LOL. Rape is not rape. Murder is not murder.
What a disgrace.
Fair enough. By your own admission you barely understand my position, so I don’t fault you for failing to acknowledge it.
It’s a malformed question. The fact that libertarianism is a system of institutionalized violence doesn’t require libertarians to all support only one (in your words, “an”) institution. It’s the violence that’s institutionalized. Libertarian is a system that relies on institutionalized violence to enforce morals. It’s elementary…
The problem with hashem is that he has a very narrow view of libertarianism, which is in fact an umbrella term for liberty oriented philosophies. Even the anarchist libertarians do not all share the same views on law. Consider the Rothbardian approach versus the David Friedman approach. Even Rothbard and Block disagree on some things, and they are basically in the same camp.
The other main problem with hashem is that he rejects all systems of law. Law is what humans use to resolve conflicts without further violence. hashem conflates both legal and extralegal resolutions. hashem holds the belief that humans need a hive mind in order to morally resolve disputes. Fantasy is hashem’s solution.
There is little point to debating hashem. I’ve done it. Malachi has done it. Clayton has done it. Neodoxy has done it. But hashem has nothing to offer. He has either little understanding of the various libertarian viewpoints or he willfully misrepresents them. He’s intellectually dishonest either way. As you know, libertarianism is based on the NAP. But hashem would have us believe that rape is not rape. A is not A. What else is there to talk about with a fool like that?
Libertarians: Thou shalt not rape.
hashem: If you do anything to prevent or punish a rapist, then you are in fact aggressing against the rapist.
Libertarians: In the first case it is defensive violence, not aggressive violence. In the second case it is retaliatory violence. Libertarians clearly emphases proportion. Defensive violence can become aggressive violence, but not necessarily. Retaliatory violence can become aggressive violence, but not necessarily.
Notice the words “defensive” and “retaliatory”. Defensive is not aggressive violence. They are contrary ideas. Retaliatory is not initiation. Literally. Retaliation. If the defensive or retaliatory violence goes beyond proportion, then the violence becomes aggressive.
This is not new stuff. Rothbard has great work on proportionality, and the concept has been further refined by others. hashem just likes to misdirect and cast smoke to cloud the issues.
Don’t put words in my mouth. I invited you and Malachi to a chat where everyone could see us talk in real time. You agreed with me and we left it there. Anyone you named, I invite to a live chat. Don’t misrepresent me, don’t put words in my mouth. I understand quite thoroughly the many libertarian positions. All of them require violence, and I’m willing to discuss this live.
We are well aware that libertarianism requires violence. Fortunately for libertarians, this is not a contradiction for them. No words were put in your mouth. They are accurate descriptions of the logical conclusions of your statements.
Law is a term for rules. Positive law is a term for manmande rules. Manmade rules are concepts, they don’t do anything. Conflicts aren’t resolved with nothing, they’re resolved either with mutual agreement or with violence (or threats of violence). My understanding is that you consider your version of law to be mutual agreement (although still requiring violence). I don’t accept that law is mutual agreement. See below.
Translation…
Libertarians: we will use violence against you.
hashem: If you do anything to prevent or punish someone, you’re using violence.
I never said rape isn’t rape, that’s you putting words in my mouth. That’s you being intellectually dishonest, not me. This whole thread is you projecting. Again, I’m happy to discuss this openly, live, in the chat with you and everyone.
My argument isn’t that rape isn’t rape, it’s that libertarianism (as system of institutionalized violent morals enforcement) is trying the same thing over and expecting different results.
Personally I think morals simply arise out of the trends and the thoughts of the masses, and the state sees coercive possibilities in these morals and thus the state adopts them as laws that they can enforce in a mafia-fashion.
More than only the state, it’s whatever institutions capitalize on the vulnerability of humans to psychological manipulation by claiming that something as individually subjective as morals are sufficient to objectively justify violence. Violence may or may not be used in whatever case, but in every case morality is insufficient justification.
Yeah. It all seems very paradoxial - I don’t think I could become a pacifist (which, with what you are saying about violence to enforce morals, is being pointed at).
Like you said before, that sort of world isn’t even remotely possible until technology progresses and people gain more information. Until then, the best thing to do is for each individual to just live their life according to the meaning that they give it, and live it authentically.
I’m going to respond tomorrow with more on hashem’s bullshit, but this was too quick to pass up:
Again, Rothbardianism is not the only type of libertarianism. We’ve been over this. Natural rights theory is only ONE type of justification for libertarianism. Why don’t you learn about some of the OTHER approaches?
Also, IN YOUR OPINION, morality is not a sufficient justification. SO WHAT? That is YOUR opinion. It is NOT more correct than any other subjective opinion.
It has nothing to do with my opinion. Subjective is by definition not-objective, and vice versa.
You’re confusing me here, but I won’t flail like a little brat. You’re not making it clear why in your opinion my premise requires a distinction between different types of libertarianism. Libertarianism (any system of manmade law, or to be more specific, systems of manmade rules that need to be enforced) is a system of institutionalized violent morals enforcement; it doesn’t matter who’s brand of rationalization you base it on.
The only objection I’ve seen from you and Malachi is that “law doesn’t need to be enforced”. To me that’s an intellectually bankrupt thing to say, especially when you all acknowledge that there will (and in my opinion, will need to be) be institutions which use violence to prevent (or avenge) rule-breakers.
Unlike some of us I’m humble enough to acknowledge that I may have misrepresented your position. In my understanding your position is manifestly silly; it would help if you clarify precisely what you think my position is, precisely what your position is, and then how my position is incompatible with yours.
hashem, you’ve made many attempts to present your position. I’ve read them all and I still don’t know what your position is. Are you worried that the very act of presenting a position may be tantamount to “institutionalizing” a “concept” which is somehow wrong? What other than “concepts” could possibly come out of a human mind?
Well I don’t really claim to have one single all-encompasing, comprehensive “position”, whatever that would mean. Really, my position (or more properly, my thoughts) on any given topic depends on what’s being discussed…
If you’re confused about my thoughts on a specific subject, I’m happy to discuss that.
hashem, I was talking about your position in this thread, for instance. How is libertarianism “institutionalizing” violence (or anything else for that matter)? Can you give an example for something which is NOT a “concept”?
Btw, perhaps the OP can chip in too but IMO you did derail this thread. Perhaps starting a new one where you explain your position and raise questions in an OP would have been a better idea.
This statement blew my mind. In the first case, I’m not even sure why you felt the need to say that. Of all the people who participated in the derailing of this thread, I’m the only one who came here on topic.
I’m having trouble understanding what you’re asking, or what you’re asking me to do. Can you perhaps rephrase? To the extent that I can make sense of your questions, my answer is: libertarianism doesn’t do anything, it’s a concept. But libertarians, people who hold libertarian ideals and act to implement them in the real world, necessarily rely on institutionalized violence to enforce their rules (what they call “law”).