Well, that appears to be a threat (the armband), so, yes. Talking about anything while being threatening may not get anybody too far.
I use it in the same sense that Eric Voegelin did.
I don’t know how vogelin uses it and I don’t care. Looking at the dictionary reveals your usage as nonsensical (no wonder…).
Is that what you take ? Maybe you’re overdosing on it, that’s why you make no sense.
Forcing your personal value system onto your neighbor is stupid, and nobody denies that. What Byzantine talks about is an issue of basic property enforcement. A Hasidic township with Hasidic rules may not allow anti-Hasidic people on their grounds under threat of violent punishment, period.
Such a township could come about by entrepreneurial creation or single-purpose property pooling. That’s the point of anarchy, right? Different strokes for different folks.
Anyway, I don’t see why everyone gets upset about Byzantine every time he talks about his value preferences. If you don’t like him, discriminate against him and all who agree with him, and that’s it.
Are you purposely lying ? Or just didn’t read the thread ? Byzantine is not talking about his ‘preferences’ - he’s babbling about political philosophy, asserting (wrongly of course) things like :
I also believe that. Is it incorrect? If so, how? I see it as a value neutral statement.
It’s value neutral and incorrect. Just like 2+2=3 is value-free/neutral and wrong.
Again with Juan and his/her single statement, “Your wrong,” and somehow that’s supposed to be intellectual. I’m waiting for something for reason to play around with and this isn’t it Juan. try again…
?
figures just like you Juan, but I’ll wait til reason shows up from you… think.
Your definition of anarchy is where there is a monopoly on force? (I know that’s what you implied, I am asking you to be explicit before we proceed)
Or do you agree that under anarchy there is no monopoly on force?
How did I imply that ? (you know, you just might be engaging in the activity you usually whine about - strawmanning)
I simply reject Byzantine’s definition. I think it’s ridiculous that he gets to redefine words.
In a free society there’s of course no monopoly on force. By the way, a free society is defined as a society banning the use of aggressive force, regardless of how it’s used. That’s the consequence of respecting human rights, or natural law, or equal liberty, or the NAP, or any other term for the principle that your friend Byzantine rejects. (but you supposedly not)
So, liberty student, I do wonder why you bother to pick a fight with me…
uh, Byzantine was holding up the property rights of a neighborhood that saw a threat. And Byzantine said anarchy is no monopoly of force, but now you say it is, but you say Byzantine is wrong, but now you say “no monopoly on force”… Juan you are arguing with yourself.
Wilderness, I think you’re not familiar with Byzantine’s position and you don’t understand it well either. Just like you don’t know whether I’m male or female cause you didn’t bother to check my profile. Sorry if don’t reply to your messages, but I don’t think it’s worthwhile.
I think I talked to Byzantine in this thread. And somehow this has to do with you being a male or female and cause I don’t bother to check your profile this means Byzantine is wrong. Juan your just once again not being intellectual. try again…
Well, keep on talking to him.
That’s just a hint that suggests to me you’re not very interested in the conversation.
By the way, I replied to LS and you just quoted my post and made some irrelevant comments. Is that what you mean by ‘intellectual’ ?
‘Neighborhoods’ don’t see threats and a piece of cloth is not a ‘threat’. Neighborhoods don’t have property rights either, individuals do. Next.
While Byzantine does not put too much emphasis on conforming his essays with the informal rules of libertarian talk, all his demands would have to be fulfilled in a society that works according to your rules of individual rights.
Since, again, a Hasidic township founded by entrepreneurial activity or single-purpose property pooling is a property with exclusion rights nonetheless.
Well, he made a statement, and you equated that to a mathematical error. So my understanding is that you do not agree with the formula, “no monopoly on force = anarchy”. I didn’t have to stretch. Now I posed it as a question simply to be sure I understood you correctly. There was no strawman.
Great, so you do agree with Byzantine. Fantastic. Now we can move on.
I don’t believe Byzantine excluded that possibility. He was talking about anarchy, not market anarchism, libertarianism or anarcho-capitalism as ethical systems.
This is a discussion, not a fight. You’ll know when we are fighting.