"Pacifism? So if a bunch of guys are beating me up I don’t have the right to fight back?
Pacifism sounds good, but self-defense is always necessary."
Yes and yes.
There are varying degrees of pacifism. Libertarians can, strictly speaking, be either entirely pacifistic or not pacifist at all, although historically it has never been that big an issue or influence on the ideology.
rights arent mystical. What people have to support it? The guy I am fighting, or other people?
You’re talking about democracy now. When you say “you don’t have a right to anything except when other people agree to support it,” that’s like saying people who gang rape a woman have the right to because others agreed to support it. Gang rape, at it’s core, is democracy in action.
Self-defense isnt always necessary. Gandhi was attacked a bunch of times. Besides, youre going to die one day. Why not today? The people who kill you will probably have wicked ptsd anyway. Better to be dead.
the problem is that violence against people is so much fun that its hard to pass up an opportunity to do it to someone who clearly deserves it, i.e. a known asshole, the guy who is attacking you right now. Once the chemical cocktail hits (in like a quarter of a second) and the righteous anger reaches the baseball bat, its all over.
Hashem,
Are you saying that you misunderstand me?
Are you saying that you oppose violence under all circumstances?
@ SkepticalMetal
The concept of rights is a social construct, it’s meaningless in a Crusoe scenario. They’re subjective, so you have a right from the perspective of yourself and people who support it. You don’t have a right from the perspective of people who are indifferent, or who deny it.
@ Malachi
If someone’s assaulting you, then fight back if you want to, or run away if you want to. But the reason ‘because you want to’ is a much better reason from my perspective than the reason ‘because others agree’.
@ Neodoxy
What I meant was that I’m unsure what point you were making or how it was relevant (and I’m being literal, not trying to be rude or anything). But I thought you said I accept violence, which I don’t when someone doesn’t want it to be used against them.
But I probably was too quick to say that. Really, what I mean is that the only reason to support violence is when your brain comes to the conclusion that it should be supported. Violence isn’t a valid ‘should’ just because other people support it.
Sounds like libertarian socialism to me.
The fundamental nature of the concept of rights “sounds like libertarian socialism”? Perhaps I’m misunderstanding you…
@ Hashem
I believe we’re actually kind of talking about the same thing but coming from two totally different directions, although I misunderstood you at first. What I was saying is that it’s foolish to criticize libertarians for criticizing violence except when it was libertarian because libertarians necessarily support violence under circumstances which are “libertarian”, and a statist supports violence in those situations which they believe to be worthy of inciting violence. This is by nature true for the reasons that you point out. Therefore I don’t understand why you are criticizing libertarians when they are doing anything except that which they must, by their nature as human beings do; advocate a certain form of action under the circumstances they believe that it is justified.
So please explain why you are criticizing libertarians for advocating violence when you yourself say (rightly) that wanting violence to occur is reason enough for violence to be incited. If I am misunderstanding you then please correct me.
Ok fair enough, and that’s making sense and I tend to agree.
Because libertarians say violence should be used because their morals should be valued—the violence should even be used against people who don’t value their morals. Even Rothbard acknowledged the fact/value dichotomy presents an obstruction, and he didn’t overcome it. I’m not saying ‘violence should be used because my values should be valued by others’, but rather that the reason to use violence is when the subject himself feels compelled to regardless of what others value—and that others shouldn’t have to have the same values as the subject.
I agree wholly, but first of all why do you seem so revolted when libertarians pass judgment and what do you think the repercussions of this are? And I agree, is-ought kills all ethics from the getgo.
I revolt because it’s so transparent when seen through consistency, but it had decieved me for so long. The reprecussions seem to be that libertarianism seeks to fasten a “new, moral” state on us, with “libertarian courts” and “private police” and the whole works. Specifically, I believe court processes are vulnerable to corruption. We’ve all seen enough “what would libertarian courts/police do in X situation” to realize that none of us agree on what should be done. And if libertarians can’t even agree, then based on what should anyone make such ultimate calls? I’m not comfortable passing violent judgment on people—except when I’m the victim, and rarely then, and that’s my point.
There’s no saying anarchism should be achieved. If it isn’t achieved, there are very real, natural, historical, definite reasons why it isn’t. And none of us has objective reason to defy mother nature and impose libertarianism on a world which doesn’t want it. Otherwise, I think if we worry about ourselves more and others less, and have empathy and build strong, positive relationships then liberty is the natural tendency anyway, without the need for threats of hell or courts.
I feel like you’re overreacting against anarcho-capitalism now that you’ve learned it’s not the be all end all of ideologies.
There are still reasons for anarchism, plenty of them. I also don’t understand why, if you understand value is entirely subjective, that you have a hard time passing judgment upon others.
I accept that people aren’t objectively justified in using violence, that even in the most defensible circumstance—self defense—the only justification is still subjective.
There are still reasons for anarchism, plenty of them.
Objective, or subjective reasons?
I also don’t understand why, if you understand value is entirely subjective, that you have a hard time passing judgment upon others.
Because I understand that people act based on their circumstances. An aggressive person is aggressive because he was raised bad; I feel bad for him no less than I feel bad for his victims. I can’t find objective justification for using force against him, but it doesn’t seem to contradict any beliefs I hold to ostracize him. ***Whether the victim feels compelled to use force is a different issue entirely, and whether society accepts a given amount of retaliation is also another issue.
I wrote a really eloquent response and then it got deleted. Awesome. Here’s the short version
Read Nietzsche if you have not done so already
You are limiting yourself because you have lost the illusion of objective value, yet you yourself are a function and evaluating human being. It is within your power and capability to determine based upon your own judgment what is good and evil within your own world. Do not chain yourself by saying that “because there is no objective value, I can pass no judgment”, for the death of inherent value is freedom and it is exactly what gives you the power to judge the situation. In the case you outlined, even if you empathize with the aggressor, do you not also empathize with the victim? What of the societal consequences, and the sort of attitude within your own life that your judgment of abstinence has incurred?
It is precisely because of the lack of a real ethic that man is free, a moral free agent, what is your morality? What do you accept as good and evil? And what sort of world do you want to see?
Ctrl + C, man. The Mises Forums user’s best friend.
Will have to respond later.
What does Ctrl + C do?
copy/paste
Only skimmed this, so…
Read the Private Production of Defense by Hoppe.
I seriously hope these theoretical places aren’t called Ancapiland or Libertopia if they do ever form, because I just won’t go there.
