Threat of violence or attempt to commit violent act are considered crimes by most libertarians. I can’t say I like this. Threats, or attempts are not violent acts, so violence or the exproritation of property do not seem to be justifiable in return. I would rather prefer that those who threaten with violence or attempt to commit violence would not be allowed to approach the victim, but that they wouldn’t be punished with violence for mere words or non-violent actions.
What do you think?
I started this thread a few weeks ago about the same or similar enough issue. The best response in there was this:
Of course it is an unequal exchange, but it still doesn’t mean violence should be used in return. Instead the victim can take the property that was taken by aggressor back, and take the same amount of property as punishment (two teeth for a tooth). With regards to attempted crime, the aggressor can simply be banished from the land in order not to pose danger to the victim or to society in general.
Social ostracization or discrimination results in involuntary, unequal exchange. (I give you my money for you to withdraw excluding me from commerce). It was a transaction I never intended to enter nor saw benficial to myself, and I can’t withdraw from the transaction peaceably (I lack sefl sufficiency, possibly die). Therefore, social ostracization or discrimination results in an involuntary, unequal exchange.
I didn’t make the original statement which you’re lampooning and I don’t necessarily agree with it, but I think it was a pretty good answer to Eugene’s question within the rights based framework that he is working in. The better answer is that a polycentric legal order would breed laws and enforcements that best fit the society in which it exists; but thats not what Eugene was looking for, I don’t think.
Anyway, you are completely wrong with your little example. You CAN withdraw from your transaction peacefully, as all that will happen is the person might not interact with you again. You can’t die from lack of self sufficiency. Plus, this would make it criminal for anyone to ever withold trade from you, like say if you aren’t willing to pay the asking price.
Could you please explain why children die from starvation or malnutrition if it is not from a lack of self sufficiency?
Estoppel.
I’m not a doctor, but I think it has something to do with the body requiring proteins and carbohydrates and nothing to do with how the food is aquired. A self sufficient person could still starve to death by simply not eating.
Could you please explain why children die from starvation or malnutrition if it is not from a lack of self sufficiency?
They die from economic coercion.
The prevalence of starvation in a given state or region is inversely related to the level of economic freedom in that state or region.
I am not a doctor either but that sounds like it could be some kind of definition of self sufficient.
Laws of Nature (gravity)
Laws of Economics
Laws of Man
So would self sufficiency fall under the laws of nature in that no human being comes out of the womb self sufficient or under economic law?
LFOD: So would self sufficiency fall under the laws of nature in that no human being comes out of the womb self sufficient or under economic law?
my post was simple, more economic freedom, more material needs are met, less people starve.
less economic freedom, less material needs are met, more people starve.
so I guess that the laws of man would dictate the lack of economic freedom. the only way you can have Laws of Economics is if you dont have Laws of Man screwing up the benefits of pure capitalism. you know politics interfering with the market kinda removes and distorts the natural benefits of economic laws
and good luck finding a society that is not based on the laws of man, last time i checked there are none today or yesterday.
i am new here and trying to figure out this anarchist thing, it is built on a very shaky and nuanced theoretical framework and for good reason. i think you guys are struggling with the realization that there are no anarchist societies yesterday or today so vagueness, heavily theoretical, and nuanced arguments defending something that never existed is a good way to divert from the hard and simple truth of reality.
remember dont hate the player, hate the game.
This is at once an appeal to tradition and also yet another instance of your argument from ignorance.
Doesn’t the (logical) defense of anything require a theoretical (i.e. logical) framework?
Autolykos: Doesn’t the (logical) defense of anything require a theoretical (i.e. logical) framework?
Yes, but it requires a logical theoretical argument and a tiny bit of empirical support would be nice too.
your argument kinda proves my point, it is heavy on appeals to this and that and semantics, grammar, yet absolutely zero evidence of a viable anarchist society of any significance ever existing.
I’ll try to keep it simple to avoid too much bad grammar, semantic injuries, or any painful appeals to this or that so here it is
hey dude, where’s the beef ?
or more precisely, where’s the anarchist societies ?
This is one place where you’re mistaken. A logical argument, strictly speaking, requires no empirical support.
Again, this is a place for debate. Semantics lie at the very center of debate. How can one logically defeat an argument that he doesn’t understand?
With that out of the way, why is “evidence of a viable anarchist society of any sigificance ever existing [in the past/present]” so important to you? I’ll tell you why: because you’re still arguing from ignorance.
Allow me to also try to keep it simple: What’s your point?
Maybe you should take a little time and do some reading before drawing conclusions about how shaky our ideas are. Please take a look at this for an answer to your question regarding the location of the bovine meat product. The problem is that you’re asking the wrong question.
Clayton -
Would you say that the presence of a military-industrial complex enhances or diminishes economic freedom?
I pretty much agree with you autolykos that anarchism has a bad track record.
also i concede the semantic stuff and bad arguing style.
and my point is that you agree with me that anarchism is a failure in past history.
i disagree with you obviously that past history doesnt matter.
SO do you read history ?
if you had a book store would you put history books on the fantasy aisle ?
and obviously you have never supported any argument by citing historical record since that would be like citing fiction\ or fantasy
Oops, less than an hour ago you cited a source (if you can call wiki a credible source) that was heavy on history. here it is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military-industrial_complex
maybe you need to find a new source cuz it is an argument from ignorance.
i am going to be watching you autolykos, dont go citing any historical sources dude cuz that is an argument from ignorance. you dont want me citing stuff from lord of the rings or harry potter do you cuz you know that is fiction too.
“Centinel” my post was simple, more economic freedom, more material needs are met, less people starve.
less economic freedom, less material needs are met, more people starve.
Would you say that the presence of a military-industrial complex enhances or diminishes economic freedom?
Hey thats an argument from ignorance Autolykos !!!
you cant cite that source it is historical stuff. and we all know that the past history of the military-industrial complex doesnt mean anything cant add knowledge to the subject
shame on you autolykos
try again dude.
What you wrote above tells me that you either have no idea of what an argument from ignorance actually is (even though I’ve linked to the Wikipedia article for it more than once), or you’re deliberately mischaracterizing it. So which is it?
Also, I can’t help but notice that you’re still trying to sneak in that same argument from ignorance that I’ve already called you out on. Hilarious!
Wrong you are. Try actually understanding what an argument from ignorance is, next time. Here’s a helpful link in case you have trouble searching for it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
Have fun!