What am I? → Do you support a monopoly on force?
Yes → Statist
No → (P)anarchist
Done.
I believe that violence in defense of my family and friends (and even complete strangers) is justified if they are being agressed against and the violence is directed toward the aggressor. I am an anarcho-capitalist. Therefore, this flow chart is inaccurate.
Rules should protect people.
Thats a legal rule.
Moral Rule - “do no harm.”
Shouldn’t be universally applicable.
The creator of the chart is also an anarcho-capitalist and what you’ve said is not inconsistent with the chart.
“Is violence ever justified?”
Yes.
“When?”
Therefore, “For the good of others.”
This sequence of choices following the arrows leads to “Statist”, even though each individual choice is consistent with anarcho-capitalism. Anarcho-capitalism and statism are mutually exclusive, so the flow chart is inaccurate.
Solid_C,
Violence can be aggressive and it can be defensive. The option “for the good of others” is explicitly NOT defensive. It comes from the phrase “for your/their own good”, when someone believes they should impose their standards on others.
So you dont see any difference between those against illegal immigration, and “racists”?
“Defense of others” is not “self-defense”. My using violence to protect my friends and family is not self-defense.
Yes, it is. It is the application of their self-defense.
The separation to which he is referring is the separation which Hoppe often discusses, for example, that, as an agent of the state, certain thievery, “taxation”, is legitimate but that, as a normal person, such thievery, “theft”, is illegitimate.
The outcome of the application of a “moral rule”, from the perspective of a consistent “anarcho-capitalist”, may vary. But the rule itself is a constant.
What separation? Who?
Constant, in that people aren’t to be treated the same, I suppose.
The connection between the first event and the second event of the proposition “if you murder some person, I will view you as evil” is a constant. But the ultimate outcome, whether you murder some person and thereby whether I view you as evil, is a variable.
Under the current system, “everyone [is not] in the same moral category”. For example, if you are an agent of the state, certain acts in which you forcibly take property from some other individual are “moral”. But, if you are not an agent of the state, those acts are “immoral”. Thus two sets of rules exist, the rules which apply to the agents of the state and the rules which apply to the non-agents of the state.
But, contrariwise, under the system of “anarcho-capitalism”, “everyone [is indeed] in the same moral category”.
The misunderstanding stems from the fact that his phraseology, “moral category”, is misleading. He should have asked “Is everyone in the subject to the same standards?”, instead.
Sure. The murderer and non-murderer are then put in different moral categories: Evil and not-evil.
I think you’ve gotten moral/legal mixed up again; morality is a personal view, it doesn’t matter what system of government you live under. Tax collectors still act immorally as any thief, they are just free from legal prosecution.
That would be a better explanation but it would still be wrong even in “anarcho-capitalism.” You could certainly hold “conservative” values and believe that fathers should be strict and disciplining while simultaneously holding that mothers should be nurturing and empathetic.
Lol, I don’t hate poor people.
I do. Every time I see them at the grocery store they’re always buying sugar drinks and beer. How can they be victimized as ‘poor’ when they have money for luxury goods? Seriously… until I see some oatmeal/eggs, which is the cheapest way to get all your macronutrients, I refuse to feel sorry for them.
Not that I’ll try to sidetrack any bleeding heart liberals on this issue… just something I noticed since I started buying my own groceries.
Thats because you’re a crazy lefty. [:P]
But I’m a Republican! My head just exploded. [:D]
Yea, and they sell the food stamps at a discount to working men who can’t afford to buy food. I don’t care much for those types of poor people either.
But that is not what he meant.
But, if you are a statist, you do not believe that they are acting immorally. Plus I think that he was referring to the law, anyway.