the refuge of government, religion, and expert opinion, because they require a philosophical guardian. They are asteroids revolving in orbit around a higher power.
They are bar mitzvah mystical. Subject to mystical laws. Not bar mitzvah logical. Not subject to reasoned principles.
I believe I understand these men, because unlike you, I allow both ways to inhabit my head. (note I said believe, not think)
I generally conduct myself in a reasoned logical manner, though I permit small and great storms of mysticism to gather in my mind as well. I am of elemental planets, alive with both calm and tempest. I revolve around my on ego and my inner will.
You are of elemental suns and moons. Always shining with powerful clarity. And of the moons, faithfully absorbing and reflecting these rays of the sun to light the ways of your fellow beings.
When either us planets or those asteroids enter your domain, you either immediately subsume them. Or continually work at subsuming them. Until subsumed, they rage like sunspots storms across your rationally generated inner light.
Dear Tor,
When I asked David that question, I was not trying to win an argument for the sake of winning an argument.
Rather I saw a serious conflict with the NAP, and pointed it out.
Evidently I was not the only one. Apparently “pro-life” realize there is a problem with their position as well. That is why David refused to answer the question.
In case anyone has forgotten the question, after all the evasion and obfuscation, it was this:
A woman has been kidnapped and raped by some low life scumbag. She is rescued or escapes. But she discovers she has been impregnated by her kidnapper. She is about to get an abortion. She doesn’t even need to think twice.
The question is: What does the “pro-lifer” who insists that “abortion is murder” intend to do about it?
Note, I am not asking what the “pro-lifer” FEELS or THINKS about the woman’s intended action.
I am asking what the “pro-lifer” intends TO DO about the fact that the woman is about to get an abortion.
Nobody on the other side seems willing to give me a direct answer to that question.
This is one of those multiple choice questions where I want to check A and B.
A.) I am a Pro-Lifer.
B.) I am also a Pro-Choicer.
I think abortion is wrong (is murder) and no one should ever do it, no matter what.
I think it is also wrong to stop a mother from doing it, she has that authority by virtue of being the mother.
It is certainly wrong to force others to finance it against their will.
What I might do, is pray. Or, contribute to an organization such as Tor has described in order to entice women to willingly pick another option.
Other than that, it’s none of my business. I do not have any authority over the matter. Just as I have no authority to intervene in another persons religion as in the example in Walter Block’s link above.
Under Panarchy, people are free to be in a cultural group which either accepts abortion (or any other violation of the NAP they decide) to be a free choice exclusively, or people can be part of a group which condemns their members from doing so, with by whatever means they have all agreed to beforehand, a sort of voluntary slavery? A.k.a. a family, for instance. Or, another combination of some sort? However; our overlords and their minions will not permit any such Panarchy to flourish openly, or for long.
Libertarianism is not a straight-jacket or a narrow road with 50 foot concrete walls running alongside the shoulder. Jmho.
helot – “I think it is also wrong to stop a mother from doing it, she has that authority by virtue of being the mother.”
What about defending the life of another from an aggressor? If not from the “mother”, then from the doctor?
Should she really be considered a mother if her goal is to NOT be a mother?
By what authority would you claim to stop the mother, Inconsistencies?
The mother has no claim upon her own body and that which is inside it? She gave up all ownership once she got pregnant? To whom? You? “Society”?
Don’t get me wrong, I think the mother should fight to the end to protect her baby, no matter what.
I’m just not claiming authority to over-ride any decision she makes. it’s not my decision to make.
By what authority do we do anything in our daily lives, if not morality? Would justification be needed to step in to save a child being beaten by his mother to the point of death?
At the same time, Inconsistencies, you’re seemingly justifying child seats and seatbelt laws. Heck, even running with scissors or playing with Jarts. Never-mind jumping from a high dive into a swimming pool.
That’s why I included spanking in this thread. If a mother were spanking a child in public, would you intervene?
I mean, to you it might look like she was beating the child to death from the way the child screamed. However; maybe the child is a natural born actor and an excellent manipulator of others via screams?
I’ve seen it before, haven’t you?
Is there a, ‘fine line’? I don’t know. That’s why I’m asking questions. Seems like it’s a family matter to me. Much like a family or a head of family decides if a member of that family be allowed to drive those life threatening motorcycle thingies. Who has authority? There’s no question a life could be ended. And on it goes….
You posed the question, “Would justification be needed to step in to save a child being beaten by his mother to the point of death?”
Did you read the Walter Block link?
Would you oppress an individual for following their religion?
How far would you go to do so? Would you join a gang as they waged war against the followers of this religion to stop them?
Would you say, “morality” commands me to defeat these infidels!? And that “we” must monitor them 24/7/365 to make sure they do as expected? I dunno, maybe even going so far as to record the conversations in Every Neighborhood in the Nation, just to be sure they are obeying? Is that why it seems like they are doing that now? Or, should I give “them” the benefit of the doubt?
A Government of Wolves
Not to say that isn’t a worthy and often honorable statement, Inconsistencies. “By what authority do we do anything in our daily lives, if not morality?”
However; If I were driving on a suspended hyway on my way home from work at 2 A.M. which overlooked “the bad part of town” and I looked down and saw what I thought was a woman beating her child to death. Should I go down and interject myself into her life and her affairs to impose my idea of right and wrong upon them all?
Some people might say that if I didn’t I’d be ‘turning a blind eye”, while another large segment of the population might say i was minding my own business if I kept going.
If we had true Panarchy the answer seems like it would be clear.
Under the system we have now, things are intentionally muddied. Jmho.
helot – “At the same time, Inconsistencies, you’re seemingly justifying child seats and seatbelt laws.”
Not quite… I think you’re well aware of how much you are stretching things with that statement.
If I saw a child in immediate danger of death at the hands of an aggressor, I would hope that I would find the courage to do the right thing. To suggest that I would possibly interfere while a child is getting a spankin’ or kidnap a child who was incorrectly harnessed into a vehicle is ludicrous.
“Would you oppress an individual for following their religion?”
If a person’s life was in immediate danger at the hands of an aggressor, I would again hope that I would have the courage to do the right thing.
“How far would you go to do so? Would you join a gang as they waged war against the followers of this religion to stop them?”
Again, a ridiculous sentiment. I’m an individual and only act as such, and would only consider interfering when immediately necessary to save a life.
The rest of your statements are a strange attempt to equate individual morality with groupthink and state activities. I don’t feel the need to address these.
“If I were driving on a suspended hyway on my way home from work at 2 A.M. which overlooked “the bad part of town” and I looked down and saw what I thought was a woman beating her child to death. Should I go down and interject myself into her life and her affairs to impose my idea of right and wrong upon them all?”
Only if you could find the courage within yourself to do so. Who am I to tell you what you should do?
Inconsistencies insisted, “If I saw a child in immediate danger of death at the hands of an aggressor, I would hope that I would find the courage to do the right thing. To suggest that I would possibly interfere while a child is getting a spankin’ or kidnap a child who was incorrectly harnessed into a vehicle is ludicrous.”
No, it is not.
I’m sorry you couldn’t make the connection between them.
What criterion would use to determine which is which?
Inconsistencies wrote, ““Would you oppress an individual for following their religion?”
If a person’s life was in immediate danger at the hands of an aggressor”
So, yes, you would act to deny people their religious beliefs. You might not “join” with a group to do so, but if a number of people did the same thing, you’d be acting in harmony to deny individuals their religious beliefs (as described in the Walter Block link) then I wonder, what’s to stop you from joining other individuals to do the same thing only more widespread? Nothing you’ve presented has shown you would not.
Mine is not a strange attempt to equate individual morality with groupthink and state activities, they are often quite related and there’s nothing strange about it! That’s how min-anarchism becomes tyranny so easily.
Your response to my hypothetical example of driving over the suspended hyway is telling. You wrote, “Only if you could find the courage within yourself to do so.”
Why the word, “courage”?
It’s none of your/my business.
I have no authority to interfere.
It’s not my culture, nor my family.
Courage has nothing to do with it.
Else-wise, why aren’t you out patrolling the streets looking for instances of aggression against people you don’t know? Because you lack the courage?
I don’t think so.
Wow… I’m downright flabbergasted by some of the stuff in this discussion.
Letting your child jump off the high dive is not aggressive. Nor is letting them not wear a seatbelt. These actions could POTENTIALLY cause the child harm, but they are not guaranteed to do so.
Spanking, similarly, is painful, but generally not going to cause actual harm.
Beating your child to death, by contrast, is not parenting, it is murder.
Are we really not seeing the difference here?
RE: “Letting your child jump off the high dive is not aggressive. Nor is letting them not wear a seatbelt.”
Oh, but so many millions of people think it is all just that.
That’s why the High Dive has been removed at my local swimming pool and cops scan for parents who do not buckle Up. It’s all Verboten and Not permitted by The Uber-state.
You say, “Spanking, similarly” yeah, ‘the millions’ think it’s this side of murder.
David wrote, “Beating your child to death, by contrast, is not parenting, it is murder.”
You Still haven’t read the Walter Block link, have you?
Also, who owns you?
Who owns your body?
Who owns the production of your body?
It’s a mixed Up/fucked up world when people think families amount to nothing more than guardians and their religious beliefs are determined by state sanctioned ‘Group Think’.
You’re beating a stick against your own religion, in case you hadn’t noticed.
I think that some people here are really just ditching the NAP in favor of a true “do whatever you want” stance. I think some people here are actually holding to some of the worst anti-libertarian strawmen.
I do not care what stupid anti-liberty sheep think qualifies as aggression. Screw them.
I care about what actually is.
Let’s go one step further. A mother is beating the tar out of her child on the side of the road (Not “spanking, but beating down with a club, clear intent to kill.) I happen to have a pistol in my hand, and I shoot the murderous scumbag in the back of the head (which seems plenty justified to me.) What are you going to do to me?
David,
Bevin has already demolished this one. Your premise – again – is that sperm+egg is the same thing as a child. But they are not the same. And it’s not a matter of opinion. It’s a matter of fact, as I have already elaborated at length.
You are entitled to hold the opinion that sperm+egg is the same thing as a toddler (or a baby in a crib). But it’s disingenuous of you to not concede there are objective differences and that, based on these differences, it is indeed quite debatable whether sperm+egg = human being.
And whether a potential human being is the same as an actual one.
Your view is not based on facts. It is based on religion. Which is fine. But this is not a Christian forum (or an anti-Christian forum).
I’m happy to debate any question on the basis of the facts. But I am not at all interested in arguing about religious belief because there’s no point. You believe what you believe and there is no objective way to convince you otherwise.
A mother is apparently beating a child to death in full view of the public. Not just spanking, or even whipping, but literally beating to death.
Question 1. What should a voluntaryist who witnesses such an event do?
Question 2. What would you do?
Let me answer Question 2. first. I would physically intervene to stop the mother (or father). Why? Because the child is already a sovereign individual. It is no longer merely an (egg+sperm). It is no longer a part of the woman’s body. It is no longer inside the woman’s body. It is physically separated and biologically independent of the woman’s body.
Therefore killing the child is murder, whereas abortion is not.
Question 1. What should a voluntaryist who witnesses such an event do?
This is a more complex question. Under voluntaryism, there would probably be polyarchy. If so, that could mean that as a practical matter, the moral dilemma is been taken out of the onlookers’ hands.
The situation would be akin to human rights violations in foreign countries. Individual voluntaryists do not assume they must rush off to India to prevent suttee, or Africa to prevent female genital mutilation.
Ozymandias
I would agree I’m a socialistpath. So I can see how that puts us at odds, since you’re a, well you know…
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_dvV9D391NZA/TNB-mh_e6fI/AAAAAAAAAcc/YwFb4f6S09U/s1600/obama-socialist-poster.jpg
I hope all forced top down schemes fail, and disrupt them when I can.
Maybe in a highly homogeneous historically like-minded nation like China(if this is even true), socialism makes sense. Your neighbors are like your family, in more senses than is true in the parts of America I’ve lived in.
Socialism breeds good laborers, no doubt. Which would you guess to be of higher productive capacity for lower resource necessity? A randomly selected American, or a Chinese?
I don’t think having debates or writing mere words is the highest realm of action. Mere words don’t build products or provide services. But you are free to believe otherwise.
Your claims of tender affection for the thousands of adult, child, and unborn humans on the Earth murdered each day by governments, and those enslaved by governments, are meaningless and without value, according to my calculations.
I believe in the market – the free market; the operation of supply and demand.
tor, it’s obvious that all you believe in is your ability to slip & slide quicker than most. like the frontrunning hft fuckery I’ve been reading about, which isn’t “trading”, at all. a misnomer, that, in cover-up contradiction of the truth. sorta’ like nap aztec is a self-cancelling oxymoron. you think those speedy cartelized crony “capitalists” believe in the market – the free market? oh, yeah…gov contract ticks & fleas, of this & all the various other sorts, definitely believe in pavlov’s dogs. “here free market, cuhmeer boy, good boy! you’re such a good dog, free market!” hilo brow man’s best friend. (“man”, “friend”).
but we’re no more at odds than i & the snakes i used to study were. some of them were speed demons, too; sometimes they got away – am flashing on a blue-black bolt of indigo lightning that raced me thru an obstacle course to a swamp & was gone. but if that beauty had been slithering across something like this carless horizon-to-horizon internet parking lot, well, he may as well a’ been a tortoise.
so don’t ask for whom the harmonica wails, it wails for thee, tor…..
Mon Cher Monsieur Trèfle
Nice try trash talker (cause most of your posts are trashed because they’re ridiculous, get it?)
In reality, Timothy McVeigh was a neo-Nazi and his attack was inspired by the Turner Diaries, a 1978 tract that advocated the use of terrorism to overthrow the US and establish a government explicitly based on Nazi Germany.
Author William Pierce did not support anything remotely resembling limited government; indeed, he explicitly repudiated limited government conservatism in the book.
Rather, Pierce promotes the establishment of a totalitarian state modeled on Hitler’s (who he calls “the Great One”)
Ol’ TV was a Stormfronter, to be sure.
https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t964161/
https://www.stormfront.org/forum/blogs/u91775/
https://www.stormfront.org/rpo/KENYA.htm
Timothy McVeigh Was No Libertarian: The Fallacy of Conflating Two Very Different Types of “Anti-Government” Movements
http://www.volokh.com/2010/04/20/timothy-mcveigh-was-no-libertarian-conflating-two-types-of-anti-government-movements/
Grosses bises ! Tor.
Dear Tor,
Hey, clover must have read the Bloomberg article and concluded that “libertarians are the same as totalitarians” because “they are at opposite poles.”
LOL.
Yeah,
LibHurt Aryans
TotalLit Aryans
Racist Aryans
Seems like some kinda patturn.
How can one have an internet connection, and then have to make wild guesses as to what the US population is. I don’t get it.
I really should buckle down and get serious like you mostly do. Perhaps MamaL is pointing the way to an important part of the process.
Let’s develop a sober simple way of seeing what’s happening here in America first. Certainly since at least the Gilded Age (1870ish-1900ish) there has been this increasing tendency to wildly speculate on what is happening socially.
And then go off half cocked, saying what should be done about things, even though you’re not even very accurate as to what’s even happening.
Not in the usual, America is Sacred way and we must serve our fellow men way, but rather, in a what, Scientifically Is the Social Reality of America, kind of way.
NAP and MYOB though are good regardless of what the truth is. But can we address the state as it now exists, or must we really smash it. It is my chess opening technique to do so, but it might not be the right one for anyone else.
I can’t say what would happen if everybody just unplugs from cooperative society because it is also a forcibly imposed society. I can’t really even say what is happening right now with that much clarity and certainty.
The Rich Are Good Natured
http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/4998/
This Sumner Sociologist guy is a good reference source, though he believes in military and state as the answer. He also uses Darwin sociologically, which is discredited now.
Social Darwinism is only observed in animals and humans kept in captivity. It is not observed in the wild. Put your test subjects in a cage, and of course it’s going to be violence and ruthlessness that wins the day. It proves nothing, because it’s a contrived scenario from the beginning.
Are the rich a lost cause, or can we win some of them over to our way of thinking? What if we make East Wyoming West Dakota the kind of place the well off want to move to? Are we sure they all hate freedom of the individual?
For me ML’s Wyoming would probably not be any better. I’ve already lived in a low pop density area in the upper Midwest, which is not necessarily any different than there. But what if it becomes even more economically opportune?
The Dakotas are right next door, and there’s the oil boom, and also the companies that extract the oil, hard at work keeping the lid on it all. Just as they do in Texas and Alaska also.
Too much freedom is bad for business, and might anger the all powerful unitedState. Perhaps there are the right kinds of wealth holders, who we can cater too and build a society around and keep our principles intact?
[It’s a chess match, and I always play Ruy Lopez against the computer, because it’s what I can win with.
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessopening?eco=c60%5D
I get that everything I say is just some small subset of one possible opening move. And that I’m not even well versed in playing black pieces, because I don’t like having to respond to programming as an inferior entity.
[Damn you tangents, what’s your sign? And will you cosign?]
So if Oz is 20% intelligible to you, am I about 40% or what?
I often see freedom-seekers talk about the oil boom in states such as N. Dakota as if it were a viable long-lasting good thing. However; there’s this (eye opening for me) take on things:
“So, if we read through the lines just a tiny bit, we can see that the fracking boom towns, like those that dot Noth Dakota, Wyoming, and Colorado, are resting on a shaky foundation of cheap money. If interest rates move into more normal territory, then the funds for fracking will dry up even before the wells do (which is pretty fast).” …
Oil, Gas, Inflation, and Cheap Money
Sal Ahmed, the author, has a BA in Economics from Catholic Benedictine U in Chicago. Currently in school studying Supply Chain Mgmt and works for a Telecom
http://www.ben.edu/
One Gold Rush Boomtown that’s still going is San Fran, currently in the Silicon Valley boom.
Along with Honolulu, San Fran is the only American City included in the Top 100 liveable cities by citizens of the world.
We’re numb to Chicago etc., but to the rest of the world, it’s just one of many Soviet Nightmare American Slum Towns.
It’s the best bad choice available to me, rather suffer a little more crime/decay to potentially enjoy a little more freedom. And their towns are hideous sardine cans BTW.
http://geology.com/articles/hydraulic-fracturing/
Haliburton Oil Well Cementing Company was issued a patent for the fracking procedure in 1949
A variety of proppants are used in hydraulic fracturing. Small crush-resistant particles that are carried into the fractures by the hydraulic fracturing fluid. When the pumps are turned off and the fractures collapse these crush-resistant particles hold the fracture open, creating pore space through which natural gas can travel to the well.
Frac sand is the proppant most commonly used today but aluminum beads, ceramic beads, sintered bauxite and other materials have also been used. Over one million pounds of proppants can be used while fracturing a single well.
When I was young I was also pretty foolish. I did not look at libertarian concepts having been told they were fringe or not mainstream. As time passed I realized that the mainstream was completely insane and I took another look at Libertarianism. I was shocked that it was exactly in alignment with my own beliefs and philosophies.
Now I am proud to declare myself to be a Libertarian. My only problem with being a Libertarian is that the word sounds too much like Liberal. Liberals do not believe in Liberty, any more than Democrats believe in democracy or Republicans believe in the republic form of government.
But since the article (a very good one) mentioned the progressive income tax, I would like to say something about it.
If is was such a good idea, then why does it have to be enforced using coercion?
I believe that if something is a good idea, everyone would want to do it.
Does anyone really like to pay the government tax? Perhaps they do. So I say they can choose to pay it. Even the tax code itself says it is voluntary.
But there is nothing right about the income tax. Not even the fair tax or the flat tax is right.
The government tells you it needs the money to do all kinds of good things for us.
But they really want the money to pay the bankers FED the interest on the money they have borrowed. Most of the money they spend supposedly on providing services to the people does not come from taxes but from creating debt. They then sell the debt to other countries.
And guess who not only pays the interest, but has to pay back the money? It is us and our children who will be forced to work to pay off the debt. This is a pure form of slavery.
But also look at the logic (or illogic) of the progressive part. Does not the government say that we are all equal. doesn’t that mean that no one should get more government services than any other?
So why should one person pay one amount and another pay a different amount for the same service?
Even if a flat tax were implemented, it would still take more money from one than another. The only completely “fair” tax would be if each person paid the exact same amount (not just the same percentage).
The progressive income tax is not Constitutional. It is an un-Constitutional law attached to the constitution by the use of fraud, by the central bankers.
The same guys who committed fraud to create the current economic death watch we are in currently.
The progressive income tax needs to be repealed, and the IRS needs to be de-commissioned. They are a criminal organization.
Hi Bob,
Exactly right!
“Progressive” taxation also violates the principle of equality before the law. You “owe” more based on your having earned more. (And – double irony – those who are said to “owe” more invariably use fewer, if any, government “services” than those who pay less or even nothing in taxes.)
And, of course, you’re compelled to self-incriminate, to provide the government with information that can and will be used against you in criminal proceedings. Fail to do this, and you’ve also committed a “crime” – according to the government.
Ultimately, Libertarians ethics are about rejecting aggressive violence, period. Taxation is merely one form of aggressive violence, but there are many others.
Any action that involves aggression against another person who has not aggressed against anyone himself is on the face of it ethically intolerable – and ought to be regarded much as most people currently regard child molesting.
Rejecting violence as the basis for human interaction. That’s what Libertarianism is to me!
Well written – and right to the point. Hear hear.
Where is everyone? I’m watching Battle for the Planet of Apes, playing a game of Online Go, and filling up this blog with shitposts. C’mon Bevin, isn’t there a buck to be made here?
http://juniorbiz.com/40-chinese-proverbs-for-entrepreneurship
In every crisis, there is opportunity!
huh?
http://youoffendmeyouoffendmyfamily.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/sworldcalgon4yu.jpg
Dear Tor,
I have no objection to debating the abortion issue from a libertarian perspective. My only concern is the negative impact my no-punches pulled comments might have on EPA’s bottom line. EPA is a worthy online presence. I would hate to be the cause of any economic harm to it.
Also, we’ve plowed this ground before. No one on either side of the issue changed his or her views. So I’m not 100% sure it’s worth revisiting.
You know my views. I have no desire to defend those frivolous women who equate abortions with botox injections. My only concern is for rape victims. The “abortion=murder” fallacy can easily be used against them to victimize them a second time.
I do know your views. Am I deluded, or can we do something totally different here? My brain is old and cranky, so I can only work with what it gives me.
I apologize if I’m a clover broken record. In my mind, I’m a kaleidescope of new sparkling visions, weird huh?
I oppose only the means of preventing the medical market action in the usual way. With no new brain power exerted. We moved past red/blue conservative/progressive, why can’t we move past this prickly false dichotomy too?
Paper or plastic is a lie. As is pro life or pro choice.
I take no glee in kicking pro lifers. Or christians. Not in the usual way anyway. I’m not team living pink or team blood red dead.
Only in the, don’t tread on me please team, or at least think about how you can tread less cockpit of a flaming kamikaze on a collision course before me way.
I also oppose preventing Mom’s from giving their 4 year olds a sex change, maybe they want a boy, not a girl. Why do I get to be involved?
Speaking of the POTA franchise, the rebooted, reimagined 2011 film “Rise of the Planet of the Apes” was good!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rise_of_the_Planet_of_the_Apes
So I hear, is its currently showing sequel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawn_of_the_Planet_of_the_Apes
Strictly speaking though, we are already a “planet of the apes.” As Desmond Morris, author of “The Naked Ape” noted, human beings are hairless apes. Or relatively hairless apes.
Therefore we currently inhabit “The Planet of the Naked Apes.” LOL.
Bevin, comparing apes to humans is a slight to apes as far as I can tell. Every time i think of those in power, I can’t help but think of an old Alf Tales cartoon where he was back on his home planet, Mayo, whose main product and source of revenue was….well…..Mayo. It’s ruler(singular)was a being closely resembling Alf and RR, esp. RR in voice….ok, RR in every way. It was a play on the emperor has no clothes and it was rolling on the bed(early morning, no floor for me)funny. It’s probably on YouTube or something but with my connection of 12 bytes per minute I just do good to load a bit of text.
Dear 8sm,
“Bevin, comparing apes to humans is a slight to apes as far as I can tell.”
LOL!
As a humanist libertarian, naturally I believe in human dignity. But sometimes it’s healthy to be able to make fun of ourselves.
Too much “apex predator” trash talk by macho types in Ah-nuld or Ah-nuld clone action movies makes me cringe.
Hi Eight,
Years ago, I learned about the two species of chimpanzees. Your “mainstream” chimp is an aggressive, violent creature. But a Bonobo chimp is a Libertarian primate. The shun violence and rely instead on peaceful cooperation. They resolve conflicts – when they have them – with sex!
@Bevin – have you ever read the original “Planet of the Apes” by Pierre Boulle?
I found it in the library when I was 10. Far superior to any film adaptation so far, I have the feeling you’d love it. The story is compact, metaphorical, well written – I encourage you to find it, I’ll say no more since some people have this thing about spoilers.
Dear HB,
Yes! As it happens, I did, way back in the 60s, when it was first published. I read the English translation because my French was inadequate.
You are right of course. Better than any of the film adaptations.
Did you know that the classic David Lean anti-war film, “Bridge over the River Kwai,” starring William Holden and Alec Guiness, was an adaptation of another of Boulle’s novels?
=) I knew that, but I’ve not read the original. The film is a classic for good reason, I guess I’ll put that on my list.
I had this habit, growing up in the ’60’s. Small village in upstate NY, the public library was only two blocks away, I got my first library card in 2nd grade. Whenever there was a tv commercial for some amazing new show or movie – usually shown past my bed time – I’d walk down to the library and find the source material. So I was reading Verne & HG Wells in second grade. “War of the Worlds”was a mind bender, still is.
Dear HB,
It’s never ceased to amaze me how competitive a novel can be with film.
After all, what is a novel? It is white paper and black ink. Yet many of us who like novels and their film adaptations, will actually decide that “The book was way better!”
Think about it. A 10 dollar novel vs. a 100 million dollar movie. Yet the 10 dollar novel emerges victorious. Amazing how mere words on a page can still compete in an age with 3-D Imax motion pictures.
Here’s some scripts
The Ape Torah is 1 POTA, 2 Beneath the POTA, 3 Escape from the POTA, 4 Conquest of the POTA, and 5 Battle for the POTA.
1 POTA
http://www.scifiscripts.com/scripts/planetofapes67.txt
2 Beneath
http://pota.goatley.com/scripts/pota_beneath_final.pdf
Other scripts
http://pota.goatley.com/scripts.html
Upcoming Dawn of the POTA – Sacred Scrolls
http://planetoftheapes.wikia.com/wiki/Dawn_of_the_Planet_of_the_Apes
Watching the movie Tammy gives you a good glimpse of the real, non-hollywood America. Over the top of course, but behind the gags, is a weirdly liberating and uniquely rebellious message.
Clovers get outraged when they see how grotesque they truly are, or at least partly how they are, sans the obvious road trip to Niagra Falls tourist destination sponsor and all the other product placements and agenda conformity.
Hi Horse,
Hat tip on the Planet of the Apes suggestion! I watched all the movies, but never realized the series was based on a novel. I find few movies that do justice to the books on which they’re based. Some movie adaptations are still good, but leave out a great deal. A good example being the movie, Blade Runner – based on the novel, “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?” by Philip K. Dick. The movie leaves out the book’s spiritual quest theme (a treatment of empathy centered on our relations with animals) and focuses instead on bounty hunting of renegade androids. Both are excellent, however. There’s some brilliant acting in the movie; in particular, the final scene. Rutger Hauer plays an android who gives his human hunter a lesson about being human – and alive. Here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HU7Ga7qTLDU
Novels can tell stories in ways that film can’t – and vice versa. The best adaptations use this to their advantage, translating the work to the new medium. Best example I can think of is Fight Club – I’ve read the book & have the movie on dvd – even the author thinks the movie has a better ending.
re: Blade Runner. I have the director’s cut on dvd. I’ve read PKD’s short story Do Androids…. wasn’t aware that it had been turned into a novel.
Hope you have a copy of Blade Runner handy to watch it again, so your mind can be fully blown. Deckard is a replicant, but doesn’t know it, just like the girl was. Edward James Olmos’ character is a cripple, walks with a cane; always making little origami figures; he retrieves Deckard but never seems to like him very much, he sneers at him. Remember the dream of the unicorn? (footage from another Ridley Scott film, Legend.) A human wouldn’t have lasted 10 seconds with Rutger Hauer. At the end Deckard and the girl get outta Dodge, but Deckard finds a tiny origami unicorn on his doorstep. Olmos was there – probably to “retire” them both now that the mission was done. Instead he left the unicorn, indicating Deckard was programmed with Olmos’ memories, and Olmos is letting them go.
Dear Eric,
Yeah! That climactic scene in which the android waxes poetic was deeply inspirational. Actually chokes you up!
Dear HB,
I’ve got the Director’s Cut of Blade Runner. There was some controversy about whether the film makers meant for the Harrison Ford character to be a replicant. But eventually Ford came out and said that he was.
Maybe we take a beat from Walter Block.
He proposed a market principle, of evictionism. Our job isn’t to pick from the usual options, as if we’re the PTB or will be someday.
Our mission, is to offer rational solutions, and probably I am failing miserably at this important job, and running in circles around the same old mulberry bushes.
To make amends who will tip the jar today, to motivate me. I’ve got spare time, and no job sites to visit. I can make a living taking up space at work and at home, at least for now.
Maybe I’ll plot a course to completely banish legal abortions from Texas, I’ll bet I could come up with a good one. Do it for Ron Paul, and in the way he would want it to be done, without losers and pain.
Or how about we set a goal of registered libertarians having the lowest rate of abortions of any cohort. And maybe the highest birth rate as well. I bet it wouldn’t be that hard, or cost all that much.
Just watch one less hour of mindless entertaining drivel, and instead spend that hour stepping out into the ware slinging, give and taking of the almighty agora.
Challenge Eric to write up a white paper and treatise on the matter, in return for pledging to keep his site funding meter over 100% for some set number of months.
We have all the wonder twins needed right here. With all the powers waiting to be activated. What form does the market want us to take? How do we find out?
Huh? Oh yeah. I got sidetracked with the baby making, highest birth rates and all that. I’ll be back in the hinterland of oil production of Tx. in the morning in counties with an average of 1.65 people per acre. I recently took a poll from WP about what town you’d fit in best with. You just answered some questions, entered the state you desired to live and voila, 5 answers in order of relevance. My town was Garden City, Tx., a place I happened to be working 3 miles from. There is no grocery store or alcohol and nothing but fat Hispanic women for the most part. How the hell did they arrive at that conclusion? There is a shiny girl at the quarry but she’s married and is headed to fat to probably obese. Still, I could harness her to the truck and run her a few miles each day and she’d be pretty shiny soon, but still married I suppose.
A guy I worked with told me when I was 18 and he was 45 there wasn’t such a thing as bad pussy. Sadly, as I later learned, and proved over and over again, he was soooo wrong. Well, back to the grist and the never ending search for someone to populate the planet with. Maybe if I made a lot more money……………or I had a big, hit single in the charts………
Wow, that’s amazing. Is it cause you actually are doing value creating work, that your one post is better than a dozen of mine. Good one.
I had this weird brainstorm, that maybe slavery still isn’t solved. Since you’re chained to your kid for 18 years with the umbilical of state, no wonder some don’t want to spend all those years in the cotton field of cotton diapers and swaddling cloth.
Wouldn’t want you making your own arrangements, now. THAT’D BE ANARCHY!
Us debating it is a lot like a couple of smushed bugs on a windsheild debating whether there should be a hivemaster forcing them to tough it out and try to fly away, or if its okay to be your own insect, and press the windsheild wiper button and finish yourself off for good if you’ve had enough.
What if a pregnant bug is hit by your windsheild. Must she strive to carry her larvae to term? What do you think? Are you pro pupa. Or pro chrysalis.
Tor, many decades ago I discovered “love bugs”, purple and purple-blooded creatures that seemed to be constantly breeding, hence the term “love bug”. I never knew if they were drawn to roadways or just happened to be swarming over all that heat.
Driving in S. Tx. I would constantly be having to stop and clean the purple dye off my windshield just to have a modicum of visibility. In all mother nature’s wisdom they surely had some nemesis that reduced their numbers but it was difficult to realize when you smashed maybe as many as hundreds of thousands of them per mile.
Was I affecting their numbers in the long run or did it even matter. My point, there are so many things we can probably never know answers for. I suppose if I’d been one of those Indians who wear face masks(so, what did they do before those masks?), would have I been obliged to stop? I simply looked at them as a PITA. I still wonder about those sort of things.
I look at abortion that way. I do my least damage possible and have no idea when life starts or sentient life starts or anything else along those lines. If someone has a need, no matter the reason, to abort, since there are as many reasons as people, it’s not my place to say yea or nea. I believe most people do the best they can with what they have since that seems to describe me to a T. It describes everybody I know and work with too. I think some people are so biased they don’t see the forest for the trees and end up with radical views.
Dear 8sm,
“it’s not my place to say yea or nea.”
Amen to that.
Eight – Hey! What’s this about radical views? I resemble that.
Tor, I made an error I feel I must correct. That would be 1.65 people per square mile. There could be something there worth seeing if it were 1.65 people per acre….but maybe not since since a couple varieties of quail, turkeys, coyotes, foxes, what might be red wolves, some sort of African horned animal and the usual varmint suspects of all sorts are fairly entertaining.
Dear Tor, 8sm,
The real problem is that whether it’s 1.65/sm or 1.65/acre, the goonvermin will eventually show up and demand obedience (laws) and money (taxes).
Clover kept asking us why we don’t go off and create a libertarian enclave somewhere.
Pretty hilarious. God knows we’ve tried, only to have clovers show up and use force to stop us every time.
So none of the Founding Fathers were libertarians?
What is the Libertarian response to police state antics? If the state comes to arrest you and put you in a cage for not obeying some moronic law, is that violence against you? Would a Libertarian kill them all? Or meekly submit?
Dear Bambi,
Q: “So none of the Founding Fathers were libertarians?”
A: I would say that some were, but some weren’t. Alexander Hamilton definitely was not a libertarian, even by fairly lenient standards.
I suppose it depends on whether one is a hardliner when it comes to the Non-Aggression Principle. Strictly speaking, any violation of the NAP disqualifies one as a libertarian.
But even though I apply those standards to myself, I tend to cut minarchists some slack during debates.
Also, quite few of the “founding fathers” refused to sign the constitution. Patrick Henry, George Mason, Thomas Paine among them. I would definitely consider them libertarians.
Q: “What is the Libertarian response to police state antics? If the state comes to arrest you and put you in a cage for not obeying some moronic law, is that violence against you? Would a Libertarian kill them all? Or meekly submit?”
A: Consistent with the principle of individual choice, each libertarian would decide for himself what he wanted to do.
Obviously the libertarian has the moral right to do what you suggest. But given the potentially fatal consequences, the practical decision is obviously one that individuals must make for themselves.
If ALL laws were suspended for a day
http://imgur.com/hCAOUMl
I think on balance, it would be a MORE productive day. With far LESS crime.
Those who run the RISK of being murdered, probably know who they are, and why, in someone’s mind they DESERVE to be murdered. And so they would take the necessary protective measures.
Murdering a stranger is an act of useless desparation. If there’s a day when you can do anything you want, I think most people would want to do something positive from their standpoint.
Sell a kidney. Bribe or persuade that hot divorcee at work with some act or good, not normally permitted, so you can do what you’ve always wanted to do, and she gets whatever is she wants.
You’re free to try to steal what you’ve always wanted to get. But they’re free to blow your fool head off if you try.
Chances are those with superior wealth and ability will continue to prevail, as they have under the regime of paper rules and edicts. Only more so.
Cream will rise even more to the top, now that there’s nothing in its way.
A single day without laws would be resoundingly successful, at least in America. Where there’s generally rational market reasoning uppermost in our minds.
Now in the Middle East, maybe they’d settle some blood feuds, or religious disagreements thousands of years in the making. Maybe millions would be killed, have their homes and property destroyed.
But I don’t think that’s the general case here.
What do you think? Am I missing something. Even more off my rocker than usual?
Did I offput you with my scorched earth not worth the trouble method of argumentation long ago?
Libertarianism isn’t laws. Or centrally imposed rules. It’s more subtle than that, I believe. It requires understanding market processes and how things are accomplished.
It requires you to act within the constraints of the vast machineries and learned techniques and spontaneous orders that were widely adopted and propigated that makes us so rich and market savvy, if only we’d keep our faith and fidelity in the market.
And not listen to those who would give every fish a bicycle and teach them all to ride them, so that they all can bicycle for a lifetime.
A writer without a publisher
http://www.jennycrusie.com/for-writers/essays/a-writer-without-a-publisher-is-like-a-fish-without-a-bicycle-writers-liberation-and-you/
“But now… now we will put away our hatred. Now we will put down our weapons. We have passed through the night of the fires, and those who were our masters are now our servants.
And we, who are not old world human, can afford to be humane. Destiny is the will of God, and if it is man’s destiny to be dominated, it is God’s will that he be dominated with compassion, and understanding.
So, cast out your vengeance. Tonight, we have seen the birth of the Planet of the New World American Apes!”
http://planetoftheapes.wikia.com/wiki/Conquest_of_the_Planet_of_the_Apes_(1972)
http://putlocker.is/watch-conquest-of-the-planet-of-the-apes-online-free-putlocker.html
I guess I see myself as living in a Planet of the Apes reality. As an undifferentiated part of the Chimpanzee cast. Specifically the Sovereign Bonobo cast.
Rather than caring about personal responsibility, which in a moot point, I believe.
I say we each need to attain personal self-provisional ability.
It’s great to live at a high standard of living and cooperate with the gorillas, humans, and orangutans if we can do so to our personal satisfaction.
But if push comes to shove, we need to be able to personally provide for ourselves and with assistance of those who are like minded.
What use is impeccable ethics, if you’re forced to do the bidding of the unethical to get the food you need to survive? I don’t see it, but I may be in a minority.
Perhaps Eric, Garysco, MamaLib, and many others in some kind of majority consider agreeing to a set of ethics to be the crux of being self owners. Really, the two aren’t mutually exclusive, there’s no reason both can’t be done.
I won’t be sharing my stories of moral superiority, my schtick is to argue from behind a pokerface of unknown gray and black market behavior, because that’s what I think will yield the freest market society.
I think once you commit to any standard, you give the clovers a readymade handle to start grabbing and pulling at you, and they will never consider any principles once you concede anything or show your hole cards in any way.
Make the clovers gamble and go all in, because they don’t have any idea what cards your holding, and how much risk you’re willing to take. Never ease their mind in the least, that, “gee, I see your point, but…” No, screw that. There is no commonality with authoritymongers, none.
The amish and tibetan monks are two good examples. They’d each rather make do with less, than to compromise their principles. We should consider doing likewise. They keep to themselves, and often go to great lengths to preserve what limited freedom and autonomy they currently enjoy.
I don’t write to offend. I would say you are also a woman. I say this with 99.9% confidence. This is just a label, and only goes so far.
When I say you are a LibMin, of course, you still retain everything that is unique about you, let me estimate I say that with 60% confidence. Often times labels are used to dehumanize and argue from intimidation, perhaps that is why I used, that label, perhaps not.
If this is true that you are a libertarian minarchist, what of it?
You are a nurse, lets imagine a market world, where productive labor is without limit. Could not all nurses of the world, voluntarily form a nurse’s guild?
And could they not, all these nurses, through this guild, bring about all manner of standards and conducts they see as right and beneficial to the species.
Their guild could interlock and unify with doctors guilds, and medical supplier guilds, and hospital and medical office guilds. Throughout the whole world.
Such that no abortion could be effected, unless it were done by one’s own hand, without any advanced medical assistance at all.
Perhaps I’m doing it wrong, and needlessly combatatively, I wouldn’t be surprised.
But even 6.5 billion humans in consensus against abortions, should be able to prevail over human productive labor of nurses.
Perhaps in some weird way, this is a kind of pro labor communism extreme viewpoint. To say that labor and human effort is not to be subjected to the whims of ones fellows for any reason.
The only valid response to market action you dislike or are threatened by, is to instigate market action of your own.
This I believe is the root of the root of anarchism. And of market anarchism. And of anarcho-capitalism.
What if somewhere this is family full of hermits. Who grow their own food, and never leave their home. They only speak in their own invented tongue. They understand nothing of other languages, and no one knows their words.
And for whatever reason, lets say a crippling birth defect causing crying and pain afflicted their infant. This self sufficient family did make the grave and sorrowful decision to slay their 3 month old and bury it in the backyard.
Let’s say you were flying a drone over their house and happened to look in the window at the moment when this deed with done. You have the deed recorded in flash video. You could upload it to the internet for all the world t o see even.
By what right and authority are you to interpose yourself into this hermit family.
At most, I say you can visit the front door of this family, and show them the video, and try to gain some understanding of what had happened.
The question Ayn Rand asks, that must be answered is:
It’s not who’s going to let this hermit family do what they please. It’s who’s going to stop them?
If you are one who is going to stop them. To punish them. To force them to account themselves to your will, what does that make you.
What is best, is a market solution be invented to fix this.
You act like the market never solves problems. That is unfair, it always solves all problems, if you’ll only allow it to do what it is meant to do.
Remove your pressure from the market. Let it breathe.
Every day of rhetorically, politically, debating circumcision, spanking, abortion, and the like is another day of living by political means.
Governments killed 160 million in 100 years. 100 years is 32,500 days. Government kill 4,923 people per day.
So by all means, continue to sit around and make yourselves feel important. And that there is some magic way to make your opinions peacefully relevant to social cooperation. Keep calm and deny and lie. Chive on. Continue being accessories to the great crime of human whims dominating human productiveness.
You who cling to this delusion. You are failing to prevent the killing of 4,923 people today, because your muddle headed sentimentality will ensure the common man continues to distrust you, and will cling to the devil he knows.
Preventing abortions is an ends. No ends can be achieved by anything but market means. No exceptions.
Abortion clock
http://www.numberofabortions.com/
Abortion Statistics
http://www.worldometers.info/abortions/
125,000 abortions are performed worldwide every day. The market is more powerful than any behaviorial scheme will ever be.
If you want to decrease the number of abortions and deaths by government, you’re going to need to start reasoning from a rational market mindset.
The number one reason for abortion, is economic. If we succeed in creating a world driven by market forces, we will increase overall wealth. More wealth will mean less abortions.
Put down your pen and paper. Step away from the soapbox and the stage. Start thinking in terms of products and services. Needs and wants. Individual problems, and an array of market solutions that can be offered to free men and women who own themselves.
Self owners will be less likely to want abortions. They will feel less pressured to get abortions. Free the people and they will work towards something they want individually.
Use your creativity and entrepreneurial spirit to offer new products and services to pregnant women and their partners who are unsure if they want to continue. Right now they have a handful of choices. Why not offer them hundreds of new choices?
Why not put your efforts into a birth and procreation boom, courtesy of human ingenuity and passion for life?
Don’t live your life searching for ways to force people to live the way you want them to. Letting people engage in small vices is a small test of your dedications to NAP principles.
Allowing people to engage in great tragedies is a major test to your dedication to NAP principles. Which is more important to you, unborn life, or laissez faire live and let live?
Do you respect the equal rights of all people under the NAP or don’t you? Do you believe in the market or don’t you?
The free market won’t develop in a vacuum. It won’t happen until people take personal responsibility for their lives and dependents. That won’t come about by force.
Well let me preface this by stating: you are not an anarchist. Nor an anarcho-capitalist. Which is fine.
You are a libertarian minarchist. Still a libertarian, but not up to our standards of NAP, self ownership, and live and let live.
And when you say a free market won’t develop in a vacuum I agree. You intend to fill every molecule of available airspace with your fiat conceptions of mass human subjugation.
You won’t allow a free market. You offer only a freer market, with each particular to be meted out by some quasi-state replacement of todays nationstate. Bevin and Larken Rose would both say this minarchism is only a temporary reprieve. It will quickly collapse back into full blown statism. I see no reason not to agree with them.
Under your principles, under your construct of “people take personal responsibility for their lives and dependents” the free market is aborted before it is given birth to. It is strangled in the crib by you wherever it is found.
From what I hear, you envision each family being an individual franchise tribe modelled after some kind of ideal. Each family will have to demonstrate it is taking responsibility for its lives and the lives of its dependents.
Best case scenario, each community will be able to choose its particular family tribes. Some more liberal than others, so there will be some kind of choice, though certainly not a market choice.
Maybe let’s begin this from the other end. Let’s estimate how much of a consensus free market currently exists right now, and work from there.
Even clovers grant some free choice. But I can think of no area where they allow market freedom. They always have some kind of limit.
Their conception of freedom is that we can choose which legal consumer goods we purchase. And which legal behaviors from a list to engage in. Our freedom is confined to social menu items we select from their allowable lists, which often exist mainly in their head.
They effective forbid the market by not letting any goods be produced that they don’t approve of. They allow no market in personal conduct, because in every realm of behavior they have standards and requirements.
They create a market desert. Only the newest innovations. And the fiercest huge conglomerates are able to approximate any kind of market. At every turn, they further confine and starve off any kind of free market of any kind.
Both you and the clover each allow a family-unit free-market of a kind. I’ll take you at your word and grant that you’d allow much more latitude in conduct, than would the clovers.
You’d put some kind of general responsibility state enforcement regime in authority over the free market. But it would be made of principles, not rules. Perhaps the secular commandments of the 613 mitzvot.
http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm
You say you’re not religious, but you must realize that your morality is steeped in and practically identical to the secular commands of ancient judeo-christian traditional community rules.
Under this minarchism, we are not free at all as far as I’m concerned. I would continue to fight your minarchism with agorist techniques. I would hope for you to fail, just as I hope for the PTB and the clovers to fail. Your minarchism is but a distinction without a difference.
—
correction: there are 36,525 days in 100 years, so 4,381 are murdered by government each day, and not 4,923 as I estimated earlier.
Tor, you don’t have one damned clue who and what I am. How dare you make such pronouncements about an individual whom you do not know in the least?
I am an individual sovereign, and the non-aggression principle is my only law. I want nothing to do with any “state,” or coercion of any kind. I’ve lived that way for 68 years so far, and plan to finish my days the same.
The free market will come about in direct proportion to the number of people who accept personal responsibility for themselves and renounce aggression. Each of those is essential for the other to happen.
tor….
if you “pro-choice” aztecs are nap’s, then so’s the terminator. & those gruesome fuckers, top o’ the pyramid scam, in apacalypto.
in outer space, no one can hear you scream. inner sanctum space, either. not when alienated alienizining eminent domain claim-jumpers of inalienable others can room temperature their cognitive, tho not necessarily ever consciously cognizant, dissonant coals. in your sparky-ember case, i don’t think cognizance is at issue; it’s something else.
1+1≠1. if it DID, boys’d be a lot more careful about inserting tongues or penises…she might “choose”, by “right” of empress’ eminent domain, to “abort” those interloping bits of them; “possession” is 10/10ths of “the law” – this particular colour of it, anyway.
recall this daub of bernays sauce: One of the most famous campaigns of Bernays was the women’s cigarette smoking campaign in 1920s. Bernays helped the smoking industry overcome one of the biggest social taboos of the time: women smoking in public. Women were only allowed to smoke in designated areas, or not at all. Women caught violating this rule were arrested.[11] Bernays staged the 1929 Easter parade in New York City, showing models holding lit Lucky Strike cigarettes, or “Torches of Freedom”. After the historic public event, women started lighting up more than ever before. It was through Bernays that women’s smoking habits started to become socially acceptable. Bernays created this event as news, which it was not.[citation needed] Bernays convinced industries that the news, not advertising, was the best medium to carry their message to an unsuspecting public.[citation needed]
con-man bernays was sparky, too. we’ll never know to what extent, if any, all that synaptic speed offset regret, after his wife died of cigarette induced lung cancer. recall your sentence: May this happen as well to your entire family you’ve supported through such base and inhuman behavior. recall also your self-characterization of currently being one step away from a tax-feeder yourself…while that other, less sparky, guy says he quit it 19 years ago. if the hindoos knew what they were talking about, you might be calling down a carma hit & run. in any case, fine sentiments vs not so fine sentiments vs actions…recall the back/forth on all the righteous stuff john “adsense” adams wrote/uttered vs what he did, first chance he got…..
“biology 101”, says gary cherone (his “prose”, & a 2nd letter to eddie vedder, is here http://www.l4l.org/gary/ ). so do i. not theology or philosophy or ideology. not opinion, or polemics, or propaganda / “public relations” of whatever rarified, machine code ones & aughts argument from xeon-chipped authority philosopher-f***ing kings.
postponed until “101”, is more like it; get ‘em while they’re young, ya’ know? tellin’ this in kindergarten might be “counterproductive” (& tellin’ it to confirmed & conformed kindermurderers is usually unproductive: sociopaths, denialists, don’t care): egg cells, ladies, do with them as you will; they are yours. sperm cells, same for the males…even the malefic ones.
but zygotes? the first-step design purpose of sex? that’s the new beginning person. the birth. the conception. of all of us. & none of us “belong”, as in “property”, to anyone. or two anyones. or an oligarchy. or a democratic majority, even. no matter where we are, temporally or otherwise, in our lives. bunches of people reiterate that mostly unknown ideal here day after day after day. hip-hip-hoo…’s the hypocrite?
so if you’ve got a problem with the unintelligent designer’s conception creating conception, mammalian biology version, add it to the already long list of improvements & options people would pay good money for. ‘course, you already know that, just like old man ford put it, we “customers” can have any color we want, so long as its black. the unintelligent designer is the original, & true, monopolist-dictator, & it doesn’t cater to market demand signals. or “revolutionists” against nature, either. so lots of people, just like the rodents i bred to feed the snakes in my amateur herpetologist days, kill & consume their young as a “work-around”. of mice, & men, & moral codes…3-card monte’s, trimurtis, & shell games people play.
that’s the synopsis. you can quit here & be there. if the sparks allow. the rest is just extra. no particular order.
a ain’t always a – but sometimes it is, which doesn’t, & won’t ever, faze denialists: “ i not only deny the allegation, I deny the allegator!”.
a is not only a but a is also first letter, as in beginning…unwillingness to follow principles to conclusions, as bannered here, which is also to say to beginnings, is the hallmark of fiat systems builders everywhere & everywhen….
a is for “arbitrary”, but specific, & not arbitrary in the least, in terms of desired evasions, short-cuts & shrifts, deceits (self 1st, then others), private/pirate/priapic “profits” & socialized/externalized costs (first & foremost onto the baby – the noun used when s/he will be allowed to live…”fetus” the clinically dehumanizing noun used when “it” will be killed – who pays with his/her life, & then onto the “social safety net subsidy” for the fiat $ payments to nuremberg-defensing mengeles..).
i did not always see this, realize this, understand this, either: un”learning” is a process, journey, movement, edge-honing & cutting away/jettisoning…but not of innocent human life. you’ve indicated as much that this has been your processual experience & continues to be, so there’s
hope. scratch that.“authoritarianism, including patriot variety, is the last refuge of scoundrels” & so’s hope – one’s for “extroverts&alphas&wannabee’s” & the others for the “introverts&betas&willneverbee’s” who buzz after them. scoundrels all. both au-patriotism & hope, among so many other things, are addictive – to addictive personalities/nervous systems…abandon all addictions, ye who enter here – or be roasted.
que sera sera, tho, is always bottom line. chips will fall where they may & be gathered, for fresh air exercise, & for kindling to boil my water & light my library.
don’t gamble or speculate with resources you can’t afford to lose/redeploy. “abortion” is not “self-ownership” – its self abnegation via annihilation of other. the vegas analogy would be: choose to go there, choose a casino, choose a table, sit down, ante & bet, be dealt a hand you don’t like, kill the dealer.
sport fucking, sport driving…or even transport fucking, transport driving – if you can’t handle, be responsible for, the potential circumstances, don’t do it. buy a japanese sex doll, a sybian, masturbate the old-fashioned way, whatever. shoot, shovel & shut-up is not a nap move when it comes to innocent human life.
napancaps & nap(alm)ancaps have completely different victory scents: conscentual & responsible vs descentual & irresponsible. calling the former “demented”, as I just read in some old thread, is an ad hominem display of psychological/emotional response/projection to an intellectual question. 1+1≠1.
♪♫♪ “Your mind cries out to God alone, Please send me someone I can own, Your soul says son you’re walking on thin ice” – like lester nygaard – Possession in the broadest sense, Compounded by coincidence, When all it takes is one roll of the dice….
bye-bye lester….
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMUjGQh9P_c
you don’t own; that’s a caste system of your projection. & if you use that projection to caste yourself as “dictator in your own home”, a la helot, then place another mirror behind you & the buddhist carny mirror you’re staring into, so’s you can see your distortion-corrected scaly-tailed pogo possum “shadow” self. hierarchies are writ up, on all too amenable biological substrates – not down – & then projected, & demanded of the “ubers” by the “unters”. “home is where the heart is”, & where the comfort zone synaptic tracks are laid, typically, to rust.
howard beale’s rant: We sit in the house, and slowly the world we’re living in is getting smaller, and all we say is, “Please, at least leave us alone in our living rooms. Let me have my toaster and my TV and my steel-belted radials, [and my tuned out, escapist & mindless recreational sex w/o consequences] and I won’t say anything. Just leave us alone.”
talk about sex offenders – & not a registry in site….”pro-choice” aztecs, incas, mayans, nimby’s all, proclaiming the pyramid (of human life) begins here – sacrificial alter (of your own expediency, irresponsibility) take the hindmost (as arbitrarily delineated – not honestly/truthfully/correctly defined – by you’se “immunized sovereigns”)…
if groovy roe-v-wade had been in place 50-60-70 years ago, wonder what % of the chopped & vacuumed would have gone on to become choppers & vacuumers themselves, had they “been allowed” – eminent domain not invoked – to retain their property/lives, & how many choppers/vacuumers would be left for blood ri(gh)te(ous)-ing rite here, rite now. fewer, no doubt, but still way too many. milgram’s snafu’d pilgrims are always the super majority. “myth” of authority, my ass. strawman? too substantial, by far, for the abortion “justification”. gossamerman? dandylyin’-floatin’-on-the-breeze man? closer to it.
it ain’t high i(ntelligence)q, it’s low i(ntegrity)q. that’s how you get doublespeakin’, fork tongued, two-faced (not janusian, not creative, not creatively destructive, just destructive…) hilo brows, planet of the apes & their legions of apers……war is peace, slavery is freedom, killing (cletus the fetus) is living….these are not “rebellious idealists”, as are sometimes incorrectly disparaged, but utopianists, who cannot be disparaged enough, probably self-loathing, & such types have killed more people than all the rest of causes combined. to whatever extent that may be hyperbole is in service to the point: such oxbow-ers, borg-ans, matrix-ians, directed hierarchians of whatever name or stripe are very dangerous…“people”.
amerikan “abortion” clock, this second, sez 56,974,084.7. whole lotta’ rapin’ goin’ on, eh, bevin? this metastasizing kill count is the direct result of the moral hazard(ous) waste of “pro-choice” euphemisers. & fractal down “pro-choice” dominandis/apologists, do not hesitate to mewl most righteously about the uber dominandis…black(agent)smiths pounding out, & on, pots & kettles.
gold window closed – fiat fuckery@full force. inflation. 2nd incomes to maintain what single incomes used to – for certain socioecon classes, anyway. race riots, 60’s, 70’s – lots of ‘em. see the black baby abortion bulge (i calc 30% of total). pressures building. abortion bleeder valve…& atrocity becomes a “right” permissioned by the pavlovs in black robes to help with pack control…& the dogs love/hate their masters all the more.
black robes & noble savages – clown-sadists to the left, joker-sadists to the right, napancaps in the interstices…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVfMsZMiSzY
holden caufield misconstrued the tune*, but superphonically left & right hooked phonies – william holden- wild bunch – pike bishop: “we’ve got to start thinking beyond our guns. those days are closin’ fast” (for that particular pike & those particular boys, yes, but the day of the gun-heads ain’t ever gonna’ close…).
*Comin’ thro’ the rye
O gin a body meet a body,
Comin’ throu the rye:
Gin a body fuck a body,
Need a body cry.
Comin’ thro’ the rye, my jo,
An’ coming’ thro’ the rye;
She fand a staun o’ staunin’ graith,
Comin’ thro’ the rye.
Gin a body meet a body,
Comin’ thro’ the glen;
Gin a body fuck a body,
Need the warld ken.
Gin a body meet a body,
Comin’ thro the grain;
Gin a body fuck a body,
Cunt’s a body’s ain.
Gin a body meet a body,
By a body’s sel,
What na body fucks a body,
Wad a body tell.
Mony a body meets a body,
They dare na weel avow;
Mony a body fucks a body,
Ye wadna think its true.
jarheads, in the most pejorative, “little head”, sense
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kU0XCVey_U
Private Joker: Are those… live rounds?
Private Gomer Pyle: Seven-six-two millimeter. Full metal [glans&glands] jacket.
This is My Rifle
Mark Maysey
Back in 69, I didn’t have a care
Before they called my number, I chopped off all my hair
Said goodbye to mamma, dad and uncle Dan
Boarded an airplane and headed off for Nam
He called us to attention as we stepped off the plane
Checked us off a list as he called out our names
Then he picked up his rifle and raised it in the air
Grabbed his crotch with his other hand as we all stood and stared
He said…
Chorus
This is my rifle
This is my gun
One is for killing
The others for fun
So until this war is over
Or until your time is done
This is your rifle and this one is your gun
Thirty years have passed since I stepped off that plane
The nightmares haven’t ended and neither has the pain
I’ve drank my share of liquor and smoked my share of grass
But I can’t unload the memories or these few words from my past
Repeat Chorus
Well, a dear friend of mine finally called it quits
They found him one cold morning laying in a ditch
A bullet through his brain, his rifle at his side
And one old rusted dog tag from 1969
When they turned his body over they found his written note
It wasn’t but a few lines, but the last he ever wrote
And when they laid him in his grave on that cold December day
I took those words he’d written and I began to play
Repeat Chorus
Back in 69, I didn’t have a care
Before they called my number, I chopped off all my hair
NORTON [the abort’n warden; hi-brow]
Well. I have to say, that’s the
most amazing story I ever heard.
What amazes me most is you were
taken in by it.
ANDY [the innocent]
Sir?
NORTON
It’s obvious this fellow Williams
is impressed with you. He hears
your tale of woe and quite
naturally wants to cheer you up.
He’s young, not terribly bright.
Not surprising he didn’t know what
a state he’d put you in.
ANDY
I think he’s telling the truth.
NORTON
Let’s say for a moment Blatch [another abortionist; lo-brow] does
exist. You think he’d just fall to
his knees and cry, “Yes, I did it!
I confess! By all means, please add
a life term to my sentence!”
ANDY
It wouldn’t matter. With Tommy’s
testimony, I can get a new trial.
NORTON
That’s assuming Blatch is even
still there. Chances are excellent
he’d be released by now. Excellent.
ANDY
They’d have his last known address.
Names of relatives…
(Norton shakes his head)
Well it’s a chance. isn’t it? How
can you be so obtuse?
NORTON
What? What did you call me?
ANDY
Obtuse! Is it deliberate? The
country club will have his old time
cards! W-2s with his name on them!
NORTON
(rises)
Dufresne, if you want to indulge
this fantasy, that’s your business.
Don’t make it mine. This meeting’s
over.
ANDY
Look, if it’s the squeeze, don’t
worry. I’d never say what goes on
in here. I’d be just as indictable
as you for laundering the money!
NORTON
Don’t you ever mention money to me
again, you sorry son of a bitch!
Not in this office, not anywhere!
(slaps intercom)
Get in here! Now!
ANDY
I was just trying to rest your mind
at ease, that’s all.
NORTON
(as GUARDS enter)
Solitary! A month!
Andy gets dragged away, kicking and screaming:
ANDY
What’s the matter with you? It’s my
chance to get out, don’t you see
that? It’s my life! Don’t you
understand it’s my life?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IrCgt-Bt1I
conceived(already born) andy, in the shawshank womb for 19 years, breaches the placental wall, breaches the uterine passage, crawls its length & out, cleans up & dresses, kills the abortionists, cleans up again (drains those accounts), & was in zihuatanejo a couple days later…& according to you aztecs, with your “sun (&daughter) stone” he was only 2 or 3 days old….
first, do no harm. second, harmonica….
there’s more words in this post than every line of dialogue he ever had, combined: charlie bronson…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05xkBzqP-NA
asian-eyed she…ger-man on harp
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ofzlw0pofPE
12-yr (+ ~ 9 months) old she….
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKmrAQzizok
all that furious cell division, property improvements…& the obamaborters say: you didn’t build that; that’s not yours; the commons has a stake, the biggest stake, & will decide…enough mites makes rite. tragedy of the commons is an…infestation.
I hear all this, you know, ‘Well, this is class warfare, this is whatever.’ No. There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own — nobody. You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police-forces and fire-forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory — and hire someone to protect against this — because of the work the rest of us did. Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea. God bless — keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is, you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along. ~ Elizabeth warren, 2011.
elizabethan version…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-P-CoSNYaI
jagoff george lakoff version…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53SMjghUpD8
solipsists & sophists, solipsarchist & sophistarchist abortor’s version – see waaay up above…& just below…
Bevin
July 4, 2014 at 10:54 am
Dear Gil,
Um, yeah.
Not your call, got it?
His life is his. Your life is yours. His life is not yours. Your life is not his.
Did I go too fast for you?
Take your time. Think about it. Obviously you haven’t given the matter of whose life belongs to whom very much thought before.
Dang, is there an English translation for all that?
Ah, what’s it matter anyway, haven’t you heard?, “The Gates of Hell Have Opened and the US Is Being Attacked and Occupied: “They Are Here and Awaiting Orders”
W.F.D.
Love this quote from the comments: “I didn’t surrender, but they took my horse and made him surrender. They have him pulling a wagon up in Kansas I bet.” – Lone Watie
No, there are 36,524 and a quarter days in 100 years, by our current calendar. It evens out every four centuries in a way that means that you are correct for the hundred years up until today.
P.M.: so I’m right thru dumb luck, woo hoo!
(2000 was a leap year but 2100 won’t be; appears you’ll allow the accrual of .25 days of the upcoming 2400 year in subsequent 100 year periods)
So when is the next 53 week long year? (in every 400 years there are 71 long ISO calendar years (exactly 17.75% of all cases) and 329 short ISO calendar years (exactly 82.25% of all cases))
It is a well-known fact that the weekdays in the Gregorian calendar are repeated in an exact 400-year cycle containing 20871 weeks, the same cycle that governs the leap day rule of the Gregorian calendar on which the ISO calendar is dependent.
Assume that in every 400-year (20871-week) cycle there are s 52-week ISO calendar years and l 53-week ISO calendar years. Then the following relations between s and l exist:
s + l = 400
52 s + 53 l = 20871
Gregorian Calendar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregorian_calendar
Every year that is exactly divisible by four is a leap year, except for years that are exactly divisible by 100, but these centurial years are leap years if they are exactly divisible by 400. For example, the years 1700, 1800, and 1900 are not leap years, but the year 2000 is
ISO 8601 algorithm
http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~gent0113/calendar/isocalendar.htm
2014 in other calendars
Gregorian calendar 2014
Roman MMXIV
Ab urbe condita 2767
Armenian calendar 1463
Assyrian calendar 6764
Bahá’í calendar 170–171
Bengali calendar 1421
Berber calendar 2964
British Regnal year 62 Eliz. 2 – 63 Eliz. 2
Buddhist calendar 2558
Burmese calendar 1376
Byzantine calendar 7522–7523
Chinese calendar 癸巳年 (Water Snake)
4710 or 4650 — to — 甲午年 (Wood Horse)
4711 or 4651
Coptic calendar 1730–1731
Discordian calendar 3180
Ethiopian calendar 2006–2007
Hebrew calendar 5774–5775
Hindu calendars
– Vikram Samvat 2070–2071
– Shaka Samvat 1936–1937
– Kali Yuga 5115–5116
Holocene calendar 12014
Igbo calendar 1014–1015
Iranian calendar 1392–1393
Islamic calendar 1435–1436
Japanese calendar Heisei 26 (平成２６年)
Juche calendar 103
Julian calendar Gregorian minus 13 days
Korean calendar 4347
Minguo calendar ROC 103 民國103年
Thai solar calendar 2557
– Do you acquiesce to this officious fiat time scheme? I don’t.
The time I live in the domain of the ISO 8601 goons, is only such amount of time as they can make me.
My Time will come, their time will go
My Time shall reap, what their time has sown
My Time comes slowly, their time goes fast
My Time will linger, My time outlasts
My Time sees all, My time knows best
My Time remembers, my time never forgets
My Time will hide, My time will reveal
My Time will open, their time will seal
My Time brings hope, their time brings fear
Their Time brings distance, My time draws near
My Time will help, their time will hinder
My Time will shine, their time turns to cinder
I’ll forget their time, though it’s all many know
In my time, there is everything, as my time will show
I’m a little more tolerant of minarchism than some other ancaps (And by saying this, I am not in any way accusing Mama of being a minarchist). We’re on the same team, as far as I’m concerned. The minarchist is just not logically consistent, while the ancap is. But frankly, if somehow the State could do nothing but protect us from and ensure restitution from (actual, not victimless) criminals, and charge us, say, 2% of our income to do that, well, I’d say we’d be a heck of a lot more free than we are now. To the point where I’d probably stop worrying about politics at all and just concern myself with other things. Because frankly, I’d rather not worry about it at all. There are things I’d rather be doing with my life: studying theology, spending time with family (and not making waves with political stuff:)), working my way to my history degree, playing cards, strategy games, writing, and so forth. I respect the abolutist “you’re free or you’re not” stance, but for me… meh…. Now, that’s not to say that I actually agree with minarchism. Its not to say that given the choice I won’t choose pure voluntarism over mostly voluntarism. And its not even to say I won’t call minarchists out on their inconsistency from time to time. But again, meh. The WORST part of minarchism to me is actually the possibility of relapse, not the relatively small breeches of freedom that would occur in a minarchy (lest anyone misunderstand, I’m talking about an ACTUAL minarchy here, where the only thing the State does is stop and punish aggressors. I am NOT talking about the “limited government” of conservatives which, even if we’re talking about real conservatives like Rand Paul or Chuck Baldwin rather than neo-con hacks, still leaves quite a bit to be desired.) but then, couldn’t an ancap society relapse to? Freedom requires vigilance, period, and its always going to be that way.
So, really, the big issue to me is consistency. If 2% of taxation is not theft than why isn’t 20%? Its ultimately pretty much arbitrary. And its this inconsitency that nagged at me until I went all the way and embraced anarcho-capitalism. But, I still support minarchists, classical liberals, and (genuine) constitutionalists, and would vote for them, because I’d rather have a high degree of freedom and a little unjust authority than no freedom and a high degree of unjust authority.
And to me, the practical aspect of being left alone in daily life is pretty darn important, even if we never reach the goal of absolutely no organized crime (the State.)
Hi David,
I try to be practical, too.
Any increase in liberty is worth supporting – and being glad about.
But, I’ve concluded that any form of compulsory taxation is evil in itself – and income and property taxes the blackest evils of all.
The good news is compulsory taxes are not necessary (leaving aside the ethical/moral wrong). The fallacy of minarchism – one of them, anyhow! – is that it’s necessary to force people to pay for things they “need.” Read that sentence again and you’ll (hopefully) see the irony.
It’s silly to take the position that there’d be no fire protection or mechanism for keeping a community physically secure absent the coercive violence of taxation (and government enforcers). It might work differently than the system in place now, but that doesn’t mean it would not work.
Clovers have slipped humanity an intellectual roofie. This idea that only government – only violence – can provide what “we” need.
Nonsense.
It’s axiomatic that, in a free society, people’s needs (and wants) will be addressed – only without coercion.
Free your mind of the last shackles of Cloverism… the idea that such a thing as “limited government” is either possible or necessary!
I won’t claim to have definitively rid myself of all cloverism, although I think I’m pretty darn close if I’m not there already. But I will tell you that I am not a minarchist and that I agree with you on essentially everything in your post, including the belief that limited government (at least if we define “government” as the State, and exclude voluntaristic governments that operate on the market in some way) is unnecessary. I’m not sure its impossible though.
To make sure we’re on the same page, since some people say “limited government” is a meaningless term, I’ll define it for the sake of discussion.
A limited government would do exactly four things:
1. Maintain a monopoly on the use of legal force (I exclude self-defense from “legal force”, I am talking about using violence of some kind against criminals after the fact in order to force them to pay restitution or whatever needs to be done) over a territorial area, and use this monopoly only to punish NAP violators (I understand that this is an inconsistency, but go with it.)
2. Maintains a small military only for the purposes of defending the territorial area from outside invaders. This military will not intervene anywhere outside the territorial area.
3. Maintain courts in order to attempt to the best of their ability to determine who has violated the NAP and determine whether guilt exists beyond a reasonable doubt (and will dole out some form of penalty on the aggressor, I think some form of monetary restitution to the victim is going to be best most often but this could vary based on specific situations.)
4. Maintain a tax system that is only, and exactly enough to pay for these functions… nothing else.
Would such a government be immoral? Yes (although DRAMATICALLY less so than our current government.) Is such a government necessary? I don’t think so, though it might be necessary as an intermediary step until people grasp anarcho-capitalist legal theory to at least a limited extent.
But, impossible?
I don’t see why it would be impossible. Not ideal? Sure. Not likely? Well, anarcho-capitalism isn’t likely either (and I say that as someone who believes in it, I don’t think its particularly likely to actually happen). But impossible? Why?
Just to reiterate , I agree with your ethical stance completely (on these matters.) Aggression is wrong and all “limited governments” (Limited States) qualify. At the same time, I think its pretty much impossible to deny that if Ron Paul were chosen as King, with the same principles that he has now (assume absolute power doesn’t corrupt him absolutely), we’d be a heck of a lot freer than we are now. I guess we could debate whether such a situation would be more free or less unfree. Either way, I’d take it. (Ignoring the possibility of other kings for the sake of argument and just presuming that all of Ron’s policies are implemented.)
I mean, wouldn’t you take it?
I can’t imagine any libertarian in their right mind turning such a situation down compared to the status quo, save Ron Paul himself perhaps.
I’m not going to be an absolutist about it. Well, I will in the sense that anything that falls short of the ideal is to that extent wrong. And I certainly won’t be a part of it (I wouldn’t be a tax collector or a cop for the minarchy either.) But I’d be a heck of a lot happier in that situation, and I’d feel pretty darn free even though I’m not COMPLETELY free.
I guess the thing is that I kind of see this as a continuum (more free vs less free) rather than an absolute dichotomy of “free or not.” I respect the other side of it, but frankly, I just can’t go there. It would be pretty absurd, bad as the US is, to suggest that North Korea would be better. It would also be pretty absurd to say that the US as it is now was substantially worse (governmentally) than it was under Grover Cleveland.
I don’t worship the political process, and there are plenty of situations where I think it would be silly to use it, but I don’t think its completely without usefulness as a tool either. I do think education and civil disobedience are probably more useful in the grand scheme of things, but I still think politics can be useful sometimes.
I’ve rambled a lot, but I guess what I’m trying to say is: I don’t think either limited government or anarcho-capitalism is particularly likely. I think both are theoretically possible. I think anarcho-capitalism is better than minarchism, but I still think minarchism is “good enough” that we can work with minarchists even if we try to convince them of their inconstencies while we’re having in house debates. I think its an in house debate. And I think minarchists genuinely support freeedom and are inconsistent: I don’t believe they are enemies of freedom (keep in mind I mean actual minarchists here, not neocon shills who SAY they believe in limited government.) And frankly, if we lived in a minarchy that was stable and unlikely to shift in a more statist direction, I’m not sure if I’d bother thinking about politics much. I have other stuff I’d rather be doing, but right now things are bad enough that I feel morally obligated to fight. I don’t know if I’d feel that way under a minarchy.
Hi David,
Legally limited government is impossible both in theory and in practice. Remember that the claim to possess a “monopoly on the use of legal force” that you correctly ascribe to any government, theoretically limited or not, extends to the judgement of it’s own actions relative to the “law”. This necessarily means that any such government exists outside of, and above the law.
Now, all governments are limited in the sense that they have limited resources to plunder, and they must rely on the acquiescence of the people. But no government, as traditionally defined, can be legally limited.
Many people assert that the “separation of powers” between the judicial, legislative and executive branches of the US Federal government overcomes this problem, but it does not. If the purpose of the Supreme Court is to serve as a check on the power of government, then the institution, and its’ members, are uniquely unqualified for the job. Supreme Court justices are chosen from a pool of government lawyers who have displayed a lifetime of fealty to the idea that the exercise of government power is legitimate. They are nominated by a president who has no interest in seating someone who is hostile to the exercise of executive power. They are confirmed by Senators who have no interest in seating someone who is hostile to the exercise of legislative power. In short, the function of the Supreme Court is not to check government power, but to legitimize it.
To illustrate the absurdity of the proposition that government can be limited by law, let’s place the claims of “limited government” advocates in the private sphere. Imagine that Goldman Sachs set up an internal ethics division that was charged with ruling on the legality of the actions of Goldman Sachs. Let’s suppose that the members of this ethics division were nominated by the CEO of Goldman Sachs and confirmed by the board of directors of Goldman Sachs. Let’s further suppose that they receive their pay from Goldman Sachs. Finally, let’s suppose that this division of Goldman Sachs claims a monopoly on judging the legality of the actions of Goldman Sachs. Is it believable that the CEO of Goldman Sachs would nominate a “justice” hostile to the interests of Goldman Sachs? Is it believable that the board of directors would confirm a “justice” hostile to the interests of Goldman Sachs. Does anyone seriously believe that such an institution could be trusted to limit the power of Goldman Sachs?
So, yes, legally limited government is impossible. Anarcho-Capitalsim, while unlikely, is not theoretically impossible. Does this mean that we should not seek common ground with our minarchist friends, of course not. Does this preclude taking steps that you believe may increase freedom, of course not. However, “limited government” can never be the goal.
Kind Regards,
Jeremy
Tor – On what basis do you claim that most abortions are the result of economic reasons? Planned [non-]Parenthood, provider of many if not most abortions in the US, was started by Margaret Sanger, a major proponent of eugenics until Hitler gave it a bad name. If you look at the distribution of PP clinics, a majority of them are in black neighborhoods. Some claim that PP’s business plan is to perform an abortion on every woman who walks in the door – even if she’s not pregnant. If often leads to sterility.
On the basis of limited experience, interactions, and judgement. (Don’t be shy, find support for your opinion, if you think I’m missing it. Or if I’m wrong, what is #1?)
You can be sure the Eugenicists are thinking rationally and long term market. They seem to prefer low cost, highly compliant Muslim citizens.
Why else would they permit Muslim women to average 8.3 children per woman?
3 most common reasons
http://womensissues.about.com/od/reproductiverights/a/AbortionReasons.htm
1 negative impact on the mother’s life
2 financial instability (economics)
3 relationship problems /unwillingness to be a single mother
List of reasons
http://www.webmd.com/women/tc/abortion-reasons-women-choose-abortion
birth control failure #1
economics #2
10 Most Depressing Quotes From 1984
http://www.alternativereel.com/cult_fiction/display_article.php?id=0000000008
“We control life, Winston, at all its levels. You are imagining that there is something called human nature which will be outraged by what we do and will turn against us. But we create human nature, Men are infinately malleable.”
Are you helping them, Phillip?
The kind of world we are creating is the exact opposite of the stupid hedonistic Utopias that the old reformers imagined. A world of fear and treachery and torment, a world of trampling and being trampled upon, a world which will grow not less but more merciless as it refines itself. Progress in our world will be progress toward more pain
Are you one of their sloganeering fanatics against abortion? Or against immigrants, or against some other button pushing inequalities they maintain.
“The ideal set up by the Party was something huge, terrible, and glittering—a world of steel and concrete, of monstrous machines and terrifying weapons—a nation of warriors and fanatics, marching forward in perfect unity, all thinking the same thoughts and shouting the same slogans, perpetually working, fighting, triumphing, persecuting—three hundred million people all with the same face.”
Do you recall some here had a negative reaction to Pregnant Woman Special parking?
If you hold this position, then aren’t you in some small way against pregnant women? Calling them cows, doesn’t exactly jibe with claiming new life is of the utmost sanctity, right?
The shit I’m writing doesn’t add up either. I’m sure I’m skewed and warped in myriad ways as well. Every act, and every consensus, every attitude, so much nuance goes into the market. Goes into what it’s like to be a pregnant woman in the USA.
– If you hate abortion, and believe in minarchy, then why not campaign to have all the handicapped signs changed to pregnant women signs? And parents with children under 2 years of age?
And force every business owner to bend over backwards to accomodate families?
America is a world leader in cripples. Why not stop helping all of them, and devote the resources saved on newborn and potential newborn life? And in subsidizing and helping the parents of this life? That’s behaving in a market minded political way at least, if you refuse to think in Agora terms.
The twisted moralists always want to zoom in on who’s having kids and getting welfare, yet they never think to dump the post office completely, or the weather office. Or a zillion other do nothing, market can do better government make work institutions? The things that really bankrupt us, not a few snot noses, and some free groceries and prole hovels.
Why, because they’re Orwellian twisted souls, who want to lash out at other people who seem to be enjoying themselves just a bit more than they. Those evil hoodrats, and babymamas and the rest.
No one looks at the US budget item by item and thinks about how to reduce it sensibly. Most everyone just wants to stick a knife in the back like a screeching Planet of the Apes orangutan into the backs of the lazy gorillas.
Because they’re some sick simians who’ve been caged so long, that taking away the entitlements of the other guys, who don’t work and contribute like they do, which causes them Ape Rage, is the only thing that makes them feel alive anymore.
As just one example, it bothers me not in the least how loud a kid is. Or how much he runs around. Or how well he’s being parented if he’s not mine. I am not the village.
I expect kids to be kids, and even if they’re screaming and crying, as long as they’re otherwise going to live thru the day, then I say let them communicate in their chosen way, no censorship from me.
I liked the article and thought it was excellent, but I had to nitpick one thing.
With regards to that one meme “don’t like abortions, don’t get one.”
This one is going to remain controversial in the liberty movement, and I don’t think abortion can be fit with the other categories. Here’s why.
Nobody who wants to ban porn says that the person who is using porn is literally committing murder (nobody believes the sperm alone is human life anymore.) Instead, they use arguments like “it breaks up families” or “its addictive” or so forth.
Or with drugs. Nobody says that using drugs is literally murder, the violation of someone else’s right to life. No, they say that drugs are “addictive”, “harmful “, “tears families apart” “hurts children” and so forth.
On the other hand, with abortion, you have a very large portion of the population (including me) saying that someone’s rights are being violated just as directly and literally as if I put a gun to your head,
Would we say “Don’t like axe-murderers? Don’t be one.” ? Of course not. So I think resorting to this argument at all with regards to abortion is silly. It shows a lack of understanding of WHY some people (including myself) do not believe abortion should be legal. Its an NAP violation.
For what its worth, I feel it would be a bit of a cheap shot to use a one liner like that regarding other issues libertarians disagree on. For instance, I could do this:
Don’t like piracy, don’t do piracy.
Don’t like patents, don’t get one.
See? Both of the one liners “work” but they don’t really solve the very real debate among people who believe aggression is wrong with regards to whether or not intellectual property is legitimate (For what its worth, my answer is “I don’t know.”)
I sympathize, David.
I also agree with you in principle. It’s wrong to take a human being’s life (except in self-defense, of course).
As I see it, the question comes down to whether sperm+egg = human being. This is debatable.
Some will take the position that: It’s biologically alive; it has the full complement of human chromosomes. It will become (assuming normal development) a conscious, self-aware person. Ergo (as they see it) it is wrong to terminate the pregnancy.
Others will take the position that while it’s biologically alive, up to a certain point, it is merely a potential person; that (up to a certain point) it has no consciousness, no awareness – nor even a capacity (as yet) for either. Therefore, it is not killing a person when a pregnancy is terminated (at least, in this view, prior to the development of “human” consciousness/awareness).
I admit both views have merit – insofar as facts in support of each position. Yes, a fertilized egg is alive; yes it will become a human being. Those are objective facts.
But it’s not an objective fact that a fertilized egg – or a developing embryo – is a human being, a “person.” We cross over into opinion and speculation.
Are we purely biological life? Or – as some believe – is there another component, the “soul”?
Life does begin at conception. That can hardly be argued. But it is another thing to argue that just-conceived biological life is metaphysically (and morally) the same thing as human personhood.
Is the debate about abortion similar in most ways to that of circumcision, or maybe even spanking? [I think it’s up to the families in all cases.] It might be easier to hash out answers about circumcision, or spanking, first?
That’s what I thought as I read this exchange:
Walter Block and Rafi Farber on Circumcision
Up to the families? What if they want their daughter mutil- er, circumcised? That’s illegal. Begs the question, why is it perfectly acceptable to non-consensually destroy an American male’s sexual organ hours after birth, but not a female’s? The act done anywhere outside of a hospital, outside of the comfortable word, “circumcision”, would be deemed torture and child abuse. Just follow the money (to the skin graft and cosmetic industries). I know I’m probably preaching to the choir.
It is kinda similar to abortion, in that it’s another issue where females have a right, but men have no equivalent. It’s about empowerment, or carelessness. There are so many contraceptive methods available to females (at least 10 vs 3 for men), seems strange so many get to the abortion point. Wouldn’t be a big deal if it were her choice, her responsibility. But it’s her choice his financial responsibility. In circumcision it’s the parents’ choice, but he lives with the pain and permanent repercussions. Abortion: her choice, unborn child/fetus/mass of cells faces the consequences.
I don’t see much connection with spanking. Spanking (assuming you mean as disciplinary/punishment) would never cause irreversible harm to body or life. Otherwise it would be physical abuse like circ.
what i thought was how well it conveys block’s block when it comes to “abortion”….
but why should a tenured university prof whose marketing niche is “loyal opposition” not further contradict himself?
I’ve not met Block; I don;t know him personally. But if he’s tenured, he ought to let loose and write (and say) whatever he really believes. I sure would!
there’s no reason to think he doesn’t write what he believes. there’s good reason to think that belief isn’t an adequate foundation for reality; or the closest approximation of/to it that can be had. ditto “belief” & truth, logic, or ethical consistency. believable busted clocks are worth being aware of, too.
“tenure” is a tell, whether the table sees it, or not. a personal meeting might add redundant facets, but it wouldn’t add any extra value.
I personally don’t think so. Most libertarian theorists will agree with me when I say the NAP doesn’t apply strictly to children (I know some disagree, I won’t debate this point right now other than simply to say that I believe it doesn’t apply strictly.) And frankly, even those who deny this aren’t consistent. Nobody’s going to say a parent that prevents their child from running out onto the street or makes them go to bed should be criminalized. Similarly, I think reasonable amounts of force are acceptable (at least as a legal principle) for punishment. I don’t know where the line is here, but I think most of us would agree that sending your child to bed without supper shouldn’t be a crime, and that locking your child in a closet for three days without food or water should be a crime. The real issue, when it comes to child-rearing, is not whether the NAP is violated (the NAP doesn’t apply strictly to children) but whether or not the child is seriously harmed by the parents actions. And again, I know this isn’t a hard and fast line. I know that isn’t necessarily comforting, but what are you going to do? Giving a child a swat on the bottom isn’t child abuse, beating him with a whip is. Sending a child to bed without supper isn’t child abuse, refusing to give him food or water for an entire day is. Not allowing a child to play outside is overprotective but not abusive, locking him in a closet for several hours a day is abusive, and so forth. So, while I agreee with a high degree of “parental choice”, there’s going to be some point where abuse is a real thing, and while I certainly want to err on the side of parental judgment in any “gray areas” at some point the line between “unreasonable” and “abusive”is crossed.
Regardless, if the unborn child is a person at conception, killing a child certainly qualifies as abuse. Nobody would say infanticide should be a parents choice. On the other hand, if an unborn child is just a collection of cells, than abortion is morally meaningless. Either way its not really comparable to spanking, which is a morally meaningful but not abusive (and in my opinion sometimes appropriate) disciplinary act.
RE: “Either way its not really comparable to spanking”
Really?
RE: “Giving a child a swat on the bottom isn’t child abuse, beating him with a whip is.”
Who decides?
What happens, if? …The hammer falls? The same as with abortion?
A response of some is to appoint an overseer to every child such as they do in Scotland.
RE: “Nobody would say infanticide should be a parents choice.”
Was it Bill Cosby who said, “I brought you into this world. I can take you out.”?
It seems to me that a number of cultures Do say infanticide should be a parents choice. Should they be rubbed out? By whom?
There’s a Christian story outlined in the Walter Block link. It correlates to this conversation. Many people refuse to see that correlation.
That, Eric, is not speaking from a position of principle, but of utility. What is this “personhood,” and who gets to define it? The same argument can be made for any person in a coma, vegetative state, profoundly retarded, etc. Babies are not truly self aware for a long time and have zero capacity to survive on their own either. If any of these poor creatures are killed, it is murder without question (unless the cops kill them, of course). How do “we” set up the criteria for who is aware and capable of being “human?” Who gets to decide that?
If a woman dumps her newborn into a trash can, she’s hauled off to jail for murder… but if she went earlier and let the nice man in a white coat kill that child, she’s just making a “choice.” Give me strength. And no, a few days or months earlier makes absolutely no difference. The baby is no more self aware at nine months than it is at three months gestation.
The “state” has no business being involved, any more than it does with anything else, but that does not remove the fact that the non-aggression principle applies to every human being, regardless of their stage of development.
I look forward to the time when technology will allow the fetus to be transplanted to another womb at any stage, and that the state will no longer be involved at all, but that won’t happen until people are willing to take personal responsibility for their lives and their choices.
All this blather about women having a “right to choose,” etc. ignores the fact that they did choose before they got pregnant. Nobody is suggesting that we have a massive case of immaculate conception. Even the relatively rare pregnancy resulting from rape reflects a woman who chose not to protect herself, one way or another. Pregnancy resulting from incest, again really rare, is the result of failure by those responsible for the children to defend them.
Please remember that I am not at all religious. I can hear the screams now of all those who accuse me of “blaming the victims,” but that’s just denial of the fact that those victims are almost always truly responsible for themselves – or they should have guardians who are responsible. They may not always succeed in protecting themselves or their charges, but I challenge anyone to show me that more than a small number make any real effort to avoid the problems in the first place. It’s just so much easier when they can blame someone else, and get someone else to pay for it all.
I disagree, Momma –
It is a matter of opinion whether a fertilized egg is a person in the same way that you or I are persons.
What after all, constitutes a person? Is it merely the fact of biological life? If so, then any living cell of my body is as much a “person” as I am. (And each living cell has just as much potential to become a fully developed human as sperm+egg, too. All the chromosomes are present to create another me!)
On the other hand, it is not debatable that you and I are human beings, persons. To so suggest would be bizarre, even idiotic. Among other things, we exist as independent beings; we are conscious and aware and have the capacity to feel and know. We have a nervous system, a beating heart.
A sperm and egg, on the other hand, have none of these attributes… yet.
I understand that being conscious and aware and having the capacity to experience pain, etc. (as well as having a heart and a nervous system) are not the only things that define a human being, a person. But these are significant – and objective – differences between you and I and a just-combined sperm cell and egg.
The point I’m trying to make is that it’s debatable – legitimately questionable – whether a just-fertilized egg is a human being, a person, in the same way that you and I are persons (which is not debatable).
It is “cut and dry” (NAP-wise) that shooting a store clerk is murder. Because it is not arguable (on the facts) that a human being – a person – has been murdered.
But is taking the “morning after” pill murder? Debatable (unless you take the religious view, which is a matter of belief)… and so, not so cut and dried.
Dear Eric,
Thank you for this calm and reasoned overview of the status of a just fertilized egg.
I agree. It might eventually become a human being. But it is glaringly obvious that it is also not yet a human being.
the lady from wyoming is speaking truth to deckards. which won’t – because it can’t – make a lot of difference on planet of the apps – an oligarchy’s conception of networked android & apple phonees. planet of the jackanapes well applies, too.
“personhood” is a con-struct. just ask an “ex”-con the definition, parameters, of “his” personhood. then ask an “illegal alien”. etc, ad nauseum. persona non grata, wholly or partially, is a ruling; arbitrary; often, as here in this particular case of euphemism & sophistry (“abortion”), representing vested, profiting, interests. it’s just that same ol’ time legality-religion, not law. ♪♫♪ The more I think about it, Old Billy was right, Let’s
killabort all the lawyers,killabort ’em tonight…”get over it” ~ the eagles (not the paralegals, not pavlov’s legal-beagles, & certainly not the legisligature that’s cut off circulation/oxygenation here…). of course, it won’t be gotten over – even if hell does freeze over.“we own our lives.” that unknown ideal predates unknown capitalism by further back than the ayn can see. incidental extensions of/to that ownership are our persons & other property.
Had to look up Deckards (1942 Ford Harrison Deluxe Coupes) and Jackanapes(tame apes)
Mizzus Y.O. Ming dizowned me just like my real Mama
Yuze right as reign Oz Man! – You Fem Nisms !!! – howz we EVA gonna converz – if EVERY dadgum werd – is a big bucket of SWILL?
– aborchun – purse sun hood – ill eagle
https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/5527495424/h8A1AF53D/
http://www.stillmanbooks.com/jackanapes.jpg
http://www.boldride.com/ride/1942/ford-super-deluxe-coupe
Obviously a fetus cannot defend itself, neither can it delegate such a defense (for one thing, it is unable to communicate). Therefore a fetus cannot make use of its rights, and cannot be differentiated from something that does not have rights. If one cannot prove that abortion is an initiation of coercion against a person endowed with rights, then abortion must remain a matter of preference.
i’ve seen enough of your tormentedstruations to be surprised by this latest stain. funny how you have so much imagination, yet still not enough to realize how easily you could yourself be put into fetal position – unable to defend, delegate, communicate, make use of your rights – & so, according to your stillborn conception, undifferentiable from a thing & therefore merely a matter of another’s preference.
are you an actual sociopath, or do you just play one on the internet?
sigh…i wanna’ be a torrid typist, too!
just mind’s edit the excess italics.
Dear Eric,
That was the most succinct rebuttal of the baseless “egg+sperm=human being” assertion ever.
Thanks, Bevin!
I fully appreciate the touchiness of this subject – and the last thing I wanted to do is annoy friends (Momma, for one).
I merely hoped to present a logical “position paper” – and hope she and others take it in the spirit intended!
Dear Eric,
We have all been here before, and the result was not pretty.
Tempers flared.
Some who argued that “abortion=murder” stopped responding to my comments, even when they were directed specifically at them, and affirmed what they said — on other issues.
Hopefully we can get past this.
I’m not sure this is a debate that can really go anywhere. My point was simply this.
Its easy (and correct) to say “don’t like drugs, don’t do them.” The drug user, like it or not, is not harming you, so you have a moral obligation to leave him alone.
By contrast, if we change it to “don’t like slavery, don’t have a slave” things get very different. Here we have a situation where there is a victim, namely, the person being enslaved against his will (I’ll leave voluntary slavery like the kind Walter Block talks about out of it for now as that provides more complications, stick with people who are enslaved against their wills.) So, in that case, we have the right to say “don’t do that. Ever. And if you do, we’ll use defensive force to prevent you from doing it, and force to make you compensate the victim as well.”
I feel very strongly that abortion is in the latter category. But either way, the debate is ultimately over whether abortion is an aggressive act. There is no such debate with drugs, prostitution, gun ownership, or tax evasion. In all of those cases, those who want to use violence say they want to do so “for the good of society”, not a specific victim.
Thus, I don’t like lumping abortion with the rest of the issues at all. Its different, at its core.
Hi David,
Can one commit aggression against a potential (as opposed to an actual)?
This, for me, is the fulcrum of the debate.
It may well be that there is a god, that at conception, a human soul is created. But this is a matter of belief, of opinion. It cannot be fact-checked.
What we know – what can be factually substantiated – is that a just-fertilized egg is biologic life. That it could develop into a person.
But whether it is a person at this stage is as I see it certainly debatable because it is not possible to prove that a sperm+egg (or a collection of developing cells) is a human being, a person.
I understand that many people feel strongly that a just-fertilized egg is as much a human being, a person, as you or I. But because it is a feeling – not something that can be proved – it’s hard to take the position that an abortion (especially the “morning after pill”) is exactly the same thing as gunning down you or I.
It seems like you’re simply assuming that your assertion that a fetus (at least to a certain point) is only a potential person rather than an actual one. You do realize that this is precisely the assertion that I’m debating, correct?
Admittedly, I’m sort of doing the same thing for the other side, and I’m not sure its really avoidable. This is one of those topics where I frankly can’t see past my starting presuppositions, and there’s no “neutral” way to debate it. That said, I’m well aware that I’m biased here. I hope you’re similarly aware.
Bevin, your question is incredibly broad. The answer depends on the situation. Right now we live under a regime where child-murder via abortion is protected by the State. In that situation its incredibly difficult to actually “do anything” much like we know tax collectors and cops are aggressors yet we often let them get away with it because what else can be done? (in the short term.)
Too situation dependent. So I’ll stick with “I don’t know.”
@Eric- It seems fairly obvious to me, at least under normal circumstances, based on moral propositions that most of us would agree on, that adultery is dishonest and therefore immoral.
But, it doesn’t have a victim in the strictest sense of the word. Similarly, if I tell you a lie most of us would say I am acting immorally in at least most instances, but it isn’t criminal. Adultery is not aggressive in nature. So, it should still be legal.
I am contending that abortion is aggressive. And I don’t really see how that’s comparable to blood, because your blood is a part of you, and the unborn child is not, he/she is a separate organism. The fact that he/she needs the mother to live is irrelevant, if you leave an infant on a table and don’t take care of him/her, the infant will die. Still a person.
I guess, ultimately, this whole debate IS religious, regardless of which position you take. We’re presupposing the NAP since we agree on it, but there’s still no agreed upon definition of “person.” Some liberal college professors believe humanity begins at age 5 or 7. I am repulsed by this, but I’m not sure I can PROVE that this is wrong, other than perhaps using a dictionary. I just find it morally repulsive, not to mention aggressive and so defensive force would be justified to prevent these professors from acting on their convictions (by this I obviously mean actually murdering children and not just talking about it) if they were to attempt to do so.
Frankly, I feel the same way about the whole abortion thing. It is what it is. Its inevitable that one side is going to force its beliefs on the other side here. Either a society is going to be created in which the right to abortion is forcibly protected (in that those who use force to prevent such an act will be punished) or a society is going to be created in which the right for the unborn to live is protected and that those who try to forcibly take away that right is going to be punished.
I cannot really think of an issue that’s similar to this one. You can say “Don’t like drugs, don’t do them, you can have your way and I can have mine.” The reason you can say that is because drug use is, definitionally, not an aggressive act. Similarly, prostititution, owning an “assault weapon”, choosing to keep 100% of your income, using bitcoin, skydiving, getting drunk, driving past the speed limit, not wearing a seatbelt, and a whole long list of other things, you can choose to do them or not to do them and its obvious that nobody’s rights were violated.
With abortion, there is no such clarity. Half of us believe that abortion is not only aggressive, but downright murderous. Half of us believe that abortion is not an aggressive act at all and thus any force being used to prevent it would be unthinkable. I almost feel like we’re not in the same movement, probably how you’d feel if somebody said the NAP was true but only for ages 5+ and as a result that killing people before they reach the age of 5 is justified. I’ve heard some people claim that some types of whales are “more intelligent” than a young child so its certainly conceivable that you could construct a line of reasoning under which this seems “logical”, even though its obviously horiffic.
There really isn’t any issue like this one. IP and immigration are somewhat contentious as well, but in comparison the stakes are small enough that people can just agree to disagree on them.
I’m not uncertain in any respect that a just fertilized egg is a person. But, unfortunately, we can’t really have this debate because I am using Biblical presuppositions to make that claim, and you are using equally biased secular presuppositions to claim the inverse. I don’t know of any way to actually debate this.
RE: “What we know – what can be factually substantiated – is that a just-fertilized egg is biologic life. That it could develop into a person.”
Who owns that just-fertilized egg?
When and how do they give up ownership?
Seems to me that property rights plays the biggest role here. No need to determine when humanship takes place. It’s a family issue and none of the business of anyone else.
Dear David,
Eric has basically covered the underlying decisive factor.
But let’s look at what you wrote as well:
So, in that case, we have the right to say “don’t do that. Ever. And if you do, we’ll use defensive force to prevent you from doing it, and force to make you compensate the victim as well.” I feel very strongly that abortion is in the latter category.
So I have a question. A woman has been kidnapped and raped. She is rescued or manages to escape on her own. She then discovers that she has been impregnated by the rapist, a low-life scumbag. She decides to get an abortion. A no-brainer.
According to you,
… we have the right to say “don’t do that. Ever. And if you do, we’ll use defensive force to prevent you from doing it… ”
Just exactly what sort “defensive force” do you intend to use “to prevent the woman who was raped and impregnated from terminating her forced impregnation?
How would any force you use against the rape victim be “defensive?”
How would any such force against the rape victim be even remotely compatible with libertarianism and voluntaryism.
Defensive???
Seriously???
Spare me.
Really, the rape issue is irrelevant. The relevant question, as Eric says, is whether or not the unborn child is actually a human being.
I don’t see how we can “prove” that I am human, or that Eric is human. Why couldn’t we arbitrarily draw the line at age 20? (I’m 19.) Why couldn’t we draw it at 60? Heck, why couldn’t we invent a moral code in which murder is acceptable? The bottom line is that the non-aggression principle says that it is illegitimate to use aggressive force against another person or their property. If “person” is not defined as beginning at conception, any other definition is arbitrary.
I honestly don’t know much about the morning after pill. I do know that an unborn child has a heartbeat at 18 days, and a brain at 1 month. For what its worth, Ron Paul is a doctor and he doesn’t consider the morning after pill to be an abortion. I don’t know if he’s right or not, its not really something I’ve ever studied. I do know that controlling the morning after pill would be impossible, just as absurd as trying to control any other drug. Let’s stick with deliberate acts of aggression against unborn children who are KNOWN (the morning after pill doesn’t target anything that is known to exist) to be in the womb. Is that acceptable? Clearly not. Its an act of murder just like putting a bullet in a newborn child’s head.
I don’t see how rape changes the situation, beyond perhaps being a mitigating factor if it is clear that a rash action is taken due to trauma.
Hi David,
“I don’t see how we can “prove” that I am human, or that Eric is human.”
Really? C’mon, son!
You’ve surely heard that line about cogito ergo sum (among others)?
Here we are, two conscious, thinking beings communicating with one another. Demonstrable, self-evident actualities.
Need I pursue?
We could indeed invent a code in which murder is acceptable. Such codes have been invented. Surely you are aware of this? (Hint – you’re living in a society that hews to such a code.)
But it is not the Libertarian code. Because a code that endorses murder would be contrary to the NAP.
The question – again – is whether it is “murder” to end the biologic life of a collection of cells, a potential person?
This is debatable – and that is the point.
Meaning: You cannot assert that it is murder because it is open to debate whether a collection of cells is a person. Well, you can assert it, but it’s not factually inarguable. It is entirely arguable (on the facts) that a collection of cells is nothing more than a potential person. A possibility, not an actuality.
On the other hand, it is not open to debate whether you are a person. To take such a position is absurd on the face of it. You are a person, demonstrably so. Therefore, to kill you would be murder – inarguably so.
In terms of the NAP, the situation must be exactly that. Inarguable. I have either harmed a person – or I have not. The mere fact that we are arguing about whether a “person” is harmed makes the case that it’s debatable whether anyone has been harmed. Ergo, while we might not like the “morning after” pill and would not use it ourselves, it is very much of a piece with “speeding” or some other action we might not personally approve of, feel uncomfortable doing – but which as such does not rise to the level of an NAP violation.
Your discomfort/disapproval derives from a religious point-of-view. Which is perfectly fine. You are entitled to your views, and to live your life according to your views, whatever they may be.
However, according to Libertarian ethics (NAP) you are not entitled to impose those beliefs on others.
And that’s the line in the sand here.
Dear David,
Way to dodge the question.
According to you,
… we [sic] have the right to say “don’t do that. Ever. And if you do, we’ll use defensive force to prevent you from doing it… ”
My question is:
Just exactly what sort “defensive force” do you intend to use to prevent the woman who was raped from terminating her forced impregnation?
I didn’t ask you what you think. You already told me what you think.
I’m asking you what you intend to DO.
RE: “Heck, why couldn’t we invent a moral code in which murder is acceptable?”
You didn’t read the Walter Block link up above, did you.
Also, more and more I find that Panarchy makes sense:
You Can’t Be A Libertarian and Not Support Personal Secession
The question currently on the table is not “What is right?”
The question currently on the table is:
“What do you intend to do when confronted by a rape victim who is about to get an abortion?”
I’d like to hear the answer.
Dear David,
I’m still waiting for an answer.
A victim of kidnapping and rape has been impregnated involuntarily by some low life scumbag. She is about to get an abortion.
What do you intend to do?
I’m not waiting for a moral argument. You’ve already given me your moral argument. You consider your argument valid. I could not convince you otherwise. So that part of the debate is over and done with.
What I want to know now, is not what you believe or feel. You already told me that. Repeating it over and over again is pointless. And evasive.
What I want to know now is:
What do you intend to do to the woman?
@Eric- An infant could not debate with us. Does that make an infant not human?
animals feel pain. Does that make them human?
Abortion (I’m not sure if this includes the morning after pill or not, as I said I do not know) is not comparable to speeding.
Speeding is demonstrably not an NAP violation. It is demonstrably an act that may potentially cause harm in some cases, but does not definitionally cause harm even a high percentage of the time (let alone every time.)
Similarly, if I choose to inject heroin into my arm, I’m hurting myself, I’m certainly not comfortable with it, but I certainly ought to have the right, legally, to do it. Because its my decision, literally my body and my choice.
Abortion doesn’t work this way. We are debating whether or not abortion is an act which intrinsically ends human life (which would clearly be murder.) I believe a fetus is a person from the moment of conception, and thus, it should be every bit as illegal to have an abortion as it would be to shoot someone in the head.
Is it harder to enforce? Absolutely. Does that make it OK to (as pro-choice statists often satirically suggest) put pregnant women under surveilance? Of course not. Physically restraining people so they won’t go have abortions? Generally not. We don’t physically restrain men just because they have a penis, but that doesn’t mean rape should be legal.
The alternative position would require the presumption that a fetus is NOT a human person. In a vacuum I’m not seeing any reason why this is a superior standpoint, other than it just being easier to deal with. I don’t think it does the unborn justice either.
As for Bevin’s question, my answer is “whatever we would do in any other case where someone may be attempting murder.”
True, David.
But: An infant is much more than just a human cell with a set of chromosomes. Much more than merely “biologic life.” It is – obviously – a person. It would be ridiculous to assert otherwise. A just fertilized egg is not obviously a person. What it is – all that can be proven that it is – is a cell with the potential to become a person.
You ” . . .believe a fetus is a person from the moment of conception.”
Italics added.
Exactly so. You believe.
But no one really knows. It cannot be proved. It can only asserted – the assertion based on religious faith or opinion.
Bevin,
I do not think there is anything that can be done “defensively” to the woman that chooses to have an abortion.
Depending on the community, she could be shunned by others in the community. A scarlet letter if you will accept the analogy. I do not think it is appropriate for others to physically harm her for what she did to herself and her unborn child. (I guess depending on how some feels about the fetus will color the words used to describe the unborn child.)
Although I do not think abortion is right morally, I will leave it to the individual and their conscious to decide for themselves if it’s right or wrong.
Also,
You may wish to give David some time to reply. He may be away from the internet. He could be considering what you have written and thinking an appropriate response.
Dear David,
As for Bevin’s question, my answer is “whatever we would do in any other case where someone may be attempting murder.”
And just what would that be?
Revealingly evasive “answer.” Clearly you are embarrassed and hesitant to spell out in plain language just exactly what you would do.
The rape victim is going to get an abortion.
You insist that “abortion is murder.” You insist that you have the right to do “whatever we would do in any other case where someone may be attempting murder.”
So tell me, just exactly what concrete actions you would take to prevent her from “committing murder?”
Morning, Bevin!
I try hard to look at any question from all sides. And in this case, I wonder whether at some level, David isn’t at least somewhat less-than-certain that a just-fertilized egg is a person. . . .? That you or I are persons is a no-brainer. It is self-evident. Doesn’t require buttressing up by reference to the supernatural, notions of “the soul” and so forth.
But that just-fertilized egg?
It seems to me that it requires faith to believe that it is a “person.”
Which is fine, in the same way that it is fine to believe – based on faith – that it is wrong to eat red meat on Sunday or to “lie with” other than your wife (and so on).
But can it be a moral basis for forcible intervention?
That strikes me as both unjustifiable and extremely dangerous.
The NAP standard requires incontrovertible evidence that an actual person has been actually harmed. A potential person possibly harmed is insufficient. In the same way that it is insufficient to assert that driving “x” MPH is sufficient by itself to warrant forcible intervention, based upon an assertion that harm might result.
If we brook such things – no matter how strongly we may feel about a given thing – then we have ceded the core Libertarian argument and the Clovers have already won.
Dear Mith,
I have absolutely no problem with your position on abortion.
I consider it consistent with the NAP and consistent with the spirit of libertarianism.
I am not embarassed by anything, Bevin. I’m just not sure how exactly to handle it.
First off, are we dealing with a minarchy or an anarcho-capitalist society? Obviously (for us anyway) the anarcho-capitalist society is the ideal, but it also makes ANY sort of central planning utterly pointless. All I could say in that instance is what I feel would be appropriate (measures to prevent or punishment for commission of the crime). But its not as if I would be in any way really influencing the outcome here (save the unlikely event in which I start a PDA.)
For a minarchy, I think Ron Paul’s response is completely appropriate. Declare, according to law, that life begins at conception. Let the states decide how to deal with it.
Rape is really only relevant, perhaps, as a mitigating factor. The question is really how much slack, if any, someone who responds to a horrible event that occurs in their life by doing something awful should be cut. Really, its an emotional appeal. How is abortion in case of rape, by the nature of the act, different than any other abortion? Either its cold-blooded murder or its completely irrelevant. I don’t see how there’s any realistic in between here.
So again, in theory, I have no problem with saying that murdering ones child in the womb could deserve a death sentence or a life sentence (I don’t want to debate the death penalty here, though my stance would be that it is at least theoretically justified, pragmatic application is a far more difficult matter). In practice, I think its going to be pretty much impossible to prove that the act occurred or that there were murderous intentions (did the mother know she was committing murder? Or did the “doctor” lie to her?), so I think that would be rarely, if ever, justified.
On the other hand, I have no problem with saying that we’d be better off if people like Kermit Gosnell or George Tiller, after being given a fair trial and proven guilty beyond any reasonable doubt, had a bullet put in their heads. Abortion “doctors”, unlike many of the women they lie to, know full well that they are committing murder, which puts them in the same moral camp as any “normal” serial killer.
Hi David,
The line, “life begins at conception” is certainly accurate, but it’s also question begging. Life, yes. A person? That’s a very large leap, one premised on a religious rather than factual basis.
Let me put it another way, to try to make the point.
If a just fertilized egg is a person by dint of it being alive and having the full complement of human chromosomes (these facts are not disputable) then – logically – is the same not true of any living cell of my body? After all, each cell of my body is alive – biologically. And each has a fell set of human chromosomes. Is it, therefore, a “person,” too?
Have I committed murder when I, for example, do not save the blood that leaks out of a skin cut but instead wash the wound in the sink and allow the potential human to go down the drain?
I mean no offense. I’d like a serious answer.
As I see it (based on the facts) both the just-fertilized egg and any other living cell are biologic life that has the potential to become a person. But neither are actually persons. This seems to me inarguable.
Can you prove otherwise?
I understand that some people believe a just-fertilized egg is qualitatively different; that at the exact moment of conception, it is a person.
But how so?
What specific characteristics (factual, which cannot be denied) does it have that a cell from my body lacks? What makes it different?
I’ve yet to come across an argument or explanation that answers this with other than religious notions. That – for example – a new soul has been created (by god). Which may well be. But may not be, too. We are dealing with conjecture – not facts.
As I see it, until one can logically, factually demonstrate that a just-fertilized egg is a human person, ending an early stage pregnancy is not an NAP issue any more than drinking coffee (Mormons shun it) or eating red meat on Sunday (Catholics) and so on…
And, who is “we”?
David wrote, “On the other hand, I have no problem with saying that we’d be better off if people like Kermit Gosnell or George Tiller, after being given a fair trial and proven guilty beyond any reasonable doubt, had a bullet put in their heads. ”
Why?
Does that action make the victim whole?
Is the victim better off?
(sigh) Under a Panarchist system there could be groups which think that’s fine and dandy. An eye for an eye appeals to some.
Anyway, I wonder, who is the, “we” in the, “we’d be better off if “?
Can you define the, “we” part?
I’m guessing it’s The Ruling Class, but… perhaps your perspective is different?
That all brings to mind this bit for some reason:
America’s Ruling Class — And the Perils of Revolution
Dear David,
Did I stutter? Was I not speaking English?
My question was simple:
So tell me, just exactly what concrete actions you would take to prevent her from “committing murder?”
Still refuse to answer? Ask yourself why you are tap dancing in response to this question?
You’ve already given elaborate moral justifications for your position. I’ve heard it umpteen times. I don’t need to hear it again. That is not the issue at this moment.
Now all I want to hear is your answer to:
What do you personally intend to do to the rape victim to prevent what you insist is murder?
Dear helot,
For the record, I heartily agree with your suggestion of panarchy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panarchy
In his 1860 article “Panarchy” de Puydt, who also expressed support for laissez-faire economics, applied the concept to the individual’s right to choose any form of government without being forced to move from their current locale. This is sometimes described as “extra-territorial” (or “exterritorial”) since governments often would serve non-contiguous parcels of land.
This strikes me as an excellent way to achieve the same practical results as voluntarism.
Sorry for not responding earlier. I was trying to clarify one issue first before tackling another one.
Dear Eric,
“I wonder whether at some level, David isn’t at least somewhat less-than-certain that a just-fertilized egg is a person. . . .?”
Indeed.
Accuse me of “psychologizing” if you will. But I have a powerful suspicion that David knew something was seriously amiss with his line of reasoning.
Otherwise I would not have had to drag a straight answer out of him. In fact, I still haven’t gotten a totally straight answer from him regarding what he would do to a rape victim to prevent her from getting an abortion.
Ironically, that may be to his credit — albeit in a perverse sense. I suspect an inner voice told him, “It would be wrong and shameful to physically overpower the rape victim using brute force to prevent her from having an abortion.” Had he lacked that inner voice, I would be far more worried!
Think about it. The woman has already been physically overpowered by some scumbag, kidnapped, held prisoner, sexually assaulted, raped, and impregnated against her will.
She has no desire to bear a child by this scumbag who forced himself on her. She only wants to bear a child by her husband. Wow. Imagine that. How callous of her.
Yet lo and behold, another stranger waltzes in and claims the right to physically overpower her and hold her prisoner against her will for nine months to prevent her from undergoing an abortion???
And I’m supposed to consider this consistent with the NAP??? Really???
Bevin, you said:
Yet lo and behold, another stranger waltzes in and claims the right to physically overpower her and hold her prisoner against her will for nine months to prevent her from undergoing an abortion???
This is clearly absurd and inappropriate.
We certainly agree that murder (of those who have already been born) should be illegal. Does that mean we have any right to hold anyone prisoner for their entire lives because of what they might do in the future?
Of course not.
Similarly, abortion (including in the case of rape) should be criminally punishable but it would be illegitimate to take preemptive action in order to prevent the abortion from taking place.
Really, though, my main concern is with abortion “doctors.” How many women are going to want to have abortions in a society in which people cannot openly advertise themselves as abortionists?
David wrote, “How many women are going to want to have abortions in a society in which people cannot openly advertise themselves as abortionists?”
Many.
Such would happen in back alleys, dark hallways, and unlit backrooms. It would be ugly.
Think about it this way, “How many people are going to want illegal drugs in a society in which people cannot openly advertise themselves as drug dealers”?
“Have you noticed that there are more and more articles emanating from the statist media condemning libertarianism? Per Gandhi, this is perhaps a good thing. ”
We are definitely entering the “Then they fight you” stage. We all know what happens next.
You missed one in the image above:
Don’t like Evolution? Don’t evolve.
I tried explaining anarcho-capitalism to a co-worker a few years back. She was a young thing — twenty, maybe? To be sure, her first reaction when I told her the brief outline was “oh, so it’s like communism.”
People get the craziest ideas.
Darien, I’m always fascinated by the many things people interpret to be Communism. In trying to get them to describe exactly what it is, they’ll nearly always describe fascism or totalitarianism or maybe socialism or some combo of most or all of those things.
If a country ever operated as a pure communist state I’m unaware of it. They are almost tyrannical oligarchies for the most part that stay in power with totalitarian force. Just because they(the ruling elite there always is) “say” they divide up whatever goods or monies they have equally among the people doesn’t make that true.
And the closer you get to true communism the faster the ability to perform breaks down. Nobody, under any type of government, really wants to get the exact same thing as everyone else since everybody has different goals they want to achieve.
While you’re right that people get the craziest ideas, I think for the most part, people get some really stupid ideas from other people who have really stupid ideas.
I realized in the 60’s actual communism simply didn’t exist in any country and never could. If everyone were commies, the leaders would be also and they’d have no right to force others to be communist themselves.
At least Mussolini had the balls to call fascism by it’s almost proper name.
Even free association communism practiced by people who lived in communes never really worked as planned since people were free to do as they wanted for the most part and no one left everything they owned behind except for those who owned nothing. It didn’t take long before living in a commune became unacceptable for those with even the slightest talent or those who had to supposedly leave their wealth behind(and I never knew anyone who actually did this, yes, they might appear to live as everyone else did on the surface but the facts set lie to this notion).
I’d enjoy having Eric write an essay about Communism. I’m sure he’d also find there has never been a pure communist government and hopefully say it in a way to make even the biggest dullard understand such.
8 —
I know a bunch of people who used to live on a commune. To a man, they seem not to have noticed that they all left because communism simply doesn’t work. They did, however, post the most amazing sign on the entrance: “Renaissance Commune — private property.”
If I am correct in my remembrance, Plymouth colony was originally founded as a commune, with the usual “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” tat. This was quickly abandoned after the majority of the colony died within a year, and people began holding property privately and working for their own betterment. Wonder of wonders, the situation quickly turned around.
Hmm….okay, I think I’m starting to understand where you’re coming from now
Let’s use my “bully who thinks he isn’t aggressive when he is” example, then, to make sure I understand you correctly. I’m guessing that under your system, instead of getting the school to solve the problem, you’d get a private kids’ association or parents’ association or some other Public Defense Agency (to use your term) to resolve the dispute, or you’d organize some sort of self-defense camp so that if enough kids fought back, the bully’s behavior would then be curbed due to his desire to avoid getting his ass kicked.
Would that be an accurate representation of your idea, if applied to the analogy I’m currently using?
Dear anon,
Something like that.
But you do realize you are still trying to fit a jigsaw piece from the old system into the new, right?
In a voluntaryist society, parents would be able to send their kids to bully free private schools of their own choice. The problem would not even arise in the first place!
Under existing collectivism, kids are compelled to attend certain “public schools” based on government edicts, not parental choice. Parents aren’t allowed to opt out of school taxes and allocate their education dollars on private schools of their own choice.
The government created the problem in the first place.
Like I said, one has to look at the new system as a whole new “jigsaw puzzle.”
Dear anon,
The magic key to solving any and all problems that arise is this:
Do not be in a rush to impose a top down one size fits all solution by force.
Instead, remember that people will never allow problems to remain unsolved. Eventually they will get around to solving them. It’s human nature. People refuse to put up with crap past a certain point.
As long as one honors the NAP, and refrains from overriding their freedom and independence, they will use that freedom to come up with solutions.
Freedom works. Trust it.
That’s what mainstream intellechewals find it impossible to do. They cannot let go of their compulsion to ram “solutions” down other peoples’ throats.
“To say private schools will solve bullying is disingenuous as some bullying . . .”
Who said so, Clover?
What private schools eliminate is coercion. You are free to send your child there – or not. And no one else is forced to pay for the education of your child.
Again, you dance around the bedrock difference between people like you and Libertarians. You can’t stand the idea of not being in a position to force others to pay for what you want and to compel them to behave (or not behave) if ways you consider appropriate.
Libertarians demand only that people refrain from doing others violence. Nothing more – and nothing less.
Hi Anonymous,
In a free society, you’d be free to remove your child from any situation you felt wasn’t healthy. If School X provides the sort of environment (and education) you value, then you’d be free to send your child there. And you’d be free to not subsidize schools you neither use nor esteem.
If you child is bullied, you’d be free to have a chat with the teachers, the other kid’s parents – to try to resolve the problem. You’d also be free to tech your child how to deal with bullies – i.e., fight back when attacked. Or, as per above, remove the child from the situation.
With freedom you have… freedom!
Also, as a private business, the school could choose to expel the bully. Bullies would be very bad for business, causing other students to seek their education elsewhere, bully-free.
Greetings, this is the same Anonymous who was asking you about public libraries once.
I have a question: what happens if libertarians (like any other social group sometimes, since none of us are consistent all the time) forget their own principles?
You say that libertarians believe in first, doing no harm to others.
Unlike a lot of people who’ve argued with you, Eric, I believe you mean that, and won’t attack a straw man.
But, how would you solve the problem of libertarians SAYING they believe in the Non Aggression Principle, but “de facto” deciding that their hated social groups are deserving of cruelty or outright destruction, because “they’re all the same, they’re all out to take away my freedoms, so they’ve broken the NAP even though I can’t prove that they have?”
For example, the commenters here have frequently expressed the belief that everyone on the Coasts is fascist, communist, what have you, and therefore if you’re going to free, you’ll have to get rid of all “those people” first.
What then? You say you don’t believe in harming innocents. I believe you.
But what if your fellow travelers invent offenses against your freedom that aren’t real, and use that as an excuse to “de facto” dominate others, and then complain of being dominated if they resist?
“The bronies are all perverts! The women are all a bunch of controlling nannies! The Third Worlders are hogging up my traffic space! The XBox players are a bunch of wimps! The intellectuals are all arrogant! The football players are all stupid!”
Sentiments like these, and these are just the examples I could think of off the top of my head, are what worry me. What happens if your fellow libertarians start imposing collective punishments because they THINK they perceive a threat to their liberty from the innocent as well as from the guilty?
What “enforcement mechanism” would you use to restrain people in such a scenario?
Thanks in advance!
Dear anon,
Some of the confusion lies in your premises.
I once invoked the analogy of a jigsaw puzzle.
The existing statist collectivism is one jigsaw puzzle. Its pieces fit together a certain way.
A future libertarian society, specifically a volutaryist society, would be an entirely different jigsaw puzzle. Its pieces would fit together in an entirely different way.
One cannot take a piece from the existing statist jigsaw puzzle and attempt to force fit it into a future libertarian jigsaw puzzle. It just won’t work. But here’s the important point. One cannot blame the future libertarian system for the lack of fit.
As to the specifics, that’s a longer story that may take some time to lay out in detail.
Bevin, I apologize, but I’m afraid I don’t understand what you mean. What jigsaw puzzle piece am I trying to fit into what?
The question I was trying to ask is what would happen if libertarians said they believe in NAP, but then decided that certain groups were inherently oppressive, and thus libertarians are justified in punishing them.
In other words, how will you keep up the Non Aggression Principle if certain people can talk themselves into thinking that they haven’t broken it when they have?
I’ll make an analogy of my own. A lot of bullies in school don’t THINK they’re committing aggression against their victims, they think they’re “toughening them up”. This is called “self-deception”. If you then attempted to punish the bullies for breaking the NAP, and the bullies can’t properly perceive their behavior, they would then accuse YOU of breaking the NAP.
What enforcement mechanisms, in a future libertarian society, would solve that problem?
Hi Anonymous,
“what would happen if libertarians said they believe in NAP, but then decided that certain groups were inherently oppressive, and thus libertarians are justified in punishing them.”
This is circular. Or doesn’t parse.
As a matter of principle, Libertarians accept no first-use of force. The only ethically acceptable use of force is defensive force, in response to aggression.
If someone (or some group of someones) commits aggressive violence, then those aggressed against have every right to defend themselves – would you not agree?
But otherwise? Leave others alone!
It’s as simple as that.
Here’s a hint.
You are looking for a “final authority.”
Guess what? There won’t be one in a future voluntaryist society. There will be competing PDAs or Private Defense Agencies.
PDAs will NOT be governments. Governments have territorial monopolies. PDAs do not.
Rand claimed this was unworkable. She said they would be forced to go to war with each other in the case of disputes between their subscribers.
False!
Even existing governments do not automatically go to war merely because a citizen of one country becomes entangled in a legal dispute with the citizen of another country. The “authorities” work out a deal.
PDAs would be far more rational and pragmatic than existing governments.
The underlying principle is always this: People will not put up with unsatisfactory situations. They will always attempt to find solutions. As long as they are free, and their hands are not tied by government restrictions, they will eventually find the necessary solutions.
Anonymous, there you go with the strawman argument. I don’t even know where to start except there are no “perceived” offenses to a libertarian. If you’re considering restricting anything I want to do that harms no one, that’s fine with me. If you actually attempt to restrict me, then you are using force of some sort. The NAP says I can respond to your force with my own.
In libertarianism, there is no collective punishments for anything not involving Actual harm. There are no “invented” harms. You either harm someone or you don’t. Is this so hard to understand?
If someone plots to harm me, how would I know? It’s only when someone does harm another that any crime has taken place. Don’t build that strawman so high it falls on you and knocks you on your ass…..cause libertarians won’t be aware of it nor your plight in trying to escape.
When I sleep tonight, if I have a nightmare, how could that affect anyone else? That makes as much sense as your question.
Should you desire to bulldog cattle in a thong I’m certain libertarians would support your right to do so. Is that a ridiculous enough analogy for you?
If you want to live life per David Allan Coe’s 3 Biggest Lies and have a willing partner then no harm is done. You need to think about that real hard. And DAC would tell you the same thing.
Restraint? For what could happen? I sometimes feel the need to escape reality and when I read what you wrote I feel as if I have. What are you using?
“bulldog cattle in a thong”
Ha!
That would make a good .jpg in one of Tors many welcomed links to break up the necessary hardcore hard thinking which no one wants to think about but which is required to remain sane and know one’s place in the universe.
Zombies need not apply.
[Ha! but which]
“The parasite knows it needs to get the rat inside the cat (yes, we realize this sounds like the beginning of the most fucked-up Dr. Seuss poem ever) “…
5 Scientific Reasons a Zombie Apocalypse Could Actually Happen
RE: “I sometimes feel the need to escape reality and when I read what you wrote I feel as if I have. What are you using?”
Is it Aspartame? That diet-pop shit blows holes in the brains of rats they test it on.
However; I’m guessing it’s just plain ole intense gooberment indoctrination for twelve years combined with some good weed? [Not to demean weed, that’s the least of the troubles]
Maybe add a dash of some creepy shit like, 10 Parasites That Could Be Living Inside You?
Question: “what happens if libertarians (like any other social group sometimes, since none of us are consistent all the time) forget their own principles?”
Then they would no longer be libertarians.
What happens when a human forgets to be a human>?
To me, that’s the draw of libertarianism, they are consistent: All. The. Time. That’s what I like about ’em. That’s why I identify as one. An Anarcho-Capitalist one. They are like the counter opposite of cops, and bureaucrats, and politicians, and unthinking soldiers who all conveniently forget their own principles and humanity, All. The. Time. Poof! Out the window! Just breathe on them and they will fold. Who in their right mind would side with that bunch? The walking brain-dead?
RE: “But, how would you solve the problem of libertarians SAYING they believe in the Non Aggression Principle, but “de facto” deciding that their hated social groups are deserving of cruelty or outright destruction, because “they’re all the same, they’re all out to take away my freedoms, so they’ve broken the NAP even though I can’t prove that they have?””
I’d say you were dealing with two-faced lying bastards or misled innocents. In this instance, private courts could be of use?
RE: “For example, the commenters here have frequently expressed the belief that everyone on the Coasts is fascist, communist, what have you, and therefore if you’re going to free, you’ll have to get rid of all “those people” first.”
I think everyone here would agree that should be: “It seems like Most – everyone on the Coasts is fascist, communist, what have you” but I’ll stop there and say, where did you get this notion of “us” having to be “rid of” them to be free? From Jean? I’d say he’s a singularity of sorts (pardon me, Jean) and the better phrase to use is: “Be Free From”, a.k.a. separate, secede.break the bonds of. And maybe the better question is: by what right do they try to rule others?
RE: “But what if your fellow travelers invent offenses against your freedom that aren’t real, and use that as an excuse to “de facto” dominate others, and then complain of being dominated if they resist?”
If they invent such, they are not libertarians and free people.
If the others fall for that, they are likley not either. But something tells me no one, or at least, very few, will fall for that. And, again, that’s where private courts come into play.
RE: ““The bronies are all perverts! The women are all a bunch of controlling nannies! The Third Worlders are hogging up my traffic space! The XBox players are a bunch of wimps! The intellectuals are all arrogant! The football players are all stupid!” Sentiments like these, and these are just the examples I could think of off the top of my head”
I can see why Bevin said what he did.
Those are not libertarian perspectives.
To yell: “perverts!, controlling nannies!, hogging up my traffic space!, wimps!, arrogant!, and stupid!” those are not violations of the NAP. Where is the property damage? Where is the physical harm? There is none.
The phrase: ‘cultural considerations’ comes to mind. A.k.a. old fashioned manners. No one here, not even Jean, suggests shooting the Clover that blocks traffic in the right lane of a two-lane hyway. That Clover is just being a manner-less jerk worthy of scorn, nothing more.
RE: “What happens if your fellow libertarians start imposing collective punishments because they THINK they perceive a threat to their liberty from the innocent as well as from the guilty?”
That’s what you call, an oxymoron.
Libertarians imposing a collective punishment… from the innocent as well as from the guilty???
You really need to read up a bit to understand what… oh wait. Did you even read the main article?
RE: “What “enforcement mechanism” would you use to restrain people in such a scenario?”
I’m not sure that it applies to your imagined (seemingly impossible) scenario, but two ideas come to mind to find a resolution in a libertarian world: Private Courts, and community-wide OSTRACIZEation or the the threat there-of. [It’s funny how that word, ostrazation, isn’t in spell-check, there’s even a discussion at Websters, wow.].
But I’m just an armature Austrian-Anarcho-Capitalist, there’s others more enlightened to answer your questions, but I thought I’d give it a try. You’ll just have to see what works for you I guess?
I mean, right now you’re already living under the statist version of Hell where they impose collective punishments because they THINK they perceive a threat to their liberty from the innocent as well as from the guilty? – How’s that working?
You’re already living under a system where there is no consistency all the time. – How’s that working?
You’re already living under a tyrannical system where the statist are SAYING they believe in freedom and liberty, but “de facto” deciding that their hated social groups are deserving of cruelty or outright destruction, because “they’re all the same, they’re all out to take away my freedoms, […] even though I can’t prove that they have?” – How’s that working?
Right now there are many statist on the coasts, and in-between, who have frequently expressed the belief that everyone who does not lick the boot of the empire should be nuked and their state turned into a sheet of glass. …Did you know that?
Their motto seems to be: if we’re going to rule/be free, you’ll have to get rid of all “those people” first, just nuke ’em! – Is that cool?
What if cops invent offenses against anyone and everyone they encounter that aren’t real, and use that as an excuse to “de facto” dominate them and take all their stuff, and then complain of being dominated if they resist? – That’s how it is now. How’s that working?
The unitedstate has more people in prison than China or Russia.
Ever read CopBlock?
… That I have to go on may mean there’s no hope for ya.
That you might see the light just a bit, … that’s my hope.
Dang, ya made me sweat. And, it’s probably a crappy presentation. W.F.D.
Anyway, my favorite is The Free Market when I’m in public. It sure beats the heck out of The Empire when it comes down to it.
What say you?
Dear clover,
You asked helot, “what happens if libertarians… forget their own principles?”
helot nailed it when he answered, “Then they would no longer be libertarians.”
One might add, “Then they would be what you are already — clovers — people who have no qualms about forcing others to do things against their free will.”
Apparently you realize that people not living up to the high ethical standards of libertarianism is a frightening prospect. That’s why you tried to frighten people with it.
Dear helot,
“The unitedstate has more people in prison than China or Russia.”
The China statistic is especially mind-blowing, since mainland China has approximately four times the population of the unitedstate.
The first time I came across that statistic I assumed it was on a per capita basis.
To my amazement, I learned it wasn’t!
U.S. prison population dwarfs that of other nations
By Adam Liptak
New York Times
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
The United States has less than 5 percent of the world’s population. But it has almost a quarter of the world’s prisoners.
Americans are locked up for crimes — from writing bad checks to using drugs — that would rarely produce prison sentences in other countries. And in particular they are kept incarcerated far longer than prisoners in other nations.
Criminologists and legal scholars in other industrialized nations say they are mystified and appalled by the number and length of American prison sentences.
The United States has, for instance, 2.3 million criminals behind bars, more than any other nation, according to data maintained by the International Center for Prison Studies at King’s College London.
China, which is four times more populous than the United States, is a distant second, with 1.6 million people in prison.
Yeah, that is frightening. Do you think China actually reports all its prisoners though? For instance, I know China says it has freedom of religion and yet it raids house churches all the time.
Even if China doesn’t report all its prisoners, its still frightening.
Hi Anonymous,
Per the previous poster: Libertarians who do not abide by the NAP are by definition no longer Libertarians. The beauty of the NAP is its precision. It neatly cleaves the acceptable from the not-acceptable. And here, I use these terms to mean acceptable insofar as leaving others be.
Is my walking around in a thong in my own backyard acceptable? Certainly – in the sense that my doing so causes no harm to anyone.
Is my neighbor’s coming over to chase me with a baseball bat acceptable? Certainly not.
Am I harming you (or some other person)? That is the Gold Standard. Not, I find what you’re doing distasteful, or contrary to my religion.
Simple.
If a group of Clovers decide they wish to live under communism – and buy a piece of land – and live among themselves, without insisting that unwilling others practice communism, then Libertarians have no problem with them.
And so on.
Straw Man.
I (as a resident of the East Coast, mind) am the ONLY one I know of who openly, loudly, proclaims that there’s a problem on the coasts, and is willing to cull the herd. aka Chlorine in the shallow end of the gene pool, or ignoring the NAP.
But I am NOT a Libertarian.
I still don’t go looking for trouble, nor do I care about most people until they inflict themselves on me. But I don’t need to be hit to respond, when I see you bring your arm back? That’s telegraphing your intent. You can argue (and the courts might buy) that you were just going to play – but a reasonable person has a right to assume that a stranger with their fist back is about to attack them, and stepping in close and squeezing your testicles is just a strategy to stop the confrontation. Ripping them off just allows me to deal with your friends…. Who were no doubt in on the joke, though obviously I was not.
Note that there’s a group of “you” and only one of me and we don’t know each other.
As for those quoted “examples”:
“The bronies are all perverts! The women are all a bunch of controlling nannies! The Third Worlders are hogging up my traffic space! The XBox players are a bunch of wimps! The intellectuals are all arrogant! The football players are all stupid!”
Note that unless there is a WE saying those things, it doesn’t matter. XBox players are a bunch of wimps – but a bunch of wimps can take down an elephant. They get disease; they get killed by humans with spears. But ONE human against an elephant? Not likely to make out too well.
Women ARE nannies, it’s their nature to “mother” (Nurture, Protect) – Ultimate “protection” is a padded room in a straight jacket wearing diapers and chained to a bed. And the overprotective mom (helicopter mom) is a stereotype of our culture…
But a single woman, trying to make the world, “Safe”? Ignore her, she’ll wear herself out. OTOH, 50 or 1,000 or 10,000, especially in the “Scare Tactics” of reporting today? Deer in the headlights for the broadcasts, their fears (emotions) kick in, and next thing you know, you can’t ride roller skates without $500 in protective gear that insulates you from moving, let alone enjoying or learning to rollerskate. Helmet, $20; wrist guards, $20+; kneepads, $20+; skates, $60+; mouth guard, $20; face shield, $20; gloves, $20. Body armor, $40. OK, it’s $220 instead of $500. But if it’s all MANDATORY BY LAW? And ENFORCED by THE ONLY LEGITIMATE ENFORCERS, BACKED BY GUNS? And… I’m PAYING for those people, and their equipment, while they rob me every quarter, or every paycheck…?
Beware idiots in large numbers. The numbers are in fact the only restraint needed. A priest couldn’t create blue laws on his own. The community could. Modern era, you almost cannot AFFORD to have blue laws – no one has food for more than a meal or two! WTF? (Blue Laws used to affect more than just alcohol establishments – it meant EVERYONE, including Jews.)
What if each town could make the rules that make THEM happy? Instead of listening to State and FedGov, and adding on their own rules, which can contradict the previous two, but you still have to fight to prove the contradiction? That’s money, right there. Then there’s the whole harassment that can be done. And yes, you can leave the idiocy of THAT TOWN…. But anything at the state or federal level, that costs a bit more.
After my encounters with the many local Uber-Nationalist this weekend, these three bits seem to be, “On the one hand, yet on the other hand” ideas, if that makes sense to ya:
eric
July 6, 2014 at 3:43 am :
“They’re going to lose. I can almost feel the balance beginning to tip…”
Gerald Celente
With Anthony Wile – July 06, 2014 :
“It puzzles me how the people could keep believing these lies coming from politicians but they keep doing it and there’s no greater evidence than the recycling of Dick Cheney as an expert now on what the US should do with Iraq.
Daily Bell: Do you see a tipping point?
Gerald Celente: I don’t believe there’s going to be one in the United States. Again, in calling some of my forecasts wrong, I thought the people would be out in the streets a long time ago. […] There’s not going to be any revolution here. […] you’re not going to see any real revolts in the United States, I don’t believe.”…
Robert Wenzel
July 4, 2014 :
“My one disagreement with North comes with regard to how close we are to a secessionist movement that changes society. He seems to be quite optimistic that it is already starting. My view is that while there may be pockets where secessionist type decentralization is developing, it is far from an overwhelming force. More people need to have the instinct to withdraw “support of the existing systems.” Yes, perhaps it can evolve on its own, but this may take a very, very long time, if at all—the problem is that there are still too many people who see government and/or revolution as the answer.” …
“The Secret of Liberty is Not Revolution”
Hmmm… food for thoguht.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amerika_(TV_miniseries)
and
http://ex-army.blogspot.com/2014/07/traitorocracy.html
From the Amerika article – “Social criticism”:
Amerika criticized American society in the 1980s, implying that apathy and an unwillingness to defend freedom on the part of many citizens made the Soviet takeover rather easy. At one point, a key Soviet official observes that their plans for conquering the United States succeeded far beyond their wildest dreams, because once the nation had been defeated, Americans turned inward, not caring about national issues, seeking only to retain a piece of the prosperity that had once been theirs. “It (the Soviet coup) worked because you lost your country before we ever got here,” says the Soviet leader. “You had political freedom, but you lost your passion … How could we not win?”
This theme is echoed by Devin Millford later in the film:
“ Nobody wanted to risk anything for anybody else. Everybody was afraid they were going to lose what they had. They knew it was bad. They were just afraid it’d get worse. That’s all they lived for – for things not to get worse. ”
Further dialogue, by politician Peter Bradford, lashes out at apathetic American attitudes:
“ Damn, I’m so tired of this “I’m an American” bull! Where was all that patriotism when it counted? Where was that willingness to sacrifice? Nobody wanted to join the damn army to defend the country unless they got paid well! Nobody wanted to give any time to public service unless they could make a career out of it! And I didn’t notice a lot of us giving up our lives in the last 10 years! ”
Finally, a speech delivered by one child (Devin Milford’s son) demonstrates the extent of Soviet indoctrination in the new America:
“ We are the voice of the new generation. We are the voice of the new people. The destructive ways of the past are gone. We will replace them with our vision of the future. The Party will lead us to the new age. There have been those who have tried to stop the new age. They are the corrupt reminder of the past. They have tried to confuse us with the idea that the old America was a good country. We know that lie. History teaches us that lie. We are grateful to our Soviet brothers who saved the world from destruction, and we can now join them in a world of socialist brotherhood. Everyone will go to school, everyone will have a job, everyone will be equal. No one will exploit or be exploited, and all those who oppose this wonderful vision will be crushed. ”
However, the most poignant message of Amerika—a line of dialogue that summarizes its theme about the ultimate truth of the futility of the hypothetical Soviet domination it describes—is spoken by General Piotr Petrovich Semanov (Armin Mueller-Stahl):
“ When you lose and fail, that is understandable; but when you win and fail–that brings madness. ”
I can’t bring up Ex-Army from here, the quibcage states, “Ultimately, this country will be saved by men who put country and society above their own lives, and are willing to use violence to achieve their goals. – Bob Wallace”
(Reason for a smart phone here. 😉 )
Juxtaposed with the Amerika commentary, and our visible corruption (Common core; open borders; “We have to pass the bill to know what’s in it”; and the “citizen of the world” bit, as well as the UN devastation of all they can get their hands on…; centraliation of power, and the stockpiling of arms and armor amongst de facto “standing armies” of federal bureaucracy – police, BLM, FBI, SS, CIA, Rangers, TSA, etc, etc, etc.) – I think that perhaps it’s more important to follow Patton’s advice: “A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week.” – George S. Patton
Pacifists don’t radically change the world (Gandhi was not a pacifist, BTW. Resisitance is not pacifist.) And Gandhi also stated that his methods would not have worked against a different opponent. His methods ONLY worked against the British, because of the british view fo themselves, and how civilized the British were. If the Brits in India were all yobs, he likely would’ve been beaten to death early on…. And I’d wager that Britain would still be in control of India, and there would be no Pakistan….
Also, ultimately, the UN and such groups are ANTI-civilization. IIRC, it was here: Government lives on the SKIM. No matter WHO the government is, it’s like God: IT COMES FIRST. First right to the kill (your labor, via taxes.) Your one and only God, and it will brook no insubordination, nor worship of any other god. (Police brutalities for failure to properly worship the preist of the state, or for talking of or acting for freedom.)
The parallels are apalling.
etymology of citizen (noun)
early 14cent., “inhabitant of a city,” from Anglo-French citezein (subsequently altered by influence of denizen), from Old French citeien “city-dweller, town-dweller, citizen” (12cent., Modern French citoyen), from cite (see city) + -ain (see -ian).
Replaced Old English burhsittend and ceasterware. Sense of “inhabitant of a country” is late 14cent.
Citizen’s arrest recorded from 1941; citizen’s band (radio) from 1947. Citizen of the world (late 15cent.) translates Greek kosmopolites.
I think burhsittend or ceasterware sound better than citizen.
Clover –
The one thing you leave out – the one thing people like you always leave out – is the element of coercion. You’re free to not use a private highway in a Libertarian society; or to use a different one. Or build one. Taxes are theft, because it’s illegal to not pay them. You are forced to pay them. There is no opting out. Etc.
I’ve explained this before to you, civilly. Several times.
So, stop it with the lies.
Last warning.
Dear Eric,
“Taxes are theft, because it’s illegal to not pay them. ”
Actually, it’s worse than “theft.” If we want to be language Nazis, It’s more accurately termed “armed robbery” or “extortion.”
Theft would be taking it while we weren’t looking. Armed robbery is taking it from us face to face, at gunpoint.
Of course that is only one of the two ways the goonvermin exploit us. The other way is “monetary policy,” aka counterfeiting.
By the way, what do we call an entity that engages in extortion and counterfeiting? Why “organized crime,” of course!
Clover –
Even in your absurdly hyperbolic scenario, there’s still no aggression. The “landlocked” person is not attacked; he’s free to use the roads if he wishes to use them – provided he pays to use them.
You’ll try every trick to evade facing up to the aggressive violence that is the maggot-riddled core of your ethics.
But it won’t work.
Your day in the sun is over.
Without bothering to think about the implications of what he is saying, Gil writes,
” So you wake up one day, government is gone but the roads around your property around you and your neighbourhood is owned by ABCD Roads: ”
So according to your scenario, “The Government” had a monopoly over the roads — which it never should have had in the first place. Then, as its last act before relinquishing its monopoly, it screws over the public and leaves them in the lurch?
Is that what you are saying?
Libertarians know that under laissez faire capitalism, such scenarios never arise in the first place. Such scenarios are made possible only by government monopoly power.
When scenarios such as this threaten to arise under a free market, “cutthroat competition” rears its beautiful head and offers consumers a way out.
Why don’t you read any of the many articles and books libertarians have cited that answered all your “new” objections decades ago???
I’ll tell you why not. You don’t want to know the answer.
RE: “So you wake up one day, government is gone ”
What a lovely thought.
Brings to mind these historical facts [contrary to the widespread bloody struggle the video games are teaching the youth of the unitedstate as if it were fact]:
“the black market was always allowed to exist, because without the black market, both systems would have completely collapsed. There was a name for it in the USSR: “blat.” There was also a phrase: “Blat is higher than Stalin.” Yet for all of the centralization, for all of the tyranny, and for all of the interference with civil liberties, both systems ended. They did not end with a bang. They ended with a whimper.
There was no collapse. The Chinese economy began to boom almost immediately in 1980. The Russian economy did go through some withdrawal pains, and these lasted for about 10 years. But it has recovered remarkably. Today, Russia is the dashboard camcorder capital of the world. ” …
The Suicide of Communism: The Case for Patience
It’s not a case of coercion but a case who’s in the right according to Libertarians. The standard movie version of Robin Hood is that Prince John doesn’t rightfully occupy the throne but King Richard does. The people led by Robin fight back and when Richard returns they dutifully bow to him even it seems to be a case of one monarch replaced by another to an outsider.
Libertarians happily say “if you don’t like that private city state then don’t move there or if you were born in that private city state then leave” yet Libertarians can incensed at the notion they can leave one nation state for another. But private city-states are the best places to live in Libertopia and they’re rather homogeneous to the point that it’s not really worth moving? Yet Libertarians get incensed that all nation states are pretty much the same making emigration not worthwhile.
Clover,
Prince John was what? A government figure. He anointed himself “king” and declared he had a right to rule; that people “owed” him fealty (and taxes, too). You could not say “no, thanks” to the king. You couldn’t (“legally,” under “king’s law”) even pick up sticks and leave the kingdom. The king owned you. The people were his subjects.
Libertarians do not want a “city state” or any other form of government – whether democracy or monarchy. Because government – however constituted – is violence. You cannot say “no, thanks” to it, nor refuse its “services.”
What Libertarians seek is a society free of toleration (as a matter of ethical principles) for any coercive violence. In the same way that most societies – most people – abjure pederasty. In which people interact (or not) freely and voluntarily. Does it mean that certain things you value might not “get done” or would get done differently – and perhaps even less “efficiently” (though it’s just as possible they’d “get done” more efficiently) . . . ? Certainly. But that’s neither here nor there. What’s at issue is whether people are going to live together and deal with one another on the basis of non-violent cooperation/respect for everyone’s right to not have violence done them – or your system of coercion and violence.
Get it through your head.
I’ve explained it to you scores of times now. I’m done.
If you have anything new to discuss, great. But I’m not wasting my time any longer “debating” non sequiturs with you. If you continue to trot them out, it’ll prove you’re either deliberately evasive or simply not very bright – like Clover Mark I.
So, let’s debate whether it’s better – whether it’s right – for people to interact violently or peacefully. The former is your position, the latter mine.
I will be happy to debate that. What I will no longer do is permit you to do is evade the advocacy of force that your position necessarily entails.
Embrace your thuggery openly, Clover. Be honest, at the least.
Dear “Gil,”
Let’s try a different approach. The direct approach.
Let me just ask you one simple question, and see if I can get a straight answer from you.
Libertarians say that it is possible to create a functioning human society without resorting to brute force coercion. In fact, libertarians say that a functioning human society is ONLY possible if one refuses to resort to brute force coercion.
You say we are wrong.
So just what are you saying?
Are you saying that It is impossible to create a functioning human society without resorting to brute force coercion? Are you saying that a functioning human society is ONLY possible if one resorts to brute force coercion?
How about it? It’s a simple question.
Are you going to give us a straight answer? Or are you going to weasel your way out of it, as usual?
Explain Eric why if government was instantly gone that all violence would disappear? I have heard Libertarians talk of violence every day. Tell me why if government goes away that they will not move their violence toward the clover that drives too slowly in front of them or the old buy that drives 20 mph slower than they usually drive?
Eric you say that “Does it mean that certain things you value might not “get done” or would get done differently – and perhaps even less “efficiently”” Eric if I change things in my life I work as hard as I can to determine if that change will make my life better rather than worse. I do not go out and buy a $250,000 house without a lot of thought and planning to see if it is a good thing for me. Eric you can have all the freedom you want but I do not classify it as freedom if the roads are falling apart, the bridges collapse, I have to carry a gun every day for protection and there is not food on the table. Eric you have yet to tell me how my life is going to be as good as it is now let alone better?
No, Clover, “all violence would not disappear” in a Libertarian society. But legalized aggressive violence would disappear.
You and your ilk would no longer have the legal power to do us violence – while we would have the right to defend ourselves against your violence.
You keep on propping up your pathetic (and imbecilic) straw man arguments – and I’ll be here to kick them down.
It’s all to easy.
Which is why you’re going to lose, Clover.
Dear Eric,
Clover will NEVER give us a straight answer to the question,
“Are you willing to relinquish brute force coercion, and live in a society in which all human interactions are voluntary?”
You want to know why?
Because clover is UNWILLING to relinquish brute force coercion, and live in a society in which all human interactions are voluntary. That’s why!
Clover insists on retaining brute force coercion as an option. He insists on reserving that as an option for himself and those who think like him. After all, it wouldn’t do for other people to live their lives any way they feel like, would it? Not if it offends clover’s sensibilities.
That’s why clover will always attempt to muddy the issue, throw up a smokescreen, and sidetrack the debate into irrelevancies.
Gil – The one key thing I’ve seen out of you, Clover and your ilk is the fear of competition. You give us every reason to believe you are heavily invested in the state. The idea that you might have to go out into the real world and attempt to provide your skills and services in a free market to make a living really frightens you doesn’t it? Without the coercive force of gun-vernment ensuring your “job security” you might have to do some real work and take a pay cut, huh? No, you much prefer things the way they are because you can go to your little cubicle, pick your nose for 30 years and retire with a nice fat pension extracted under pain of death from your fellow countrymen. That kind of “work” is hard to find in the private sector isn’t it? Without mama government to feed you, clothe you, house you and wipe your butt, you might spend the rest of your days doing what you’re actually qualified for: picking up trash and cleaning toilets.
You’re just bitter because us statists are winning. No time to argue with you. I just sold some Corrections Corporation and Haliburton Stock to buy this helicopter I’m about to fly on my new private island I bought for only the back taxes some libertarian widow owed to the County at the Sheriff’s Property Tax Auction.
I’ll be thinking of you stuck at home cause you can’t use public roads and also about the 1 million reasons why I love belonging to the world’s most popular religion as I’m laughing at you all on the way to the federally insured bank.
You know you can’t beat me! Why not join bow your head and face the flag and pray with me?:
In the beginning, government created the societies on earth. Now the societies were formless, void, and empty. Darkness reined over the unconnected landscape, the spirit of government hovered over the barren fields of land.
And thy Government said “Let there be roads!”, and there were roads.
The State’s Prayer
“Our Leader, who art in Washington, hallowed be thy roads.
Thy property rights none,
Thy taxes done, on time and in sealed envelope.
Give us this day our daily bread ration,
And forgive us our voluntary trades,
And lead us not into free markets,
but deliver us from Somalia,
For thine is the interstate, the drones, the schools,
and the FCC compliant toasters, forever and ever.
Sweden.”
30 best cloverian arguments against libertarians
http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/effectively-irrational
I’m just like you, and believe in a vast conspiracy. Only instead of feeling paranoid about it I gratefully feel pronoid about it.
Pronoia is the opposite of paranoia.
My pronoid delusion is that a massive conspiracy called the government exists to aid me, which is much more profitable than your paranoid delusion that a massive government conspiracy exists to oppress you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pronoia_(psychology)
Tor – You’re awesome!
Oh man that prayer is something beautiful. Made my night. Thanks.
Tor I would like to see you buy an island in the middle of nowhere and put a few thousand of your fellow libertarians on it and see what happens. You may make a fortune by selling television rights to that one. I would be willing to pay a bunch to see it on TV.
Clover as usual, resorts to hyperbole, parody, and sarcasm.
A pundit once said
“”A good rule of thumb in political debate is that you can judge the seriousness of an adversary’s argument by the seriousness with which he treats yours. If he takes you seriously, it means he’s pretty certain he’s got you beat on the merits. But if he resorts to hyperbole, parody, and sarcasm, then he clearly fears an honest debate.”
Clover clearly fears an honest debate. But that’s hardly news, is it?
Poor, pitiful Clover.
Embarrassingly obvious lies. You’re not even clever enough to insinuate things.
Clover writes (badly) that I “say” people in a Libertarian society would “not have food on the table, no roads, no cars, no job and on and on. ”
No, Clover. I wrote that such things would be paid for by those who value them and freely choose to pay for them – and that people like you would be powerless to force others to provide them for you. A Libertarian society is based on voluntary interaction. Aggressive violence is the sole no-no. That is the principle, from which any particular thing can be judged as ethically acceptable – or not acceptable.
I realize you’re no Mensa candidate; that you cannot follow a simple, logical sequence. I’d pity you, were it not for the fact that you’re like an idiot child with a machine gun. Once you’re rendered harmless, we’ll find honest work for you as a bottle washer or some such.
I used to think you were a toll, clover… Now?
There will be no fuel because only government has made it possible to distribute that gas and oil.
GOVERNMENT doesn’t distribute the gas and oil. Companies – including independent truckers – do! Shell, Exxon/Mobil, BP, and (The Russian gas company whose name eludes me now) are NOT the ONLY purveyors of fuel!
As for the “island” bit – that’s essentially how America developed. Insulated from practical foreign aggressions from the War of 1812 – WW1, essentially. Rich in resources for exploitation (use, really – don’t attach a pejorative meaning).
But Northern Africa, as an example, has a huge area of land; why do they have no real common culture or agriculture or manufacturing? Lack of natural resources, maybe?
Among other things – Kush (now Ethiopia) was a christian kingdom, rich and prosperous. Seen Ethiopia in the news in the last ten years or so? The famine doesn’t even get mentioned any more, you have to stay up late and see “Save the Children” ads.
By the way – Not Christian any more, really. And in a state of war, essentially, IIRC.
Lastly – how would you “pay” to see that show on TV? Direct purchase, like PPV? Or would you want it subsidized through commercials…? Maybe “free” with subscription to Hulu or Vimeo or Amazon or […]?
Paying for Cable is NOT paying for TV. (Nor FiOS, nor satellite.) You’re paying for a service based on what TV these companies offer – you STILL get commercials. But commercial space is bought by those who manufacture products and services, NOT a mandatory part of TV. Premium cahnnels, for example, do not HAVE commercials – because you ARE paying THEM directly (after the service provider takes some off the top, mind.)
Now I realize you’re dumber than dog shit.
And that comparison might even be unfair to dog shit….
Jean if you want free TV then you will have commercials. That is what private companies do to try to either break even or make some profit. Jean that is not rocket science. Yes if there is a large group willing to pay more for no commercials then you can probably get what you are paying extra for. Again, not rocket science. I do not have a clue why you brought it up. That is what you might call capitalism.
Then you say that it is not government that brought the fuel but it was a trucker. Really? And the trucker got there by traveling on GOVERNMENT roads. Again not rocket science. I tell you what, try to live a full week without using anything that the government provided to you. Tell me how it works out for you. I would like to hear your story after the week is over.
Good article once again Eric. I read that whole steaming pile of shit that is the Bloomberg article. You hit it on the head and addressed a lot of the quotes I would have. These types of articles are tough for me to read sometimes because they’re so disingenuous. There was lots of “face palm” moments when reading it. But as others have stated, this is a good thing because if they’re full on trying to discredit us we’re finally making in roads.
Some more doozies from the article:
“What might radical libertarians do if they actually had power?”
-No libertarian/anarchist/voluntaryist/etc. would ever seek any “power” at least not defined in their sense of the word, i.e. state power, political power, etc. Power over their own lives? To do as one pleases without harming others? Sure, absolutely, but it ends there.
“Where communism was adopted, the result was misery, poverty and tyranny. If extremist libertarians ever translated their beliefs into policy, it would lead to the same kinds of catastrophe.”
-to equate libertarianism/anarchy with tyranny? The stupidity of that statement knows no bounds.
“We say the conditional “would” because radical libertarianism has a fatal flaw: It can’t be applied across a functioning society.”
-well that’s quite the stretch. More hypothetical’s and what-if’s, a game statists love to play while ignoring facts and the principle of the NAP.
“Radical libertarians would be great at destroying. They would have little concept of creating or governing. It is in failed states such as Somalia that libertarianism finds its fullest actual expression.”
-none of us are interested in governing anyone but ourselves.
-And great at destroying? Little concept of creating? Pot meet kettle.
-All states are failed institutions and Somalia is not libertarianism to it’s fullest actual expression.
“Freedom is responsibility. Communism failed because it kept citizens from taking responsibility for governing themselves. By preaching individualism above all else, so does radical libertarianism.”
-FFS! Damn right freedom is responsibility. Libertarianism is all about personal responsibility, knowing there is consequences for one’s actions, and governing themselves. Statements like this make me want to pull my hair out. I guess that is why I keep it short.
-Re-worded he is saying “Radical libertarianism, by preaching individualism above all else, failed because it kept citizens from taking responsibility for governing themselves”. Holy fuck that’s a whole lot of stupid right there.
And what’s with having to use the adjective “radical” every time he mentions libertarianism? Pure nonsense.
In the last several paragraphs he mentions “true citizenship” about three times. There is actually no such thing as a “citizen”. The true definition of the word relates to a reciprocal relationship. The person owes a duty of allegiance in return for it’s protection. If one of those is missing the whole definition breaks down; you can’t have one without the other.
The courts in their own statements have said there is no duty to protect us. And if that is not enough, one can also deduce from the actions of the state’s mercenaries there is no duty to protect. No duty to protect, no duty of allegiance, no citizen.
Then a whole bunch of definitions break down from there as cities/counties/states/countries are supposed to be comprised of “citizens” from their very own definitions. If there is no citizen, none of these things actually exist either. They’re merely fictions that we’ve made conditioned to believe actually exist.
So yes indeed Eric they have no leg to stand on. They got nothing.
Thanks, c!
I, too, had several WTF Moments while reading that thing. If that’s the best they’ve got, we’re in better shape than we thought!
c_dub… not everyone wants to enter into that “citizen” relationship either. I don’t care how perfectly it is done, or how wonderful the intentions… My loyalty and “duty” is to those I choose, and I don’t necessarily want or need their “protection.” Voluntary cooperation for mutual defense, sure, but I’m not a “citizen” in any sense of the word.
Mama, that “citizen” comment was a dandy. In a libertarian society what would you be a citizen of? I think I’ll go throw a line in the tank and see if a catfish wants to be a citizen of my supper table.
Citizen my ass.
Interesting accounting of driving a KW. Hopefully you’ll never end up b4 some sniveling bureaucrat in a robe. Cause noone has any idea what’s going on anymore.
Costa Concordia Captain
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2604444/Costa-Concordia-captain-Francesco-Schettino-tried-convince-head-crisis-team-devastating-ship-wreck-caused-blackout.html
I mean look at the whole cruise ship fiasco. They sentenced him to house arrest and silence. We’ll never know what really happened. What they say just makes no sense.
He’s just a guy driving a really big vehicle. You agreed to board his ship voluntarily. You don’t get to dissect him and do an autopsy on him, you deserve a refund, because he didn’t get you where he said he would. But that’s all.
But the braying jackasses eat it all up. The devils tell them this is their golden ticket. And they can’t wait to hear their bias confirmed. That they’re just as good as any ship captain. Or ship builder. Those guy’s were just lucky. Roll of the dice is all it is.
I can hardly stand it. The end of civilization came in 1912 when the Titanic went down. And the gutless buzzard bureaucrats got to circling. And everyone believed their every squawk. And cheered them on as they picked the carcasses of industry after industry clean.
Nobody forced anyone to buy a ticket.
But those land lubber lawyer lizards. They finally got the upper hand with that whole iceberg thing. Put the market on ice. Put us all on ice.
There’s so many billions of buzzing buzzards now, how are we ever going to move forward. I don’t know. It’s enough trouble just avoiding all the flying buzzard crap. When are people going to tire of being flattered, manipulated, and lied to.
Odds are you’re a superfluous piece of poo in the great scheme of things. You need to learn no one owes you anything, so keep your shit to yourself.
Quit crapping up everyone elses lives, and begging to get everyone around you flushed just because you know it’s what you deserve.
Be your own fertilizer. Plant yourself and grow into something of your own. Show some flower power and intestinal fortitude for heaven’s sake.
Exactly Mama, exactly. I couldn’t agree more & I’m not a citizen either.
I was merely pointing out the fallacy of it and how all these concepts are merely fictions is all. Its more statist word games and legalsleeze as I like to call it. Tor just posted an article yesterday in a similar light about “limited government” and it’s definitions. I was doing something similar with regards to the word “citizen” is all.
Eric – Excellent article (as usual). I think it’s great that Bloomberg is excoriating us. As Garysco pointed out, this is a good thing. The czar of soda pop, fattening foods and gun control is apparently getting worried that the truth is spreading. So be it. Just the other day I was having a discussion with a dyed in the wool “Democrat” about being forced to pay for things I don’t agree with. His response was that I somehow derived a benefit from the FDA. I asked him how and he couldn’t give me one valid reason. But that didn’t deter him from continuing to argue that the gun-vermin is somehow good for me. So even though he has admitted to evading taxes as much as he can, when it comes to the rest of us it’s “ya’ gotta pay yer taxes.” By the way, he still believes in “anthropogenic global warming” too. It doesn’t matter what the data shows. People like this never cease to amaze me. As “Coop” (Don Cooper; where are you?) would say, this is why I drink. Sheesh, when will they wake up? I’m studying up on my Spanish. My Mexicano amigos tell me I’ll like it down south. Other than the gun rights thing, I’m pretty sure they’re right. I’m about fed up with this whole “Los Estados Unidos” mess. I doubt any thinking person can blame me.
Dear Boothe,
Ditto.
“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”
This quote has been attributed to Mahatma Gandhi and Edward Abbey. Who said it is secondary. What matters is that it is true.
I too am enormously encouraged by the fact that we are actually going into phase three, i.e., “then they fight you.” It means that we are now perceived as a threat that must be taken seriously and defeated. As paradoxical as that might sound, that is great news.
I’m old enough to remember a time when if you told people you were a “libertarian” they would ask “What’s that?”
Indeed. I am seeing the true believers doubling down on their libertarian strawmen. This thing they created that has nothing to do with Rothbardian libertarianism. I still feel there is a lot of ignorance due to the beltway party goers, but it doesn’t take more ten minutes to figure it out.
Ignoring is over. Laughing is fading. Fighting is beginning.
Dear Brent,
“I am seeing the true believers doubling down on their libertarian strawmen. This thing they created that has nothing to do with Rothbardian libertarianism. ”
Precisely!
Most statist reactionaries are doubling down on their libertarian straw men because they know they can’t claim the moral high ground unless they avoid honestly depicting the anarchist/voluntaryist political argument.
They are terrified that if they represent our political argument honestly and accurately, it will immediately be obvious that we are right and they are wrong. That in itself, suggests a watershed moment has been reached.
Thanks, Boothe!
Just now (it’s about 3:15 in the morning) I discovered another nugget of evasions – this time, left by our Aussie Clover, Gil. He, like the authors of the Bloomberg piece, carefully avoids mentioning the one critical thing – coercive violence – that underpins every critique they make of us.
Focus on this, relentlessly.
Never let them steer the conversation to utilitarianism. Always, always, harp on their coercive violence, their demand to control and rule.
They’re going to lose. I can almost feel the balance beginning to tip…
Dear Eric,
“They’re going to lose. I can almost feel the balance beginning to tip… ”
Funny you should mention that. LRC just posted an article talking about how more and more financial gurus are now Austrian School based economists!
Robert Blumen: There has been tremendous growth in interest in Austrian economics among financial professionals. I started an interest group for Austrians in Finance on LinkedIn which, in a few years, has grown to almost 2,000 members from the US, South America, East, Southern, and Central Asia, Africa, and Eastern and Western Europe.
Peter Schiff appears regularly on financial shows.
The Mises Institute drew hundreds of people from the investment world to an event in Manhattan.
When debating statist ideologues, always stay on point with the moral arguments. It’s their Achilles Heel.
That said, it is also nice to see financial gurus adopt the Austrian School perspective out of pragmatic concerns for the bottom line.
Eric,
I think we need to attack their strength (utilitarianism), if we truly want to devastate the foundation of their position. Otherwise we will be like them not attacking the NAP. Attack your opponent’s strength; that way when you win, they have nothing left to stand on.
Utilitarianism can be used to justify all manner of evil, so the task is not so terribly difficult.
I agree whole heartedly that we are on the winning side and that the tide is turning. Leviathan overstepped and let slip too much of their agenda too soon. I am very optimistic about the future.
Great article!
Thanks, Texas!
Just got back from a banzai run to Raleigh, NC – and back… catching up on things now…
Boothe, you’ll get fairly sick of hearing that the “government” doesn’t do enough of this or that in Mexico fairly quickly. I’m sure(and I’ve met a few)some people there don’t want or need anything from the govt. but the rest are as bad or worse sheeple than in this country.
The reference he made to the Koch’s, as if they were libertarians in any way, was right on if you reverse his twisted logic and understand they do what they do because of their control of govt.
Radical Libertarians, not simply libertarians. At least he didn’t mention building roads, the work I do every day and have yet to do it for any govt. agency. Statists would ask “So how do you get paid?” Well, statists, they have these things called private companies and they mostly cut you a check or send a draft. It’s a fairly straight up deal.
Just barely into that article and it was obvious which end of the horse he was getting his information from.
Eric stomped all over his views and I’m sure that has all of them thinking how they can up a little shitty like that. Must be a govt. horse.
Uh-oh. Bloomberg publishing twisted Newspeak editorials? The PTB are getting worried.
Dear Gary,
What’s that saying?
There’s no such thing as bad publicity?
Appropriate place to point this one out – might well be true.
Now, Google is “private”, but – this bit reaks of censorship, to me:
http://www.thedailysheeple.com/government-censorship-via-the-right-to-be-forgotton-ruling_072014
Note the last few lines: claiming that idea “X” is irrelevant, one might have all mention of “X” stripped from searches.
Nazism, socialism, communism all come to mind as “first in line” to go down the rabbit hole, so that someone new can come along, name them something else, and destroy the world all over again…. And again, and again, and again….
It will get to where there is only Good Publicity and “No record.” WTF good is that?
*: Note that this was a sequence in Continuum, too, and was alluded to in Alien(s): Continuum, only digital (alterable) media was allowed; actual physical printed material was NOT permitted. Alien(s), “The Company” (Weyland-Butani, IIRC, with the Purina symbol) was the ONLY company in play. Nothing else existed. Therefore, it was “Google” owning everything. You might be able to eke out an illegal living here or there, but there was no real alternative: Work for (and be owned by) the company, or… Starve. Cease to exist.
And that was before retinal scanning and RFID, too….
Hi Eric,
Thanks again for a great post. I read the Bloomberg article last night. I considered commenting on it but, at more than 1800 comments, I decided it would be a waste of time.
Have you noticed that there are more and more articles emanating from the statist media condemning libertarianism? Per Gandhi, this is perhaps a good thing. What amazes me is that the authors obviously spend no time at all actually researching libertarianism.
As you point out, these critics always claim that libertarians believe that “individual liberty trumps all other values”. They then always mention that libertarians glorify selfishness. In doing so, they equate a belief in the value of individual liberty with selfishness (which they always mean in a pejorative sense). This is intentional. Their purpose is to make people ashamed of their natural desire for freedom.
These critics always blather on about the virtue of cooperation. What they cannot understand, or will not admit, is that libertarianism is the only political philosophy that embraces cooperation as a cornerstone of civil society. Libertarians believe that society should be ordered around the principles of non-aggression and voluntary cooperation. Statists believe that society should be ordered around force.
We live up to the ideals that they pretend to revere; we shame them. That is why they attack us.
Kind Regards,
Jeremy
Thanks Jeremy! Well said.
Hi Boothe,
Thank you! I just posted this at Bloomberg.
This is another in a growing list of attack articles where the author(s) are either lying about, or completely ignorant of, the subject. This article gets libertarianism wrong from start to finish. But, I’ll focus on two of the most egregious lies.
“Let’s start with some definitions. By radical libertarianism, we mean the ideology that holds that individual liberty trumps all other values.”
It’s nice that these critics have deigned to define our philosophy for us, but they are wrong. Their definition is false, and designed to impugn libertarianism and, I suspect that the authors know it.
So, what is the crazy thing that libertarians believe? What wild, insane notion underlies the libertarian view of the world?. Here it is, are you ready? People shouldn’t initiate force to get what they want. Pretty crazy. huh.
What distinguishes a “responsible” libertarian from a radical libertarian? Radical libertarians believe that this principle applies to everyone, including the “government”.
This is why statist apologists hate us, lie about as and write articles attacking us. They know that “radical” libertarianism is catching on with more and more people, especially young people. They’re afraid that enough people will decide that maybe we don’t need these presumptuous jackasses who claim to posses the knowledge, ability and moral character to rule us. Maybe the price of order does not have to be perpetual war, both abroad and at home (war on terror, war on drugs) and the most invasive surveillance state the world has ever seen. Maybe enough people will wonder why the “freest” nation on earth imprisons more people than any regime in the history of the world. Are Americans really more criminal than those of other nations? Maybe enough people will realize that the war on drugs is vicious, immoral and racist; and that those who tolerate it, let alone advocate it, are tolerating evil. Maybe, enough people will realize that those who desire to
rule us are not motivated by compassion or love of humanity, but by an insatiable lust for power and control. That, almost without exception, they have fragile, narcissistic egos, constantly in need of adoration. As Hayek noted in the Road to Serfdom, in government, even “democratic” government, the worst always rise to the top.
“Radical libertarianism assumes that humans are wired only to be selfish,
when in fact cooperation is the height of human evolution.”.
This is absurd. “Radical” libertarians believe that society can and should be organized around the principles of non-aggression and voluntary cooperation. “Radical” libertarians recognize that voluntary cooperation is a cornerstone of civil society. Statists, like the authors, believe that society can only be ordered around the principle of force. It is they who mistrust cooperation. We believe in voluntary cooperation, they believe in forced cooperation which is, of course, an oxymoron.
Dear Jeremy,
“These critics always blather on about the virtue of cooperation.”
“cooperation”
Another euphemism, along the lines of “popular mandate” or “social contract.” Convenient cover for statists who want to justify brute force coercion without sounding like the thugs that they in fact are.
That is why although I am perfectly capable of writing in an erudite (some might say pedantic) style, I have made a concerted effort to simplify, simplify, simplify.
Take the Chomsky quote previously cited.
Chomsky: “So pretty soon it will be April 15th, and the people in your neighborhood are going to have to send in their income taxes.
[That means]
… a democratic society… a functioning democracy… the collective population acting in terms of common goals that we’ve decided on… “
“the collective population”
“common goals”
“that we’ve decided on”
Ordinary people the world over really need to wake up to this massive deception. Until they do, they will remain self-made slaves.
I did just read most of the article. It was pretty good and right to the point. It told how libertarians were 100% complete opposites of communists. I can not argue with that. It tells that anything on the extreme ends of a society will never work. Has there ever been a group of people that lived in a libertarian society that has ever worked? No.
In business they believe in proving out a change or concept in a small manner before they jeopardize the entire company. Why has that not been tried by libertarians? I live a very good life and so do hundreds of millions of others in our country. Why would libertarians want to try their new society out on 100s of millions of people and risk all of them starving or having a bloodbath on the streets? Are libertarians scared to try out their new society on a smaller group of 10 to 20 thousand people first? I would think that only someone with a 25 IQ would completely change how everything works to see what happens to 400 million people.
Clover – You are kidding, right? You can’t possibly be so dense and uninformed that you don’t know about The Free State Project (http://freestateproject.org/), can you? Libertarians, as usual, are already years ahead of you…
It’s worse than merely being dense, Boothe!
Clover – despite his talk about “experimenting” with small-scale Libertarian communities – would never allow it.
If, for example, all of us here pitched in and bought a tract of land outright and agreed we’d remain on the land, providing for our own needs, not using any government “services” whatsoever and leaving the “outside world” in peace… do you suppose for a nanosecond that Clover, et all, would leave us be? That he and his would agree we no longer “owe” taxes, or are obligated to “contribute” to Social Security or purchase “health insurance”?
The filthy, evil little runt knows it – and I can longer deal with him. I’ve reached the limit of my endurance.
One cannot coexist with his kind. They absolutely will not leave us alone, ever.
They can’t let anyone be. They don’t even leave the Amish (and similar groups) alone. The Amish put up enough resistance that they are left alone more than most and the public’s perception of the Amish makes it difficult for the government to stomp on them without busting the public’s perception of government. However, if the group can be spun as weird enough and scary enough then it’s ok for the fedgov to firebomb the group’s children.
The only place a libertarian village could be constructed is a country where the government is too weak and too corrupt to notice. However, if that village has any success, government will notice, and then steal everything. It will justify it to the public the same way the US government does. Primarily that they should ‘share’ or else.
And of course individual independence is ‘bad’ too. Declining government ‘services’ isn’t allowed. Much like trying have a business and declining the mafia’s protection and waste management services.
Hate to admit it, but clover has a point.
Most sane people could agree with the NAP in its general sense. But when you get to specifics, you lose nearly everyone. “But I don’t want people exceeding the speed limit, it’s unsafe.” There are a million little examples of this. Everyone has his line that he won’t cross into the realm of freedom. Whether it’s an evasion of personal responsibility or a misguided mistrust of his neighbor or a major buy in to th manufactured fears that drive laws designed to protect against everything and anything someone might do or could do- for absolute, perfect safety and security for all!
People don’t want to be free. They want to be in charge and boss people and they assume that those in charge will boss the rest of us in a manner pleasing unto them. It never works that way overall but people are satisfied with the few ways govt IS bossing the way they would boss and that’s good enough for them.
Yeah. I’d like to opt out of everything, too. But you and I are less than 1% of everyone.
People just won’t think. They want all of the “bad”things (according to them) outlawed. Doesn’t matter if it’s hurting no one. Could it hurt someone? Does it hurt him who’s doing it? Is it icky or “wrong?” These things are what matters. E.g. “Drugs are really bad for people and they make people do bad things.” Our culture calls dealers “pushers.” People think they force their products on their customers.
And of course, to desire to allow people to be free to do these things is interpreted as an endorsement of these things.
One more thing is where two things are the same in principle but differ by degree. Whatever it is. A little bit of encroachment on freedom is ok, where a lot isn’t ok. No one realizes that even the slightest, most infinitesimal taking away of freedom is evil. Just a tiny bit of force in a few tiny ways “for the public good” or whatever is still hurting someone who is hurting no one.
And on and on.
Sorry, I’m just depressed and lonely in my libertarianism.
That’s the purpose of the Free State Project. It’s a place for the liberty-minded to go and get away from society’s statist kooks.
Those that are enamored with statist ideals are not worth saving. They have their New Yorks and Californias and Texas. You only have to live in these states for a few months to see how Democrats and Republicans run their states. Let them live in them.
Libertarians now have a chance to build their own free communities. When republocrats tell us that if we don’t like the way things are then we should move somewhere else, we now may actually have a place to go. New Hampshire.
Hi JRO,
Yeah, except Clover, et al, will not leave us be – even in a self-contained/self-supporting Libertarian enclave. They’ll pursue us wherever we go.
Really? Know anything about medieval Iceland? Apparently not. Check it out: http://mises.org/daily/1121.
Dear MS,
That Mises article on Iceland was great. Short, yet actually life-changing.
I read it many years ago and cite it constantly.
Unfortunately, that Mises account is wrong, from starting the account as at a certain point and not realising that Icelandic society rested on an earlier basis that was highly oppressive.
Here’s the key part that gets left out. Iceland was already inhabited when the Norse got there, by Irish monks and probably a few lay settlers in support of those (and Irish Christianity did not yet have later ideas about celibacy). Those Norse wiped out the Irish males and kept any remaining Irish women and children as slaves, then interbred with them. That was just precisely what they had done in each of their previous island hopping stops over the previous few generations, so even when they arrived they already had Irish slaves (though probably a bit interbred by then).
So that society was born in invasion and slaughter, and continued on the back of slavery until everything washed through – and it’s only at that point that the Mises account takes up the story.
If you don’t believe it, just look at the genetic studies of recent years and the even earlier blood group studies. This protohistory is written deep within every modern Icelander.
I did comment there, before seeing this article from Eric.
My comment can be found here:
https://disqus.com/home/discussion/bloombergview/libertarians_are_the_new_communists#comment-1469676777
Dear Brent,
I decided to follow your example and leave a comment there too!
Avatar
Bevin Chu • 2 minutes ago
I find this article strangely reassuring.
The well-known quote, “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” has been attributed to many different people. Who said it is of secondary importance. What matters most, is that it is true.
A pair of Wall Street and Beltway hacks considered libertarianism threatening enough to require rebuttal. This tells me that libertarian thought is gaining ground. We have reached stage three in the “ignore/laugh at/fight/win” process. Now that is progress! I am old enough to remember saying “I am a libertarian” and people responding “Huh?”
Even more revealing, these apologists for Demopublican one party kleptocracy realized that they could not afford to represent the libertarian view honestly and accurately. They knew they could not afford to name the defining characteristic of libertarianism — the Non-Aggression Principle. They knew that if they did that, it would be obvious to all that we are right and they are wrong.
As I said, strangely reassuring. The reactionaries are already engaged in rear guard action.
•
Edit
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Dear Brent,
Being the compulsive that I am, I edited my comment at Bloomberg:
Avatar
Bevin Chu • an hour ago
I find this article strangely reassuring.
The well-known quote, “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” has been attributed to many different people. Who said it is of secondary importance. What matters most, is that it is true.
A pair of Wall Street and Beltway hacks considered libertarianism threatening enough to require rebuttal. This tells me that libertarian thought is gaining ground. We have reached stage three in the “ignore/laugh at/fight/win” process. Now that is progress! I am old enough to remember saying “I am a libertarian” and having people respond “Huh?”
Even more revealing, these apologists for Demopublican cronyist kleptocracy realized that they could not afford to represent the libertarian view honestly and accurately.
They knew they could not afford to name the defining characteristic of libertarianism — the Non-Aggression Principle. All human interactions must be voluntary and non-coerced. They knew that if they did that, it would be obvious to all that libertarians occupy the moral high ground.
They knew they could not afford to name the defining characteristic of the statist collectivism they defend — brute force coercion, imposed by costumed thugs. They knew that if they did that, it would be obvious to all that libertarians are right and they are wrong.
The reactionaries are already engaged in rear guard action. As I said, strangely reassuring.
•
Edit
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Thanks Jeremy that is my best laugh of the day with your spouting off garbage.
Yes libertarians by nature are the most selfish people there are. Eric and others here spout off that we need to have a society that volunteers or donates everything they take out of their pockets to give to others. Name me one person here that has ever donated or volunteered for anything?
Then you say that libertarians believe in non-aggressive principals, then as Eric says at least until after first force. First force definition by most libertarians could be as little as a sneeze. First force can be anything. Just like the lack of a lock box in a building. That is enough for some people like Gavin to go ballistic. When a person or group says that anything can be declared as first force then you have to turn it around that yes you are an aggressive group of individuals. What was the first force definition that Timothy McVeigh used? He was a libertarian.
If you believe in non-aggressive principals you would act like Gandhi. His quote “A rifle this hand will never fire.” This is not any libertarian view that I have heard. Libertarians are loading up on guns. Libertarians are talking abut a bloodbath if they do not get what they want. That is far far away from NAP.
Dear clover,
Let’s try a different approach. The direct approach.
Let me just ask you one simple question, and see if I can get a straight answer from you.
Libertarians say that it is possible to create a functioning human society without resorting to brute force coercion. In fact, libertarians say that a functioning human society is ONLY possible if one refuses to resort to brute force coercion.
You say we are wrong.
So just what are you saying?
Are you saying that It is impossible to create a functioning human society without resorting to brute force coercion? Are you saying that a functioning human society is ONLY possible if one resorts to brute force coercion?
How about it? It’s a simple question.
Are you going to give us a straight answer? Or are you going to weasel your way out of it, as usual?
Clover, once again you prove yourself to be; 1) not too bright, 2) befuddled, 3) Obtuse, 4) Incapable of reason, 5) Unable to comprehend logic.
Where do you come up with 400 million? What is this number you pulled out of thin air.
Where do you get the absolutely insane idea that a Libertarian will resort to force at a sneeze or theft if a lock is missing on a tool chest? That is pure fantasy, you are either lying or really stupid.
Where do you get the crazy notion McVeigh was a libertarian? More nonsense.
Gandhi was all for self defense and that included firearms. You really should do a little research before you spout pure crap.
How can you possibly believe there have been no Libertarian societies? You must be delusional and failed every history class you ever warmed a seat in. How about the not so wild west? How about everyday living in remote, rural communities? Do you really believe the people in the middle of nowhere Alaska would rape and murder each other if not for fear there might be some police man 200 – 300 miles away.
Your posts are completely devoid of any facts, reason or logic. They are the emotional rantings of an immature, uneducated fool.
The fat sheriff in Pulaski county, Indiana, lives a good life. He has spent $5,000,000 on military machinery for a county (13,800 residents) that last year had 1 murder and 17 property thefts. He considers all the residents of his county to be terrorists. Those residents pay for his good life, and his brain that is more situated in his ass than in his head, you know all those good residents that now to him are terrorists.
Clover is a very sick man……………………
How do you know the Wild West was “not-wild?” Last time I looked the Wild West never existed at all. One thing “Back to the Future 3” got right was there were pockets of gun-free zones during the alleged Wild West.
It was not “wild,” Clover, in the sense that it was not as portrayed in the movies. Violent crime – including crimes involving guns – was low, especially compared with the crime rate of today’s “gun free” areas, such as your area.
Hmmmmm, an attempt for 50 or so folks over a year or two to live by NAP might make an amusing ‘reality’ program for the masses………. I kinda expect though the finale would be ‘Lord of the Flies, Redux’.
Editor’s note: The imbecile still cannot distinguish between aggressive and defensive force. Then attempts – in its usual pitiful manner – to conflate rape and murder with a voluntaryist society, asserts that things people value would never see the light of day in non-coercive society… and so on.
Bevin yes we need brute force in society. Are you telling me a rapist or a killer is going to just turn to be a nice person in your society? Bevin if you think such things then you do have a 25 IQ. Yes if we leave things like paying for road maintenance as optional it would never work. Eric and most of the people here would not pay. Bevin if you think your 2 year old mentality at designing a country is going to work then prove it out.
Bevin there does not need to be any brute force in our society if you follow what 90 percent of the people think and do. If you disagree you can always leave because most things were in place before you were born. Bevin I do not want our society to get worse as I truly believe it would in your world. As I have been saying, set up your sample community and try it. I do not want to be part of your 400 million people test to see what would happen.
Dear clover,
You knew perfectly well what I meant by “brute force coercion,” didn’t you?
So why don’t you answer the question I asked, instead of trying to play dumb?
I’m waiting.
Dear Clover,
We do not wish to impose anything on you. We desire a society where the likes of you are not entitled to impose your preferences on us with force.
As for setting up a test society, as Eric pointed out, you, and the State you revere, would not allow it. The State, which you absurdly claim does not operate through brute force, would hunt us, arrest us and throw us in cages. If any of us had the temerity to resist this naked aggression, they would kill us. Perhaps this is what you desire?
Jeremy
Editor’s Note: The despicably dishonest Clover advises Libertarians to “move to where you can get your Utopia,” neglecting as always to acknowledge that there is no such place, because his kind absolutely refuse to allow us to go our own way and live in peace. I have also had to redact cretinous statements of his claiming that the white separatist and admirer of Hitler, TV, was a Libertarian. I’m thinking of just flushing Clover and being done with him. He has clearly lost whatever marbles he once had!
Jeremy there are places to go to other than your state. Jeremy you hate your state. Why live there? Why not move to where you can get your Utopia that you are looking for right now without you having to start your world war 3 that libertarians are hoping for. All I hear about on this site is NAP but I also here about bloodshed and bloodbaths that will happen by the libertarians. Jeremy do I have to start stocking up guns and ammunition because your kind is ready for war?
Explain why if we have it so bad that others want to move here? Why not start your war from where they are leaving from?
Jeremy you are trying to impose your preferences on us. We as a group decided there are things that need to be funded to improve our society and way of living. You as an individual say that you do not want to be included and still have the freedom of using what our society has paid for. The roads that our society has paid for out of tax money brings you the food that you eat, takes you to work, takes you to a ball game if that is what you want. Jeremy you want to be excluded and still benefit from what our society offers.
Jeremy you and others here crack me up. You talk about the brute force that the government puts upon you. Jeremy if you follow the laws of our land there will never be a hand laid on you. I have not been touched. Thousands of people that I know or have met have not had brute force given to them. Name me one country that ever exited that allowed you to do whatever the hell you felt like?
Name me one country that ever existed that followed your beliefs? If you cannot name one then why is it that no country has followed the Utopia of Libertarianism? Tell me what your Utopia world would be like and how it would operate. I have asked about a hundred times but I have yet to get anything beyond a 2 year old type of answer.
Wow, Clover, you really must be a stupid and ignorant person to say all that. The typical walking brain-dead type personified.
RE: “Name me one person here that has ever donated or volunteered for anything?”
Me.
Also, let me correct you here, after watching all the videos of cops punching women, tazering pregnant women, shooting grandpas, filling little boys full of bullet holes for carrying toy guns, and throwing bombs in baby cribs, you have the audacity to make those claims? That’s surreal… anyway, the correct way to write it was, “The statist and totalitarians in sheep’s clothing are talking abut a bloodbath if they do not get what they want.” That would be – you – calling for blood. Peace is a four letter word to you.
Additional quote from the aforementioned article on Gandhi.
Gandhi has actually advocated the use of firearms in defense time and time again. Here we see it once more:
“Hence also do I advocate training in arms for those who believe in the method of violence. I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honor than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor,” Gandhi wrote in his work The Doctrine of the Sword.
He continues to break down how self-defense is actually rooted in bravery:
“When violence] is offered in self-defence or for the defence of the defenceless, it is an act of bravery far better than cowardly submission.”
I could be wrong, but IIRC Gandhi did indeed believe in pacifism, but he believed that using violence to protect oneself is better than refusing to do so because you are a coward. Is this accurate? Or did Gandhi actually believe defensive violence was moral?
I understand there are some libertarians who claim that cops, simply by virtue of their career (in theory, not just in practice) are aggressors and thus legitimate targets.
However, most libertarians, including the guy who wrote “when should you shoot a cop” (Larken Rose), take the position that using violence against a cop is justified only if that cop is aggressing against you, or perhaps as punishment for a sufficiently serious aggressive act that that cop engaged in in the past (personally I’d only consider vigilane justice as possibly moral for murder, rape, or serious assault, and even then I wouldn’t likely actually take action for pragmatic reasons, Bevin or Larken Rose might or might not feel differently about this than I do, but personally someone, say, stealing my car, would be something I’d rather let go than to kill, and its pretty much impossible for any kind of “vigilante justice” that doesn’t result in someone getting killed, so there you go).
So, as far as I see it, you have two different scenarios:
Scenario A: Mr. X is a murderer. A cop, officer Z, has probable cause to believe that Mr. X is a murderer, and is given a warrant to make an arrest by a judge (ideally judges would be free market, but whether they are or not is kind of irrelevant to this particular situation.) Officer Z places Mr. X under arrest. Mr. X is told that there is evidence that he is a killer and Officer Z shows him a warrant. Mr. X reaches for a gun and attempts to shoot Officer Z. Officer Z shoots and kills Mr. X in self-defense.
In this situation, I think Officer Z is in the clear. He is not a murderer.
Scenario B: Mr. Y is pulled over for driving 60MPH in a 50 MPH zone, even though he caused no harm to anyone. Officer V says he smells marijuana, and searches the car. After finding marijuana, Officer V says he is placing Mr. Y under arrest, even though Mr. Y has never harmed anyone. Mr. Y reaches for his gun in order to protect himself from Officer V’s aggressive act. Officer V responds by shooting Mr. Y in order to protect himself.
In this scenario, though it may seem odd at first glance, and though I disagree with Mr. Y’s response (for a number of reasons), Mr. Y is acting defensively and is within the bounds of the NAP. Officer V trying to kidnap him is certainly enough that Mr. Y can only be acting defensively by protecting his life by deadly force. Unlike the murderer, the pot user is not an aggressor and has not done anything that would justify violence (including arrests.)
Note that in both scenarios, someone pulled a gun on a cop. Yet, I say the cop was justified in scenario A, and is a criminal murderer in scenario B. My judgment has nothing to do with whether the cop used deadly force, but whether he was a situation where he had any moral right to use force in the first place. If the officer is an aggressor, he has no right to use force to begin with, and if the victim responds by using deadly force, he is not a murderer (note that this doesn’t mean I approve of it. I prefer using peaceful tactics whenever possible, and I think that’s the most moral way, even when one might have the right to use violence). By contrast, if the officer is acting legitimately to protect people from a man who is a proven aggressor, he is justified in killing if the original aggressor tries to kill the cop.
Much like if you steal my wallet, and I respond by chasing you down, tackling you, and taking my wallet back, I am not rightly a criminal. By contrast, if I chase you down, tackle you, and steal your wallet, I am a criminal even though in some “face value” sense the actions might look the same.
I am not posting this for clover’s benefit. I know clover won’t listen. I’m posting this for the person who might genuinely want to learn and doesn’t understand the libertarian POV on this issue.
@David:
Might help to be more explicit here:
Much like if you steal my wallet, and I respond by chasing you down, tackling you, and taking my wallet back, I am not rightly a criminal. By contrast, if I chase you down, tackle you, and steal your wallet, I am a criminal even though in some “face value” sense the actions might look the same.
First part is good example; second part – you chase someone down, tackle them, take THIER wallet – omit the part about the wallet, it’s still true.
😉
simpler, less opportunity for Clover to muddy the waters or toss in strawman or red herrings.
David and your statements are exactly why NAP can mean anything to anyone. If you say it is fine for cops to be killed when they make a simple arrest then they can be killed for any reason according to your NAP.
“Officer V says he is placing Mr. Y under arrest, even though Mr. Y has never harmed anyone. Mr. Y reaches for his gun in order to protect himself from Officer V’s aggressive act. Officer V responds by shooting Mr. Y in order to protect himself.”
“Mr. Y is acting defensively and is within the bounds of the NAP. Officer V trying to kidnap him is certainly enough that Mr. Y can only be acting defensively by protecting his life by deadly force.”
If you believe that an arrest is an example of aggressive force then tell me what other people have a for a definition of aggressive force?
I do not know who came up with NAP but in theory it is a good thing. In practice it is pure vigilante force which our country does not want. When there are limitless bounds of what things are classified as first force then a killer has free reign to kill anyone for any reason.
Clover writes,
“If you believe in non-aggressive principals you would act like Gandhi.”
Who says we don’t?
Fact: Even Gandhi Opposed Gun Bans
by Anthony Gucciardi
http://www.storyleak.com/fact-even-gandhi-opposed-gun-bans/
Excerpt:
Gandhi writes:
“Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.”
— “Mohandas Gandhi, an Autobiography” page 446
Yes, this is really Gandhi saying this. He actually studied the history on this issue and knew that disarming the people is not the right way to deal with crime, or military enemies — both foreign and domestic.
Now don’t you feel like an idiot?
Oh, and by the way, it’s “principles,” not “principals.” And it’s “non-aggression,” not “non-aggressive.”
Dear clover,
“Name me one person here that has ever donated or volunteered for anything?”
Jeremy was one. I’m another. Actually, “I’ll bet you a million dollars” I’ve contributed more of my own money to worthy causes than you have.
You see, unlike you, we libertarians donate our own money, not OPM, Other Peoples’ Money.
You and your proxies engage in armed robbery and extortion to collect money, “donate” some of it to “the needy,” pocket the balance, then take all the credit for “generosity.”
In short, you are the “selfish” ones. You skim off the top of the funds for the “needy.”
We on the other hand, only give what was ours to begin with. We are the truly generous ones.
Dear Clover,
Though you responded to me with rudeness and hostility, I will endeavor to be polite. You say that “libertarians by nature are the most selfish people there are.”
This is simply your assertion. It has no basis in fact. I do not presume to know you. You may be an extremely kind, generous and charitable person. I do not know. However, you presume to know me, and everyone else here. You ask: “Name me one person here that has ever donated or volunteered for anything?” Alas, I am not gifted with clairvoyance, so I cannot answer that question for others. I do know that I have volunteered to help others many times. And, I take Bevin, and others here, at their word when they claim the same. One experience, where I helped a terminally ill man for over two years, was one of the most moving and heart-breaking experiences of my life. I debated mentioning it, as I suspect you will just ridicule me.
You claim to know what is in my heart, you do not. Your presumption is almost unimaginably arrogant.
I, and many people here, believe that society can and should be ordered around non-aggression and voluntary cooperation. You may consider this foolish and naive, which is fine. But, why does it produce so much animosity on your part?
Jeremy
Well that was cool [among other acts]: “Though you responded to me with rudeness and hostility, I will endeavor to be polite.”
I always strive to do the same, but often times fall short. Yours is the goal.
ANyway, I second that question to Clover (Besides the question Bevin put forth): “I, and many people here, believe that society can and should be ordered around non-aggression and voluntary cooperation. You may consider this foolish and naive, which is fine. But, why does it produce so much animosity on your part?”
Tell me this. Won’t you? Clover.
Hi Jeremy,
Clover does not believe in donating. He believes in forcing others to “donate” – a contradiction in terms – to support the things he values.
He becomes angry when, as an example, someone objects to being forced to pay taxes for the purpose of financing government schools for other people’s children. He considers that “selfish.”
But what could be more genuinely selfish than insisting – at gunpoint – that others do what you say?
Moreover, the “help” at gunpoint advocated by Clover corrodes natural human charitable impulses. When one is forced – at gunpoint – to “help,” one comes to despise one’s neighbors. Forced “help” also undermines the “check” that exists when the help is given voluntarily. If I – as an example – learn that my neighbor up the road is having a tough time, I may choose to help my neighbor because I know him and because I know he’s a solid guy, not a maggot – and will only need help temporarily. If he turns out to be a maggot – a moocher who expects to live off the “help” of others… that help can be easily terminated.
But when government “helps,” it simply hands over your money, willy-nilly, to people who often do not deserve to be helped and who have no intention to ever help themselves again. There are millions of such maggots out there right now, eating EBT prime rib in air conditioned comfort, watching TeeVee paid for by the helpless victims of government violence.
Clover will never acknowledge this. Instead, he’ll call you a “stupid idiot” and so on.
Eric the constitution of the United States which was written hundreds of years before you were born and something you say that you believe in gives in detail how our GOVERNMENT is to be formed and what powers they would have. Now you are saying there should be no government. Eric you are living in the wrong country because you want a war to fight how our country was formed.
Eric if you disagree and have severe anger on how our country is set up then you should leave. Our country is not set up for a few people like you to tell us how we should live. Either you want to live in our society that was formed hundreds of years ago or you should leave. Just like the example of going out to lunch with the majority wanting to go to another place than you want to go.You as an individual do not have any right to tell us how our society should be run. Republicans want smaller government control but they do not declare war on others like libertarians do . They work within the system. We actually have a great system. If Democrats get too much control the natural events happen to make the Republicans regain control. Having the extreme of either party would be bad. Having an extreme of libertarians in control would be suicide for our country.
Again I ask Eric, what would your libertarian utopia be like and how would it work after 20 years of libertarian control? I have yet to hear an answer to that question. Eric the reason I have a high net worth is because I do planning. No planning and you are doomed.
Pseudonym wrote on July 9, 2014 at 10:12 pm:-
I entirely agree. You and all those like you who made your country the way it is now should have got out in the 18th century and gone to France or somewhere like that that was supporting you and was congenial to your wish to thwart those who liked things the way they were.
hundreds of years implies at least 200 years. The USC came into being in 1789. Eric was born prior to 1989. You can’t even do basic math Clover or perhaps you simply have no clue about the USC.
I am guessing both. The USC was written for weasels. That is it was on the surface a minimal government that could not do oh about 99.9% of what the federal government does today. But the weasel words were in there so over time it would grow step by step.
Clover –
I don’t know about anyone else here, but I tithe. That means I donate 10% of my income to charitable causes. I would do more, but can’t afford to because of the taxes I am required to pay.
My late mother-in-law once asked me who would pay her medical expenses if she didn’t have Medicare. I said I would, if I didn’t have to PAY Medicare.
Hi Phillip,
It’s commendable to give, but it’s beside the point. One has every right to not give – and that is the thing Clover cannot abide.
But he is also writing as if NO ONE would give if they were not forced to do so, an obvious lie of which I was demonstrating the falsehood.
Yes Phillip the Bruce it sounds like you are one of the few here that do donate. Eric says that is fine that you donate but “I” will not voluntarily. Phillip that is where the donation type of society falls apart when you have a large country. If you have a large church that everyone belongs to and like you everyone donates aggressively then yes a volunteer/donations only society would work. We do not have that society though. We have far too many of the people like Eric saying we want everything donated but there will be no donations from “me”.
So you say that you would donate to take care of your mother but what if you were not there? Eric would not donate. What would happen to your mother?
Then when you get past the talk of money and who would pay then what do you do? Who decides if a road needs to be repaired? Who decides if you need a new interstate from point “a” to point “b”? Who decides what are not legal things to do in your society and what gang/vigilantes are going to enforce proper and safe behavior? How many bullets would you have to put into your budget for a normal week?
Why does that matter, and if it doesn’t why did you risk being hit with an avalanche of “gotchas” from everybody around here who has? If it does matter, then I for one won’t answer your question because it would be misread as admitting that you have the right to require others to put their money where your mouth is. I might answer out of academic interest, but it’s none of your damned business to require things of me.
You pulled that out of your bum.
@ Clover – ‘Yes libertarians by nature are the most selfish people there are. ‘
I am a libertarian and I am one of the few people I know in the world at large who not only picks up my own dogs poop when needed, but will also pick up garbage and throw it away when found in my local park when walking my dog. I am also one of the only people I see routinely taking my cart back to the cart corral at stores. Not only do I take my own cart back, I also take any other carts littering my part of the parking lot and take those back too. Then I organize the corral if it needs it. I do this almost every single time I go to the store. I also pay attention to the cars the in the parking lot, stopping to let people back their cars up. I don’t assume that someone else will pick up after me, I don’t assume that cars will see me when backing up, I don’t assume that I’m the only person that matters on the planet. I take personal responsibility for myself and my own, I don’t assume anyone else will. Most statists act like they are the center of the world and that everyone else will fix what they leave undone. How’s that for selfishness?
+1
To Clover and collectivists in general it is “selfish” not to allow them to take your wealth, your resources, and your time to do with them as they please. Any objection to that is considered selfish. These people usually are incapable and unwilling to do things for themselves. They want it done for them at low/no cost to them. If those that they intend to pay object, they call those people “selfish”.
They even lie about Jesus to support the welfare state. Never mind that Jesus opposed the welfare/warfare state of the Roman Empire.
And then when the bust happens…. who do they call selfish? The people who saved, who didn’t go into debt. This is mainstream acceptable. I remember the news stories after the bust. The hapless people who had all the expensive stuff, debt up to their eyeballs…. oh poor them, their problems were not their fault. Government has to step in and punish the prudent people who are doing ok because they saved and stayed out of debt. Those selfish savers.
It’s sick and perverted.
“What amazes me is that the authors obviously spend no time at all actually researching libertarianism”
fundamental misunderstanding. they don’t care. they’re not interested. they are on a team, and their team believes it is engaged in a war (perhaps rightly) against the team called ‘libertarianism’. understanding one’s enemy is not desirable when one has decided that one’s existence is predicated on destroying that enemy. they exist to take by force. you argue that their existence is illegitimate. there is no reconciling these two. there is only winning. you will either win, or you will lose. but don’t expect the parasite to show any interest in pondering its own existence. doing so makes you look entirely foolish.