Exactly, there is no absolute, so simply collectivising (as you are doing) is illogical.
Congress created the IRS in the revenue act of 1862 and congress creats the tax laws which the IRS enforce. Further they are still knowingly receiving stolen funds.
So wait, you think that predicting what a group of individuals are more likely to do is collectivist? Haha your not one for the social sciences are you?
And none of those congressmen are alive.
And like I said, I can create a law saying no one can eat chocolate chip cookies yet that means nothing. If another party takes up my law then they are doing so by their will and it is voluntary.
So what? They are not committing violence. You see, the NAP is a great foundation but using only the NAP, you cannot make judgements on the morality of using stolen money concerning individuals who did not mug people to get it.
I’m calling you a collectivist because you are being one, you collectivised racists. I haven’t said that your leftish stance isn’t un-libertarian in any way, just that social preferences besides the tenets of libertarianism do not make anyone more or less (or thick and thin, or soft and har, etc…) of a libertarian.
It matters not. How one is seen is entirely different than how one is treated.
Notice how you misquoted me.
Your quote.
Full quote.
You are committing a non-sequitor. By stating what racists are more likely to do does not infer that they will ALWAYS do it at all times. It is still up to their actions to show their preference. Like I said, there is no absolute due to free will.
How can you honestly say that? Of course their outlook on you matters. What is the most likely excuse for genocide? Dehumanization. What do you think the propaganda that the state publishes is used for? If we were to look at muslims as individuals with value do you not agree that it would be harder for the US to actually not sympathize with them? Why does our state paint them as blood thirsty, women beating, zealots who will slit your throat if you turn your back on them? Because it makes them easier to get rid of and it makes it harder for people to value their human rights. What do you think happened after 9/11? People just started committing violence against arabic people because it was just a strange quirk?
I already voiced my opinion concerning after the and. I have not said your not libertarians merely soft ones. If some ideology came alone that said ‘We only want the NAP and the NAP alone’ then what reason would you have for staying as a libertarian? If only for name-sake?
It is collectivising, you are lumping the individual in with the group.
And yet the IRS still exists and congressmen still have the same relationship with it. Its no different than me hiring someone to murder/rob you.
The IRS isn’t a third party, they are a branch of the same government.
People who knowingly got the money through aggression are still responsible. If they returned the money it might be different.
What a joke. You seem to be complaining about treating racists in a ‘collectivist’ fashion ? Except that racism is a conscious individual decision ?
Maybe calling all people who like ice-cream “ice-cream-lovers” is collectivism as well ?
Maybe we should stop calling nationalists nationalists ? Because calling a spade a spade is collectivism ?
Thats not a non-sequitar, you said they are more likely, you’ve never met all racists, you were collectivising them.
Again, assumptions. You could easily dehumanize racists, sexists, etc… and be in a similar position. Its the aggression committed that is un-libertarian. Its not aggression to hang a poster on your wall saying “Muslims are Evil” just as its not aggression to hang a poster on your wall saying “Racists are Evil.”
Because groups are a mass of individuals. To say there is a percentage of our population that is racist is not some kind of falsehood and they have been know to formulate groups have they not? So where am I engaging in actual collectivist thought myself?
Well they didn’t create it. Why should they do anything about it? After all we don’t want their personal social preferences to get involved with their political career.
Well you are not committing the murder yourself nor are you threatening the person with murder. The individual who murders has a will of their own therefore they committed the murder unless you want to round up anyone who wished an idle hope or said “I wish that person would just die”
Ok but you still have yet to show that all of congress has full authority over all of the IRS and are forcing them under pain of death to carry out these laws.
I’m sorry I can’t see your statement through all of this personal social preference you are constructing. How they got the money is irrevelant so long as they didn’t punch anyone in the face or personally threaten to punch anyone in the face.
Sure, but that does not mean that all racists are violent.
Calling all people who like ice-cream “New York Super Fudge Chunk lovers” is collectivising.
Just don’t call all nationalists, something other than nationalists.
Who knows. At any rate ALL racists are people who believe in collectivism - the opposite principle upon which libertarianism rests.
Haha. So, now the most stupid and evil collectivists are ‘libertarians’. And pointing out that they are evil and stupid is un-libertarian.
Well, I guess anybody can twist any position into meaninglessness.
Hey, maybe freedom is slavery.
Yea, that is called apriorism. Kind of big thing around here.
Obviously I would be contradicting my ideals if I did such a thing.
Well its also the threat of violence that is involved in the NAP but just a minor point.
No but it is more likely that you commit aggression against a muslim if you have a ‘muslims are evil’ poster or a ‘muslims are far-out people’ poster? It is as if a mass of individuals suddenly saw a state apparatus formulating and one person said “We can’t do ANYTHING until it actually aggresses us.” I say we can and how we do it is logical persuasion and argumentation.
When you say devout racists are ultimately for aggression.
“Well…gee…I didn’t build the gun or the bullets why should I be responsible for who I hurt with it.” If their personal preference is that of theft (aggression) then yes we definitely do want it to get involved in their career.
Wishing and paying are two completely different things. You are the reason the murder took place, they are a means to your end.
Why? Have they returned the money? Acceptors of knowingly stolen goods have to return them, not doing so is still theft.
Read Mises or Rothbard. This is getting silly.
Right. Its perfectly fine to call racists collectivists, by definition that is what they are. But only that. Just like its ok to say people with red hair have red hair, to go on and say they all have freckles, is collectivising.
They certainly can be. Property rights don’t exist? I don’t know where I said anything about pointing out stupidity being un-libertarian, please quote me.
A big thing you clearly haven’t read up on.
But its been done, so clearly you are more inclined to do so… not, I’m not going to lump you in there.
Sure. There is no disagreement there.
I define racism as a hatred for a class of individuals due to their skin color. I do not see how that does not imply aggression.
Exactly, unless you think we should round up gun dealers and haul them in for murder?
When was the last time Ron Paul threatened to punch you until you give him money? Or any congressperson for that matter?
Perhaps it was a crazed individual doing it preemptively to achieve your affection? Anyways according to the NAP and that alone, the only aggressor is the individual who committed the murder. Like I keep on saying, the NAP is great but it needs more then just that. You keep on saying “No No No” yet what you are writing implies the very thing I am saying.
Again they are not the transgressors. So according to the NAP and the NAP alone, they have done nothing wrong.
I have read Rothbard and he is anything but a thin libertarian. Concerning Mises it would be a short talk because he basically only had one ethical judgement value and that is the utilitarian premise of ‘the maximization of social pleasure’
Really? Where have I gone wrong?
You seem to have some lapse of amnesia before every retort you give. Have I not constantly said there is only that which people will likely to do because of free will?
No disagreement where? Because that is a compact version of what I have been arguing the whole time.
Yes, thanks for admitting that much. The only other relevant point here is that collectivism and libertarianism are polar opposites.
Collectivists can be libertarians ? No they can’t - unless you redefine “libertarian” to mean anybody who doesn’t engage in direct violence.
That he does Juan…that he does.