Then answer them again.
Give me a break. This entire thread is full of clarifications about this.
Not in regards to the specific questions I asked, stop being evasive and answer them.
He cannot stop being evasive. It is why he will not formally debate you but continues to utilize his monopoly soapbox on YouTube where he can control the debate.
It’s all good. I’m pleased that more people on the forums than you and I have started to realize that brainpolice lacks credibility and won’t debate honestly and sincerely. If you give people enough rope, they will hang themselves.
Reminds me of a telescreen.
I’m afraid I’m not sure what your position on this issue is. Do you subscribe to Mr Waite’s position : shoot on sight ? or else
So, do you agree with BP and incidentally Rothbard (and generally with sensible people) ? Or your obsession with fighting BP drives you to ally with any anybody who disagrees with BP, even when that means supporting positions you don’t really support ?
So if Bob accidentally drops a pencil in a coffee shop and it falls onto Jim’s open book, leaving tiny mark on one of the pages, Jim is allowed to shoot Bob in the head immediately and Jim will not be put on trial for murder in a libertarian society?
No.
You’re a smart dude, so if you don’t get my position, then maybe I haven’t explained it well.
For someone who isn’t sure what my position is, that has’t prevented you from running your mouth now has it?
You’re another poster with little credibility. More bark than bite or brains.
BP is too evasive and dishonest for anyone to know exactly what he stands for. The “thick/thin” bit should be immortalized as a forum meme. It’s a tremendous example of doublethink.
Well that is just stupid to say. Which I suppose I should expect from you. I have challenged Stranger, Jon and Giles all recently, people you would likely call “my allies”.
I got quite a laugh out of your shock that I am for non-violence as a preference, and yet took a position of principle supporting the defense of property as an extension of one’s self ownership.
You really haven’t been interesting to argue with for months. You’re a parody of yourself. The “joke is on you”, pun intended. lol
Wait, maybe I am missing something then.
No? Why not? The logic appears the same to me – violation of property. Accidental or otherwise… Hmm…
The fact is, you want to hold two contradictory positions. You realize that the kind of violence Waite and co. advocate is nonsense (not to mention evil), but at the same time you don’t want to side with ‘left libertarians’ (and Rothbard ?). So, I do know BOTH your positions.
Yes, in some other threads/subjects. But I’m talking about the current thread.
Non-violence in this case is not just a preference but a matter of principle…I realize that your moral intuitions are correct, yet you play these sophistic games for whatever reason (Oh, and I was not shocked by your preference for non-violence)
Sorry to disappoint you…=]
It’s true: LS’s behavior is indeed hypocritical. One one hand, he wants to shy away from the implications of those positions, yet he falls back on defending the people argueing those positions out of a knee-jerk opposition to LL’s and an obvious motivation to defy me here. Hence, in a given case he may very well have a similar position to me, but because of irrational movitations he will persistantly nitpick and troll me throughout the threads.
See, Daniel is actually openly defending the absurd implications of this position. Straight from the horse’s mouth, he effectively thinks that any kind of violence is justified so long as it’s in the name of property, and hence he is forced to support someone who shoots you in the head for dropping a pencil on their book. LS and some others are shying away from those implications while at the same time trying to stick to the same principle that they follow from, and siding with those who they actually disagree with out of a motivation to be on whatever side of a debate that I’m not on.
If noone can see how INSANE a statement like this is, I don’t know what to tell you. It functions as a nice get-out-of-empathy-free card for just about any situation. Noone in their right mind in such a scenario is going to favor letting someone fall to their death. A sane individual is going to focus on saving this person’s life, not advocating their death in the name of a ridiculous interpretation of property rights. Oh, and quite obviously the person does not intend to fall to begin with.
Easier question, a guy is climbing through my 5th story reason for whatever reason. Do I have the right to refuse him entry?
Oh, so now you do understand my position?
There is only one position, so again you are wrong.
I doubt it. You’ve probably spent most of your adult life being a waste of time and resources, disappointment is the one field you can thrive in.
It’s not hypocritical at all. I’ve known you are a liar for months. I’ve exposed you numerous times. People are starting to catch on, and question you the same way I do, and you just keep proving over and over again, that you are a liar and a socialist.
It is what it is. You can protest as much as you want. More and more people are on to your act daily. The more you protest, the more you expose who you are and what you are about.
The only thing you are missing, is reading closely. I believe we’re both on the same page still.
When Jim and Bob entered the coffee shop with their property, they agreed to the terms of dispute resolution of the shop owner.
Permission, in the rhetorical form of “allowed” is nonsensical. Allowed by whom?
Secondly, why would anyone try one man for killing another in a libertarian society? Where is the market for paying for the dispute resolution of two 3rd parties? And lastly, a “libertarian society” presumes one size fits all. Law, dispute resolution, PDAs, insurance firms, and such will differ region to region.
That is why I answered “No” to the ridiculous example. Not because I don’t support the right to use lethal force to defend one’s property.
What BP (forget Juan, he’s just a troll, constantly on the lookout for Calvinists like Gary North) can’t adequately explain, and he won’t, because he will make up some BS (already answered, thick and thin libertarianism, Ad Homs etc etc etc) is why our body as property, differs from our food, or our tools, or our clothes, or our shelter.
And don’t buy the BS about proportionality, it requires an ex post facto determination to judge proportionality, so if a man shoots you dead, you can only conclude lethal defense strategy would have been permissible, if only you could get reincarnated for a second go round.
These guys live in an unfulfilling fantasy world. I’ve pretty much stopped taking them with any amount of seriousness. There is a reason why they are not just marginalized in society, but in the libertarian spectrum as well. They are, kooks and trolls. When we talk about the growth of libertarianism, we’re talking about Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell, not BrainPolice and Kevin Carson.
Now, now, I think you’re forgetting that Kevin Carson wrote a (self published?) book, with a truly insightful cover of a guy sticking his head up his own ass. How profound and scholarly these leftists are.
Once again, your questions are disingenous because they shift the question away of what’s atually in contention. Noone is denying the right of exclusivity, what is being denied is the right to arbitrary use violence by merely appealing to a property title, and that one is required to let people fall from buildings in the name of preserving property rights. It isn’t necessary, and such a position is psychopathic.