Punishments in a libertarian society

[Brainpolice]

It doesn’t have to be comparable as long as it’s the same category. It’s an infringement of someone’s property without their consent, plain and simple. The only reason why burning someone’s house is persecuted and blocking sun from someone’s grass is not is the profit motive.

No, the profit motive is not the only reason why someone would consider blocking someone’s light to not be in the same category as burning someone’s house down. Because it isnt qualatatively anywhere close to being in the same category. It’s a matter of common sense and people’s normative notions - blocking someone’s light is not a rights violation.

This recent trend that you warn of here is a direct result of evolutionary thought. Anarchism is a fairly young and far-rooted branch of thought, so it shouldn’t be surprising that we will encounter lots of crossroads all the way down.

Bullshit. Such views do not inherently follow from evolutionary thought. Herbert Spencer would be rolling in his grave.

In this specific case, there are have modal anarchists, as represented by yourself, who will claim that anarchy is “more than anti-statism” and present an individualized set of values whose implementation is deemed to be necessary for “true anarchy” to exist.

The “modal” category (which is a term that the white-nationalist-parading-as-a-libertarian “confederalsocialist” on youtube likes to use) is a strawman of the position of most anarchists (noone has ever claimed that absolute unanimity is required in order for society to be free). Even “thin” libertarians believe that, by the very least, the NAP is a necessary condition for anarchism, which is why it’s called “libertarian anarchism” - and the amoralists aren’t even “thin” libertarians. They’re no kind of libertarian at all.

On the other hand, there are pragmatic anarchists who try to desribe how a polycentric order with communities of individuals with conflicting sets of values could exist and prosper. You’re employing ethics and philosophy, we’re employing economics and history.

The claim to “pragmatism” is bunk - the theory of how anarchy will work coming from the amoralists is, in fact, not pragmatic. It is so open-ended that it no longer can even coherantly claim to be anti-statist, since it has relativized the normative basis from which we could possibly even define statism. In practise, it reduces to the exact same thing as statism, only with an emphasis on a larger plurality of states that control smaller geographical areas. That’s the “pragmatic” reality of such conceptions of “anarchism” for you. “Pluralism” between territorial states is not anarchism.

This has nothing to do with legitimizations, but with a sober outlook on what we can expect to happen in a polycentric order.

Even when the intent is not legitimization, the function is legitimization. It functions to legitimize any sort of state or authoritarian social order on the grounds that it co-exists with a plurality of other states or authoritarian social orders.

[Brainpolice]

@Byzantine

Who defines your single legal norm? And more importantly, who enforces it?

You’re at a libertarian website. Plenty of extensive material can be found at the click of a button defining this legal norm about aggression and how it relates to property, society and state. Or are you just playing dumb with me?

[liberty_student]

@Brainpolice

You’re not very good at this, LS.

You wouldn’t have to mention it unless you thought there was a perception that I was.

@Brainpolice

Refusing to buy the products of racist buisinesses is not the same thing as denying all black people entrance into an entire community (making them unable to even exist within it) or refusing to allow black people to eat in your restraunt or buy food at your grocery store.

Enormous strawman. First, we’re talking about segregating by social preference not race. Second, you’re an American, so your limited conception on race is black vs. white or hispanic vs. white. Note to you, the world is not America. And racism is not primarily a white enterprise in the 21st century.

Third, those are examples of peaceful boycotts. I will ask again, do you now oppose ostracism and boycott, yes or no?

@Brainpolice

Comparing direct action against racial segregation to racial segregation is about as orwellian as it gets.

Indeed. You brought it up.

@Brainpolice

For one side, the goal is an actual open society.

Whose goal? Open is open your way, or open is the right to choose who you associate with? Do you support free association or not?

@Brainpolice

You should drop the smug attitude and personalization. It never does anything for your argument.

Rich coming from you, but it just makes my point, and Keith Preston’s point again. Non-whites are tired of listening to middle class white kids lecture them on racism. It’s why you guys are primarly a white network on the LL side. It’s why the Long/Carson orbit doesn’t have half the racial diversity of this Austrian community. You just don’t get it. And I suspect, you never will.

@Brainpolice

What was said or implied, in effect, is that it is compatible with libertarianism to burn someone’s building down for displaying porn. That claim is bunk.

So you take back that there was a claim about legality. Good. Goalposts back in their original position.

As far as what was inferred, that is your own subjective evaluation. I’ve read a lot of Byzantine, and had private conversations with him. I never got the vibe that he was a racist or pro-violence. On the contrary, he seems genuinely concerned about the safety of himself and those he considers close to him. Of course, you have never made any outreach, which is why the point about racism is so relevant. You operate in your own bubble, interpreting things through your own lense, never stepping outside to engage the very people or situations you are so eager to make assumptions about.

Also, you claim that Byzantine said that burning down buildings was compatible with libertarianism. Did he actually say that, or is that what you want him to have said?

[Byzantine]

@Brainpolice

@Byzantine

Who defines your single legal norm? And more importantly, who enforces it?

You’re at a libertarian website. Plenty of extensive material can be found at the click of a button defining this legal norm about aggression and how it relates to property, society and state. Or are you just playing dumb with me?

Okay. We’ll accept for the sake of argument that a group of scholars at the Mises Institute defines this legal norm about aggression. Now, who enforces it?

[Sphairon]

It’s a matter of common sense and people’s normative notions - blocking someone’s light is not a rights violation.

“Common sense” is a concept often invoked to bridge an is-ought gap. This is the case here. It becomes apparent when you talk about normative notions which necessarily have to be subjective. But you cannot convert subjective notions into evidence, and thus your disliking of punching hooligans in the face remains just that - an opinion.

Bullshit. Such views do not inherently follow from evolutionary thought. Herbert Spencer would be rolling in his grave.

Sorry, I meant that it’s an example of how thoughts evolve, not that it is derived from evolutionary theory, though it certainly is influenced by it.

white-nationalist-parading-as-a-libertarian “confederalsocialist”

Do you happen to be BlueMountains28?

and the amoralists aren’t even “thin” libertarians. They’re no kind of libertarian at all.

Most of them are anarchists with libertarian preferences, actually. Byzantine, I believe, would be an anarchist with conservative preferences.

It is so open-ended that it no longer can even coherantly claim to be anti-statist, since it has relativized the normative basis from which we could possibly even define statism.

Or maybe you’re just angered that it exposes your monopolistic theory of anarchism as what it is, a very subtle form of the state.

In practise, it reduces to the exact same thing as statism, only with an emphasis on a larger plurality of states that control smaller geographical areas.

No, but it tries to work with the fact that people necessarily develop different conceptions of rights, property and justice and explores the options such a society would have to resolve these kinds of conflicts. The fact that you call such emergent arrangements “states” just goes to show how monopolistic your own approach truly is.

It functions to legitimize any sort of state or authoritarian social order on the grounds that it co-exists with a plurality of other states or authoritarian social orders.

Actually, there seems to be a consensus that communities which act in an irrationally exclusive manner, i.e. racially or religiously exclusive, would be bound to disappear rather quickly in such a world. The fact that someone could still set up such a living arrangement does not mean that he should, or that anyone who desribes the fact that it is possible endorses this.

[Brainpolice]

You wouldn’t have to mention it unless you thought there was a perception that I was.

I don’t think that there’s a perception that you are. I think that you’ve been a bad debater ever since I’ve known you.

Enormous strawman. First, we’re talking about segregating by social preference not race. Second, you’re an American, so your limited conception on race is black vs. white or hispanic vs. white. Note to you, the world is not America. And racism is not primarily a white enterprise in the 21st century.

I’m talking about segregating by race. That’s what I’ve been talking about the entire time, whenever I mention “separatism”. As for strawmanning, I believe it is you that just strawmanned me, since I never claimed or implied that racism is an exclusively white enterprise. I oppose “black nationalism” just as much as I oppose “white nationalism”. It just so happens to be the case, in the particular historical and geographical context that I’m working with, that separatism in favor of “whites” is what has an institutional and legal history.

Third, those are examples of peaceful boycotts. I will ask again, do you now oppose ostracism and boycott, yes or no?

You’re unsuccessfully trying to catch me in a contradiction by misleadingly conflating racial separatism and discrimination with anti-racist boycotts. As for ostracism, I never really advocated it - it’s “oppressive”. It’d be best not to put ideas into other people’s heads.

Whose goal? Open is open your way, or open is the right to choose who you associate with? Do you support free association or not?

Again with the oversimplification and misdirection. By “open society” I mean one in which people of different racial and ethnic backgrounds co-exist within the same geographical area and as part of the same legal system, which is precisely what segregationists/separatists are against. In contrast to this sense of an “open society”, there are “closed societies” in which only a certain identity group is allowed to exist and flourish within a given community. You should read Karl Popper, who’s who I’m getting the notion from, only extending on it a little bit.

Of course I support freedom of association, but that doesn’t mean that (1) institutional segregation has historically simply been a matter of free disassociation; far from it, it was rigidly and broadly enforced through the state and (2) that I condone all of the particular types of association that people form. Do I have to repeat the distinction between the social and the political to you again? I think that racists have a right to exclude people of other racial identities from their buisinesses and communities (assuming that they genuinely can be said to own the community as a whole, which might actually be dubious as soon as even a single individual in that community decides to be more inclusive with their property, hence breaking up the segregation), but I don’t think that it is good or rational to do so.

Rich coming from you, but it just makes my point, and Keith Preston’s point again. Non-whites are tired of listening to middle class white kids lecture them on racism. It’s why you guys are primarly a white network on the LL side. It’s why the Long/Carson orbit doesn’t have half the racial diversity of this Austrian community. You just don’t get it. And I suspect, you never will.

Well, for one thing, Kieth Preston isn’t exactly a good authority to appeal to, considering that he’s a “national anarchist”. For another thing, you’re just engaging in rank personalization that has nothing to do with the validity of the arguments at play, which just reinforces my point about that.

As far as what was inferred, that is your own subjective evaluation. I’ve read a lot of Byzantine, and had private conversations with him. I never got the vibe that he was a racist or pro-violence.

Then I think you are blind. He has made plenty of crude, racist remarks over the past few years on this board and has taken plenty of ugly positions that he’s been questioned on by plenty of people other than just me.

[nirgrahamUK]

the only people who worry about race ‘discrimination’ in the freemarket, are those with a weak grasp of the economics of discrimination. the fact that to the extent that it is moronic, you pay a moron fee in foregone gains from trade. non-racists can outcompete racists where race does not have bearing on the facts of productivity. if it does on the other hand…

[Brainpolice]

“Common sense” is a concept often invoked to bridge an is-ought gap. This is the case here. It becomes apparent when you talk about normative notions which necessarily have to be subjective. But you cannot convert subjective notions into evidence, and thus your disliking of punching hooligans in the face remains just that - an opinion.

The is-ought gap has absolutely nothing to do with what I’m talking about. I’m simply talking about what libertarianism consists of - which are specific normative notions about aggression and property. If we can agree to define “libertarianism” in terms of such norms, then anything contrary to such norms contradicts libertarianism or simply “isn’t libertarian”.

Do you happen to be BlueMountains28?

No, I’m brainpolice2, confederalsocialist’s arch-enemy that commits the “modal” sin of opposing racial separatism and calling out “national anarchists” for being disingenous “entryists” that are only using libertarian and anarchist rhetoric to relegitimize themselves.

Most of them are anarchists with libertarian preferences, actually. Byzantine, I believe, would be an anarchist with conservative preferences.

Amoralists, at a meta-level, are not libertarians. Libertarianism is, at least in the realm of politics, a normative ethical theory.

Or maybe you’re just angered that it exposes your monopolistic theory of anarchism as what it is, a very subtle form of the state.

No, quite the opposite: I realize that a definition of “anarchism” that has no meaningful normative basis for defining the state and the conditions for state formation inherently collapses back into statism. If your conception of “anarchism” is so open-ended that everything that you claim to oppose can technically be slipped back in under the rubric of “intersubjective” property conventions, then it completely undermines itself.

No, but it tries to work with the fact that people necessarily develop different conceptions of rights, property and justice and explores the options such a society would have to resolve these kinds of conflicts. The fact that you call such emergent arrangements “states” just goes to show how monopolistic your own approach truly is.

No, I simply realize that states, in fact, come from certain specific emergent arrangements - specially, absolute authority derived from territorial claims in which an individual or group excersizes absolute authority or ultimate decision-making over the lives of whoever happens to inhabit the claimed territory. Hence why there are complications about land ownership that many anarchists have struggled with.

Actually, there seems to be a consensus that communities which act in an irrationally exclusive manner, i.e. racially or religiously exclusive, would be bound to disappear rather quickly in such a world. The fact that someone could still set up such a living arrangement does not mean that he should, or that anyone who desribes the fact that it is possible endorses this.

The fact of the matter is that the tendency is to not take things very seriously to a fault.

[Juan]

@liberty student

I’ve read a lot of Byzantine, and had private conversations with him. I never got the vibe that he was a racist or pro-violence.

Non-religious folk.

Hey Cole, I consider myself both an atheist and an an-cap. I was made a little uneasy by Ron Paul’s religious convictions, but I know that as a Libertarian he would never presume to force them on anyone. So it’s not even really that big of a deal. He did say that he didnt believe in evolution though, which is hard to hear as someone who loves science. Oh well. Btw, I live in a suburb of Des Moines. I can see 801 Grand from my house. [:D]

@Byzantine

@Thedesolateone

According to libertarian morals, immoral acts are those which violate the NAP. Prostitution is a free exchange between consenting adults.

And that’s all well and good. And when you establish a brothel in a Christian neighborhood and come their one morning to find the place burned down, you can lecture everybody about the NAP and consenting adults. Or you can accept the fact that an anarchist society will organize along cultural lines and relocate to a more hospitable area.

@liberty student

Burning down buildings is not a Christian act. It is a criminal one. I understand where you are coming from Byzantine, but let’s not try to cloak coercive behaviour within some justification based on theist moral codes.

As to Byzantine not being a racist, are you joking ? Half of his posts are racist remarks.

[Brainpolice]

@nirgrahamUK

the only people who worry about race ‘discrimination’ in the freemarket, are those with a weak grasp of the economics of discrimination. the fact that to the extent that it is moronic, you pay a moron fee in foregone gains from trade. non-racists can outcompete racists where race does not have bearing on the facts of productivity. if it does on the other hand…

Nonsense. I have a fine grasp of the economics of discrimination - which, in a nutshell, is that it is not profitable in the long-term. And, indeed, part of my argument against racial separatism is on the grounds that it is not economically sustainable. However, the human being is not the homo economicus - the fact that discrimination is like economically shooting yourself in the foot is not likely to deter a dedicated racial separatist, and they are going to do it regaurdless of how many utilitarian economic arguments one throws at them. People don’t always make decisions with economic interest in mind. And, unlike “thin” libertarians, I don’t use the economics of discrimination as a talking point rationalizing not taking the issue seriously.

[liberty_student]

@Brainpolice

I’m talking about segregating by race.

I know. You’re the only one. We’re talking about social behavorial preferences, and you immediately start conflating race with the discussion. It’s telling.

@Brainpolice

You’re unsuccessfully trying to catch me in a contradiction by misleadingly conflating racial separatism and discrimination with anti-racist boycotts.

Not unsuccessful. You’re playing the race card again. I asked you if ostracism and boycotts were legitimate forms of protest. It is a simple yes or no answer, although you have mentioned ostracism as a non-aggressive tactic before, so this was just to make your position clear.

@Brainpolice

It’d be best not to put ideas into other people’s heads.

If you would like, I can source all of your comments here and elsewhere on ostracism. I’m really handy with “the google”. Then we can just work with what is in your head. Down for that?

@Brainpolice

By “open society” I mean one in which people of different racial and ethnic backgrounds co-exist within the same geographical area and as part of the same legal system, which is precisely what segregationists/separatists are against.

Race card. You are the only one playing the race card in this discussion. It’s underhanded, despicable and everyone sees what you are doing. Get off race, and get back to discussing social conventions as they pertain to behavior.

@Brainpolice

Of course I support freedom of association, but that doesn’t mean that (1) institutional segregation has historically simply been a matter of free disassociation;

No one claimed it was. Except you.

@Brainpolice

that I condone all of the particular types of association that people form.

Well that much is obvious to everyone. You only support free association when it supports your views. You don’t support the free association of views you don’t like. It’s called hypocrisy.

@Brainpolice

I think that racists have a right to exclude people of other racial identities from their buisinesses and communities (assuming that they genuinely can be said to own the community as a whole, which might actually be dubious as soon as even a single individual in that community decides to be more inclusive with their property, hence breaking up the segregation), but I don’t think that it is good or rational to do so.

Race, race, race. It’s all you can talk about. It seems to be what you are hiding behind.

@Brainpolice

Well, for one thing, Kieth Preston isn’t exactly a good authority to appeal to, considering that he’s a “national anarchist”.

I wasn’t appealing to his authority. I was appealing to the veracity of his argument. You worry about labels and misdirection, I will worry about facts.

@Brainpolice

For another thing, you’re just engaging in rank personalization that has nothing to do with the validity of the arguments at play, which just reinforces my point about that.

Coming from you, considering how you have played the race card where there was no discussion on race, seems pretty funny to me.

@Brainpolice

Then I think you are blind. He has made plenty of crude, racist remarks over the past few years on this board and has taken plenty of ugly positions that he’s been questioned on by plenty of people other than just me.

Well, there was the time you copied and pasted to your blog, all sorts of comments out of context, and then attributing them to a group of people, without sources, and in one case, even took a sentence fragment, and made it a whole sentence, which changed its meaning. I do remember all of your leftoid buddies in the comments clucking their tongues as you conflated LvMI with what were mostly ignorant statements from one 18 year old member with poor taste. So your argumentatum ad populum falls on empty ears with me. You don’t have an ounce of credibility after that stunt you pulled at Polycentric Order.

[nirgrahamUK]

@Brainpolice

• the fact that discrimination is like economically shooting yourself in the foot is not likely to deter a dedicated racial separatis

now you are going to tell us what is likely to deter a dedicated racial seperatist.

please.

[Brainpolice]

@nirgrahamUK

@Brainpolice

• the fact that discrimination is like economically shooting yourself in the foot is not likely to deter a dedicated racial separatis

now you are going to tell us what is likely to deter a dedicated racial seperatist.

please.

Red herring. My point stands that people are not homo economicuses. The tendency to analize people strictly in such is a misapplication of praxeology and the error of certain economists, not an inherently problem with praxeology.

[nirgrahamUK]

the point is that they pay a price for any foolishness. now what else would you have done to them? (that would be effective in you achieving your aims…)

(red herring my ass.)

[liberty_student]

@Juan

As to Byzantine not being a racist, are you joking ? Half of his posts are racist remarks.

After that discussion, we had a private discussion where I think I got a better view of his positions than what is typically posted on this board. YMMV.

Sort of like the private discussions you and I have had by PM and email.

[Brainpolice]

@nirgrahamUK

the point is that they pay a price for any foolishness. now what else would you have done to them? (that would be effective in you achieving your aims…)

(red herring my ass.)

No, it is a red herring to shift the question to “what would you have done to them?” when I am argueing that people do not base their decisions strictly on economic benefit.

[nirgrahamUK]

unless you opt for a solution to the problem of discrimination then from a behavioural perspective you are no more thick than a thin, since you would do nothing different than any thin might. is thick-ness just a flight of fancy, a badge of pride which reflects the glory of ones mind?

[Brainpolice]

I know. You’re the only one. We’re talking about social behavorial preferences, and you immediately start conflating race with the discussion. It’s telling.

No, I’m not the only one. Byzantine is actually the one that initially brought up segregation. I responded to his statement about segregation.

Not unsuccessful. You’re playing the race card again. I asked you if ostracism and boycotts were legitimate forms of protest. It is a simple yes or no answer, although you have mentioned ostracism as a non-aggressive tactic before, so this was just to make your position clear.

I’m not playing “the race card”. We’re talking about separatism. You’re twisting the direction of the debate in the disingenous attempt to catch me in a contradiction. There is no contradiction - I advocate boycotting racists, and I don’t believe boycotting racists is qualatatively identical to racial separatism.

If you would like, I can source all of your comments here and elsewhere on ostracism. I’m really handy with “the google”. Then we can just work with what is in your head. Down for that?

I prefer that you actually engage my arguments head on, rather than continually making weak attempts to personalize the discussion.

Race card. You are the only one playing the race card in this discussion. It’s underhanded, despicable and everyone sees what you are doing. Get off race, and get back to discussing social conventions as they pertain to behavior.

Again, I’m not playing “the race card” - racial separatism is precisely what we’ve been talking about for the past page or so, and Byzantine initially made a claim about segregation in anarchy. Furthermore, the question of racial separatism is a question of social conventions as they pertain to behavior.

No one claimed it was. Except you.

Actually, the tendency has generally been to describe racial separatism strictly in terms of freedom of association.

Race, race, race. It’s all you can talk about. It seems to be what you are hiding behind.

You really are horrible at argueing. Stop sidetracking from the substance of my posts.

I wasn’t appealing to his authority. I was appealing to the veracity of his argument. You worry about labels and misdirection, I will worry about facts.

You don’t have any “facts”, let alone arguments, you just have misdirections.

Coming from you, considering how you have played the race card where there was no discussion on race, seems pretty funny to me.

Again, your claim that I’ve brought “the race card” into this as if out of nowhere is disingenous. It is directly in relation to Byzantine’s claims about segregation.

Well, there was the time you copied and pasted to your blog, all sorts of comments out of context, and then attributing them to a group of people, without sources, and in one case, even took a sentence fragment, and made it a whole sentence, which changed its meaning. I do remember all of your leftoid buddies in the comments clucking their tongues as you conflated LvMI with what were mostly ignorant statements from one 18 year old member with poor taste. So your argumentatum ad populum falls on empty ears with me. You don’t have an ounce of credibility after that stunt you pulled at Polycentric Order.

You don’t have any credibility because you’re unable to address the substance of your opponent’s arguments, and instead you shower them with red herrings and personalized distractions. You’re the most weasly person on the board.

[Brainpolice]

@nirgrahamUK

unless you opt for a solution to the problem of discrimination then from a behavioural perspective you are no more thick than a thin, since you would do nothing different than any thin might. is thick-ness just a flight of fancy, a badge of pride which reflects the glory of ones mind?

I already addressed this on the other thread about “thickness” and “thin-ness”. Aggression is not the only possible means with which to take action against racial discrimination and separatism.

[Byzantine]

@Brainpolice

No, I’m not the only one. Byzantine is actually the one that initially brought up segregation. I responded to his statement about segregation.

This is kind of important, so I tracked down my actual post:

“The obvious solution is to let people self-segregate (like they do whenever and wherever they are allowed) into communities of people with compatible values, but that would drive the egalitarians crazy.”

You equate “compatible values” with race, which is an astounding viewpoint. There are many white people with whom I have very little in common and, conversely, many people of other races with whom I do.

In fact, I’m actually getting pretty sick of emasculated, progressivist, preachy, naive, stupid white people.

http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/05/28/101-being-offended/