No I say that that the NAP is a good basis but that is all that it is. A basis. Like the action axiom. We cannot spin out whole economics based solely on the action axiom. There needs to be something more in order to guide us into a solid structure of voluntary, prosperous exchange.
To which my retort is what I was discussing before. If you conceptualize individuals as baseless animals then you are less likely to respect their rights.
Saying one must be peaceful in order to be a libertarian is establishing that peace is a social preference of those who propose such an ideology.
Depends on what their goals are, if they are ultimately for aggression then no, but they all certainly can be (except for politicians as they are paid with stolen money) though. Anything, as long as its voluntary.
An a devout racist is not ultimately for aggression? Or at least the sutble art of imposed hierarchical standing through propaganda and indirect violence. And this nonsense about politicians, they did not steal it, they did not force you to give up your money, the IRS did so we can yell at the IRS but politicans like Harry Reid and Ron Paul are not violating the NAP for they are not the ones threatening you. Is that not true?
In the same sense that saying one must be a libertarian in order to be a libertarian is establishing that libertarianism is a social preference of those who propose such an idealogy. Non-agression is a basic tenet of libertarianism. Thats what differs between libertarians and non-libertarians.
And therefore you are establishing social preference that peace is better then violence so your criticism that libertarians should keep social preferences out of libertarianism is contradictory in nature.
No. ‘Voluntary’ collectivists are not libertarians. They may be voluntarists…by definition…but they are not libertarians. Anarcho - communists for instance, are not libertarians, nor are racists, nationalists, and other people who see individuals as parts of groups, not as individuals.
No more than the devout integrationist, feminist, etc…
You are collectivising.
I don’t think politicians are even paid through income taxes but it doesn’t matter they make the laws that pay their sallaries and people who knowingly receive stolen funds are responsible just as is the theif who took it.
There is no logic in aggressing other in order to ‘integrate’ them because it only serves to alienate them.
Yes and? I can make a law that no one should eat chocolate chip cookies. I am not committing violence against anyone. Like I said, the only people you can actually blame if you are just going by the NAP is the IRS [ perhaps since they can threaten ] and the enforcers [ debt collectors ]
Quote where I said social preferences should be kept out of libertarianism. I believe I said people shouldn’t fuse libertarianism with their own personal social preferences and then say libertarians who don’t share said preferences aren’t libertarians themselves. Meaning preferences that go outside the scope of libertarianism. Its completely redundant to explain that libertarians must accept libertarian principles.
Libertarianism itself IS a social preference of the individual. I have the preference to become socialist, anarchist, conservative, moderate. The joining of libertarianism is a personal social preference and libertarianism itself is a social preference because both examples state that peaceful coexistence is better then violence. I will settle this argument concerning social preference with these questions:
Do you not prefer libertarianism to socialism or fascism?
Does libertarianism not prefer non-violence over violence?
If your answers are yes then you are establish social preference. The former is personal in nature.
So what? Integrationists already have and do aggress. One could easily say there is no logic in aggressing others in order to segregate because it only serves to alienate yourself which would compromise your ultimate goals. You assume people use logic.
No, If you have power and control over armed goons who will enforce such laws then the blame is still on you, as you made the law. You are the start of the chain.
And what? This doesn’t discount anything I’ve said, you’ve just repeated yourself.
I assume that people are more likely to use logic rather in illogic. There is no absolute in this case due to free-will.
The whole of Congress does not have control over the IRS.
Personal preference got you into libertarianism and now you say ‘keep personal preference out of it.’ If you actually followed what you said, you wouldn’t be a libertarian. And also your wanting to keep personal preference out of libertarianism is in fact a personal preference concerning the realm of libertarianism
Yes. There is nothing un-libertarian about suicide or questioning or persuasion.
“Quote where I said social preferences should be kept out of libertarianism. I believe I said people shouldn’t fuse libertarianism with their own personal social preferences and then say libertarians who don’t share said preferences aren’t libertarians themselves. Meaning preferences that go outside the scope of libertarianism. Its completely redundant to explain that libertarians must accept libertarian principles.”
Well, if you commit suicide you’ll burn in hell for all eternity - or so other ‘libertarians’ say.
Two points:
If there is nothing unlibertarian about persuasion then why is everyone calling me a collectivist and implying that I have somehow gone beyond the bounds of libertarianism in the first place?
Do you not see what is implied by the premise that humanity is a virus? Who is more likely to respect the rights of an individual. Someone who sees individual value in you or someone who sees you as a tool or a beast of burden?
Yet getting into libertarianism is one’s own personal social preference. You are somehow trying to establish that getting into libertarianism as a personal social preference is ok but anything beyond that isn’t? Well why isn’t it? Do you not see your are still establishing social preference by saying we shouldn’t. It is called the performative contradiction.