I’m using the plain text editor - that’s what triggers the formating problem - but it’s caused by a bug in the forum’s software.
When I write my posts they look OK in the editor window - hitting enter does create line breaks as it should, so the text is not just one big paragraph. The formating is correctly saved too - I know because when clicking the “edit” link in older posts of mine they show up as they should - line breaks are preserved.
Now, if I click the “reply” link on my own posts, I see what LibertyStudent is seeing - all the line breaks are missing and all sentences get crammed into just one paragraph. So…the reply function doesn’t work as it should if the posts have been written as plain text (Site Options / Content Editor / Plain Text)
Look, the system known as “free market” has an objective definition. The definition has nothing to do with the possible actions of some individuals (aka criminals)
In a free society coercion is banned and in practice minimized. If a free society is taken over by people who use coercion, it ceases to be a free society - by definition. This shouldn’t be too hard to grasp…
I just provided the argument - twice. Libertarians oppose theft. They don’t care if the thieves are gangsters who use masks or cops who wear uniforms. From the libertarian point of view both are the very same kind of criminal. Libertarians want to get rid of thieves, and the state happens to be the biggest thief of all - so libertarians advocate the abolition of the state. If the state (coercive rule) is abolished, we get ‘anarchy’. If somehow a government is imposed again then anarchy ceases to exist.
Anarchy doesn’t mean that everybody is ‘free’ to enslave his neighbor. It means the opposite. Nobody is allowed to enslave his neighbor. An-archos = no ruler = no enslavement
Your definition seems to be different. According to you anarchy means “everybody is ‘free’ to do anything, including setting up a government” - but that’s nonsense. Under that definition, anything that happens is ‘anarchy’ - so the word as you and Byzantine use it is meaningless. According to you :
free market = anarchy.
former free market now ruled by the state = anarchy as well.
former free market ruled by several mafias = anarchy too.
So…“war is peace”.
You mean, consistently refusing to pay even a traffic ticket will not get you killed ? I think it will…
That’s right. In your parallel universe there never was any world war.
It’s not and ad-hominem - just a description. You’re sounding like a typical conservative who believe that freedom can never be achieved. Why ? Because of misrepresented ‘human nature’ ? Original sin ?
Which is the typical hobessian (conservative) argument. The ‘natural’ state of society is a war of all against all. Well IF that was true, then libertarianism is hopeless.
Nonsense. Your conservative ‘argument’ against liberty is to brand it as ‘utopian’. So liberty is not possible because it’s utopian. Oh, and it’s utopian because it’s not possible.
Like I’ve said, the best shot you have at a society that honors the NAP is a society where everybody is individually capable of enforcing the NAP. In such a society, there will be differing perceptions of what does and does not constitute self-defense or a trespass, and one or another person or people will end up aggrieved, even dead. Obviously though, the fact that nobody has a monopoly on violence will mean that the economic and social climate will favor the (well-armed) peaceful and productive.
If you are worried about what might happen after the central state’s monopoly on violence is broken, then you need to work to strengthen the central state.
Banned by whom? Who has the authority to ban anything?
Right, but I don’t believe that people will not create new social orders voluntarily, do you? Remember, most of the state apparati today started much smaller, much more innocently, and with the notion of delegated rights that could be taken back on demand.
Let’s say the government collapsed this morning. A bunch of left liberals decide they will establish a new state, with centrally planned health care, trade and education. They want to promote affirmative action, and they agree that businesses are public places, and should fall under the regulation of democratically elected leaders.
Now this is all done voluntarily. All of the shop keepers, consumers, people in this area and with this philosophy agree to this state appartus of their own free will. Isn’t that a free market product borne out of anarchy?
I think your perspective hinges upon everyone having a Libertarian perspective, or wanting to follow the NAP. I don’t think that is very rational. There is a very good chance that at least pockets, if not the majority of humanity won’t be steeped in the philosophy of liberty, nor immediately in the wake of a collapse of the state, to accept personal responsibility without a paternal influence guiding all the portions of their lives they have never bothered to consider before.
According to me? I think the definition of freedom is pretty obvious. You must be some sort of statist if you believe that there will be freedom but with regulations, rules, limits etc.
And that is why you choose to stay under the umbrella of a state. Because you fear violent reprisal for the most ridiculous things.
More Ad Hom and strawmen.
That’s another straw man. I’m not saying that the natural state is violence, I’m just not buying your notion that all violence and voluntary association and group contracts will not exist.
No I don’t because I don’t subscribe to your wrong anarcho-conservative ‘theory’ - I provided some objections to it somewhere else but you just choose to ignore them.
Come on. That can’t be done voluntarily. That’s exactly why it’s being done now at the point of gun. So, you’ve come up with a ‘thought’ experiment that actually proves my point.
So, you are saying that ‘freedom’ means you’re free to do whatever you please, including robbing and killing ?
You’ve gone from Paul-supporting-statism to nihilism ? Cool.
Yours is the strawman. Please re-read what I wrote with respect to what constitutes a free society. There’s no point in my repeating things you seem to be ignoring on purpose.
Right. What is wrong now, is that it is done with coercion. But if a bunch of communists want to VOLUNTARILY establish a commune where guns are banned, church is banned and elections are held, how can you justify stopping their establishing such an institution of their own free will?
Who is going to stop you? The answer is, there is no monopoly on violence. So each can choose their own level of risk, and their own level of defense or resistance. To imply that a post-state world will be without violence is pretty utopian if you ask me.
Ignoring what? You seem to believe that in the absence of a rules maker, there will be universal rules. This is totally untrue. In the absence of a monocentric legal system, you will have polycentric legal systems, and there will be all sorts of shades and hues of social organization within that. Some kooks might get together and create a society where people of race “X” are not welcome (voluntary association). Some people might get together and create a society where theology is not welcome. Some people might voluntarily agree to pay X% of their income into a mutual defense fund. Some people may decide that working as a commune makes it difficult to precisely allocate property, so it is collective owned by the co-op, which in itself is a form of incorporation.
Sure things that are inefficient might die in the free market, but to say silly things like, “Freedom is this, this, this and this, with some of that, but none of the other.” isn’t freedom at all. It’s just your own vision for society, and I maintain that none of us can imagine what the free market will look like, because it will just be that new and amazing and unpredictable and spectacular and scary and wonderful and dangerous all at once.
I can’t justify stopping them and I didn’t say I want to stop them. Voluntary socialism is theoretically possible within a free society. I really don’t see why you bring this up.
What is not possible within a free society is coercive socialism - government, in a word. When I say “it’s not possible” what I mean is not that there’s a physical law preventing it, but that if coercion is used in a free society, then it can’t be regarded as a free society anymore.
Can I have a straight answer ? Do you think that freedom means freedom to commit any crime ?
That’s roughly what we have now. We are all ‘free’ to be tyrants and some people are.
So what happens to dissenters in that ‘voluntary’ association ?
How’s that done in practice ? Answer : It can’t be done.
Your posts are getting scrunched again, and I feel like you are discussing just to argue. The points you are making are either irrelevant or flawed.
Because it is the gist of the discussion. For most people livingin the state, they gladly pay taxes because they feel they get a return on it. They gladly send their sons overseas to murder foreigners, because they feel it makes them more safe. They love getting stimulus checks because it’s “free money”. There is a lot more ignorant voluntaryism, than principled but coerced compliance in this world. It is a fine line between accepting coercion (in which case, it’s hard to argue it is truly coercive) and voluntaryism.
Why not? It might not start out that way, but as soon as there is a property dispute, if one group has more force than the courts or opposing party, then coercion will ensue. Remember, these polycentric free market courts are only as good as the PDAs that execute their judgments.
Morally, I oppose theft and violence. Do I think freedom means freedom? Yes. That doesn’t make crime right, but I think even under statism, people are reasonably free to murder, rape and steal. They might get caught, there might be consequences, but this world where everyone loses their aggressiveness and violence never erupts seems very utopian to me.
I guess so.
Well, it’s voluntary, so there are no dissenters. But let’s advance 10 years into the Institution or Group’s future. Let’s say that it only has 80% voluntary compliance, and 20% coerced compliance. I suppose the 20% should leave, and if they cannot, then they will have to fight for their freedom.
Sure it can. Homeowners association with a council who votes on all sales transactions (membership transitions). Coercive behavior by the other members of the association. Ostracism. It ain’t going to be a world of ginger bread houses and candy cane slides my man!
Right, but freedom is not a permanent state. It must be won and defended regularly.
Funny, that’s exactly what I think about your points. You’ve not yet grasped what “free society” means.
I won’t waste my time countering the ridiculous claim that the state is ‘voluntary’…Besides the only people who pay taxes gladly are those who pay $2 and collect $20 in benefits. Say, subsidized farmers - or the parasites running the financial industry - that kind of people. The majority just foots the bills…at the point of a gun.
Because, by definition, a free society is a society in which coercion is not used. Here’s an analogy for you ? If a car is painted red, sensible people refer to it as a red car. If the car is now painted blue, then it’s called a blue car. If you call a blue car a red car, then you’re wrong - and confused. Or trolling.
Do you realize that you’re not using the ‘libertarian’ definition of freedom ?
Of course. Because you are a conservative ? Oh sorry, you don’t want to be called that ?
Well, so we live in an anarchist utopia…
Really ? Because in a free society racist nonsense can be enforced at the point of gun ? By a PDA ? You also subscribe to the ‘libertarian’ position : Canada love it or leave it ?
So, again, in your vision of a free society, people who don’t believe nonsense can be attacked ? Maybe they should be burnt at the stake ? I suppose that the catholic church LLC. (PDA) well take care of that ?
How long freedom lasts is another issue. But at least you realize that freedom is the absence of coercion ? So, you see that a free society is not the same thing as anarcho-feudalism ?
I could say the same thing about you. You seem to believe that “free society” comes with your own moral preconditions and rules for everyone.
This gun nonsense is a little bit out of control. Leave your house and talk to people. They don’t go through each day in fear or walk around thinking they are being oppressed. It might be better if they did, but they don’t. Most of them have accepted that this is “the way of things”.
Let’s cut to the chase here Juan. Are you saying to me, that in a free society, violence will cease to exist? That no one will try to use violence to seize or gain property?
The idea of freedom predates the idea of libertarianism. I’m not interested in looking at the world through rose coloured glasses or a kaleideoscope.
No, I don’t want to be called that. It is a juvenile Ad Hom from you because once again, you’re unable to make a compelling argument.
Strawman.
In the beginning, there were no natural archys. So from anarchy, this is the point we have evolved to. Through religion, coercion, ostracism, war etc. I don’t like it, but I’m not going to cover my eyes and pretend it isn’t there.
In a free society, I do believe people will enforce freedom of association with PDAs. Yes. As far as the libertarian position about Canada, I have no idea what you are talking about.
It’s not “my vision” and I do wish you would find a way to communicate without rhetorical devices like strawmen. Your style of argumentation is very poor, and based on the bully model.
In a free society, if a bunch of people with a PDA and believe in religious nonsense, decide to go persecute some poor SOB down the road, a guy with a weak or no-PDA, who will stop them? We’re not talking about what is right. We’re talking about what can happen in a society where the state doesn’t have a monopoly on violence, but not all groups or individuals have an equal capacity to defend themselves.
Not at all. What if the state collapses and there are new states the next day? It is the issue, because you keep talking about anarchy like it is a perpetual state, when we don’t know howlong anarchy could be maintained. It might last years, or it might last 10 minutes. Which goes back to my original point, that instead of projecting your desires and values on a “free society” perhaps you should accept that none of us, neither you nor I, are capable of perceiving exactly what it will be like.
Freedom is also the freedom to coerce. That is why we put coercive criminals in jail, or exile them from our societies. To prevent them from further coercing, we remove some of their freedom.
It never was, and that was never part of the discussion. You’re back to strawmen again.
Also, you keep scrunching up your posts. I’m done with this conversation for now. It’s circular, and it’s really become a drain on my productivity, addressing the same arguments, and breaking up posts by hand.
Juan is correct that you’re not using the libertarian meaning of freedom here. Coercion and political freedom are inherently opposing things. What you’re really talking about is power, not liberty. Liberty involves a lack of coercion. It is entirely nonsensical to say that an action that inherently violates someone’s liberty is an act of liberty. The fact that people may have the power to violate other people’s rights does not mean that there is a “right” to do so. This is a matter of the fundamental meaning of principles. Rights-violating acts are not compatible with liberty by definition.
I don’t care about the libertarian meaning of freedom, anymore than I care about the anti-capitalist definition of capitalism, or Juan’s attempts to label me conservative, when he doesn’t know me from his belly button.
Being in a state of liberty involves a lack of coercion. It doesn’t mean you can’t personally be in a state of liberty while coercing someone else. Now that would be nonsensical.
Did I say that they had a right to do so? No, I didn’t. Let’s avoid strawmen, that’s Juan’s area of expertise.
The issue is that you and Juan attribute values to liberty. Liberty is the absence of coercion, and thus it can also be the absence of either of your particular values. What you think is right or good, what I think is right or good, is largely irrelevant.
I see a lot of people here regularly project their values on liberty. I don’t feel the need to point it out, I might get accused of trolling. But it is certainly there.
When we’re on a libertarian message board debating the ins and outs of freedom, it would seem to follow that the libertarian concept of freedom is entirely relevant. That you brush it off as irrelevant seem absolutely nonsensical to me, especially in the context of this particular conversation in which we’re trying to establish exactly what it is or means.
Do we really have to walk you through libertarianism 101 here? An act of coercion violates liberty by definition. We’re talking about an equilibrium of liberty here - a matter of principle. The fact that while I may have liberty and proceed to violate someone else’s does not mean that my violation of someone else’s liberty is compatible with liberty as such. Again, by definition, as a matter of principle, liberty is incompatible with that which rankly contradicts it. This is a matter of consistancy in application of the principle. But you continue to deliberately evade discussing the actual principle of the matter.
That they have a right to do so is merely the logical implication of using the concept or term liberty to describe such an act or implying that it is somehow compatible with liberty. If X is compatible with liberty, then you have a right to do X. That is not a strawman, it is a reductio ad absurdum drawn from your own statements. This is rather basic logic.
Now you’re just making stuff up. No, the issue is that me and Juan regaurd liberty to be a value or meta-value in and of itself. That’s why this is called libertarianism. It is an inherently ethical concept, a concept that presupposes normative ethics. Liberty is not an ethically neutral concept, as you seem to be construeing it as. Liberty by definition, by the very nature of the concept, is simply incompatible with things such as murder and theft.
Of course you can point to endless examples of people murdering and stealing, but that wouldn’t invalidate the principle or make such things compatible with it. Yes, technically it is possible that I have the “freedom” or “power” to murder you, but that doesn’t mean this is compatible with liberty or that I am acting within the context of my liberty by engaging in such an act; by engaging in such an act I violate liberty as a principle and relative to the moral agent who I’m aggressing against. Liberty and power are not the same thing. Do you comprehend this?
Drawing out the implications of liberty and clearly defining what it is to begin with (as a value!) is not projecting separate values onto it. You’re confusing the matter entirely. It’s really sad that I should even have to clarify such matters. This is very basic stuff.
No, it isn’t relevant. We’re on the Mises forums. Mises had a certain view on capitalism. Some here reject that as anti-capitalists. I’ve never seen you reprimand someone over definitions that shift by locale. Stop trolling me.
Stop trolling me.
“We’re talking”? You’re a Johnny Come Lately to the discussion, for what I imagine, your express desire to troll me across the board. You’re such a condescending and arrogant creep. Bugger off.
And I care what you and Juan regard how? This is my point. You are both projecting your own values on liberty. When I am free, I won’t have to care what either of you think, unless I want to deal with you, which I assure you, I don’t.
Stop trolling me. Do you understand this?
Not at all. You’re both projecting values. Let’s say I am a trollcist and I hate trolls. I’m not going to associate with you under a free society. I’m going to ostracize and discriminate against you. That’s my right under the freedom to associate. Now, I start seeking out other people who also hate trolls and by definition, hate you (that’s also the freedom to associate). We all start ostracizing you, discriminating, etc. We might not be physically forceful, but we cook anti-troll curries non-stop and allow the pungent odours to waft across your property, driving you crazier than you already are.
In the end, you might not be able to take it, you move out from the troll bridge you live under, and we buy it up at a bargain because it’s a distress sale. So you end up moving elsewhere, somewhere that tolerates trolls, but you’re so financially disadvantaged from the distress sale of your property, you have to become a troll hooker, selling your sweet cheeks for money to eat and sleep.
How am I trolling you? You’re making certain statements that simply don’t make sense. How is the libertarian meaning of freedom irrelevant to a discussion about the meaning of freedom? Seriously, this makes no sense.
My behavior is far from trollish. I’m merely responding with argumentation to claims or the implications of claims of yours that I disagree with. If anything, you seem to be trolling me and I’m taking the bait.
Are you purposefully evading the point or do you really not comprehend this? To define liberty as a value itself is not to project separate values onto it. We’re trying to clarify exactly what liberty means and implies as a value. Indeed, if we do not do so, libertarianism loses all meaning. Yet you seem to act as if this is a free for all in which liberty is simply assumed without being clearly defined and then everything is a matter of preferance. The moment we try to actually meaningfully define liberty you accuse us of projecting extra values, and proceed to act as if you are being value-free here. It’s nonsensical.
It should be quite clear to anyone observing this that if anyone is trolling it is you.
Case in point. This entire section is trolling. You’re personalizing instead of making arguments against anyone’s statements or points, and are blatantly being facetious. That totally obstructs meaningful dialogue.
Throughout your entire post you didn’t directly address barely anything I said. Do you want to engage in discussion and debate or just playing games? I have good reason to believe that you are purposefully motivated to sabotage discussions so long as me and certain others are involved in them. You don’t seem interested in an exchange with us.
It doesn’t make sense to trolls. How are you trolling me? Because you are doing exactly what I did the other day, when you accused me of trolling. No wonder you can’t see that you are projecting your values, you can’t even admit your own hypocrisy!
It is completely trollish. Just like your misguided and malicious attempt to confront me in the voting thread, by quoting me out of context.
Honestly, I don’t like you. I think you’re an ass. So I’m not taking you seriously, and I’m not going to debate you. Juan and I disagree, but he’s not an ass. He’s not arrogant, and he’s not totaly disconnected from reality, and his trolling is more like fanatic obsession, which is flattering in a way.
“We” are not trying to do anything. I want no part of discussing with you. I was discussing with Juan. Juan and I are a “We”. You and trolish behaviour are not a “We”.
Why address a troll directly? That is what they want. The way to beat a troll, is to call him out as a troll, not to engage and try to win an argument with him. When someone plays games with you, change the winning conditions. That is what I have done.
I do not want to engage in discussion with you. I don’t like you, I don’t respect you and I think you are a troll.
If you mean you and Nicky the banned, you might be right. I don’t have a problem with anyone else here. Well, maybe the Knight too. I hate people who try to win a debate on semantics or attacking their opposite. But I don’t see how I am motivated to sabotage discussions, when you have jumped into two of my discussions with others (known as INTERJECTING). I would say it is you who is attempting to sabotage already established discussions.
I’m just not interested in an exchange with you. Because you are a troll. And arrogant. I am interested in exchanges with 10s of others. Just not you. Comprende?
You do realize that you’re just personalizing throughout this whole post, right? And if you really didn’t want to discuss anything with me that badly, you wouldn’t be making all these responses. Since you do continue to make responses, while not actually addressing the substance of my posts, I have no choice but to conclude that you have a vested interest in attacking me and derailing any discussion that I am a part of. Please stop it.
I genuinely believe what I am saying on this forum. You’re welcome to doubt that I genuinely believe what I say, but I do and I don’t think you’re exactly in a position to tell other people what they think for them. It’d be nice if you actually responded to me as a real human being rather than starting flame fests whenever I interject my honest opinion. But I guess that’s not a possibility since you appear to place being antagonistic with me for the sake of it as a higher goal than meaningful communication.