Hatred doesn’t necessarily imply violence in any way. Just like love doesn’t imply sex.
Providing a means isn’t using a means.
I’m not American. But pretty much every April 15th. They can return it, they don’t. Thieves.
Wrong. A crazed individual is just that, unless I had him do it, I’m still not responsible. You keep saying you need more than the NAP, really you just don’t know the NAP all that well. Transfer has to be voluntary by both parties. Read more.
Incorrect. Congressmen go in to Congress knowing they will receive stolen goods and they know that people are being stolen from guilty knowledge is a given. To not return the money is still theft. They are part of the chain. Read more. A lot more.
Who called him a thin libertarian? Rothbard wrote quite a bit about the receivers of stolen goods, you should apparently know this.
Sure. Going around treating collectivists in collectivist fashion is exactly the opposite of what a libertarian shouldn’t do (by your own definition). Why you called it a joke speaks about you. And individualism is the polar opposite of collectivism.
The NAP is the anchor of libertarianism. People may be as stupid and collectivist as they please, they can still be fine libertarians, just stupid individuals.
If you want to define libertarianism as individualism fine, I’ll gladly go by voluntyarism.
I think it is more likely to imply violence rather then coexistence.
Exactly. Those who do such actions are defined by their will, not the will of others.
There is nothing unlibertarian about it if one only looks at libertarianism solely as the NAP
And the transfer from the IRS to Congress is such. The transfer from the citizen to the IRS isn’t. Therefore we are back to only seeing the IRS as transgressors.
They have not stolen it themselves therefore they are not in violation of the NAP. Its as simple as that. You keep on trying to stay a thin libertarian while reaching out with thick libertarian arguments.
I am a thick libertarian so I see the injustice of taxation as a whole. But it goes beyond basic NAP and into the realm of ethics. I am playing devil’s advocate to show the futility of believing that the NAP alone is enough to create a libertarian ‘society.’
He also deduced a whole ethical system of what libertarianism is. He is not someone who simply says ‘Believe in the NAP? You’re a libertarian.’ He is someone who said ‘Believe in the NAP? Ok that’s a start.’
Apriorism is deducing logical and conceptual truths without necessarily experiencing them. Is stating ‘All bacholers are not married’ a collectivist statement? And if so do you not realize the ramifications of saying such a thing [ that all Austrians, for the Austrian school is based on apriorism, are collectivist ] Such was your statement, that since I have not meet every racist then I know not whether they are inclined to violence. You are demanding I make my assertions aposteri. That I must experience every racist individual before I can make a conceptual truth. Such is not the way of Austrians, such is the way of empiricists.
I have said it enough to grow tired of tell you it.
Well let me first hear where you had no disagreement with my statement before.
As I already stated, to point out that individuals who are racists belong to the ‘racist’ category is not collectivism, it’s just normal language usage. Calling a spade a spade.
No. Individuals as ends, not means, is the anchor of libertarianism.
Your opinion. As I said, you’ve redefined libertarian to mean anyone who hasn’t committed a crime yet.
I guess it’s a good attempt at obfuscation. In your classification anarcho commies are libertarians as well I suppose…?
Think all you like, it doesn’t really matter. Voluntary separatism might be another approach.
Yes, so both the tax collectors and recievers are responsible.
Only if you don’t fully understand the NAP. You didn’t read did you?
The IRS and congress are part of the same party.
Stealing it yourself isn’t the end. Its as simple as that. You don’t understand the NAP, or what thick and thin really means.
No it doesn’t, you are just filling in your knowledge void with creamy thick libertarianism, without fully understanding the NAP. Further just using the NAP even by your own misunderstanding would still have the same results, as since the IRS cannot take taxes (as you agree) the chain ends there.
And what? He understood recieving stolend goods and libertarian grounds behind it. Now I am not a Rothbardian, but from a Rothbardian stand point the receiver of stolen goods still has an obligation to return stolen goods. They haven’t. Thieves.
Thats not what was pointed out though. It was the calling of all racists as violent that was collectivising - calling a spade a club - that is what you called a joke.
Your opinion. You are conflating individualism with libertarianism.
Yes, a crime by libertarian standards though.
They could be, sure. Depends on the means they entail.
Well self-imposed separation can only last so long. It is rather illogical to not want to exchange as much as possible in order to improve the standard of living.
No just the tax collectors. Who they give the money to is voluntary in nature. If the receivers said ‘give me the money or I will kill you’ then both would be in the wrong.
NAP is the principle that no one has the right to enact violence or the threat of violence upon you.
They are in the same institution but that doesn’t mean all of congress has power over the IRS, nor does the IRS have any power over Congress.
Coercing individuals is against the NAP obviously. But if X coerces Y and then X gives the funds to Z, then Z is not violating the NAP.
And you are trying to spin out this theory of property justice which is something more then the NAP. When you start saying something besides the NAP is what makes libertarianism, then you are on the road to the ‘creamy thick libertarianism.’ I’d be happy to guide you, just no hoopla about personal social preference.
Well if your not a Rothbardian then why did you tell me to read Rothbard? And from Rothbardian standpoint is a standpoint from ‘creamy thick libertarianism’
That is the definition of a bachelor. Notice the definition of a racist doesn’t include violence, nor imply it. There is absolutely nothing logical or deductive about classifying all racists as violent.
You say it, and then go and completely contradict later, now you are defending collectivism as an a priori.
Ask anyone around. Apart from my new interest in Roderick Long, I am at heart a Rothbardian. I am a believer in objective natural rights, I don’t believe that economics is a value-free discipline. I have all of his books and no doubt someone is going to criticize some of the things I say with Rothbard’s Egalitarianism as a Revolt against Nature. Perhaps I am what they call a Left Rothbardian. I will have to research that claim.
You know you can learn by contemplating too. You don’t have to read only. You can think for yourself as well. For me, I find the former and latter to have to occur anyways, even if I do read, if I’m going to really digest and take in what I’ve read. just so you know…
Saying all bacholers aren’t married is not necessarily a definition of bacholers. For how are we to define bacholers? Simply as being unmarried? Well then according to that alone, women can be bacholers.
A wonderful strawman. You say I have to experience every racist before I make a conceptual truth about whether they are inclined to violence. I say I can do it apriori then suddenly I’m defending collectivism as component of apriorism.
Unless they find being separated enough of an improvement itself. Or are still fine with trade. Or… Really, this is of no consequence, and its off topic.
Read more on time-invarient causal relationships, agent causation, and the distinction between human action and behaviour, its deduction from within the NAP. There really isn’t any reason why other actors cannot serve as a means for another. Read Block or Van Dunn for a more thorough explanation.
All of Congress has power over the IRS, and all Congressmen can return the money.
Read more on time-invarient causal relationships, agent causation, and the distinction between human action and behaviour. Block, Van Dunn for starters.
The NAP is the entire foundation of property justice though, it isn’t more, it’s just better understanding.
But you, by admission, are a proponent of thick libertarianism and a fan of Rothbard so its merely an easier way for you. As Rothbard made good points about the receiver of stolen goods, you should read them.
A bachelor is, by definition, an unmarried man. So its an a priori than all bachelors are unmarried. Its also an a priori that all bachelors are men.
Thats a strawman? I didn’t set up any misrepresentation of your positions of any sorts.
Calling all racists violent is an a posteriori, not an a priori*,* as its not in the definition, you can only justify calling them violent or inclined toward violence by experience or empirical evidence. Since all racists have not been covered, its ultimately collectivising.