Are Restrictive Covenants Fair Game?

[Sphairon]

I know we’ve had this topic numerous times. It just doesn’t seem to end. What prompted me to post this thread was a YouTube video by one of my subscriptions on exactly that issue. I don’t have any trouble understanding the position and I don’t really see what’s wrong with it, but as it seems, our friend Brainpolice has objections. And he’s not alone. He writes:

Note how Stodles continues to act as if the content of the preferances themselves are irrelevant, which completely ignores important questions of detail that he is obfuscating.

Note how Stodles continues to ignore the concerns put foreward by a thick libertarianism by appealing to a wishy washy anti-violence sentiment

His notion of restrictive covenants comes from Hans Hoppe, a conservative-libertarian with sympathies with monarchy and feudalism.

Wishy washy anti-violence sentiment? Excuse me, but what the heck? Now it’s not enough to be “wishy washy anti-violence”, obviously you also have to be a gay pro-feminist unitarian painter to count as libertarian?

I have a simple question for everyone disagreeing with the notion of a restrictive covenant:
Would you consider aggression against a restrictive covenant to be justified?

If yes, you’re out. You just violated your own “wishy washy anti-violence” premises.
If no, fine. What’s there to argue about?
In all seriousness, I’d like to understand you, but the more I hear of it, the more I smell a big pile of cultural marxist baloney covered by some libertarian rhetorics. What’s the problem with a voluntary community of pious church ladies?

[liberty_student]

@Sphairon

Wishy washy anti-violence sentiment? Excuse me, but what the heck? Now it’s not enough to be “wishy washy anti-violence”, obviously you also have to be a gay pro-feminist unitarian painter to count as libertarian?

I have a simple question for everyone disagreeing with the notion of a restrictive covenant:
Would you consider aggression against a restrictive covenant to be justified?

If yes, you’re out. You just violated your own “wishy washy anti-violence” premises.
If no, fine. What’s there to argue about?
In all seriousness, I’d like to understand you, but the more I hear of it, the more I smell a big pile of cultural marxist baloney covered by some libertarian rhetorics. What’s the problem with a voluntary community of pious church ladies?

Who wrote this part ^^^? It’s not clear from your post if this is from a conversation between others, or your own feelings.

[Sphairon]

Everything in italics is by Brainpolice, the rest is my own feelings that have not been part of any previous conversation.

[liberty_student]

@Sphairon

Everything in italics is by Brainpolice, the rest is my own feelings that have not been part of any previous conversation.

Ok, thanks. I just skimmed it. This thread is going to turn out like others once he sees it. Same old, same old.

It’s very hard to argue with people who avoid challenges to direct debate, and won’t provide proof of their assertions.

The moralizers are ineffective because they approach everything from a philosophical/emotional level, and not from a profit/market level. I really don’t care much about what they say anymore, because real, acting, living breathing people are going to try out restrictive covenants, and if it works, it will work, and if it doesn’t, it will not. But certainly, crying that the sky is falling all the time just becomes background noise.

There is a radical disconnect when you support the right of people to sell their bodies for sex, but won’t let,

a voluntary community of pious church ladies

exist.

As usual, they maintain there are two kinds of liberty. Theirs and wrong. [8-)]

[wombatron]

@Sphairon

Would you consider aggression against a restrictive covenant to be justified?

No, given that defensive force isn’t aggression. BP is trying to make the point that there are limits to the harms that one can inflict on someone, even if they are on your property. You don’t have the right to, for example, beat somebody to a bloody pulp, just because they violate the terms of a covenant.

[Sphairon]

@wombatron

No, given that defensive force isn’t aggression. BP is trying to make the point that there are limits to the harms that one can inflict on someone, even if they are on your property. You don’t have the right to, for example, beat somebody to a bloody pulp, just because they violate the terms of a covenant.

It’s obvious you can discuss the level of violence appropriate to take care of your property, but that’s not all he says.

What about "Stodles continues to act as if the content of the preferances themselves are irrelevant". Clearly, BP, among others, disapproves of certain types of world views (preferably those that contain any kind of perceived hierarchy) and will claim that such arrangements resemble a private state and indicate a non-libertarian society. Which, in turn, means that for a libertarian society to exist, we’d all have to drop our affilitation to any kind of hierarchy. You see where this is heading?

What bothers me especially is his distinction between “thick” and “thin” libertarianism. He acts as if “thin” libertarians are those who “merely” stand for a “wishy washy non-violence” philosophy, whereas “thick” libertarians are into counter-culture as well. Whoa. Talk about sectarianism. Why can’t I be a “thick” libertarian and keep believing in God and the family … ?

[wombatron]

@Sphairon

What about "Stodles continues to act as if the content of the preferances themselves are irrelevant". Clearly, BP, among others, disapproves of certain types of world views (preferably those that contain any kind of perceived hierarchy) and will claim that such arrangements resemble a private state and indicate a non-libertarian society. Which, in turn, means that for a libertarian society to exist, we’d all have to drop our affilitation to any kind of hierarchy. You see where this is heading?

True enough. But, unless I am severely and utterly mistaken, he is not advocating the use of aggression to break up said hierarchies.

[scineram]

@Sphairon

I have a simple question for everyone disagreeing with the notion of a restrictive covenant:
Would you consider aggression against a restrictive covenant to be justified?

If yes, you’re out. You just violated your own “wishy washy anti-violence” premises.
If no, fine. What’s there to argue about?
In all seriousness, I’d like to understand you, but the more I hear of it, the more I smell a big pile of cultural marxist baloney covered by some libertarian rhetorics. What’s the problem with a voluntary community of pious church ladies?

Irrelevant. Your are just a chemical automaton made of a bunch of tissue.

[nirgrahamUK]

@scineram

Irrelevant. Your are just a chemical automaton made of a bunch of tissue.

^^^^^^ please explain, point of this? i am missing the connect. maybe as im sleepy.

[Sphairon]

@wombatron

True enough. But, unless I am severely and utterly mistaken, he is not advocating the use of aggression to break up said hierarchies.

Maybe BP will show up later to clarify. That’d be neat.

@scineram

Irrelevant. Your are just a chemical automaton made of a bunch of tissue.

… interested in establishing a peacefully coexisting society of societies. Quite a task for a bunch of tissue, huh?

@nirgrahamUK

^^^^^^ please explain, point of this? i am missing the connect. maybe as im sleepy.

He’s referring to my unyielding stance on free will and determinism.

[nirgrahamUK]

cheers

[Brainpolice]

@Sphairon

I know we’ve had this topic numerous times. It just doesn’t seem to end. What prompted me to post this thread was a YouTube video by one of my subscriptions on exactly that issue. I don’t have any trouble understanding the position and I don’t really see what’s wrong with it, but as it seems, our friend Brainpolice has objections. And he’s not alone. He writes:

Note how Stodles continues to act as if the content of the preferances themselves are irrelevant, which completely ignores important questions of detail that he is obfuscating.

Note how Stodles continues to ignore the concerns put foreward by a thick libertarianism by appealing to a wishy washy anti-violence sentiment

His notion of restrictive covenants comes from Hans Hoppe, a conservative-libertarian with sympathies with monarchy and feudalism.

Wishy washy anti-violence sentiment? Excuse me, but what the heck? Now it’s not enough to be “wishy washy anti-violence”, obviously you also have to be a gay pro-feminist unitarian painter to count as libertarian?

I have a simple question for everyone disagreeing with the notion of a restrictive covenant:
Would you consider aggression against a restrictive covenant to be justified?

If yes, you’re out. You just violated your own “wishy washy anti-violence” premises.
If no, fine. What’s there to argue about?
In all seriousness, I’d like to understand you, but the more I hear of it, the more I smell a big pile of cultural marxist baloney covered by some libertarian rhetorics. What’s the problem with a voluntary community of pious church ladies?

If you look into the comments between me, confederal socialist and d4shawn/reignofradness, and if you look at the comments between us over the past few video exchanges, it’d become clear to you that: d4shawn/reignofradness and confederal socialist are ethical nihilists and keep returning to sophist arguments by appealing to semantics. Note that this is outside of the context of just this question on covenants. So don’t mislead here: this is part of a much broader conflict that’s been going on in which d4shawn/reignofradness and confederal socialist at one point or another keep going back making amoralist arguments against libertarian anarchism. D4Shawn/reignofradness is confederal socialist’s main ally, they work as an amoralist team. Here are some zinger quotes for you:

D4Shawn (1 hour ago) Show Hide
0

Marked as spam

Reply | Spam

That’s why I say that everything comes down to “might=right” and there’s nothing wrong with that. People want to deny it, but there’s no escaping it.

"You can’t say on one hand:

“Anarchy doesn’t mean lawlessness and no rules”

And then claim on the other hand that:

“anarchy” means no-coercion."

“In order to ENFORCE a principal, you need coercion.”

brainpolice2 (39 minutes ago) Show Hide
+2
Marked as spam
Reply | Remove

That premise is BS, you are blatantly manipulating language in a deceptive way. Non-coercion is a principle itself. Your argument reduces to: in order to enforce the principle of non-coercion, you need coercion. But even if it’s about any other principle, it is simply a false argument to claim that the only way to enforce principles is to coerce. That mistakenly assumes that all principles must lead to violence (what about the principle of non-violence?). You’d have to apply it to pacifists.

Here are some facts about Confederal Socialist:

About 8-9 months ago he claimed to have become an anarchist. Prior to that he was a white nationalist, under a former account by the name of “stodles”, that was mostly race and iq videos, although at a point he started getting into debates with anarchists on youtube, argueing against anarchism. And even upon alleged converting to anarchism, he has persistant defending the movement known as “national anarchism”, which is a strange and incoherant movement of nationalist groups who have nothing to do with any real libertarian current of thought and are clinging onto the word “anarchism” and using freedom-ish rhetoric as a selling point. His mysterious “conversion” to anarchism out of nowhere is questionable. Jumping from WN to anarchism isn’t normal, usually people at least go through some kind of minarchist version of libertarianism. Stodles skipped all that, and it is not a stretch based on the facts to suspect that he’s only clinging to anarchism as a means, as just rhetoric conductive toward the end of nationalism. Ever since he allegedly became an anarchist, hes been trying to pander to white nationalists, not in a way that necessarily is actually conductive to libertarian anarchism, as it’s more like he’s telling them that construeing themselves as anarchists they can remove their stigma and use it as a tool to reach the same goal they wanted before.

But nevermind my opinion. If you really want a full understanding of what’s going on here, you’ll have to dig deeper at youtube into the video exchanges and their comments sections between me, confederal socialist and reignofradness/D4Shawn, that have taken place over the past 3-4 days or so. This should provide you with a clearer context about where this conflict originally started and what it’s really more fundamentally about - which is amoralists who are virtually attacking libertarian anarchism altogether via sophism vs. me and quite a few others.

[Brainpolice]

@wombatron

@Sphairon

Would you consider aggression against a restrictive covenant to be justified?

No, given that defensive force isn’t aggression. BP is trying to make the point that there are limits to the harms that one can inflict on someone, even if they are on your property. You don’t have the right to, for example, beat somebody to a bloody pulp, just because they violate the terms of a covenant.

Thankyou for clarifying this. Yes, that is one of my points.

[Brainpolice]

@wombatron

@Sphairon

What about "Stodles continues to act as if the content of the preferances themselves are irrelevant". Clearly, BP, among others, disapproves of certain types of world views (preferably those that contain any kind of perceived hierarchy) and will claim that such arrangements resemble a private state and indicate a non-libertarian society. Which, in turn, means that for a libertarian society to exist, we’d all have to drop our affilitation to any kind of hierarchy. You see where this is heading?

True enough. But, unless I am severely and utterly mistaken, he is not advocating the use of aggression to break up said hierarchies.

You’re correct, I’m not. It’s a knee-jerk reaction to think that.

[krazy_kaju]

@Brainpolice

Here are some facts about Confederal Socialist:

About 8-9 months ago he claimed to have become an anarchist. Prior to that he was a white nationalist, under a former account by the name of “stodles”, that was mostly race and iq videos, although at a point he started getting into debates with anarchists on youtube, argueing against anarchism. And even upon alleged converting to anarchism, he has persistant defending the movement known as “national anarchism”, which is a strange and incoherant movement of nationalist groups who have nothing to do with any real libertarian current of thought and are clinging onto the word “anarchism” and using freedom-ish rhetoric as a selling point. His mysterious “conversion” to anarchism out of nowhere is questionable. Jumping from WN to anarchism isn’t normal, usually people at least go through some kind of minarchist version of libertarianism. Stodles skipped all that, and it is not a stretch based on the facts to suspect that he’s only clinging to anarchism as a means, as just rhetoric conductive toward the end of nationalism. Ever since he allegedly became an anarchist, hes been trying to pander to white nationalists, not in a way that necessarily is actually conductive to libertarian anarchism, as it’s more like he’s telling them that construeing themselves as anarchists they can remove their stigma and use it as a tool to reach the same goal they wanted before.

National anarchism is more of a tribal movement like the nazi.org folk. In other words, they aren’t anarchists, but people who believe in local governments. Essentially, they’re neo-fuedalists.

[Sphairon]

@Brainpolice

d4shawn/reignofradness and confederal socialist are ethical nihilists and keep returning to sophist arguments by appealing to semantics. Note that this is outside of the context of just this question on covenants. So don’t mislead here: this is part of a much broader conflict that’s been going on in which d4shawn/reignofradness and confederal socialist at one point or another keep going back making amoralist arguments against libertarian anarchism.

First of all, thanks for your extensive reply, BP, and sorry if I have been offensive in any way, I was just in a flamy mood, so to speak.

As for confederalsocialist, I subscribed to one of his prior anarchist accounts, WisdomOfTheAcorn, where he tried to promote market anarchist thoughts by using video game analogies. I found out about his general ethical ideas and his past later on, on his Ning page, basically.

The problem is that I was not shocked, but rather convinced by his argumentation. I don’t think he’s arguing against libertarian anarchism, though that depends on the definition of “libertarian”. He’s arguing against objective ethics which, of course, puts him in opposition to Rand, Rothbard, Molyneux and every other libertarian author who tried to put libertarianism into an “objective” ethical framework.

That’s why I say that everything comes down to “might=right” and there’s nothing wrong with that. People want to deny it, but there’s no escaping it.

I don’t agree that might makes right because might is not an objective ethical concept either. Might creates facts, though, and we can evaluate these facts using ethical concepts. Still, I’ve not come across an objective ethical concept.

And even upon alleged converting to anarchism, he has persistant defending the movement known as “national anarchism”, which is a strange and incoherant movement of nationalist groups who have nothing to do with any real libertarian current of thought and are clinging onto the word “anarchism” and using freedom-ish rhetoric as a selling point.

He’s making no secret of that. On his Ning Page, he’s offering a renowned white-nationalist leader to ask him out about anarchy to clear up any questions. What he’s trying to do is show white nationalists how they will be much more successful in achieving their goals without employing the state, and how employing the state might even contradict their own belief systems.

That’s the point here, BP. White nationalists are a strange bunch, but as long as they keep their white nationalism among themselves, what’s the point in fighting “national anarchism”? Might as well fight Catholic anarchists for their loyalty to the pope. I see anarchism as the opportunity to try coexisting value frameworks, not as a clinging to “no authority” when it comes to forming communities.

His mysterious “conversion” to anarchism out of nowhere is questionable. Jumping from WN to anarchism isn’t normal, usually people at least go through some kind of minarchist version of libertarianism.

Well, as far as I know, we have a former nationalist on these forums. If he wants to, he might give us some information on the history of his intellectual development. I sincerely believe Stodles has become an anarchist, but he’s still somewhat involved with the whole WN gang. I don’t know what to make of it either. Especially his remarks on Jews are nothing short of outlandish.

Stodles skipped all that, and it is not a stretch based on the facts to suspect that he’s only clinging to anarchism as a means, as just rhetoric conductive toward the end of nationalism.

He sees anarchy as a means, most definitely, but if you look at all of his other videos, he’s pretty much over the nationalism thing. He views the state, God and family as artificial archons that need to be surpassed and argues a lot with parental projection. He’s pretty much a Molyneuxian in that regard.

as it’s more like he’s telling them that construeing themselves as anarchists they can remove their stigma and use it as a tool to reach the same goal they wanted before.

Yes, most certainly. He advocates this strategy in one of his Ning videos if I remember correctly. He’s pretty blatant about it.

This should provide you with a clearer context about where this conflict originally started and what it’s really more fundamentally about - which is amoralists who are virtually attacking libertarian anarchism altogether via sophism vs. me and quite a few others.

Thanks for the hint, but somehow I’m afraid that if I look up the debates, that’ll increase my inclinations towards amoralism.

Oh, dude. Maybe I should read some Rothbard tonight.

[liberty_student]

@Sphairon

White nationalists are a strange bunch, but as long as they keep their white nationalism among themselves, what’s the point in fighting “national anarchism”?

Don’t confuse posting on blogs and YouTube as “fighting” anything. [:)]

[Jon_Irenicus]

It’s one of the cutest objections in their repertoire: somehow a negative principle needs positive enforcement. I don’t think Nozick made such a stupid mistake even. From what I’ve seen of this Stodles fellow, he is hopelessly confused and engaged in amateur philosophising. Same with the other guy.

[Brainpolice]

@krazy kaju

@Brainpolice

Here are some facts about Confederal Socialist:

About 8-9 months ago he claimed to have become an anarchist. Prior to that he was a white nationalist, under a former account by the name of “stodles”, that was mostly race and iq videos, although at a point he started getting into debates with anarchists on youtube, argueing against anarchism. And even upon alleged converting to anarchism, he has persistant defending the movement known as “national anarchism”, which is a strange and incoherant movement of nationalist groups who have nothing to do with any real libertarian current of thought and are clinging onto the word “anarchism” and using freedom-ish rhetoric as a selling point. His mysterious “conversion” to anarchism out of nowhere is questionable. Jumping from WN to anarchism isn’t normal, usually people at least go through some kind of minarchist version of libertarianism. Stodles skipped all that, and it is not a stretch based on the facts to suspect that he’s only clinging to anarchism as a means, as just rhetoric conductive toward the end of nationalism. Ever since he allegedly became an anarchist, hes been trying to pander to white nationalists, not in a way that necessarily is actually conductive to libertarian anarchism, as it’s more like he’s telling them that construeing themselves as anarchists they can remove their stigma and use it as a tool to reach the same goal they wanted before.

National anarchism is more of a tribal movement like the nazi.org folk. In other words, they aren’t anarchists, but people who believe in local governments. Essentially, they’re neo-fuedalists.

I agree.

[Brainpolice]

@Jon Irenicus

It’s one of the cutest objections in their repertoire: somehow a negative principle needs positive enforcement. I don’t think Nozick made such a stupid mistake even. From what I’ve seen of this Stodles fellow, he is hopelessly confused and engaged in amateur philosophising. Same with the other guy.

Right. They are essentially eroding the distinction between aggression and non-aggression and coercion and non-coercion altogether.