This guy is amazing!
Do I have the right to forcefully take my neighbor’s property? No. Does the government have the right to do it? Yes. How? It was delegated the right by the people. But if the people didn’t have the right in the first place, how could they delegate it?
Mix this in with some Bastiat, and I think this is one of the strongest weapons I have ever seen!
The relevant Basiat is this:
If every person has the right to defend even by force — his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right — its reason for existing, its lawfulness — is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force — for the same reason — cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.
I’m falling in love with libertarianism again.
You mean you were already being unfaithful to it?
wow…that was pretty good.
that crazy haired dude is calm and cool and super tack sharp on his logic.
do the people have the right to use force to steal from other people?
no
ok…how can you delegate a right you do not have?
blah blah blah…government…constitution
how can the principal (people) have less rights than the agent (government)?
although…someone is going to say…“we determine our rights”…we create our rights by creating rules and laws that are agreed upon
then a mises dude will say something about natural rights…at which time I won’t know what the mises dude is talking about…
The problems in the Establishment narrative are so glaringly obvious, even very young children can see right through it. Inouye exhibits the very characteristics that are required to keep it up - circular reasoning, tortured definitions, “rephrasing”, and finally a withdrawal into a kind of private, religious conviction: “we just disagree.” Inouye is clearly not used to this kind of challenge so he’s fairly inarticulate in his rebuttals. A sociologist or poli-sci or liberal economist from one fo the big name universities could have mounted a much more rigorous exhibition of circularity, definition torture and invocation of religious awe towards “democracy” or whatever in defense of statism. But it would still be the same basic crap.
Clayton -
The thing is, how many people have actually agreed to give up any rights that they think they already had? (Of course, the key is to bring people up so that they only think they have certain rights, if any at all. Then they won’t protest as much.)
I can’t watch the video as my sound isn’t working. However if the “argument” is this:
Do I have the right to forcefully take my neighbor’s property? No. Does the government have the right to do it? Yes. How? It was delegated the right by the people. But if the people didn’t have the right in the first place, how could they delegate it?
That’s no rebuttal - it’s an appeal.
In so much as you agree that there is a government (and I do), and it does take your money - there is your answer. The proof is in puddin’
How is it not a rebuttal?
Because the relevant body that does it, and the relevent jurists who inerpret the law are still doing the action in question.
Moreover, the person isn’t even adressing relevant jurists he’s just stating stuff. The only thing he can hope to do is incite a riot.
What does “rebuttal” mean to you?
look it up, pick a definition - and that’s what it means to me.
No, I’m going to repeat my question. What does “rebuttal” mean to you*?*
Nonsense, you already had a definition in mind when you first posted. So what definition was that?
I just gave you a definition. If it’s not good enough, I am unintelligible and there is absolutely no point in carrying this conversation further.
To restate the definition:
look it up, pick a definition - and that’s what it means to me. In other words whatever Auto wants.
And no I didn’t have a specific definition in mind. It was an “intuitive” remark without much thought - as I just typed the word “remark” and “thought” with "nothing in mind.
EDIT
Where did you just give me a definition? I don’t see one anywhere.
I’m now calling you a liar. It completely beggars belief IMHO that you didn’t have a definition of “rebuttal” in mind when you first asserted that the response to Daniel Inouye wasn’t a rebuttal.
sorry see, the edit
This video is a lot better than his other (much more widely watched) video with Harry Ried. I’m not sure if you’ve seen it, but it is the perfect example of the great libertarian non-sequitor that bothers me so much:
[view:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7mRSI8yWwg]
Well, Mr. Libertarian who is interviewing Harry Ried, isn’t paying your rent inherently forceful? What happens if you don’t pay your rent?? That’s right, someone comes with a GUN and puts it in your FACE!!
Not to say Ried has such a great argument, either :P. “Taxes are voluntary because there are deductions…” Got it, Senator!
that you didn’t have a definition of “rebuttal” in mind when you
I can tell you one thing for sure:
I was not expecting or thinking about quibbling over the word “rebuttle” - and when someone wants to do such a thing it seems to derail any type of statement I was trying to make.
So in a sense the word “rebuttle”: part of the “definition” would be implied not to atomize that word, and just move on with the general picture trying to be created I guess.
As for the lying and dissapointing you about the level of certainty I tend not to care about with using words, I’ll try not to loose sleep over it.
I initially asked you what “rebuttal” means to you (i.e. the definition of the word that you’re using) because for you to say that it wasn’t a rebuttal seemed ridiculous to me, so clearly the word “rebuttal” means very different things to each of us, and I wanted to find out what it means to you.
Well if you ask me, the general picture you seem to be trying to create is a very authoritarian one. That seems strange coming from a self-professed libertarian, so I was trying to reconcile things.
Uh-huh.
That’s not the point of the argument. It’s not denying that governments can take your money, or that its agents make laws saying they can take your money. The point of the OP was to demonstrate that there is a certain argument that is logically inconsistent.
That is all.